[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 125 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7536-H7544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 168, IMPLEMENTING THE 
      RECOMMENDATIONS OF BIPARTISAN HOUSE ETHICS REFORM TASK FORCE

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 230 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 230

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the resolution (H. Res. 168)

[[Page H7537]]

     to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan House 
     Ethics Reform Task Force. The first reading of the resolution 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by Representative Livingston of Louisiana and 
     Representative Cardin of Maryland or their designees. After 
     general debate the resolution shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The resolution shall be 
     considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except 
     those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be 
     considered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the resolution for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the resolution to the House 
     with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and 
     amendments thereto to final adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one 
     motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the two cochairmen of the 
bipartisan Task Force on House Ethics Reform, both the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cardin], two of the most respected Members of this body, who have put 
in an enormous amount of time and effort into producing the proposal 
that is before us today.
  They have negotiated at length over every single word and phrase in 
this recommendation of the task force. It has been a difficult job. It 
has been an extremely thankless job, as the two of them can tell, and 
myself as a member of that committee knows, from all the abuse that we 
have taken from Members who are not satisfied with our final product.
  This Ethics Reform Task Force was bipartisan, consisting of six 
Republicans and six Democrats, and those of us who did serve on the 
task force, including four members of the Committee on Rules, can 
attest that all the task force members put in long hours of hearings 
and markup sessions over a period going back all the way to last 
February.
  The House established this task force back on February 12 of this 
year in order to recommend reforms in the House standards process to 
try to take the politics out of the issues that we have before us. 
There are many of us who feel the existing process did not function in 
the last Congress and needs substantial improvement and, in my opinion, 
the bill before us is substantial improvement.
  At the same time this task force was established, the House also 
approved a moratorium on the filing of new ethics complaints which, as 
a result of a number of extensions, remained in effect until, I think, 
September 10 of last year.
  This resolution provides for the consideration of the recommendations 
of the bipartisan House Ethics Reform Task Force, providing 1 hour of 
general debate equally divided between the two highly respected 
cochairmen of the Ethics Reform Task Force, and then makes in order the 
consideration of four bipartisan amendments.
  The first is a bipartisan manager's amendment offered by the two 
cochairmen of the task force. It clarifies that any complaints filed 
after the September 10 expiration of the moratorium on filing of ethics 
complaints will be considered under the new procedures in this 
resolution rather than under the old procedures that did not work.
  The manager's amendment will be debatable for just 10 minutes, since 
it is noncontroversial, and that is all the time that was requested by 
the two cochairs.
  This rule then provides for the consideration of three additional 
amendments to be debatable for 30 minutes each. These amendments 
respond to the three major concerns which have been raised about this 
package from Members from both sides of the aisle.
  The first concern is the filing of complaints by nonmembers of the 
House. That will be the first amendment. The second concern is over 
what happens in case of a tie vote, and that is always contentious and 
we are trying to work out a workable system that will make it work. And 
the third concern is over the power of an investigative subcommittee to 
expand the scope of the investigation and issue subpoenas without 
approval of the full committee.
  These are all legitimate issues which deserve consideration by this 
House. When the package was taken to the Republican Conference and to 
the Democrat Conference, these were the three issues that raised more 
concern than all of the others, and believe me, there were a lot of 
concerns about a lot of other areas in the package.
  So, in order to be as fair as we could, we have taken only those 
bipartisan amendments, and there were a number of partisan amendments 
requested but we did not make any of those in order. We only made in 
order the bipartisan amendments that had substantial support on both 
sides of the aisle, and those are what will be voted on here today.
  So as we begin this debate, there are a couple of points that should 
be made about the functions of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, the so-called ethics committee.
  First, the committee, my colleagues, is not a court of law. Members 
of Congress, like any other citizens, are already answerable in the 
courts for any violations of law. Any Member of Congress is answerable 
for any violation of the law and especially since we convened the 104th 
Congress, when we brought this Congress and its Members under the same 
laws, all of the laws, that the rest of the American public have to 
live under, and that was a great accomplishment in my estimation.
  The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is a peer review 
mechanism. Let me just say this. The U.S. Constitution in article I 
provides, and I would hope that all of those that are listening either 
here in the Chamber or off the Chamber would pay attention to this, 
article I of the Constitution says, ``Each House may punish its Members 
for disorderly behavior and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of its 
Members, they may even expel a Member of Congress.'' And we have done 
that in the years past.
  I would like to emphasize that the Constitution says that each House 
may punish its Members. That is right, each House may punish its 
Members. It does not say that some outside group will have the 
authority to punish Members of Congress.
  It should also be noted that the House of Representatives' Code of 
Official Conduct sets a much higher standard than just conforming to 
the laws. Take a look at all of the rules of the House that we live 
under and then the ethics rules that are placed even on top of those 
House rules.
  For example, under the code of conduct a Member, an officer, an 
employee of the House of Representatives shall conduct himself at all 
times in a manner which shall reflect credibility on this House of 
Representatives.
  My colleagues, it is a privilege for us to be able to serve here, and 
at all times we should hold ourselves as high as we possibly can in 
order to establish credibility for each and every one of us in the eyes 
of not only just the people that each of us represent but all of the 
American people.
  The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is the mechanism by 
which Members should hold themselves to that higher standard, and that 
is why this bill before us today is so terribly, terribly important.
  The resolution which is before the House today is a controversial 
matter. Members have different opinions and hold those opinions very 
strongly. Many of my colleagues are very opinionated. I know I am and 
my colleagues all know I am, and that is why every Member ought to have 
the opportunity to work his will on the floor of this House.
  I recall saying back in the beginning of the 104th Congress, 3 years 
ago, that this committee, under the jurisdiction

