[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 125 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7544-H7573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF BIPARTISAN HOUSE ETHICS REFORM TASK 
                                 FORCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 230 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the resolution, 
House Resolution 168.

                              {time}  1240


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the resolution 
(H. Res. 168) to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan House 
Ethics Reform Task Force, with Mr. Combest in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the resolution is considered as 
having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise to recommend to 
the House the work product of a very hardworking task force on ethics 
rules reform.
  Mr. Chairman, in the aftermath of Watergate, the House felt compelled 
to engage and apply certain rules of conduct to enforce the provisions 
of the Constitution that say that the Members of the House will police 
its own Members. They were known as the ethics rules, administered by 
the Committee on the Standards of Official Conduct. Those rules evolved 
with time, and were revised as recently as 1989, roughly 8 years ago, 
and have, by and large, worked pretty well over the years.
  In the last Congress, it was felt by many Members on both sides of 
the aisle that there had been a partisan breakdown; that regardless of 
individual cases, the fact was that Members of the House were engaging 
in the war of politics by utilizing the rules of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct to their own purposes.
  If that charge is warranted or not, the fact is that the leadership 
of both Houses were called upon to decide whether or not that type of 
activity should be encouraged and continued or whether or not we should 
make a good-faith effort to stop that sort of conduct and encourage 
Members to understand that the rules of the House are sacred, they 
reflect on the integrity of the House, and that we, as the Members of 
the House of Representatives, should respect the roles which we hold 
and administer and that we should, indeed, police ourselves in a 
bipartisan fashion.

                              {time}  1245

  Pursuant to the directives of the leadership, the bipartisan 
leadership of the House, a task force was confected, comprised of 
myself and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ben Cardin, as cochair, 
coequals, in charge of the task force comprised of the gentleman from 
New York, Jerry Solomon, the gentleman from California, Mr. Bill 
Thomas, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Porter Goss, the gentleman from 
Delaware, Mr. Mike Castle, and the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Jim Hansen, 
on the Republican side; and the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Lou Stokes, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Joe Moakley, the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Martin Frost, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Nancy 
Pelosi, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Howard Berman, on the 
Democrat side.
  We began our deliberations in early February. We held hearings; 
gained a lot of testimony from a lot of witnesses, both in public and 
private forums; called Members to give us their

[[Page H7545]]

experiences, without concentrating on individual cases, but asking for 
their recommendations in generic form for rules of the House which 
could be administered without partisanship, without undo rancor, and 
fairly.
  The task force conducted its activities throughout February, March, 
April, May, and into June on the substance of the bill which we have 
now brought to the House and on the report. Every line, every word, 
sometimes often syllables, were debated strenuously. It was a hard 
fought package, but we finally came up with a product that I think 
every Member has to understand is a significant improvement over 
previous rules.
  One might say that, in part, certain segments are no greater 
improvement. In fact, in many instances we left intact provisions of 
the previous rules of the committee or of the House. But we tried to at 
least marginally improve those sections which we thought were in need 
of a change and, in many instances, such as the section on due process, 
we, I think, substantially, improved the product of the 1989 task 
force, which was also a bipartisan task force.
  We could not have succeeded in reaching our conclusions without the 
benefit of the hard work of all of the Members, and I commend again the 
gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Cardin] and all the members of the task 
force for the diligent attention to our very difficult 
responsibilities. There were tremendous pressures on every Member, but 
I think we came up with a good product.
  But in addition to the Members, we could not have accomplished what 
we did without the significant help of the staff, headed up by Richard 
Leon, Special Counsel to the committee; David Laufman, who is on loan 
to us from the staff of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
and served as assistant to the special counsel; and individual staff, 
my own staff member Stan Skocki; the staff member of the gentleman from 
Maryland, Michelle Ash; and all of the other individual staff who 
contributed so mightily, both from the personal staffs of the various 
Members and from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the 
Committee on Rules, and the various other committees which participated 
in this effort.
  I am pleased, very pleased with the work product. We will talk about 
amendments, which have just been made in order, to the work product 
later on at the appropriate time. I think it is proper that Members who 
were not on the task force have some input, and as I have already 
stated in the debate on the rule, that if they come to us in bipartisan 
fashion, their concerns should be dealt with and they will be.
  But let me say that the work product that we have before the Members, 
before the amendments are undertaken or considered, the work product 
that we have before the House has been considered, debated and written 
about and even testified about by people on the outside. Mr. Gary 
Ruskin of the Congressional Accountability Project and a colleague of 
Ralph Nader's does not think it goes far enough, and he has attacked 
the work product because he thinks it makes it too tough for outside 
people to testify. Miss Ann McBride of Common Cause likewise has not 
liked our work product because she thinks it is too hard for outside 
people to bring complaints against individual Members.
  On the other hand, David Mason of the Heritage Foundation, Norm 
Ornstein of American Enterprise Institute, and Thomas Mann of Brookings 
have written articles and testified on behalf of the package because 
they think in its comprehensive form that this is a significant 
improvement under past rules.
  I would say that I am proud about the package for a number of 
reasons. For one thing it does, in my opinion, offer tougher standards 
with which to file complaints; at the same time abolishing the three 
blind mice rule, which I call a canard, unworkable. That is a rule 
which we brought into fashion or we adopted in the 1989 revision, and I 
have to say that I was on that task force as well, and that I thought 
it was a good idea at the time, whereby an outside person, not a Member 
of the Congress, would go to three Members of the House of 
Representatives and ask them if they wanted to file this complaint, he 
would say no; then the second one would be asked if they wanted to 
file, they said no; and then they would go to the third one and get the 
same answer, and then they could file anything they wanted before the 
House as a complaint against a Member of Congress.
  We thought that that was absolutely inappropriate; that it was being 
misused and that it should actually be abandoned. In its place what we 
did was adopt a personal knowledge standard that said, A, that no 
person outside the Congress can file anything on the basis of newspaper 
or press clippings or press reports; but, second, that they had to have 
personal knowledge of the complaint or of the subject matter of the 
complaint in order to file information with the committee for the 
purposes of a complaint.
  Also, they either had to be reviewing personal or business or 
government records and have reached conclusions on the basis of their 
personal review of those records, or they had to be a participant or 
had seen the incident in question, or they had been told by one person 
who had seen or participated in the event for which they were 
complaining.

  We thought that was a pretty good standard. There are those Members 
who do not believe that is strong enough and would like very much to go 
back to the pre-1989 rule that says a Member of Congress has to put his 
stamp of approval, his name, on any incoming complaint. We will debate 
that later on. I think those Members have some very good arguments to 
back their amendment up, but we will discuss that later on, but I do 
think that the committee did a pretty good job in establishing a 
threshold before complaints can be filed by people not Members of the 
Congress.
  So nonmembers can file directly under our provision. Complaints filed 
directly by nonmembers cannot be exclusively based on newspaper 
articles. Members may sponsor nonmember complaints only if they certify 
that the complainant is acting in good faith; that is, they can put 
their stamp of approval, but at this point they have to say that the 
person in their opinion is acting in good faith and that the matter 
described in the complaint warrants review of the committee; and 
bipartisan support necessary for a filing to officially constitute a 
complaint is necessary; and there is a prohibition on frivolous filings 
and complaints expressly provided for in the House rules.
  Let me stress on that one so that it is clearly understood. Never 
before have we entertained a prohibition about unfrivolous filings. And 
it is strongly felt by Members on both sides of the aisle that there 
have been frivolous attempts to misuse the rules with frivolous 
complaints. We have a prohibition against that that says it is within 
the latitude of the committee, by majority vote, to sanction Members or 
even disregard complaints from outside nonmembers if those complaints 
are frivolous.
  Most importantly in this package is the fact that there is due 
process for Members. There is a right to review evidence prior to 
voting of a statement of alleged violations. There is a right to review 
and comment on the subcommittee and full committee reports prior to 
transmittal to the full committee in the House. Settlement negotiations 
are now confidential and not admissible as evidence, even though they 
had been in the past. There is a right to notice of any expansion of 
the investigation and/or the statement of alleged violations. There are 
deadlines established for determining whether information filed 
constitutes a complaint, and whether the complaint should be forwarded 
to an investigative subcommittee; and there is a right to notice of any 
unsuccessful vote to forward complaints to the investigative 
subcommittee.
  The standards for charging a person used to be that the committee 
only had a reason to believe that a Member had committed a violation. 
That standard has been raised. Now the committee has to establish a 
substantial reason to believe, and we think that is a significant 
improvement.
  Most importantly, the whole process is made less partisan and, in 
fact, nonpartisan in many respects by the changing of the rules. The 
committee's staff is required, with all members on

