[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 207 (Friday, December 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15594-H15600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 AMENDING HOUSE RULES TO PLACE LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT ROYALTY INCOME 
               FOR HOUSE MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 322, I call up 
House Resolution 299 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 299

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO HOUSE RULES.

       (a) Clause 3(e) of rule XLVII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) The term `outside earned income' means, with respect 
     to a Member, officer, or employee, wages, salaries, fees, and 
     copyright royalties earned while a Member, officer or 
     employee of the House, and other amounts received or to be 
     received as compensation for personal services actually 
     rendered but does not include--
       ``(1) the salary of such individual as a Member, officer, 
     or employee;
       ``(2) any compensation derived by such individual for 
     personal services actually rendered prior to the effective 
     date of this rule or becoming such a Member, officer, or 
     employee, whichever occurs later;
       ``(3) any amount paid by, or on behalf of, a Member, 
     officer, or employee, to a tax-qualified pension, profit-
     sharing, or stock bonus plan and received by such individual 
     from such a plan;
       ``(4) in the case of a Member, officer, or employee engaged 
     in a trade or business in which the individual or his family 
     holds a controlling interest and in which both personal 
     services and capital are income-producing factors, any amount 
     received by such individual so long as the personal services 
     actually rendered by the individual in the trade or business 
     do not generate a significant amount of income; and
       ``(5) copyright royalties for works published before 
     becoming a Member, officer, or employee of the House.''.
       (b) Clause 3 of rule XLVII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraphs:
       ``(g) A Member, officer, or employee of the House may not--
       ``(1) receive any copyright royalties pursuant to a 
     contract entered into after becoming a Member, officer, or 
     employee--
       ``(A) unless the royalty is received from an established 
     publisher pursuant to usual and customary contractual terms; 
     and
       ``(B) without the prior approval of the contract by the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct; or
       ``(2) receive any advance payment for any such work. 
     However, the rule does not prohibit literary agents, research 
     staff, and other persons working on behalf of the Member, 
     officer, or employee, from receiving advance payments 
     directly from the publisher.
       ``(h) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     subject to such exceptions as it deems appropriate, shall not 
     approve any contract which permits the deferral of royalty 
     payments beyond the year in which earned.''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this resolution shall apply to 
     copyright royalties earned by a Member, officer, or employee 
     of the House of Representatives after December 31, 1995.


     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. 
     Solomon:

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO HOUSE RULE XLVII (LIMITATIONS ON 
                   OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT AND EARNED INCOME).

       Rule XLVII of the rules of the House of Representatives is 
     amended by redesignating clause 3 as clause 4 and by 
     inserting after clause 2 the following new clause:
       ``3. A Member, officer, or employee of the House may not--
       ``(1) receive any advance payment on copyright royalties, 
     but this paragraph does not prohibit any literary agent, 
     researcher, or other individual (other than an individual 
     employed by the House or a relative of that Member, officer, 
     or employee) working on behalf of that Member, officer, or 
     employee with respect to a publication from receiving an 
     advance payment of a copyright royalty directly from a 
     publisher and solely for the benefit of that literary agent, 
     researcher, or other individual; or
       ``(2) receive any copyright royalties pursuant to a 
     contract entered into on or after January 1, 1996, unless 
     that contract is first approved by the Committee on Standards 
     of Official Conduct as complying with the requirement of 
     clause 4(e)(5) (that royalties are received from an 
     established publisher pursuant to usual and customary 
     contractual terms).''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect on 
     January 1, 1996.