[[Page H7538]]

of myself as the chairman of the Committee on Rules, would at all times 
be as fair to the Democrat minority as they were to us when we 
Republicans were in the minority, and more often than not even more 
fair. And that is exactly what we are doing here today. We are taking 
those amendments that had truly bipartisan support by truly respected 
and credible Members of this House and making those in order so that 
the House could work its will today.

  So having said all that, we need to remember to respect the opinions 
of other Members, even though we disagree. So, in order to permit the 
House to consider this bill and these amendments, I would urge support 
for the rule and support for the bill when it comes to the floor.
  I would just say this; that even though I did not get my way in the 
committee, none of us did, we all had to give a little, that whether or 
not these three amendments, which are controversial, pass, I will be 
voting for the package no matter what because it was put together, I 
think, after due diligence by all members of the committee. So I hope 
the amendments do pass, I will vote for them, but if they do not, I 
will support the final package.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank my colleague and my dear friend from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], for yielding me the customary half-hour.
  Mr. Speaker, what began as a sincere bipartisan effort to improve the 
House ethics process has disintegrated into one more political sham. On 
February 12 Democrats and Republicans agreed to a moratorium on ethics 
complaints and they stuck to it. Neither side filed any new charges 
until a bipartisan task force had the chance to examine the ethics 
process and suggest improvements. But like other truly bipartisan 
efforts before it, this agreement has been destroyed and the ethics 
moratorium seems to have served only to bolster the image of a few 
besieged Members.
  For 9 months, 10 Members of this House, myself included, met and 
negotiated on every single aspect of the House ethics process. For 9 
months we worked, buoyed by the promise that long hours and tiresome 
negotiations would eventually amount to something and that no 
amendments would be allowed, I repeat, no amendments would be allowed 
unless they were approved by the Democratic and Republican cochairs.
  Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. During the task force negotiations, 
there was no talk whatsoever about bipartisan amendments. So let us not 
at this date try to rewrite history. The leadership on the task force 
agreed that only amendments approved by the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Cardin] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] would be 
allowed, but only one of the four amendments we will vote on today has 
been approved by those two gentlemen and the rest have not.
  Democratic Members kept their word by agreeing not to file ethics 
complaints, and Republican Members went back on their word by allowing 
Members to make serious changes in our work. So, Mr. Speaker, after 9 
months of hard labor, the only thing the House ethics task force is 
giving birth to is some very bad feelings and some very destructive 
amendments.
  Today, this Republican leadership becomes the only leadership in the 
history of the House of Representatives to ignore the work of a 
bipartisan ethics task force. Once again, Mr. Speaker, it is the only 
leadership in the history of the House of Representatives to ignore the 
work of a bipartisan ethics task force. The Republican leadership has 
put political expediency before all else, and that, Mr. Speaker, is a 
shame.
  Let me remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about an 
ethics task force, not a task force on education, not a task force on 
transportation, not a task force on defense, but a task force on 
ethics.