[[Page H7546]]

the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, to file nondisclosure 
oaths. The intent of that is to discourage leaks outside the committee. 
Nonpartisan professional staff are required by the committee rules.
  There is increased latitude to the chairman and the ranking member to 
speak to the press if the committee is being unjustifiably attacked, in 
their eyes, and they are entitled to go out, after consultation with 
their counterpart, to go out to the press and make a claim.
  And there is increased confidentiality of the committee proceedings 
in the votes, in that in the past all meetings have been deemed open 
unless closed by the majority; now they are closed unless opened by the 
majority in the early stages of the investigation. But that is not the 
adjudicatory stage. In that case, if there is an adjudication or a 
trial of a Member on the charges, then that is always open and will 
continue as such.
  The task force hopes that these recommendations will not be viewed in 
microscopic isolation but rather that the whole package, the whole 
fabric of the package, will be considered as part of a system to 
accomplish multiple objectives.
  First, that they be less partisan; second, that they be more 
confidential; third, that they provide greater due process for the 
Members; and fourth, that they provide greater involvement by more 
Members, because we are creating a jury pool to alleviate the very 
difficult responsibilities entrusted upon the Members of the standards 
of official conduct.
  We have shrunk the committee from 12 Members to 10 Members, but we 
have encouraged more reliance on the subcommittees to diffuse so that 
individual subcommittees of four or six Members can do the work on 
individual cases and the full committee will not be required to do all 
of the work on all of the cases and be chained down in the basement of 
the Capitol to spend all of their waking hours on matters dealing with 
standards of official conduct.
  Mr. Chairman, our ultimate goal is that this bill and the 
administration of the rules of the House with respect to Members and 
charges of violations of conduct against them be nonpartisan. Our 
objective is that this be a true peer review system; that we judge our 
colleagues with the trust and the confidence of both the Members of the 
House in bipartisan fashion and the American people. I think that we 
have done an excellent job toward achieving those goals, and I urge the 
adoption of this package.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to join the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] in the compliments he has paid to the Members of this body 
that have served on this joint committee on ethics reform and to the 
staff that helped us in order to reach this time.
  I am very proud of the result of the task force. We have an 
opportunity today to approve that product, and I hope that this body 
will take that opportunity and approve the work of our task force.
  The gentleman from Louisiana provided tremendous leadership in this 
body to bring together different people of different views. We worked 
very hard to compromise issues without compromising principles, and we 
think the end result is in the best interests of this House. The 
challenge that we have is to restore confidence with the public that we 
can carry out our constitutional responsibility to monitor the conduct 
of our Members. It is a difficult responsibility.

                              {time}  1300

  This body owes a debt of gratitude to those Members who are willing 
to serve on the committee that sits in judgment. Several are on the 
floor here, and I applaud their efforts, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Sawyer], the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], and others who have 
stepped forward to carry out that awesome responsibility. Because, 
regardless of what rules we have, ultimately it depends upon the 
willingness of Members of this House to step forward, to serve this 
body, to judge its Members, and for us collectively to carry out that 
awesome responsibility.
  I believe that the recommendations of our bipartisan task force will 
make it easier for us to carry out that awesome responsibility. It 
makes improvements that are important to allow us to judge the conduct 
of our Members. Let me just, I guess, emphasize some of the points that 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has already commented on.
  The recommendations, if approved, will make it easier for us to have 
a nonpartisan operation of the ethics process. The resolution 
specifically provides that the staff will be nonpartisan and cannot 
engage in partisan political activities. The recommendations give the 
chairman and ranking member equal opportunity to set the agenda of the 
committee.
  The recommendations improve the confidentiality of the work of the 
committee, which is so important to maintain the integrity of the 
process. The meetings of the investigative committees will be closed. 
All members of the committee and staff will be required to file 
confidentiality oaths. And for the first time, we will allow the 
committee to directly refer to a Federal agency, without having to come 
to the House floor and disclose matters, matters that should be 
referred to other Federal agencies that affect a Member, requiring an 
extraordinary vote of the committee itself.
  We have improved the system for filing of complaints. I know there is 
going to be an amendment offered later, and I would hope that each 
Member would understand the current rules and how we have improved 
them. I agree with the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] that 
the three-Member refusal does not make sense. But the answer is not to 
exclude outsiders the opportunity to submit information or complaints 
to our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The answer is to 
make it more rational to the need that is out there, and that is what 
we did in a compromise.
  In an appropriate compromise, we require that an outside individual, 
whether it be a staff person or whether it be an outside person, to 
bring a complaint must have personal knowledge, a higher standard. It 
is similar to the standard in the other body. We think that makes 
sense. By the way, we also raised the standard for a Member 
transmitting a complaint from a non-Member by requiring the Member to 
certify in good faith that this complaint should be reviewed by the 
committee.
  So we were mindful of the concerns that a complaint is a very serious 
matter against a Member, and we have improved the manner in which 
legitimate matters can come before the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct by non-Members. We have improved the efficiency, the 
administration of the committee itself, the initial factfinding, which 
has been very difficult for the committee. It is now delegated to the 
Chair or ranking member, so they can get better control over getting 
information earlier to the committee and act earlier with the 
committee.
  The subpoenas and the expansion of scope of an investigation will be 
handled by the subcommittee where it should be handled. We have an 
amendment later that tries to reverse that. But let me remind my 
colleagues that the bifurcated system whereby one group of Members 
investigate another group, by requiring those that are doing the 
investigation to go back to those who ultimately have to make judgment 
and disclose information in order to justify an expansion of scope, 
compromises the objectivity of the process and the fairness of the 
adjudicative process.
  It also, by the way, compromises we think confidentiality and makes 
it more time consuming in order to reach conclusions, which is a major 
concern to the Members of this House. We improve the due process that 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] spoke to, many new 
procedures that we put in so that people get adequate due process.
  A Member will have advanced notice on any statement of alleged 
violation that the subcommittee intends to propose. We give notice to 
Members at every phase of the ethics investigation or action. We have 
greater involvement by the Members of this House in the ethics process 
by having a pool of Members who can assist in investigations and by 
having a limit of 4-year

[[Page H7547]]

service on the Ethics Committee. I know that the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Sawyer] and I would have hoped that that would be retroactive. But 
no, it cannot be retroactive, but at least a Member's term on the 
committee cannot exceed 4 years, and we have rotation to assure 
experienced Members will always be on the committee.
  And importantly, we have made the process move quicker, in a more 
timely way, by establishing a 14-day time limit on the initial action 
on a matter that is filed as a complaint by the chairman and ranking 
member, giving the chairman and ranking member much more discretion in 
managing the workload of the committee and in recommending early action 
on complaints that are filed and filing time limits on getting into 
initial factfinding.
  If we take a look at the full package, I believe we will find that it 
addresses the concerns that have been raised by the Members of this 
House. I agree with the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], we 
hope that our colleagues will not use a microscope to try to look at 
each individual section and say ``Why does this make sense?'' Look at 
the total package. The package makes sense. It should be approved by 
this body.
  I would hope that my colleagues would have confidence in the 
committee, the work that we did. Reject the three amendments that will 
be offered later on this debate. Those three amendments, and we will 
have a chance to talk about them a little bit later in general debate, 
each will compromise the manner in which this package was put together, 
and we will have a chance to talk about that a little later.
  It is a good product. I am proud to be associated with it. I hope it 
will be approved by the House, but I hope it will not be modified by 
the three amendments that will be offered.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], that is going to be 
entrusted with the responsibility of administering this new package 
when and if it is adopted, the forthcoming chairman of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct, and a very valued member of this task 
force, as well.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] 
for the great work they did on the task force. They worked very 
diligently, very hard work. It is amazing we got this far, candidly; 
and I am glad we are here.
  I rise today as the chairman of the House Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct. I previously served on this committee from 1981 to 
1993. In those 12 years that I served, we handled some of the most 
significant and contentious cases of the Congress. My colleagues may 
recall, I started when Abscam was still going, and the last case I was 
part of was the check cashing case. Tough cases. Twenty-nine cases, all 
of them tough ones.
  Yet, in those 12 years on the committee, we did not have one partisan 
vote. In those 12 years, the chairman and ranking member worked closely 
together to set the agenda for the committee. I cannot recall one time 
that the chairman and the ranking member did not bring a joint 
recommendation before the full committee. In those 12 years, we rarely 
had a leak of committee information; and when we did, we investigated 
and found out the source and took appropriate action.
  As chairman of the committee, I intend to operate by the standards I 
knew then as a member of the committee when I was its ranking member 
and my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], was a 
chairman of the committee.
  I did not know the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], the 
current ranking member. He considers himself a liberal, which I say in 
the finest sense of the word. I am considered a conservative. But I 
found that he is a good man to deal with. We have built a trust, and I 
think it is essential that we do that if the committee is to act in a 
bipartisan manner.
  I have often stated that it does not matter what rules are adopted to 
govern the ethics process; without the right people assigned to the 
committee, it just does not work anyway. I asked my leadership not to 
appoint people who want to use the ethics process to get even with 
other Members, not to appoint those who cannot keep confidences, and 
not to appoint Members who do not have respect for this institution. 
They have listened to my requests and have selected four outstanding 
Members.
  The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will investigate 
aggressively those who have violated our rules. We will seek to honor 
the trust that has been placed on us by our leadership and our 
colleagues. And that is a two-way street.
  I have to say I would be terribly disappointed if Members from either 
side of the political aisle file complaints against other Members 
strictly for political purposes. I would be very disappointed if people 
who want to bring charges before the committee do so in a press 
conference rather than in a confidential manner.
  We are not here for political sport or trying people in the mass 
media. We are here to protect the integrity of the institution and 
maintain the respect of the American people in our ability to rule on 
the conduct of our peers. We are a peer review process. If Members want 
to see a colleague, one of their friends, behind bars, write to the 
Department of Justice. If they want to nab someone for an election 
violation, write to the Federal Election Commission. If someone has 
violated the rules of the House, then write the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct.
  I support the task force proposal, and I support the amendments that 
have been made in order. The amendments guarantee a peer review process 
rather than complaints by political opponents or ideological enemies. 
They guarantee that an issue will not linger in the committee because 
of a partisan deadlock, and they preserve the power of a full committee 
in the conduct of an investigation. I urge their adoption.
  I thank those who have worked so diligently on this task force. I 
hope we can get this thing behind us. I hope we can get the committee 
together. I hope we can look at these things and do it truly in the way 
it was intended to be done instead of a circus that we have seen in 
some instances.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes] who has been a valuable member of the task force and 
added great expertise to the work of the product that is before us.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cardin], my distinguished colleague and cochairman of the task force, 
for yielding to me.
  At the outset I want to take just a moment to commend both the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin], who were cochairs of our task force, for the 
excellent manner in which they conducted the business of this ethics 
task force reform group.
  When we started out with the tasks assigned to us, I think it was 
important for me to be able to see the kind of bipartisan leadership 
that the two of them gave this committee, because I came to this task 
force with the experience of having chaired the Ethics Committee of the 
House on two specific occasions in the past, as well as having served 
on a previous task force and from time to time having been called to 
the Ethics Committee for the purpose of serving there on special 
assignment.
  The one thing that I know about the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct is that it is the toughest job any Member of the House 
can be asked to perform. I think any Member who serves there does so 
with the realization that they have a very special responsibility both 
to the public and to the Members of this institution.
  I think it is better for the Members of this institution to police 
themselves through the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of 
the House. But I also think it is important that we approach that 
responsibility on a bipartisan basis. Partisanship cannot be a part of 
that process. To the credit of both the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], they 
approached their task and gave the leadership to us in that manner.