  Mr. SOLOMON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] will each be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my 15 minutes 
of general debate be controlled by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
McDermott].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Members, we have already had an extensive 1-hour debate on this 
issue, and I think most people know the alternatives there. The 
substitute I have offered presents the House with a clear-cut 
alternative to the Johnson resolution.
  House Resolution 299 would bring royalty income, for the first time, 
under the outside earned income cap of 15 percent of a Member's salary 
of approximately $20,000. My substitute recognizes, as does the House 
Ethics Manual, and as does the Office of Government Ethics in the 
executive branch, that royalty income is a return on an author's 
intellectual property and, therefore, should be treated as any other 
investment income without being subject to arbitrary limits. It is what 
this debate is all about.
  My resolution is identical to the Johnson resolution in that it 
prohibits any advances on royalty income beginning next year. And that 
next year is simply a week away.
  And just like the Johnson resolution, my substitute requires prior 
approval of any future contracts after January 1, 1966, to ensure that 
they are in compliance with current House standards. We do not change 
those at all. And that the contract be with an established publisher. 
That is the rule today. That is the rule under the Johnson resolution, 
and it is the rule under my resolution. And that they be pursuant to 
usual and customary contract terms. All that stays the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we have to ask ourselves in considering any kind 
of ethics rule what is the perceived ethical problem and how can we 
best deal with it? When it comes to royalty income, we must ask 
ourselves is there an ethical problem involved with receiving income 
over which we have no control? Think about that. Is there a problem or 
conflict involved with Members receiving income from books that are 
purchased by persons that the author does not even know? Who is going 
to buy those books out there? We are not going to know who they are. 
The will be in Philadelphia or Los Angeles or St. Louis. I do not even 
know anybody in St. Louis.
  Does earning royalty income detract from the time a Member can devote 
to his or her official duties? We should ask ourselves that. The answer 
to all of these questions is, clearly, an emphatic, no.
  The income is derived from the marketplace, from the popularity of 
the book, from the value of the book, as perceived by the public that 
is going to buy that book and not from persons who might pose a 
conflict of interest. We do not even know them, so how could there be a 
conflict of interest? And certainly not from the time a Member must 
devote to persuading people to buy that book. Those are facts.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there are some who argue that the mere 
publication of a book by a Member of Congress is somehow capitalizing 
on that office, but let me tell Members something. The public does not 
rush out to buy a book simply because it is written by a Member of 
Congress. The public could care less, my friends. Let us get our egos 
back down to where they belong. And there are several Members here 
today, believe me, who could attest to that. I am the author of books 
and I can attest to it.
  Mr. Speaker, Members have had books bomb and they did not make a 

[[Page H15595]]
  dime. And given the current public approval rating of Congress, that is 
not too surprising, really; right? Right? We are not considered to be 
leading intellectual lights of our society, let us get our egos back 
down, let alone literary geniuses. I do not see a literary genius in 
the room.
  Members, an argument can be made that advances, now think about this, 
that advanced royalties might be perceived as posing a conflict since 
they can come from a single source, the publisher, and are based on 
expectations of sales rather than what the actual value of the book 
might be. And that is really what the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct had in mind when they put this out here on the floor.
  Therefore, it is legitimate for us to prohibit advances, because they 
may pose potential conflicts of interest or even the perception of a 
conflict of interest that a Member is being rewarded for the office he 
holds rather than for the actual value of the book.
  Mr. Speaker, if we begin down this road of defining unearned income 
as earned income because someone thinks it poses an ethical problem, 
then maybe we should place limits, and Members better listen to this, 
because it is out there right now with some of these Members here, 
maybe we should place limits on how much in dividends a Member can 
receive from stock investments, from stocks and bonds that we have 
earned and paid taxes on and now that is a Member's personal property. 
Think about that.
  Mr. Speaker, stock income can certainly be argued as posing potential 
conflicts of interest since we often vote on matters that affect stock 
prices. Members should think about that for a minute now. Whether we 
are talking about defense contracts, and I own GE stock. They get 
involved with defense contracts. Is there a conflict of interest there? 
We better start thinking because we are going down that road. Or how 
about the telecommunications bill, Mr. Speaker, that will be on this 
floor, hopefully, sometime soon. But book income is nowhere close to 
posing the potential conflicts that stock income does. We do not cast 
votes on this floor that affect how well our books might sell at the 
local book store, my friends.
  Mr. Speaker, let us not go overboard here today and vote for an 
ethics rule that has no relationship to potential ethics problems, 
particularly if we deal with the advance problem. Let us not punish or 
discourage Members, and staff, too, from writing books and 
disseminating their opinions and their ideas, wisdom and knowledge 
developed over a lifetime. Please think about that.
  If we do that, Mr. Speaker, we will be the first parliamentary body, 
the first democracy in history that penalizes literacy by stigmatizing 
the writing of books. Instead, Mr. Speaker, and I will say this with 
just all sincerity, let us put this House on the same plane as the 
President of the United States, and I am not being political, the Vice 
President of the United States, Cabinet members, and other Presidential 
appointees who are prohibited from receiving advances on books, but who 
may still receive royalty income under the Constitution of the United 
States, and that has been upheld by the courts.
  To quote from an Office of Government Ethics advisory letter of 
September 26, 1989, on this subject, ``We have drawn a distinction 
between those events creating intellectual property, such as the 
writing of a manuscript, and the subsequent retention of a royalty 
interest after the book is published.''
  The advisory letter goes on, and I quote:

       Income attributable to the former, such as an advance on 
     royalties, is earned income; while the retention of a royalty 
     interest following publication is a mere property right in 
     the residual income stream.

That is what the debate is all about here today.
  Let us agree to prohibit up-front advances on all books while 
retaining the right of receiving a return on our investment of 
intellectual property, subject not to some arbitrary limit but only to 
the limits that the people place on it by purchasing those books.
  Let us not make Members of Congress second-class citizens, and we are 
about to do that, by adopting a rule that places less value on our 
ideas and our writings than the executive branch rule places on the 
President and his top people. If Members want to change this law, we 
have a law, an ethics law written into law signed by the President, the 
1989 ethics law. If we want to change that, we want to have our 
hearings, let us to do that and then treat us all exactly the same. 
That is a possibility. That is what I had in mind. But let us not 
demean ourselves or this institution any further by stigmatizing the 
value of what we are willing to be able to communicate to the public by 
simply writing books in our spare time.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what this is all about. It is so terribly 
important. I do not want to go down that road of all of these other 
things, because this institution has to be maintained. The integrity 
has to be maintained and the future people that will serve here have to 
know that they are going to be treated just like every other citizen.

                              {time}  1145

  That is what this debate is all about. So, I would beg my colleagues 
to come over and vote for my resolution, and then if they want to talk 
about changing the law of the land later on, I would be more than glad 
to work with every Member and all of the respected members of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if the Members of this body vote for the Solomon 
amendment, they do two things: They deny the House of Representatives 
the opportunity to vote on the proposal of the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the chairman of the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct, and, second, they leave open the door to 
multimillion-dollar contracts that we cannot monitor.
  Mr. Speaker, we removed a Speaker of the House over book sales, bulk 
book sales. That loophole is still open, and if we do not pass this 
resolution that we put out of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, we are voting to leave the bulk sale loophole open, with no 
ability of this committee to ever monitor that. That is why this 
amendment is before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
House Resolution 299 and in opposition to the Solomon substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote will be the vote that Members must take 
responsibility for their actions. The Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct is bringing this rule to the floor because it is 
appropriate for the body to work its will on this subject. Normally, we 
bring other kinds of things to the floor. We are bringing a rule 
because the issue raised by it is an issue that Members should 
legitimately decide.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a contest between good and evil. This is a 
contest between two proposals, each of which will change the way we 
govern Members who write books.
  Mr. Speaker, let me try to make as clear as I possibly can the 
difference between the two proposals. First of all, they both will 
require that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct review 
contracts and approve contracts. This is a very important step forward, 
because we will assure through that mechanism that Members are not 
treated differently; that Members get no preferential deal in any book 
contract, but that every contract will have to meet usual and customary 
standards.
  Second, both proposals will ban advances. Now, advances used to cover 
costs. They have come to cover both costs and expected royalties. That 
is why it is very important that we ban advances.
  The third difference between the bills, the first two were 
similarities, they both involve Committee on Standard of Official 
Conduct approval of contracts and banning advances. Where they differ 
is in how they treat royalty income once the book is written and 
published.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is 
recommending that royalty income be governed in the same way all other 
outside earned income is governed; that is, subject to the $20,040 
limit. 