                              {time}  1130

  We are talking about a task force created ostensibly to improve the 
way the House of Representatives governs itself. And I think we did a 
pretty good job. We came up with recommendations with which 11 of the 
12 members of the task force agreed. We came up with ways to make our 
ethics process quicker. We came up with a way too make our ethics 
process more efficient. We came up with a way to make our ethics 
process more fair.
  But there was something about our improvements that the Republican 
leadership did not like. There was something about our improvements 
that scared someone. So here we stand, 3 months after the Republican 
leadership refused to consider the recommendations, to find that they 
have exposed very fragile agreements to some particularly significant 
and particularly dangerous amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, these amendments will not make 
this institution more respected in anyone's eyes. These amendments will 
make our ethics process much more partisan, more decentralized and more 
suspect in the eyes of every single American citizen.
  I cannot believe that that is what we want, Mr. Speaker, because the 
recommendations as adopted by the task force would pass the House 
overwhelmingly if given the chance for an up-or-down vote. Mr. Solomon 
himself said if these amendments are not adopted he would absolutely 
vote for the package. So if nearly every Member of the House would vote 
to pass the recommendations, why on earth are we at this time changing 
them?
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge this House, leave well enough alone. The 
task force worked long and hard to come up with these recommendations 
that would improve the ethics process of the House and repair the 
reputation of the House, and those recommendations at this time should 
not be altered.
  So I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the previous question 
in order to uphold the agreement of the ethics task force. Mr. Speaker, 
if the previous question is defeated, we will replace this rule with a 
rule to provide for an up-or-down vote on the task force 
recommendations and make in order only amendments agreed to by the co-
chairs, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] and the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to be a member of that task force. It 
was a pleasure to see the way that Chairman Livingston and Cochairman 
Cardin worked together, coming from opposite poles and really working 
hard to make something work. They took politics out of this process, 
and it is a shame at this stage to put it back in.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules knows how 
fond I am of him. He is truly a respected member of this body. But I am 
just somewhat taken aback by his taking the floor today and saying that 
we should not be open and we should not allow the House to work its 
will.
  The last count had this year alone, the gentleman has taken the well 
21 times and said we must keep these rules open, we must let the House 
work its will. If there are meaningful, credible amendments they ought 
to be allowed on the floor. So this is exactly what I have been 
heeding, his advice. After 21 times, I am going to take the gentleman's 
advice.
  Having said that, let me yield to a gentleman who I equally respect 
because he and another respected Member on the other side of the aisle 
headed up the task force to reform this House of Representatives. He 
did a magnificent job, and he is the vice chairman of my Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me this time frame.
  I rise in strong support of this rule, and I do so to say that it is 
not with a great deal of enthusiasm that I strongly support it, because 
of the fact that we were not able to make an amendment in order that 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] and I offered.
  But having said that, I think in further defense of the gentleman 
from New York's [Mr. Solomon] position, the amendments that are moving 
forward we have addressed in a bipartisan way, which is one of those 
guidelines

[[Page H7539]]

that he set forth. We obviously need to reform the ethics process. The 
confidence in this institution by our colleagues, people in the media, 
and more important, the American people is higher than it has been in 
the past, but clearly there is a credibility problem and I think that 
is what led to the formation of this task force.
  The gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, just mentioned the fact that the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] and I co-chaired the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress back during the 103d Congress in 1993. We 
spent time looking at this issue of ethics reform and a wide range of 
other reforms, many of which were introduced and passed in a bipartisan 
way on the opening day of the 104th Congress.
  But we still were not able to bring about the kind of reform that 
this bipartisan panel has successfully come to an agreement on. So 
while this may not be exactly what everybody wants, I think that it 
will take very, very strong and positive steps in the direction of 
bringing about a level of credibility that is, I think, needed.
  So I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in favor of the 
rule, and I will join with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] in 
saying that when we come to the end, regardless of how the amendments 
come out on this, I will join in supporting the package because of the 
regard I have for the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Livingston] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] and others who labored long 
and hard and even suffered through testimony that I gave before their 
task force.
  So I want to say that I join and am happy to be here, of course, with 
the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct [Mr. 
Hansen] who has spent a long time addressing this issue, and I look 
forward to finally seeing us pass a very positive measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland, Mr. Cardin, the task force co-chair, who really did an 