[[Page H7548]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Stokes was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, this task force worked diligently and I 
think they produced an excellent product. They listened to many groups, 
both in closed hearings and in open hearings. I think that the 
committee tried to improve upon the current situation.
  First, I think we should all realize that the committee is no better 
than the rules under which it operates. But as long as we have good 
rules, and I think we have provided a good package here, both in terms 
of improving the due process aspects of the ethics procedure as well as 
the provision for non-Members to be able to file complaints with the 
committee.
  I would urge the Members of the House to accept this package that was 
produced by this task force report and urge them to pass it without the 
additional amendments.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I mentioned that we are deeply indebted to all the 
staff of the various committees that contributed their hard and great 
efforts to this task force and all of the personal staff as well.
  I neglected to point out also that we had a valiant and tremendous 
amount of help from Bob Weinhagen, senior counsel of the Office of 
Legislative Counsel, as well as from the Parliamentarian, Charlie 
Johnson and John Sullivan were of great, great help to all of us.
  I just want to go on record as expressing my deep appreciation to 
them for being with us over long periods of time and being on demand at 
the strangest of times but always giving us conscientious, thorough, 
and professional advice. I appreciate their input.
  I would like also to take just a moment to stress something that 
needs some enlargement. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] and I 
have both touched on it in previous arguments. The fact is, one of the 
most significant accomplishments of this package is to provide Members 
of Congress with the knowledge of the charges that might be lodged 
against them to provide them with the opportunity to respond to those 
charges.
  In past practices, there have been concerns that, in the rush of 
political fervor surrounding a particular case, that the rights of the 
respondent have been in times pushed aside. That is not going to be the 
case if and when these rules are adopted. The respondent is entitled to 
a copy of a draft statement of the statement of alleged violation 
against him. And all evidence that the committee intends to introduce 
against him or her prior to a vote on the statement of alleged 
violation must be produced, unless the committee votes by majority to 
withhold evidence to protect the identity of a witness for some 
confidential reasons.
  The settlement agreement, if, in fact, there is an arrangement 
between a Member who wishes to dispose of the charges against him and 
enters into an agreement and utters comments pursuant to that 
settlement agreement, cannot be used against him. It is required to be 
in writing, unless the respondent requests otherwise. That way, he is 
not encouraged into discussions and all of a sudden lured into a 
situation that works against him in the long run.
  The respondent is entitled to immediately review any new evidence 
which arises after a statement of alleged violation. Settlement 
discussions are confidential and are not admissible as evidence or 
includable in the subcommittee or committee reports unless the 
respondent agrees otherwise.
  A report is required where the statement of alleged violation is 
voted and an adjudicatory hearing is waived. And the respondent is 
entitled to review and propose changes to the subcommittee report prior 
to its transmittal to the full committee and to have his proposals 
attached to the subcommittee report.
  Finally, the respondent is entitled to provide additional views, to 
be attached to the final report along with any comments previously made 
regarding the subcommittee report.
  These are provisions which may sound technical to the average layman, 
but in a court of law these would be taken for granted. These are 
rights afforded criminals in any criminal proceeding. It would seem 
proper that these sorts of protections be granted Members of Congress 
if they are in the dock and threatened with charges that might, 
ultimately, not only ruin their careers but ruin their lives.
  These are basic statements of fairness which are incorporated in 
these rules so that no one will be run roughshod over. No one will be 
subject to a runaway prosecutor who seeks to deny him the basic 
essentials for due process.
  Finally, of course, there is an incorporation of a rule in this 
package which specifically condemns the filing of frivolous complaints 
or frivolous information with the committee. If a person, either 
outside of the Congress or a Member of Congress, uses the rules simply 
for harassment purposes, without substantial evidence to ground the 
charges that he or she might be making against another Member of 
Congress, now it is codified that under these rules the committee can 
take note of those frivolous charges and take action against the people 
filing them. We think that that is a significant improvement from the 
former rules.
  There are lots of other individual items, some arcane, some not, 
which improve the overall package, but I think that in the general 
debate it is sufficient to say that this is a good package in and of 
and by itself. It does not need amendment.
  That is not to say that the amendments that have been offered cannot 
improve upon it, but I think that every Member, regardless of their 
party affiliation or their philosophical judgment, should examine each 
of these amendments carefully and determine for him or herself whether 
or not he or she would want those amendments to apply to him or her if, 
in fact, charges were lodged against that Member.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I will simply say that this package was 
concluded without the final unanimous vote of the task force members. 
We did close it to amendment by a vote of 12 to zero, and that was 
significant. But when the report was written and the chips were down, 
11 members either formally or informally decided to put their stamp of 
approval on the final package and submit it.
  One member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], did not, and 
he, I am sure, will be free to explain his reasons. Actually, they were 
explained in his minority views in the report, and they were 
incorporated as part of the report. I urge every Member to take a look 
at his views, because the gentleman from California was a very 
significant, hardworking, contributing member to the task force and we 
do appreciate his effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I would like to first compliment the work of the task force, in 
particular the efforts of the gentleman from Maryland and also the 
gentleman from Louisiana for their leadership in this regard. I think 
that today we have in front of us a work of a bipartisan task force 
made up of Members who have done an excellent job in trying to set a 
set of rules forward in which this House could have and conduct an 
appropriate peer review process, and so I rise in support of it.
  I think that it is of note, even though it has been mentioned, I will 
mention it again, the due process additions and changes that have been 
made that further provide to Members of the House, I think, appropriate 
due process. The bifurcation of the investigative and judgmental phases 
of the work, I think, is also an important addition.
  As we grapple with the amendments that are to follow, I do not want 
us to lose the point that the task force's work is work that should and 
could and, hopefully, will be able to stand on its own merit and that 
this Committee

