[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.
____________________