outstanding job in working so closely with Chairman Livingston.
  I am very, very proud to have served on that task force just for the 
opportunity to observe these two gentlemen, and especially the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] in action, and how they came from 
one extreme and met in the middle to fashion a bill that would really 
do this House well.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], for not only yielding me this time 
but for the kind comments that he made about my service on this joint 
committee. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] served that 
task force with distinction, as did the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], and we thank both of them for their help and leadership on 
these ethics issues.
  I think this body should understand that we had the services of 
leaders in this House on this bipartisan task force: The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], the 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman], in addition to the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston] and myself. It was a task force that took its work 
seriously. I am I proud of the work of our task force.
  I also want to compliment Mr. Leong and Mr. Laufman, our staff, for 
the excellent work that they did. We have a good product. I am pleased 
that we have a rule before the House that will allow us to vote on that 
package. And I am hopeful that if this rule is adopted, that the 
package from the task force will be approved, the three amendments that 
the rule makes in order will be rejected.
  I agree with the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] that these three amendments would do violence to the 
bipartisan spirit in which this package was developed.
  Every Member of this House had an opportunity to appear before our 
task force. Many Members took that opportunity to work with us, to 
submit their ideas and to work with the task force. It is interesting 
to point out that the three controversial amendments that would be made 
in order by this rule, each of those amendments were discussed in full 
by the task force and rejected by the task force.
  We did not take that lightly. We tried to bring out a package that 
makes sense, that moves forward the ethics process, that deals with the 
bipartisan nature in which the committee needs to operate, that deals 
with a more efficient committee, that adds time limits so that the 
Members are not hanging out there with complaints against them, that 
gives the chairman and ranking member more power in order to manage the 
workload, involves more Members of the House in the process. We went 
through each of these points and we had different views.
  The leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] was 
critical in bringing Democrats and Republicans together and focusing us 
on our final product. I said yesterday in the Committee on Rules, and I 
will repeat here, there are not many fringe benefits for serving on the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or the task force, but one 
that I enjoyed was getting to know and respect the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and his leadership and love for this 
institution. The two of us worked together so that we could come 
forward with a package that makes sense.
  And what we asked the membership to do, we had 3 months to read the 
report, these amendments will do violence to the ethics 
recommendations. We have always worked in a bipartisan manner. We need 
to continue to work in a bipartisan manner.
  Let me just, if I might, in the time that has been allotted to me, 
talk about one of the amendments that would be made in order. It would 
prohibit any direct filing by any outside individual. Since we adopted 
ethics rules in this house in 1968, we have allowed outsiders to file 
complaints with our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. If that 
amendment were to be adopted, it would be the first time that we would 
shut out outsiders from bringing matters before us.
  The current rule is one that I particularly do not like, where you 
need to get three Members to refuse to file a complaint for an outsider 
to be able to file directly. Our task force said that does not make a 
lot of sense; let us come up with a better way to do it.
  So we looked to the other body and we developed their procedure, 
where we require a person not a Member to have personal knowledge 
before that person can file a matter with us, or they must have 
information directly from another source. We make it specific that a 
person cannot use a newspaper article to file a complaint if they are 
not a Member of this house. Then we give the chairman and ranking 
member, any one of them can stop the matter from being considered as a 
complaint if it does not meet the standards. We are mindful of the 
concern about abuse of the process, so we put those provisions in our 
package.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that in the time that the Members have 
today to consider these issues with this rule making that amendment in 
order, some Members, well-intended, may cast their votes for that 
amendment not realizing the history of this institution, not realizing 
what is in the body of our report. It is for those reasons that we are 
concerned that this rule makes in order amendments that may sound like 
they improve the process, but will do violence to the process.
  Let me just give you an example. Let us say that one of our staff 
people alleges that a Member asks sexual favors in order for that staff 
person to get a promotion. How does that staff person bring that matter 
to our attention? How does that staff person bring that matter forward, 
if that amendment that is made in order were to be adopted? Does she 
have to shop to get another Member of the House to certify it is being 
filed in good faith? Do we really want to put that requirement on that 
staff person? That is what that amendment would do that was made in 
order by this rule.
  That is wrong. We should allow for direct filing of complaints if the 
person has personal knowledge. We are saying,