[[Page H7549]]

on Standards of Official Conduct will have an opportunity anew in this 
Congress to try to set an appropriate and, hopefully, reasoned and 
measured approach to looking at what are fairly difficult issues from 
time to time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to again agree with the points that the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has made concerning what is 
in the resolution before us. It contains many, many changes that we 
think will improve the legislative process.
  I would like to spend a few minutes, if I might, on the three 
amendments that will be offered later, because I think if Members look 
at the changes that we have made, they will agree that these amendments 
should be rejected. The reason I say that is that we have in our task 
force considered each of these three issues and we rejected it.
  It is also important, as has been pointed out by Members on both 
sides of this aisle, that changes in the ethics process be made in a 
bipartisan way. There is clearly, clearly, a lack of bipartisan 
agreement on each of the three amendments that will be offered. For 
that reason alone, they should be rejected.
  The first, that would deny outside persons the opportunity to file an 
ethics complaint, would change the practice of this House since we 
instituted an ethics committee back in 1968. We have always allowed 
non-Members to file complaints. This would be the first time we would 
deny it.
  We are charged with the constitutional responsibility to judge the 
conduct of our Members. Are we so afraid to allow outsiders to bring 
charges that we deny them access to bring those charges before our 
committee? I would hope not.
  The resolution before Members provides a new standard for that issue. 
It requires that a non-Member have personal knowledge. The person must 
either know the information himself or herself or have received it 
directly from another. It is not adequate, as the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has pointed out, to use a newspaper as a 
basis for a complaint by a non-Member. You just cannot use speculation 
or what might be in a newspaper article.
  We have raised the bar on non-Members. It would be wrong for us to 
deny them complete access. We also add additional protection for unjust 
charges brought against a Member. The chairman and ranking member are 
given additional powers to be able to stop a matter from being 
considered a complaint that clearly does not comply with our rules.
  So we have protected the institution, we have protected the Member, 
but we have allowed information to come forward as I hope all my 
colleagues would agree we should. If you adopt the amendment that is 
offered, you would not only be eliminating these new tests, you would 
not only be eliminating the current rule that allows for non-Member 
filing, you would also be raising the bar on a Member transmitting a 
complaint from a non-Member by adding an additional requirement.
  Mr. Chairman, that is a bit much, and I hope the Members would agree 
with me that is an overkill of a situation that would really be 
perceived, and rightly so, as us trying to close off this process to 
any outside people. I could give my colleagues several examples that 
could come to light that would show exactly why that amendment would be 
ill advised.
  Let us use as an example, and this is strictly an example, that 
suppose a staff member has been inappropriately approached by a Member 
asking sexual favors in exchange for promotion. What does that staff 
person do? Under the resolution before us, that staff person can bring 
that matter directly to the ethics committee. Do we want that staff 
member to have to shop for a Member of this House to certify that that 
is an appropriate complaint?
  And suppose it is a Democrat or a Republican. Is this a partisan 
issue? Where is the dignity of the process? Do we really want to close 
ourselves to that type of matter being brought to our ethics committee? 
I would hope not.
  I could give my colleagues many more examples as to why it would be 
wrong for us to close out legitimate problems coming to our ethics 
committee from non-Members. That amendment, as well intended as it may 
be, would do that. Reform should open up the process, not move 
backward. That amendment would take us backward.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the Members that the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining and the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would sincerely like to congratulate the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cardin] for their work on this, and all the Members who have worked 
with them. I think what the gentlemen are doing is meeting the demand 
of the public, but also what should be our own demands.
  This House needs a strong ethics structure. The public demands it, 
but so does our own sense of public service, of self-esteem.
  We want to serve in this body, proud of our service, and part of that 
pride requires a system so that when ethics are violated, there is a 
responsible response.
  This bipartisan agreement would create a strong ethics structure. The 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] has addressed, as the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has, amendments, and there will be 
further discussion. In my judgment, as has been explained, two of these 
amendments would erode a strong ethics structure. Indeed, I think it 
would blow holes right through the fabric.
  I think it is especially regrettable they would be offered here, 
because there was agreement to pursue this issue in a bipartisan 
manner. If any area deserves a bipartisan approach, it is ethics 
standards of this House.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on those two key amendments. I also suggest 
if they would carry, I would vote against the bill, because I would 
feel that it had become instead of an adequate response, a very 
inadequate one.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will take the time now to talk about the two other 
amendments that were made in order under the rule. One, I think Mr. 
Berman covered very adequately, about the automatic dismissal if a 
matter pending a vote on an investigation is not carried. If the matter 
is still pending for another 180 days, there would be an automatic 
dismissal. Under one of the amendments that was made in order.
  We should be aware that the current rules of the committee provide 
for no such action. Mr. Berman pointed out, and I concur, that when you 
put a deadline in a split vote causing a dismissal, you are encouraging 
that action.
  It is not difficult for a committee equally divided, Democrats and 
Republicans, to do nothing for 6 months, particularly if there is 
tremendous pressure from one of the political parties.
  If you have a person who is perceived to be the target of a political 
complaint, regardless of how meritorious that complaint might be, there 
will be tremendous pressure on the committee to break according to 
party line.
  Mr. Chairman, we had some difficult times over the past couple years; 
some very difficult matters appeared before our committee. But we were 
able to resolve all those issues, because we knew we had to get a 
bipartisan vote, that we could not just split along partisan lines.
  We resolved the issue. Should they have been done sooner? You bet 
they should have been done sooner, and our rule changes provide for 
much faster action. The chairman and ranking member must act within 14 
days on a complaint. There is a limit as to when one must start in an 
investigation. So we provide for a more timely investigation. We deal 
with the problem. But if we just say it is going to be a dismissal, we 
have not dealt with the problem. In fact, we have done a disservice

[[Page H7550]]

to the Member because it is likely there is going to be another 
complaint filed, another complaint filed, everybody is going to be 
yelling it is partisan. Does this institution look good in that 
circumstance? Does the Member look good? No.
  We need to resolve our issues. We have heard from the ranking member. 
We have heard from the chairman of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct. They are going to work together. Let us have a little 
confidence that we can do our constitutional responsibility. I would 
urge Members to reject that amendment.
  There is a third amendment, which would take away from the 
subcommittee the ability to expand the scope of an investigation or to 
issue subpoenas. That would be a mistake.
  We have gone to great lengths to protect the bifurcation of the 
system. The people who do the investigation should be separated from 
those who sit in judgment. If we had to go back to those who sit in 
judgment in order to explain why we want to expand the scope, we are 
compromising the objectivity of those that ultimately will sit in 
judgment.
  Before we reached this point under the rules that we have, we will 
have passed at least three bipartisan hurdles, three bipartisan hurled 
else will already have been passed. First, there will be action of the 
chairman and ranking member that we have a legitimate complaint. 
Second, the chairman and ranking member will have gone through the 
initial factfinding and got even into an investigation through the 
approval of either the chairman or ranking member of the committee. And 
third, by a bipartisan vote of the investigative committee, we will 
have gone into an investigative stage.
  So this is not a situation of a partisan problem. This is a situation 
of protecting the integrity of the process. For the reasons stated, I 
would urge the Members to reject all three amendments on substance. 
They were rejected by the task force, and, just as importantly, they 
open up partisan wounds. That would be a mistake on this day when we 
can move forward on the ethics process in a bipartisan manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
very distinguished gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], a member of 
the task force who was extremely valuable to the deliberations of our 
work product.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Louisiana for yielding me this time. I cannot say enough about the work 
that he and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], did on this task 
force. They are tenacious, they are highly understanding of this 
process, and I think without their leadership, frankly, this would not 
have been done.
  I am a supporter of the product which came from this committee. I was 
the only one on it who has never served on the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct, and, frankly, I hope never to serve on it, based 
on what I have seen. But, having said that, hopefully we have made it 
easier for those who will serve in the future.
  While there are some areas that are contentious, such as should 
outsiders be allowed to do this, I realized 15 minutes into the 
proceedings we are not going to please everybody, it is impossible to 
do that, so some hard decisions had to be made.
  In fact, every decision made was hard. There are many, many 
decisions, literally in the hundreds, that had to be made by the 
committee, and virtually in every case I think we improved the product, 
which is the rules and procedures for the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct.
  We reduced the potential for partisanship, which has not been talked 
about too much, but the committee staff shall be nonpartisan, 
professional, and available to all as a resource. That is an important 
change.
  We have standards now for timely resolution of matters before the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct by setting time limits for 
determining whether a complaint is properly filed or should go to 
subcommittee. That did not exist before and that is a very significant 
change.
  We have dealt with providing safeguards as to providing adequate and 
timely information to Members who might be accused of standards 
violations so they have the ability to defend themselves against 
complaints filed against them. That is important. That has not been 
done in the past, and that is a significant change.
  I believe this package contains many more items like that, most done 
on a bipartisan basis.
  As far as the amendments are concerned, I hope Members, staff and the 
public in general looking at the amendments would consider them very, 
very substantially and cautiously before casting any votes, 
particularly in favor of them. They are in a position to be very 
disruptive to the process of what this committee has done, and I think 
that needs to be kept in mind. But the bill should be adopted.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, once again I encourage Members to please review the 
work of our task force. I agree with the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. 
Castle], please look at these amendments carefully.
  We have a bipartisan product. Ethics reform must be done in a 
bipartisan manner. The amendments that will be offered will not be 
supported in a bipartisan way. I can give you the policy reasons why 
the task force rejected them. I have already done that. But I think it 
is important for this institution, for the credibility of this 
institution, for us to move the ethics process as far as we can in a 
bipartisan manner.
  As the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] knows, there are 
many provisions in this package that I would have liked to have seen 
differently. I did not offer amendments to change the package to meet 
my individual agenda. I did that because of the respect for our product 
and the process that was used, a fair process. It is now important for 
this House to ratify that process.
  Today we can make major progress in improving the ethics procedures 
in this body by supporting the work of the task force and by resisting 
the amendments that will be offered.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the three amendments, to support the 
final report, and to let us move forward to move the ethics process and 
improve the credibility of this institution in the eyes of the public.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, once again I want to commend the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], all the members of the task 
force, and all the staff who have contributed so mightily to this work 
product. It is a fine work product, something we can be proud of.
  I take issue to my friend from Maryland only to the extent that I 
attribute only good faith to those Members who in bipartisan fashion 
are proposing amendments to this task force product.
  I would say that there is concern on behalf of some Members with 
regard to the second amendment we will consider dealing with, whether 
or not outside nonmembers can file complaints with the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct. I would say in response to the 
gentleman's concern that, a sexually harassed member of a staff could 
not have any avenue for response, they can still come to the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct. Even if that amendment were to pass, 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct can still entertain that 
complaint of sexual harassment.
  Even if they did not want to do that, since Congress applied all of 
the laws of the Nation to ourselves, she can even go to the EEOC, or 
any other avenue that any other American citizen can go to, to complain 
of sexual harassment. I just do not buy that argument.
  So Members in bipartisan fashion have to consider, do we want 
outsiders to come in and complain against us, or do we want to leave 
that responsibility to ourselves? I think that is a legitimate question 
and one that should be answered by the majority of the Members in 
bipartisan fashion.
  Apart from that, I think we have a great package. I am proud of the 
work