[[Page H15596]]

  The alternative proposal does not limit royalty incomes on the theory 
that the book will sell only as many copies as its ideas merit and, 
since it is a matter of intellectual property, that we should not limit 
the income from ideas just like we do not limit the income from stocks.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not an illegitimate proposal. There are two 
legitimate proposals before Members. The Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct chose this direction, that is in the underlying 
resolution, because we believe it is easier and fairer for the House of 
Representatives for all Members of the House to be governed in regard 
to outside income by a uniform and consistent rule. Consequently, our 
proposal will bring royalty income under the same governance that all 
other outside income is governed by in the House.

   Mr. Speaker, ideas are important. Ideas ought to be the currency of 
politics in America, now more than at any other point in our history. 
We do not believe our proposed rules will prevent ideas from 
materializing in book form, those books enriching the political 
dialogue of our Nation.
   Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct resolution.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair inform as to the amount 
of time that is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
McDermott] has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Cleveland, OH [Mr. Stokes], former 
chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for 6 years.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule change being 
proposed by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and in 
opposition to the Committee on Rules substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, as has been stated, in past congresses I have served on 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct both as a member and I 
served as its chairman for 6 years. I also served on the Ethics Task 
Force chaired by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], which 
drafted many of the rules changes now existing under the rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. 
Johnson], chairwoman, and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
McDermott], her ranking minority member, for bringing forth this 
thoughtful and carefully crafted rule change. In fact, I commend the 
entire committee for this unanimous bipartisan rule change which is 
needed to close the book deal loophole.
  Mr. Speaker, any attempt to undercut, undermine, or defeat this 
recommendation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct merely 
once again subjects this institution to the continuous charge that we 
cannot conduct ourselves in an ethical manner, and once again brings 
the House into a position of public disrespect by rejecting the attempt 
of its own Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to keep Members 
ethical.
  Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the argument that the Members here are 
being deprived of intellectual property under the Johnson resolution. 
Additionally, I see this as a dangerous precedent. Throughout its 
history, the House has never had a recommendation of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct undercut by the Committee on Rules of the 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support the Johnson resolution of 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and reject the House 
Committee on Rules proposal.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, all members, both sides. 
They worked very hard to bring this bill to us. It may not have been 
unanimous, but it must have been pretty close because that is all that 
was reported out.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no one standing in line to serve on the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. They work very hard. And I 
know I was pretty hard on them, along with one of my colleagues from 
Florida, because we felt they were taking too long to arrive at this 
decision, but they did good work and it is here. It is before us now.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a good recommendation. It closes a huge loophole 
in the ethics rules that we have in this House, and it allows the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to do its job better in its 
interpretation of those rules.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line, no one in this House should be able to 
capitalize on their position as an elected public servant. Ultimately, 
the substitute here is bad. It is weaker than the current standard for 
other Federal offices and agencies. We need to make that point. It is a 
bad rule. We need to continue with the resolution that is before us 
that the gentlewoman from Connecticut has brought to us and vote for 
it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately and tragically, 
both for this institution and for the American public, every now and 
then we are presented with the task of confronting the activities of 
those who have sought to exploit the rules of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, this Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has 
struggled long and hard, as have previous Committees on Standards of 
Official Conduct, with these problems. The recommendation of this 
committee is that they believe, and I cite from the report that, ``The 
existing House rule must be changed to clearly restrict the income 
Members may derive from writing books. As recent events demonstrate, 
existing rules permit a Member to reap significant and immediate 
financial benefits appearing to be based primarily on his or her 
position. At a minimum, this creates an impression of exploiting one's 
office for personal gain.''
  This institution and none of its Members can withstand that 
impression, nor should they accept it. If Members vote for the Solomon 
amendment, they cannot get to the recommendation of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct to the membership of this House for its 
approval. We must vote against the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio], a former member of the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to my 
colleagues in the debate here on the floor, and in conversations that 
occur within the Chamber, I sense that most of the opposition to the 
proposal that was made by the committee, unanimously, seems to go to 
the basic law that was passed in 1989, which essentially said that if 
we are going to be increasing our compensation here, which we did, we 
ought to do it in the context of concentrating our time on the job that 
we have been elected to do during that period of our public service.
  Mr. Speaker, we did not prevent anyone who had worked in a prior 
career from continuing to benefit from that. A person who had invested 
in an insurance business or a law firm or even, like the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bono], as a creative artist. We did not prevent any 
Member from taking what they learned here and writing the great 
American novel about American politics and Congress when they left.
  We simply said that while Members are here, they ought to concentrate 
their efforts on serving the public and we ought to guarantee that 
despite all the other things we might do as a prior career or 
continuing career, it ought to be limited so that the amount of income 
we could earn would be de minimis in the context of what our salary 
was.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything at all inconsistent with what the 
Committee has asked us to do. They are, in effect, closing a loophole 
which was made at the time, because we never envisioned that people who 
wrote books would exceed that limit. I think it is appropriate that we 
make this change, and I hope Members would reaffirm the law we passed 
in 1989.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