[[Page H7540]]

yes, that we want to be able to judge our own Members; we want to 
represent to the American public that we can police ourselves. But 
should we shut everybody else out the process? No. That is why we get 
concerned about the amendments that were made in order under this rule. 
I am not so sure that we are going to have enough time to articulate 
those changes.
  I could go on to another amendment, I will, I guess, in the 1\1/2\ 
minutes that remains; an amendment that would call for automatic 
dismissal for matters pending 180 days after a vote in the committee. 
That is just going to encourage partisan action in this House.
  It is very easy to delay when we have a matter that has gotten 
divided on a partisan basis. It would not be difficult for a committee 
that has equal membership of Democrats and Republicans to delay a 
matter 180 days in order to get a dismissal. We are not doing a favor 
to this institution or to this Member if we allow the ethics process to 
have an automatic dismissal on a tie vote.
  Let me remind my colleagues, on the most difficult days of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the most difficult days, we 
were able to resolve every matter that was brought before us because we 
went back and worked together. If we had a time limit it would have 
been dismissed and there would be a cloud hanging over a Member. That 
is not right.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of the House, we have a historic 
opportunity to improve the ethics process today. I hope we will take 
advantage of that opportunity and approve the work of our task force 
without the amendments that would be made in order by this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The time will come when the amendment the gentleman was just talking 
about will come for debate. I have some concerns about the present 
system. I was a victim of the present system. It seems that a year or 
two ago that the chairman of a State conservation committee, a pretty 
powerful position, he happened to be a Democrat, was using his clout as 
a chairman of this committee to come into my congressional district, 
where we already have practically no jobs, we never have recovered from 
the recession that this country has been in, and he was literally 
threatening a major manufacturer in my district and threatening those 
jobs.
  I am of Scottish background. My grandfather used to tell me and his 
father before him that, ``Son, you ought to be horsewhipped if you do 
something wrong.'' I wrote this chairman of this committee and I said, 
``Mr. Chairman, you ought to be horsewhipped for coming into my 
district and threatening these jobs.'' I went on to say to him, 
``Suppose I used my clout as chairman of the Committee on Rules and I 
went into your district?''
  Lo and behold, this gentleman thought that I was physically 
threatening him by saying, ``You ought to be horsewhipped.'' I do not 
know about the rest of my colleagues, but that is an old saying. You 
can go back, and I will be glad to show you all of our Scottish mores 
and writings to show that that is true.
  But to get to the point here, he went to three Members of this 
Congress. Under the old system, it is called the three blind mice. I 
think one of them was the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], one 
of them might have been the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], 
and I forget who the other one was. But under the rule, they have to 
refuse to file the complaint against Jerry Solomon.
  So once they did that, this is the subterfuge that exists in the 
system, then that complaint from the outsider was automatically laid 
against Jerry Solomon. That was wrong, but yet that was the system we 
were under.
  Under the proposed amendment, and I am sure that the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] 
will come over, bipartisan, and argue that if that chairman of that 
committee wanted to file a complaint, that he ought to come to a Member 
of Congress.
  I am sure that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] or the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] or someone would say, ``All 
right, I'll file that amendment on your behalf.'' And that is exactly 
what the amendment before us does. I will let them defend their 
amendment when it comes up.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], perhaps one of the most respected 
Members of this body. He has one of the toughest jobs, being chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations, and yet he took on the assignment. 
He was dragged, kicking and screaming, to accept this position and did 
such an admirable job along with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cardin].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Committee on Rules for carefully 
deliberating on this issue and reaching what I think is a fair 
conclusion.
  There were several amendments, I think 11, 12, or 13 amendments 
offered. As a matter of fact, the Committee on Rules has only accepted 
four amendments, one of which is offered in bipartisan fashion by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], the chairman of the task force, 
and myself as cochair. Then there are three other amendments, all 
offered in bipartisan fashion.
  I think it is a good rule. It allows serious amendments to be 
deliberated by this body in a bipartisan fashion to a package which was 
confected in superlative fashion and in bipartisan fashion as well.
  I want to pay special tribute to the incredibly gifted and hard work 
and talent of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], my counterpart, 
my cochair in this effort. There was no majority-minority in this task 
force. We worked together. I cannot say we were always in agreement. 
The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] is a gifted lawyer and a tough 
person to deal with in terms of a hard negotiator, but he is also a 
fine and valued Member of the House. He stuck by his beliefs. I stuck 
by mine. The rest of the members of the committee likewise spoke up in 
valiant fashion.
  I think we have an excellent product. Whether or not amendments are 
ultimately adopted to this package, we have a magnificent improvement 
on the last bipartisan revision of the ethics rules.
  The fact is that all of the members of the task force, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Frost], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]; and the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Berman], who, unfortunately for them, have to take over as the new 
chair and cochair of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  All of us worked very hard, together with the gentleman from Maryland 
and myself, to pound out from February through June a bill and a report 
which reaped, I think, a product that is a significant improvement over 
previous rules.
  Mr. Speaker, there was great disenchantment over the administration 
of the rules of procedure governing standards of official conduct in 
the last Congress. I think everybody recognizes it. Regardless of party 
or political affiliation, there were grave misgivings over the net 
product and performance under those rules as they were administered. 
They were revised in 1989.
  In fact, the whole process actually began in the aftermath of 
Watergate and has been improved from time to time since then. But they 
broke down, and they broke down on partisan grounds. The whole purpose 
of this task force was to try to rid partisanship from this issue and 
return to the days when we could judge our own Members and have peer 
review of our own Members without political influence, without 
political causes, from outside influences coming in and interacting for 
sheerly partisan reasons. I think we have got a package that does that.
  But I have to say that there are deeply held feelings by certain 
Members on

[[Page H7541]]