[[Page H7551]]

product and the association I have had with all of the people that 
contributed to it, and I urge the adoption of the package.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
House Resolution 168, a resolution that would implement the 
recommendations of the bipartisan House Ethics Reform Task Force. I 
would also like to commend the bipartisan task force for its dedication 
and commitment to developing new standards for the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct to follow. They have had an extremely 
difficult assignment to do, and I believe they have done an admirable 
job. Their legislation represents an important initial step toward 
restoring public confidence in the House of Representatives.
  Unfortunately, I am committed to speaking before over 1,000 people at 
the African Association of Physiological Sciences [AAPS] and the 
African Regional Training Center/Network for the Basic Medical Sciences 
[AFRET] in Durban, South Africa. If I had been present, I would have 
voted in favor of this measure which I am confident will help repair a 
ethics process that has been properly criticized by both Members of 
Congress and the American people.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired. Pursuant to 
the rule, the resolution is considered read for amendment under the 5-
minute rule.
  The text of House Resolution 168 is as follows:

                              H. Res. 168

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. USE OF NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

       (a) Rules Amendment.--Clause 6(a) of rule X of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(3)(A) At the beginning of each Congress--
       ``(i) the Speaker (or his designee) shall designate a list 
     of 10 Members from the majority party; and
       ``(ii) the minority leader (or his designee) shall 
     designate a list of 10 Members from the minority party;

     who are not members of the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct and who may be assigned to serve as a member of an 
     investigative subcommittee of that committee during that 
     Congress. Members so chosen shall be announced to the House.
       ``(B) Whenever the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct jointly 
     determine that Members designated under subdivision (A) 
     should be assigned to serve on an investigative subcommittee 
     of that committee, they shall each select the same number of 
     Members of his respective party from the list to serve on 
     that subcommittee.''.
       (b) Conforming Rules Amendment.--Clause 6(b)(2)(A) of rule 
     X of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
     inserting after the first sentence the following new 
     sentence: ``Service on an investigative subcommittee of the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct pursuant to 
     paragraph (a)(3) shall not be counted against the limitation 
     on subcommittee service.''.

     SEC. 2. DURATION OF SERVICE ON THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF 
                   OFFICIAL CONDUCT.

       The second sentence of clause 6(a)(2) of rule X of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read as 
     follows: ``No Member shall serve as a member of the Committee 
     on Standards of Official Conduct for more than two Congresses 
     in any period of three successive Congresses (disregarding 
     for this purpose any service performed as a member of such 
     committee for less than a full session in any Congress), 
     except that a Member having served on the committee for two 
     Congresses shall be eligible for election to the committee as 
     chairman or ranking minority member for one additional 
     Congress. Not less than two Members from each party shall 
     rotate off the committee at the end of each Congress.''.

     SEC. 3. COMMITTEE AGENDAS.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall adopt 
     rules providing that the chairman shall establish the agenda 
     for meetings of the committee, but shall not preclude the 
     ranking minority member from placing any item on the agenda.

     SEC. 4. COMMITTEE STAFF.

       (a) Committee Rules.--The Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing that:
       (1)(A) The staff is to be assembled and retained as a 
     professional, nonpartisan staff.
       (B) Each member of the staff shall be professional and 
     demonstrably qualified for the position for which he is 
     hired.
       (C) The staff as a whole and each member of the staff shall 
     perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner.
       (D) No member of the staff shall engage in any partisan 
     political activity directly affecting any congressional or 
     presidential election.
       (E) No member of the staff or outside counsel may accept 
     public speaking engagements or write for publication on any 
     subject that is in any way related to his or her employment 
     or duties with the committee without specific prior approval 
     from the chairman and ranking minority member.
       (F) No member of the staff or outside counsel may make 
     public, unless approved by an affirmative vote of a majority 
     of the members of the committee, any information, document, 
     or other material that is confidential, derived from 
     executive session, or classified and that is obtained during 
     the course of employment with the committee.
       (2)(A) All staff members shall be appointed by an 
     affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
     committee. Such vote shall occur at the first meeting of the 
     membership of the committee during each Congress and as 
     necessary during the Congress.
       (B) Subject to the approval of Committee on House 
     Oversight, the committee may retain counsel not employed by 
     the House of Representatives whenever the committee 
     determines, by an affirmative vote of a majority of the 
     members of the committee, that the retention of outside 
     counsel is necessary and appropriate.
       (C) If the committee determines that it is necessary to 
     retain staff members for the purpose of a particular 
     investigation or other proceeding, then such staff shall be 
     retained only for the duration of that particular 
     investigation or proceeding.
       (3) Outside counsel may be dismissed prior to the end of a 
     contract between the committee and such counsel only by an 
     affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
     committee.
       (4) Only subparagraphs (C), (E), and (F) of paragraph (1) 
     shall apply to shared staff.
       (b) Additional Committee Staff.--In addition to any other 
     staff provided for by law, rule, or other authority, with 
     respect to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     the chairman and ranking minority member each may appoint one 
     individual as a shared staff member from his or her personal 
     staff to perform service for the committee. Such shared staff 
     may assist the chairman or ranking minority member on any 
     subcommittee on which he serves.

     SEC. 5. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS.

       (a) House Rules.--(1) Clause 4(e)(3) of rule X of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3)(A) Notwithstanding clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI, each 
     meeting of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or 
     any subcommittee thereof shall occur in executive session, 
     unless the committee or subcommittee by an affirmative vote 
     of a majority of its members opens the meeting to the public.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI, hearings 
     of an adjudicatory subcommittee or sanction hearings held by 
     the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall be held 
     in open session unless the subcommittee or committee, in open 
     session by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, 
     closes all or part of the remainder of the hearing on that 
     day to the public.''.
       (2)(A) The first sentence of clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
     inserting ``(except the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct)'' after ``thereof''.
       (B) The first sentence of clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by inserting 
     ``(except the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct)'' 
     after ``thereof''.
       (b) Committee Rules.--The Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing that--
       (1) all meetings of the committee or any subcommittee 
     thereof shall occur in executive session unless the committee 
     or subcommittee by an affirmative vote of a majority of its 
     members opens the meeting or hearing to the public; and
       (2) any hearing held by an adjudicatory subcommittee or any 
     sanction hearing held by the committee shall be open to the 
     public unless the committee or subcommittee by an affirmative 
     vote of a majority of its members closes the hearing to the 
     public.

     SEC. 6. CONFIDENTIALITY OATHS.