[[Page H15597]]

  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Solomon 
amendment, and remind our colleagues that if the Solomon resolution 
passes, we will not have an opportunity to vote for the report of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer], a member of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I express my thanks and gratitude to all of 
my colleagues on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The 
last 11 months have presented a challenge before us to deal with a 
number of complex issues that revolve around a number of different 
charges that were brought before us. But the issue that brings us 
together today is what brought us together as a committee. It was the 
cement, the cornerstone, the baseline from which we drew a unanimous 
report that we all agreed to from the committee.
  That baseline drew on exactly the kind of question that the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules asks. The gentleman's question was: What is 
the perceived problem and what is the solution? The perceived problem 
is real. It was the appearance of exploiting one's office for personal 
gain. The solution, the goal, was to limit outside income to avoid that 
appearance.
  Mr. Speaker, this measure that we may or may not get to, depending on 
the outcome of the vote on the Solomon proposal, was precisely that 
attempt. It was a bipartisan effort to come to an agreed-upon date with 
an agreed-upon solution that would deal with the appearance of 
exploiting one's office for personal gain.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a fair and honorable way to go about the business 
of saying, yes we want to share ideas with the rest of the Nation, but 
we should not be earning exorbitant income in the process of doing it.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When I was a boy, I used to worship this next speaker. He was one 
heck of a baseball player.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Bunning], a distinguished Member now in another career, especially with 
his duties on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to 
show the Members of this body those people who have applied in the last 
3 years and asked the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for 
permission to do books, and that does not include those who wrote them 
without asking permission, because presently under the law you do not 
have to ask permission.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 299 and in 
support of the Solomon amendment.
  No matter how hard we try we cannot insulate the Members of this body 
from every potential temptation and every potential conflict of 
interest that exists in this world today.
  To try to do so is ridiculous. To try to do so demeans this body's 
integrity and the integrity of each and every Member of this House of 
Representatives.
  If a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives has intelligence and 
imagination enough to develop ideas that can catch the interest of the 
book buying public--what is the harm of that?
  If a Member of this body has enough writing ability to convince the 
book buying public to shell out $10, $20, $30 for a book, where is the 
harm in that?
  Sure, we can prohibit advances, and I agree that we should do so, for 
the potential abuse does occur in advances and the Solomon substitute 
does just that.
  But, for God's sake, do not gag the Members of this body with the 
intelligence and ability to put ideas down on paper. Do not tell the 
American public that the Members of this body cannot be trusted to test 
their ideas in the market place.
  This year, 10 Members of this body have submitted book contracts to 
the Ethics Committee for consideration. Changing the rules 
retroactively is totally unfair to these Members.