both sides of the aisle that we did not present a perfect package. The 
fact is, we will never present a perfect package. In fact, I have to 
say that most witnesses that testified before the task force said that 
no rules will be perfect if, in fact, the people who administer the 
rules are going to use those rules for their own partisan or personal 
purposes. In fact, the whole process would break down under those 
circumstances. So we have to hope that that does not take place.
  Mr. Speaker, we have given a package that, hopefully, will result in 
no future partisan breakdowns. But there are Members who believe that 
partisan breakdown is enhanced or actually the chances of such a 
breakdown are increased if, in fact, these other amendments are not 
adopted. I do not know whether they are right or wrong.
  I will say that there is strong sentiment among Members of both sides 
that we ought to go back to the pre-1989 rules, when outside personnel 
could not file by simply getting press reports and submitting their 
names on them and sending in to the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct complaints against Members of Congress. That will be debated.
  I think there is a strong argument on behalf of those who believe 
that we ought to go back to the original rule, before 1989, when we 
adopted that ``three blind mice'' rule that says three Members refuse 
and anything can come in.
  There is another amendment that prevents deadlock. Never before in 
the ethics process has there ever been a rule that says if there is 
deadlock, it is automatically kicked out. I happen to think that that 
practice is questionable, because if in fact you have very strong, 
well-motivated, highly documented charges that are kicked out simply 
because there is a partisan breakdown, I do not think that that serves 
the interest of the House.
  And then there is another amendment that kind of complicates the 
procedure by defusing the power of subpoena and expansion of the 
investigative powers. I think that that can easily be debated and fall 
either way.
  My point is that these are real issues. They should be debated in the 
House. It is not a partisan move to simply ask that they be debated. I 
commend the Committee on Rules for entertaining these amendments, and I 
look forward to the debate on these issues as they go forward. I urge 
the adoption of the rule, and I urge the adoption of the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman who 
just took a seat. He did a great job in being Chair of the task force. 
But I have to correct him. The three-Member refusal, the ``three blind 
mice,'' has been in place since 1968. It was part of the original 
Ethics Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi], the gentlewoman who made a wonderful contribution to the 
bipartisan task force.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
ranking member on the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time and 
commend him for his service on the Committee on Rules.
  But apropos of today on the task force, I want to join him in 
commending the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], our 
distinguished chairman, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] 
for their service as chairs, for their balance, for the respect they 
had for Members, for listening to us, and for producing a consensus 
document that has as one of its virtues the balance that we were all 
striving to have to produce a bipartisan consensus.
  I am disappointed this morning that we have this rule before us which 
has within it the potential to unravel the work of the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cardin]. For 4 months, the task force worked together to iron out our 
differences, to carefully review the options before us. When you put a 
package like this together, it has a oneness, an integrity, a 
comprehensiveness. If you take this piece out, you lose balance.
  That is why I was hoping that the Committee on Rules would afford to 
the task force, in light of the work that was invested and the careful 
attention to all the considerations that was given, that we would be 
able to have a rule that would call for a vote up or down on the 
comprehensive package. That was what was appropriate in 1989 when the 
ethics package came before the House.
  This is the proposal, not this, cannibalized by taking chunks out of 
it, because we have to compare this to the status quo, and this product 
of the task force is better than the status quo. But if amended as 
allowed under this rule, we will be making a step backward.
  Why is this package so worthy of the consideration, without 
amendment, of this body? First of all, because of the responsibility 
that is attached to it. The Constitution requires and the American 
people expect Congress to uphold a high ethical standard. The public 
expects us, again, and the Constitution requires us to be able to judge 
our own Members. We have a responsibility to uphold the highest ethical 
standards to protect the integrity of the House of Representatives.
  This Chamber, in which we serve, should be a sacred room. We also 
have a responsibility to protect our Members from the kinds of assaults 
without foundation that they are susceptible to, as we are all 
susceptible to as public figures. That balance between upholding the 
integrity of the House and respecting the rights and the reputations of 
our Members is exactly what this task force proposal does.
  In the report that is sent to the House in this rule, there is the 
potential to, as I say, go backward in this debate and once again incur 
the unhappiness of the American people about how Congress judges 
itself. The time limit that is allowed to be voted up or down here 
would be an invitation to no action taken on legitimate complaints that 
are placed before the committee.
  I oppose the consideration of the subpoena being kicked up to the 
full committee, because the ethics process is based on a bifurcated 
process: Part of the committee investigates; the other part of the 
committee adjudicates. The investigative committee does its 
investigation confidentially, and then it presents its report to the 
other members of the adjudicatory committee for its adjudication, as 
the word says, for its judgment.
  But if the full committee is participating in the debate on 
subpoenas, then the confidentiality that Members should be entitled to 
in the investigative committee, of course, is blown to the wind, 
completely undermined, and, as has been said, does violence to the 
system.

                              {time}  1200

  Let me just address one of the other amendments, which talks about 
who can file a complaint.
  I think the bill strikes a balance in that regard. Many people on the 
outside are disappointed that our bill places a higher threshold on 
outside complaints instead of keeping the status quo as it was before 
or being similar to the Senate, where anyone can file a complaint.
  We add the threshold that that person, an outside person, must have 
personal knowledge. I think that that is appropriate in the interests 
of the Members and the integrity of the House.
  It also affords the opportunity, as the amendment to this bill does 
not, for staff members in the House to be able to bring complaints. I 
thank my colleague from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. I praised both chairmen 
before. Particularly I want to praise the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cardin] for his sensitivity to the issue of sexual harassment, which 
would be affected by the raised threshold, for further raising the 
threshold for nonmember complaints.
  In any event, for these reasons, any one of these amendments, if they 
pass, would not chip away, but undermine the integrity of the project 
that we are bringing forward. Any one of these would undermine the 
proposal that we are bringing here today. The three of them would call 
for a no vote on the package, the final package, if those amendments 
were to pass.
  Once again, in conclusion, I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] 
for their leadership and all that that word implies. This was a 
difficult task. They brought us to consensus. I think out of respect 
for their hard work,

[[Page H7542]]