       Clause 4(e) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4) Before any member, officer, or employee of the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, including members 
     of any subcommittee of the committee selected pursuant to 
     clause 6(a)(3) and shared staff, may have access to 
     information that is confidential under the rules of the 
     committee, the following oath (or affirmation) shall be 
     executed:

     `I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose, to 
     any person or entity outside the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct, any information received in the course of 
     my service with the committee, except as authorized by the 
     committee or in accordance with its rules.'

     Copies of the executed oath shall be retained by the Clerk of 
     the House as part of the records of the House. This 
     subparagraph establishes a standard of conduct within the 
     meaning of subparagraph (1)(B). Breaches of confidentiality 
     shall be investigated by the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct and appropriate action shall be taken.''.

     SEC. 7. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall adopt 
     rules providing that, unless otherwise determined by a vote 
     of the committee, only the chairman or ranking minority 
     member, after consultation with each other, may make public 
     statements regarding matters before the committee or any 
     subcommittee thereof.

     SEC. 8. CONFIDENTIALITY OF COMMITTEE VOTES.

       (a) Records.--The last sentence in clause 2(e)(1) of rule 
     XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
     adding before

[[Page H7552]]

     the period at the end the following: ``, except that in the 
     case of rollcall votes in the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct taken in executive session, the result of 
     any such vote shall not be made available for inspection by 
     the public without an affirmative vote of a majority of the 
     members of the committee''.
       (b) Reports.--Clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentence: ``The preceding sentence shall 
     not apply to votes taken in executive session by the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.''.

     SEC. 9. FILINGS BY NON-MEMBERS OF INFORMATION OFFERED AS A 
                   COMPLAINT.

       (a) Filings Sponsored by Members.--Clause 4(e)(2)(B) of 
     rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
     amended by striking ``or submitted to'', by inserting ``(I)'' 
     after ``(i)'', by striking ``a complaint'' and inserting 
     ``information offered as a complaint'', and by adding after 
     subdivision (I) the following new subdivision:
       ``(II) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, 
     in writing and under oath, from an individual not a Member of 
     the House provided that a Member of the House certifies in 
     writing to the committee that he or she believes the 
     information is submitted in good faith and warrants the 
     review and consideration of the committee, or''.
       (b) Direct Filing.--Clause 4(e)(2)(B)(ii) of rule X of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(ii) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, 
     in writing and under oath, directly from an individual not a 
     Member of the House.''.

     SEC. 10. REQUIREMENTS TO CONSTITUTE A COMPLAINT.

       (a) Procedural Requirements.--The Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall amend its rules regarding procedural 
     requirements governing information submitted as a complaint 
     pursuant to clause 4(e)(2)(B)(ii) of rule X of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives to provide that--
       (1) an individual who submits information to the committee 
     offered as a complaint must either have personal knowledge of 
     conduct which is the basis of the violation alleged in the 
     information, or base the information offered as a complaint 
     upon--
       (A) information received from another individual who the 
     complainant has a good faith reason to believe has personal 
     knowledge of such conduct; or
       (B) his personal review of--
       (i) documents kept in the ordinary course of business, 
     government, or personal affairs; or
       (ii) photographs, films, videotapes, or recordings;

     that contain information regarding conduct which is the basis 
     of a violation alleged in the information offered as a 
     complaint;
       (2) a complainant or an individual from whom the 
     complainant obtains information will be found to have 
     personal knowledge of conduct which is the basis of the 
     violation alleged in the information offered as a complaint 
     if the complainant or that individual witnessed or was a 
     participant in such conduct; and
       (3) an individual who submits information offered as a 
     complaint consisting solely of information contained in a 
     news or opinion source or publication that he believes to be 
     true does not have the requisite personal knowledge.
       (b) Time for Determination.--The Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall amend its rules regarding complaints 
     to provide that whenever information offered as a complaint 
     is submitted to the committee, the chairman and ranking 
     minority member shall have 14 calendar days or 5 legislative 
     days, whichever occurs first, to determine whether the 
     information meets the requirements of the committee's rules 
     for what constitutes a complaint.

     SEC. 11. DUTIES OF CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MINORITY MEMBER 
                   REGARDING PROPERLY FILED COMPLAINTS.

       (a) Committee Rules.--The Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing that whenever 
     the chairman and ranking minority member jointly determine 
     that information submitted to the committee meets the 
     requirements of the committee's rules for what constitutes a 
     complaint, they shall have 45 calendar days or 5 legislative 
     days, whichever is later, after the date that the chairman 
     and ranking minority member determine that information filed 
     meets the requirements of the committee's rules for what 
     constitutes a complaint, unless the committee by an 
     affirmative vote of a majority of its members votes 
     otherwise, to--
       (1) recommend to the committee that it dispose of the 
     complaint, or any portion thereof, in any manner that does 
     not require action by the House, which may include dismissal 
     of the complaint or resolution of the complaint by a 
     letter to the Member, officer, or employee of the House 
     against whom the complaint is made;
       (2) establish an investigative subcommittee; or
       (3) request that the committee extend the applicable 45-
     calendar day or 5-legislative day period by one additional 
     45-calendar day period when they determine more time is 
     necessary in order to make a recommendation under paragraph 
     (1).
       (b) House Rules.--Clause 4(e)(2)(A) of rule X of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives is amended by inserting 
     ``(i)'' after ``(A)'', by striking ``and no'' and inserting 
     ``and, except as provided by subdivision (ii), no'', and by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii)(I) Upon the receipt of information offered as a 
     complaint that is in compliance with this rule and the 
     committee rules, the chairman and ranking minority member may 
     jointly appoint members to serve as an investigative 
     subcommittee.
       ``(II) The chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     committee may jointly gather additional information 
     concerning alleged conduct which is the basis of a complaint 
     or of information offered as a complaint until they have 
     established an investigative subcommittee or the chairman or 
     ranking minority member has placed on the committee agenda 
     the issue of whether to establish an investigative 
     subcommittee.''.
       (c) Disposition of Properly Filed Complaints by Chairman 
     and Ranking Minority Member if no Action Taken by Them Within 
     Prescribed Time Limit.--The Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing that if the 
     chairman and ranking minority member jointly determine that 
     information submitted to the committee meets the requirements 
     of the committee rules for what constitutes a complaint, and 
     the complaint is not disposed of within the applicable time 
     periods under subsection (a), then they shall establish an 
     investigative subcommittee and forward the complaint, or any 
     portion thereof, to that subcommittee for its consideration. 
     However, if, at any time during those periods, either the 
     chairman or ranking minority member places on the agenda the 
     issue of whether to establish an investigative subcommittee, 
     then an investigative subcommittee may be established only by 
     an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
     committee.
       (d) House Rules.--Clause 4(e)(2)(B) of rule X of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new sentences:

     ``If a complaint is not disposed of within the applicable 
     time periods set forth in the rules of the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct, then the chairman and ranking 
     minority member shall jointly establish an investigative 
     subcommittee and forward the complaint, or any portion 
     thereof, to that subcommittee for its consideration. However, 
     if, at any time during those periods, either the chairman or 
     ranking minority member places on the agenda the issue of 
     whether to establish an investigative subcommittee,then an 
     investigative subcommittee may be established only by an 
     affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
     committee.''.

     SEC. 12. DUTIES OF CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MINORITY MEMBER 
                   REGARDING INFORMATION NOT CONSTITUTING A 
                   COMPLAINT.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall adopt 
     rules providing that whenever the chairman and ranking 
     minority member jointly determine that information submitted 
     to the committee does not meet the requirements for what 
     constitutes a complaint set forth in the committee rules, 
     they may--
       (1) return the information to the complainant with a 
     statement that it fails to meet the requirements for what 
     constitutes a complaint set forth in the committee's rules; 
     or
       (2) recommend to the committee that it authorize the 
     establishment of an investigative subcommittee.

     SEC. 13. INVESTIGATIVE AND ADJUDICATORY SUBCOMMITTEES.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall adopt 
     rules providing that--
       (1)(A) investigative subcommittees shall be comprised of 4 
     Members (with equal representation from the majority and 
     minority parties) whenever such subcommittee is established 
     pursuant to the rules of the committee; and
       (B) adjudicatory subcommittees shall be comprised of the 
     members of the committee who did not serve on the 
     investigative subcommittee (with equal representation from 
     the majority and minority parties) whenever such subcommittee 
     is established pursuant to the rules of the committee;
       (2) at the time of appointment, the chairman shall 
     designate one member of the subcommittee to serve as chairman 
     and the ranking minority member shall designate one member of 
     the subcommittee to serve as the ranking minority member of 
     the investigative subcommittee or adjudicatory subcommittee; 
     and
       (3) the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     committee may serve as members of an investigative 
     subcommittee, but may not serve as non-voting, ex officio 
     members.