  In the past 3 years another 15 Members or staff personnel have 
submitted book contracts to the Committee of Standards. And this does 
not even count the others who did not submit their contracts to the 
Ethics Committee.
  We do not know how many books are being written or sold because, 
currently, the rules do not require anyone to submit contracts for 
review. We will not know until the income is reported on the financial 
disclosure statements.
  The Solomon amendment requires that all books be submitted.
  It is just not right to stifle the talents or the message, and it is 
a violation of the first amendment of the Constitution.
  It is a matter also of common sense and dignity.
  Do not demean this body or the integrity of your follow Members by 
slapping a gag rule on this institution.
  Please, support the Solomon substitute.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me try to respond to some of the 
comments that were made by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] 
and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  First, the problem is that the current rules allow a person to be 
able to earn millions of dollars solely because of their office. That 
is the problem that we are dealing with. These multimillion-dollar book 
contracts are awarded because of our office.
  The second problem is enforceability. Nothing in our current rules 
gives the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the ability to 
enforce bulk sales, as the gentleman from Washington, [Mr. McDermott] 
mentioned. We can be with a group, and to show us appreciation they buy 
500 copies of our book, distribute it to the conference, and we have 
personally benefited a couple thousand dollars. It is that type of 
problems that we have if we do not restrict the book royalty income, 
the same as we do all other earned income.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], let me point out that the 
President and senior executive officers cannot earn money like we do 
for books. In most cases, they cannot earn any money, and they 
certainly cannot relate it to their office.
  So we are allowing Congressmen much more flexibility than the 
President of the United States or senior Cabinet positions.
  We are dealing with earned income, not unearned income or investment 
income. I think that is totally inappropriate to mention that in this 
debate.
  Lastly, let me point out the issue is clear. If the Solomon 
substitute is adopted, we never get a chance to vote on the 
recommendation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. 
Members will still be able to enter into multimillion-dollar contracts. 
It is that that we are trying to stop.
  Make no mistake about it, we have a clear choice on the floor of the 
House today. If you vote for Solomon, you are opposing the bipartisan 
report of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. You are 
opposing what we are trying to do in telling you that we cannot enforce 
the current rule.
  Please, support the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in supporting the Solomon amendment 
and opposing the base bill, which, had it been adopted by the British 
Parliament, would have prohibited Winston Churchill from writing and 
selling 11 major works while he was in office, including his 1953 Nobel 
Prize-winning history of World War II.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Solomon 
amendment.
  But I would also like to commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Mrs. 

[[Page H15598]]
Johnson] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  I think, under Democratic leadership, many of us thought the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, had a wrangle of an 
oxymoron that it really was not able to achieve very much.
  I disagree with you on this issue. Let me tell you why. The Senate 
just passed 68 to 30 to override the President's frivolous lawsuit-type 
thing. Democrats filed 65 charges against the Speaker, frivolous.

  In a bipartisan way they threw out 64, and only one of them, in a 
very narrow, technical use, to look at a tax loophole.
  If you want to look at something, ethics in this body, you ought to 
look at frivolous charges on a partisan matter.
  The Speaker took $1. There has never been, to my knowledge, anyone 
that signed a million-dollar contract, ever. So what are we 
fighting against? The Speaker took 1 dollar, and we are legislating 
this against it.

  I am writing three books. I have written one. I am writing two 
others. I am not going to make a million dollars on them, but I would 
like to be able to sell them.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky just said that it 
is a violation of free speech to provide this limitation. It is not.
  Senator Sarbanes and I arranged for the publication of a book. We 
also arranged that neither one of us would make one dime off of it. So 
did the distinguished majority leader of this House, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey].
  This is not about free speech. This is about money and we believe, 
and I am happy that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
believes, that Members of the House should not have to make money in 
order to freely express their ideas.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I think the gentleman from 
Wisconsin really put his finger on it. You have a clear choice here.
  The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct looked at this issue 
and said we do not want to stifle people's ability to write books. We 
want them to be able to make a modest amount of income in addition to 
their salary, which we allow everybody else in this House except 
attorneys, and we said we cannot allow the continuation of the present 
situation because it leaves itself open to abuse.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
not only leaves it open to abuse but broadens it.
  In my view, you have a very clear choice. It is not two good 
proposals; it is one bad proposal and one very good bipartisan proposal 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] put together in the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and every Member here ought 
to support it.
  As I said before, our problem, we looked at a lot. The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham] brought up all the other issues.