Members should support the package that they are presenting.
  I am disappointed that this Committee on Rules did not regard their 
work product in a way that honored the tradition of the ethics process 
of giving an up or down vote to the proposals that are put forth on an 
ethics package.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct, who has made a wonderful contribution to 
the task force.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ethics task force 
report that my distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston], and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], have 
chaired, a panel on which I have served, an effort that took a great 
deal of time, that raised my esteem for both of these gentleman 
tremendously by the sincerity with which they approach the issue, by 
the difficulty and complexity of the questions that were raised.
  What they have come up with is a proposal that in every aspect of the 
process makes the process better. It does more to promote the due-
process rights of people who are accused in this process; it does more 
to promote the confidentiality of the process; it does more to promote 
the discretionary ability of the chair and the ranking member and their 
flexibility to deal with the issues that come before this committee in 
a fair and sensible fashion; it does more to be honest with the 
American people. Getting rid of this three-refusal rule, that is a 
disingenuous measure by which people who want to see a complaint come 
before the committee are forced to write a letter refusing to file the 
complaint in order to allow outsiders to do it. That is scrapped, and a 
limited-outside-complaint provision is substituted for that decision.
  It does more to enhance the bifurcation of the process, so that the 
people who are investigating a complaint where a complaint should be 
investigated are different and separate from the people who will be 
deciding whether or not in fact there were violations of ethical 
standards of conduct and what the sanctions for those violations should 
be.
  In every aspect of the process, this task force made sensible, 
relatively modest, but important changes to enhance, I think, both what 
will ultimately be, I hope, the public regard for the process, the 
credibility of the process, and the protection of the Members who are 
brought into this process.
  There are three amendments that this rule allows that are being 
proposed that were rejected by the task force. I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose those three amendments, because in each case they 
weaken what the task force was trying to do.
  In one particular case, that is the effort that mandates a dismissal 
after 180 days of any complaint on which there is a tie vote, it works 
directly against everything that the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], 
the chair of this committee, and I are trying to do.
  We want to restore nonpartisanship to this committee. We want to have 
judgments based on facts. We want to operate in collegial fashion, that 
allows sensible and correct decisions to be made.
  The 180-day automatic dismissal process, I think not because of the 
intent of the authors, their intent is a noble intent, but the 
mechanism they have chosen to achieve their intent is wrong, because it 
incentivizes partisanship. It tells people of the party, of the person 
who is accused to hang in there, stall, delay, because after a certain 
number of days a complaint will automatically be dismissed.
  Trust me. What the intent of the people who are offering this 
amendment is is to not let a Member hang on with great damage to his 
reputation, with great cost, with great personal suffering, while a 
committee sits around and dawdles and refuses to come to a decision.
  I deeply understand the desire to not have that happen. I feel that 
very strongly. It is my notion we should proceed expeditiously and be 
very sensitive to Members' protections and how much they can be damaged 
and unfairly damaged by this process. But the moment you try to 
institutionalize a result that has an automatic dismissal, you are 
incentivizing everything you do not want to happen.
  Let me just give you a hypothetical, if I may. You have a close 
question that is before the committee. A difficult complaint has been 
filed, the answer has been received, the chair and ranking member have 
investigated, and it is coming before the full committee now to decide 
whether to create the investigative subcommittee.
  There is debate, there is discussion, there is a motion, and it 
happens to break down to a tie vote. The clock starts ticking under 
this amendment. If 180 days pass, it is automatically dismissed.
  I am telling you, if the Members are operating in good faith, if they 
are not taking direction from their leadership on both sides, but 
seriously trying to deal with this issue, if the question is close and 
I am on the side of those who want to create an investigative 
subcommittee and proceed with this complaint, but I see that this 
deadlock is sincere, it has not promoted bipartisanship on either side, 
I personally would switch my vote for dismissal, rather than leave a 
Member hanging, forget 180 days, but for 60 or 90 days, if that is what 
it takes to get a clean result so that a Member does not have to live 
through the entire term of this Congress or future Congresses with this 
hanging over him because the deadlock cannot be broken.
  But leave it to the good faith of the members of the committee, and I 
believe it will be there. I know who is being talked about for this 
committee. I believe that this committee will approach this with that 
kind of an attitude. Leave it for the informal processes of the 
committee to protect that right, because, I guarantee you, the moment 
we institutionalize a time certain for a dismissal, we promote the 
likelihood of deadlocks, partisan bickering, and we lose the confidence 
of the Members and the public in this process.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge opposition to that amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say to my good friend the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman] before he sits down, I hope everyone was 
listening, because if they were, they will know why the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman] is one of the most respected Members of this 
House and why we on this side have no concern at all about his becoming 
the cochairman or the ranking member on the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct, because he is perceived as being a very fair person, 
and I am sure he will be.
  The gentleman drives the point home that as long as he is that 
ranking member, he would see to it that these complaints were not laid 
out there for an indefinite period of time, and I believe the gentleman 
and respect him for that.
  Unfortunately, we are not talking about just placing the trust in the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] for these 2 years. We are 
talking about changing the rules of the ethics of this House.
  Just to use a hypothetical suggestion, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Berman] may just very well run for the Senate in the other body 
from the State of California. Should that happen, he no longer would be 
the ranking member, and then we might just be put into a position where 
I believe personally in the past we have had partisan politics played 
in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and we are trying to 
prevent that. That is the reason for this amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would be more than glad to yield to the person I 
respect highly.
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Do not tell me you are not going to run for the Senate.
  Mr. BERMAN. No, I was wondering whether I should disclose the fact 
that I gave you those inauguration tickets for President Reagan's 
second inauguration as the initiator for those kind remarks?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Now you know why I really respect you.
  Mr. BERMAN. But I deeply appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  My point is when you create institutionally a reason for a deadlock, 
it does