     SEC. 14. STANDARD OF PROOF FOR ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF 
                   ALLEGED VIOLATION.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall amend 
     its rules to provide that an investigative subcommittee may 
     adopt a statement of alleged violation only if it determines 
     by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
     committee that there is substantial reason to believe that a 
     violation of the Code of Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, 
     regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the 
     performance of official duties or the discharge of official 
     responsibilities by a Member, officer, or employee of the 
     House of Representatives has occurred.

     SEC. 15. SUBCOMMITTEE POWERS.

       (a) Subpoena Power.--

[[Page H7553]]

       (1) House rules.--Clause 2(m)(2)(A) of rule XI of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives is amended--
       (A) in the second sentence by striking ``The'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided by the next sentence, the''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting after the second sentence the following 
     new sentence: ``In the case of the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct or any subcommittee thereof, a subpoena may 
     be authorized and issued by the committee only when 
     authorized by a majority of the members voting (a majority 
     being present) or by a subcommittee only when authorized by 
     an affirmative vote of a majority of its members.''.
       (2) Committee rules.--The Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing that an 
     investigative subcommittee or an adjudicatory subcommittee 
     may authorize and issue subpoenas only when authorized by an 
     affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
     subcommittee.
       (b) Expansion of Scope of Investigations.--The Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing 
     that an investigative subcommittee may, upon an affirmative 
     vote of a majority of its members, expand the scope of its 
     investigation without the approval of the committee.
       (c) Amendments of Statements of Alleged Violation.--The 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall adopt rules 
     to provide that--
       (1) an investigative subcommittee may, upon an affirmative 
     vote of a majority of its members, amend its statement of 
     alleged violation anytime before the statement of alleged 
     violation is transmitted to the committee; and
       (2) if an investigative subcommittee amends its statement 
     of alleged violation, the respondent shall be notified in 
     writing and shall have 30 calendar days from the date of that 
     notification to file an answer to the amended statement of 
     alleged violation.

     SEC. 16. DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF RESPONDENTS.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall amend 
     its rules to provide that--
       (1) not less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled vote 
     by an investigative subcommittee on a statement of alleged 
     violation, the subcommittee shall provide the respondent with 
     a copy of the statement of alleged violation it intends to 
     adopt together with all evidence it intends to use to prove 
     those charges which it intends to adopt, including 
     documentary evidence, witness testimony, memoranda of witness 
     interviews, and physical evidence, unless the subcommittee by 
     an affirmative vote of a majority of its members decides to 
     withhold certain evidence in order to protect a witness, but 
     if such evidence is withheld, the subcommittee shall inform 
     the respondent that evidence is being withheld and of the 
     count to which such evidence relates;
       (2) neither the respondent nor his counsel shall, directly 
     or indirectly, contact the subcommittee or any member thereof 
     during the period of time set forth in paragraph (1) except 
     for the sole purpose of settlement discussions where counsels 
     for the respondent and the subcommittee are present;
       (3) if, at any time after the issuance of a statement of 
     alleged violation, the committee or any subcommittee thereof 
     determines that it intends to use evidence not provided to a 
     respondent under paragraph (1) to prove the charges contained 
     in the statement of alleged violation (or any amendment 
     thereof), such evidence shall be made immediately available 
     to the respondent, and it may be used in any further 
     proceeding under the committee's rules;
       (4) evidence provided pursuant to paragraph (1) or (3) 
     shall be made available to the respondent and his or her 
     counsel only after each agrees, in writing, that no document, 
     information, or other materials obtained pursuant to that 
     paragraph shall be made public until--
       (A) such time as a statement of alleged violation is made 
     public by the committee if the respondent has waived the 
     adjudicatory hearing; or
       (B) the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing if the 
     respondent has not waived an adjudicatory hearing;

     but the failure of respondent and his counsel to so agree in 
     writing, and therefore not receive the evidence, shall not 
     preclude the issuance of a statement of alleged violation at 
     the end of the period referred to in paragraph (1);
       (5) a respondent shall receive written notice whenever--
       (A) the chairman and ranking minority member determine that 
     information the committee has received constitutes a 
     complaint;
       (B) a complaint or allegation is transmitted to an 
     investigative subcommittee;
       (C) that subcommittee votes to authorize its first subpoena 
     or to take testimony under oath, whichever occurs first; and
       (D) an investigative subcommittee votes to expand the scope 
     of its investigation;
       (6) whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a 
     statement of alleged violation and a respondent enters into 
     an agreement with that subcommittee to settle a complaint on 
     which that statement is based, that agreement, unless the 
     respondent requests otherwise, shall be in writing and signed 
     by the respondent and respondent's counsel, the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and the outside 
     counsel, if any;
       (7) statements or information derived solely from a 
     respondent or his counsel during any settlement discussions 
     between the committee or a subcommittee thereof and the 
     respondent shall not be included in any report of the 
     subcommittee or the committee or otherwise publicly disclosed 
     without the consent of the respondent; and
       (8) whenever a motion to establish an investigative 
     subcommittee does not prevail, the committee shall promptly 
     send a letter to the respondent informing him of such vote.

     SEC. 17. COMMITTEE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall amend 
     its rules to provide that--
       (1) whenever an investigative subcommittee does not adopt a 
     statement of alleged violation and transmits a report to that 
     effect to the committee, the committee may by an affirmative 
     vote of a majority of its members transmit such report to the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (2) whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a 
     statement of alleged violation, the respondent admits to the 
     violations set forth in such statement, the respondent waives 
     his or her right to an adjudicatory hearing, and the 
     respondent's waiver is approved by the committee--
       (A) the subcommittee shall prepare a report for transmittal 
     to the committee, a final draft of which shall be provided to 
     the respondent not less than 15 calendar days before the 
     subcommittee votes on whether to adopt the report;
       (B) the respondent may submit views in writing regarding 
     the final draft to the subcommittee within 7 calendar days of 
     receipt of that draft;
       (C) the subcommittee shall transmit a report to the 
     committee regarding the statement of alleged violation 
     together with any views submitted by the respondent pursuant 
     to subparagraph (B), and the committee shall make the report 
     together with the respondent's views available to the public 
     before the commencement of any sanction hearing; and
       (D) the committee shall by an affirmative vote of a 
     majority of its members issue a report and transmit such 
     report to the House of Representatives, together with the 
     respondent's views previously submitted pursuant to 
     subparagraph (B) and any additional views respondent may 
     submit for attachment to the final report; and
       (3) members of the committee shall have not less than 72 
     hours to review any report transmitted to the committee by an 
     investigative subcommittee before both the commencement of a 
     sanction hearing and the committee vote on whether to adopt 
     the report.

     SEC. 18. REFERRALS TO FEDERAL OR STATE AUTHORITIES.

       Clause 4(e)(1)(C) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by striking ``with the approval of 
     the House'' and inserting ``either with the approval of the 
     House or by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members 
     of the committee''.

     SEC. 19. FRIVOLOUS FILINGS.

       Clause 4(e) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5)(A) If a complaint or information offered as a 
     complaint is deemed frivolous by an affirmative vote of a 
     majority of the members of the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct, the committee may take such action as it, 
     by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, deems 
     appropriate in the circumstances.
       ``(B) Complaints filed before the One Hundred Fifth 
     Congress may not be deemed frivolous by the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct.''.

     SEC. 20. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall--
       (1) clarify its rules to provide that whenever the 
     committee votes to authorize an investigation on its own 
     initiative, the chairman and ranking minority member shall 
     establish an investigative subcommittee to undertake such 
     investigation;
       (2) revise its rules to refer to hearings held by an 
     adjudicatory subcommittee as adjudicatory hearings; and
       (3) make such other amendments to its rules as necessary to 
     conform such rules to this resolution.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the resolution is in order except those 
printed in House Report 105-250. Those amendments may be offered only 
in the order printed in the report and by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 105-250.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Livingston

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 1, made in order 
under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H7554]]


  Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Livingston:
       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC. 21. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This resolution and the amendments made by it apply with 
     respect to any complaint or information offered as a 
     complaint that is or has been filed during this Congress.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 230, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] be allowed to control 5 minutes, 
whether or not he is opposed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cardin] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, actually this amendment is offered by the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] and myself in bipartisan fashion. Basically 
it serves to overcome an anomaly that might have been created were it 
not adopted, in that the moratorium, the ninth moratorium on the filing 
of complaints to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
expired last week, and unless we adopt this amendment, frankly, what it 
means is that the filings which came in to the committee between the 
ending of the moratorium and the time which these rules were amended 
might be considered under the old rules, or they might be considered 
under the new rules, but, frankly, nobody would really know, and 
especially the counsel for respondents would be in a disastrous 
position if they were required to respond to allegations against their 
clients under both sets of rules.