  Well, there were some issues we could not figure out how to examine. 
For instance, book bulk sales; Speaker Wright was brought before this 
House on that issue, and the fact is that we have no capacity to know 
how books are sold or anything else. So the only way we could do it was 
to say you will have $20,040 whether you are writing a book or you are 
an undertaker or you are a whatever; you can make additional money 
here, but only $20,040, no matter what you do. You can write anything. 
You can use the books to be published and promoted by the companies, 
but you can only come away with $20,040.
  This is about money, not about the expression of ideas.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I began my discussion during the rule 
by quoting the Constitution of the United States, and the reason you 
can say it is not about free speech, it is about money, thus implying 
that all of us who are trying to stand up for the Constitution are 
doing it for some nefarious reason because you have this Constitution 
that says you have free speech: ``Congress shall make no law respecting 
abridging of the freedom of speech.''
  Now, if you are having difficulty finding out whether people are 
acting crookedly, that is something we have to overcome in a free 
country. You cannot come down here and make the argument that somehow 
we are favoring money over free speech when the Constitution says it is 
supposed to be tough to get rid of free speech.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time and 
just say that maybe I should not say anything after that speech by the 
gentleman from Hawaii.
  I want to commend both sides for a very good debate. For the most 
part, it has been nonpartisan, and we hoped it would be that way 
because it is an issue that faces all of us.
  The question before us is whether or not advances can be abused. We 
recognize that on both sides of the issue. Therefore, my resolution 
abolishes all possibilities of any abuses from a book being sold, 
Members getting an advance when the book was not really worth anything, 
the intellectual property was not worth anything, therefore he should 
not receive any income from it. That is what the debate is all about.
  I would hope that you would now vote for the resolution. We look 
forward to continuing to work with the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct in the Committee on Rules' jurisdiction of accepting 
the rules that this House has to operate under.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). Pursuant to the House 
Resolution 322, the previous question is ordered on the amendment and 
on the resolution.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were yeas 219, 
nays 174, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 38, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 882]

                               YEAS--219

     Abercrombie
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clinger
     Collins (GA)
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     
[[Page H15599]]

     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--174

     Allard
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               PRESENT--2

     Gunderson
       
     Studds

                             NOT VOTING--38

     Ackerman
     Baker (LA)
     Berman
     Bevill
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cramer
     Edwards
     Fattah
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Ford (TN)
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hayes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Manzullo
     Meek
     Myers
     Neal
     Owens
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Waxman
     Wyden

                              {time}  1232

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Quinn for, with Miss Collins of Michigan against.
       Mr. Quillen for, with Mr. Filner against.

  Mr. YATES, Mr. LoBIONDO, and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay''.
  Mr. MFUME changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The question is on the 
resolution, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it


                             recorded vote

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 259, 
noes 128, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 44, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 883]

                               AYES--259

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--128

     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Livingston
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Gunderson
     Studds
       

                             NOT VOTING--44

     Ackerman
     Baker (LA)
     Berman
     Bevill
     Boehner
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Chapman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cramer
     Deutsch
     Edwards
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Ford
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hayes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Manzullo
     McIntosh
     Meek
     Myers
     Neal
     Owens
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sabo
     Shaw
     Waxman
     Wyden

                              {time}  1251

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Quinn for, with Miss Collins of Michigan against.

  Messers. TEJEDA, ORTIZ, and TAYLOR of Mississippi changed their votes 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So, the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. 
  
[[Page H15600]]

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________