[[Page H7543]]

not matter what the motivations of the leadership or the Members are. 
We are human beings. We have a very difficult process. We are judging 
our peers, our friends, our colleagues, about matters that may be very 
serious, or may not seem so serious to us. None of us have the ability 
to overcome the institutional problems that this time certain creates.
  I do not know that I want to be part of a process which incentivizes 
the breakdown of it. The only reason I said yes to the request from my 
own leadership to take this position was because the challenge of 
seeing if this process could work on a bipartisan, nonpartisan basis. 
This one amendment really eviscerates our ability to do that. That is 
why I feel so very strongly about this particular unit.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman's points 
are well taken. I was glad to yield him the time.
  I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], I 
intend to close with a short statement, if the gentleman would like to 
yield back his time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, would you please inform my dear friend the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and myself how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to provide 
that House Resolution 168, the recommendation of the Bipartisan Task 
Force on Ethics, will be considered under a modified closed rule that 
allows only one amendment, only if authored by the cochairs of the task 
force, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. Speaker, in my opening statement I said, and I want to repeat, 
today this Republican leadership becomes the only leadership in the 
history of the House of Representatives to ignore the work of a 
bipartisan ethics task force. Those are very strong words, Mr. Speaker, 
but they happen to be the truth.
  This task force met nearly every day for over 3 months to reach a 
genuinely bipartisan agreement on a very extreme, sensitive, and 
difficult issue. During final consideration of the task force 
recommendations, many of us had amendments that we thought would 
produce a better product.

                              {time}  1215

  However, we also realized that any further changes could seriously 
threaten any chance for a bipartisan agreement. Therefore, we agreed 
not to amend the package any further unless it was agreed to and 
offered jointly by Cochairs Livingston and Cardin.
  Members of this House deserve an opportunity for an up-or-down vote 
on the work of this task force. These killer amendments made in order 
by the rule not only will ruin the resolution supported by the task 
force, they will prevent Members from having the chance to vote for a 
clean version of the task force recommendation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and support the hard work of the task force. I include for the 
Record at this point the text of the previous question amendment:

      Text of Previous Question Amendment to House Resolution 168 
    Recommendations of the Bipartisan House Ethics Reform Task Force

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H. 
     Res. 168) to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan 
     House Ethics Reform Task Force. The resolution shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the resolution and any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate 
     on the resolution, which shall be equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) one motion to amend by Representative 
     Livingston of Louisiana with the concurrence of 
     Representative Cardin of Maryland, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read, and 
     shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to commit.''

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, just 
to point out that we in the Committee on Rules always have a difficult 
time trying to be fair to all Members.
  When we were approached by Members from the other side of the aisle, 
Democrats, liberals like the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], 
who I have great respect for; moderates like the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], a good former Marine who I have great 
respect for as well, they, representing two wings of their own party, 
had serious concerns about it. We were approached by the same kind of 
moderates on our side of the aisle, conservatives on our side of the 
aisle, and they asked to be heard on three important issues which were 
so contentious when our task force was meeting.
  I at that point made a decision to ask the Committee on Rules to only 
make in order those amendments that were truly contentious and of a 
bipartisan nature. We had some 10 or 12 amendments with names attached 
to them filed with the Committee on Rules by very respected Members, 
but many of them were partisan; they did not have bipartisan 
cosponsors. We had about 12 other amendments that were delivered to us 
anonymously with no names, and those we simply took a look at but threw 
in the trash basket. We did not even give them any consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have on the floor today is what we have promised 
on this side of the aisle, and that is the ability for this House to 
work its will when there are contentious issues, especially when they 
have bipartisan support. That is what we have today, and I would just 
hope that Members would come over now, vote for this previous question, 
vote for the rule, vote for all three amendments, including the 
manager's amendment, so four amendments, and then vote for this bill. 
It is a good bill that will bring back some credibility to this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair announces that he will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time for any electronic 
vote, if ordered, on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 191, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 407]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson

[[Page H7544]]


     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Fattah
     Foglietta
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Johnson, Sam
     Largent
     Meek
     Oberstar
     Schiff
     Stupak
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1236

  Mr. McNULTY and Mr. DINGELL changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. BONO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________