                              {time}  1345

  So this is an attempt to clear that up and would simply make sure 
that everyone knows that any complaints coming up to the point of the 
adoption of this new package will be considered under this new package.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of my colleague, does this amendment 
resolve the issue of whether or not the new rules will apply, in whole 
or in part, to those complaints filed in prior Congresses that may be 
carried over to this Congress?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the amendment does 
not specifically relate to that. However, it is our expectation, and 
the understanding of all of the task force members, that in accordance 
with precedent the Committee will determine by majority vote which, if 
any, complaints filed in the previous Congress will be considered in 
the current term. Once accepted, it is the intent of the task force 
that such complaints shall be treated in all respects as if they had 
been accepted under the new rules, which shall then govern accordingly.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I 
agree with my cochairman's interpretation. Complaints that carry over 
by an affirmative vote of the committee would be considered as being in 
the same status as they were in the previous Congress when it 
adjourned. They would then proceed under the new rules in this 
Congress, which I believe is our understanding.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. In order to simplify that, Mr. Chairman, let me 
simply say that I appreciate my friend's comments, and if he has no 
further requests for time, I would simply say, this is a clarifying, 
technical amendment to make all concerned know that any further 
disposition of complaints will be utilized and enforced by the new 
rules and no preceding rules that govern Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, staff just pointed out, and let me just clarify again 
so it is clear, under the amendment that we have before us, although it 
does not directly deal with it, it is our understanding that if the 
committee votes to carry over a complaint, that that complaint would be 
considered properly filed. It would then proceed under the new rules in 
this Congress in the status it was at the adjournment of the last 
Congress.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is 
correct, assuming that the committee votes by majority to accept the 
complaint previously filed.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the cochairman's 
interpretation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420, 
noes 0, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 408]

                               AYES--420

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas

[[Page H7555]]


     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Kim
       

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bonilla
     Conyers
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Granger
     Meek
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Pickering
     Schiff

                              {time}  1405

  Ms. CARSON and Mr. SUNUNU changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 105-250.


                 Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Murtha

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Murtha:
       Page 9, strike line 16 and all that follows thereafter 
     through page 10, line 10, and insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 9. FILINGS BY NON-MEMBERS OF INFORMATION OFFERED AS A 
                   COMPLAINT.

       (a) Filings Sponsored by Members.--Clause 4(e)(2)(B) of 
     Rule X of the rules of the House of Representatives is 
     amended by striking ``or submitted to'', by striking ``a 
     complaint'' and inserting ``information offered as a 
     complaint'', and by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, 
     in writing and under oath, from an individual not a Member of 
     the House provided that a Member of the House certifies in 
     writing to the committee that he or she believes the 
     information is submitted in good faith and warrants the 
     review and consideration of the committee.
       Page 10, strike line 12 and all that follows thereafter 
     through page 11, line 23, and on line 24, strike ``(b) Time 
     for Determination.--.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 230, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] rise in opposition?
  Mr. CARDIN. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] will control 
15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me explain what I am trying to do, so Members will 
understand the thrust of the amendment that I am offering.
  What I am concerned about, having been before the Ethics Committee 
and having been cleared by the Ethics Committee in a unanimous vote, a 
lot of people said they were on the Ethics Committee. I was before the 
Ethics Committee, and the process, I thought, worked very well. I was 
cleared with a bipartisan vote, overwhelming vote, that cleared my 
charges. I went through a long process. Naturally, anybody that is 
accused goes through a difficult process.
  But I was also on the Ethics Committee for a period of time, and we 
had a number of cases. As some people have said in the past, most of 
those cases were handled in a bipartisan manner. It took a lot of 
argument, it took a lot of back and forth, but they were all handled 
fairly expeditiously.
  What I worry about is frivolous complaints offered by outside groups. 
I am not talking about responsible outside groups. We have a lot of 
groups that call themselves watchdogs and so forth, and they have a 
legitimate status. I do not think those particular organizations would 
offer a frivolous complaint. But there are partisan organizations on 
both sides of the aisle that would offer an amendment right during an 
election cycle that could be very harmful to the Member.
  We do not notice the publicity in Washington in most cases. There is 
one story about a complaint being filed, and we do not see much more 
about it. But that person that is accused goes through a tremendous 
process of news, as if the person has been indicted and convicted.
  As soon as there is a newspaper report that a charge has been made, 
the hometown newspapers focus on that individual, and they do not say 
the individual is guilty, but they intimidate people and they make 
people believe he is guilty, and it costs tremendous amounts of money 
to defend yourself, because you are portrayed as the guilty person.
  What I would like to see is, a Member would have to make the 
complaint. Now, we established the Ethics Committee for one reason. 
That is to police ourselves. We should police ourselves. But a Member 
should be convinced to offer the complaint. It is an information until 
the two, the chairman and vice chairman, cochairman, whatever we call 
the ethics top leaders now, decide on them.
  I believe that one more process, due process, is important. I believe 
somebody on the outside should be forced to go to a Member and convince 
that Member. I thought it was a sham before, when you go to three 
Members and they do not sign a complaint. They say, I will not sign a 
complaint.
  I believe that we have a responsibility to bring a complaint forward 
if we have knowledge of something that is wrong. I think Members of the 
House will take that responsibility. There is no question in my mind 
that the Members can police themselves under every circumstance.
  The rules of the House are very complicated. I think a Member should 
take the responsibility if there is any problem, if there is 
information found. Too many times, a person takes a newspaper report, 
they take information they know nothing about, and they send it in as a 
frivolous report, and it means all kinds of problems for that elected 
official.
  We have to run every 2 years. Nobody asks us to run, but our 
reputation is on the line. I absolutely believe it is important that, 
to give an individual due process, we should have to convince a Member 
of Congress to offer the information or the complaint.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the deepest respect for the author of this 
amendment. He is a person who has fought long and hard to improve the 
credibility of this institution. I disagree with this amendment. I 
think it moves in the wrong direction.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] mentioned a couple of 
points that I would like to directly respond to. First, he says it 
takes too long for us to consider complaints. I agree with him. That is 
why, in our resolution, we have provided to the chairman and ranking 
member to have but 14 days to determine whether a matter is a complaint 
or not, while we have 45 days of initial factfinding, and then they 
must do something with the complaint, so it cannot sit there 
indefinitely.

                              {time}  1415

  I agree with the sponsor of the amendment in that regard. The problem 
is that his amendment does not fit into the work of our committee. 
There are some additional powers that we gave the chairman and ranking 
member that quite frankly would not have been there but for the fact 
that we have direct filing of outside complaints. Those provisions are 
unaffected by the Murtha amendment. The

[[Page H7556]]

amendment does not fit. It is going to cause problems for the process.
  The sponsor mentioned newspaper accounts. We have a specific resume 
which adopts, by the way, the practice of the other body that says a 
newspaper account cannot be the basis of personal knowledge. So an 
outsider cannot use a newspaper article as the basis of filing a 
complaint. We specifically provide for that.
  Since we have had a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, since 
we have adopted the ethics rules in this House, we have permitted 
nonmembers to file complaints. If this amendment is adopted, it will be 
the first time in the history of this Chamber since we have adopted 
ethics procedures that we will close the doors to outsiders. I think 
that is wrong.
  During general debate I mentioned an example of a person, staff 
person, and this is just a hypothetical, who has been solicited by her 
boss to do sexual favors for promotion. Does any of us want that person 
to have to shop a Member of the House in order to bring that complaint? 
Should that matter not be directly able to come to the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct as a complaint? Where is the dignity of a 
person who has a problem with a Member of being able to present it to 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct?
  I know that they can present and they have other legal recourse here. 
That is legal recourse. We are talking about the ethical standards for 
Members of the House and we want our Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct to be able to judge the conduct of Members of the House. As 
well intended as this amendment is, it denies that ability for us to be 
able to adequately judge our Members.
  The Murtha amendment not only takes away direct filing, but it 
changes the current rules of the House where outside groups can have 
one of two ways of getting a complaint filed. One is eliminated, the 
other is changed by the Murtha amendment. The three-Member refusal is 
gone. This amendment stops it. And even the transmittal by a Member of 
a non-Member's complaint is changed if the Murtha amendment is adopted, 
because under the current rule a Member can transmit a complaint by a 
non-Member. Under these rules, under this amendment it would require 
the certification of a Member.
  Once again, is it right to demand that a person who has a legitimate 
problem have to search out and find a Member of the House?
  Let me give my colleagues one more example. A constituent receives a 
mailing from a Member on official stationery soliciting money for a 
campaign. Clearly against our rules. Now, if that constituent goes, if 
that happens to be a Democratic Member of Congress and it goes to 
another Democrat to try to transmit the amendment, we put a Democrat in 
a very difficult position. Goes to a Republican, it is partisan.
  Why should they have to get the stamp of approval before they 
transmit to us and then we make the judgment? What are we afraid of? We 
have given the power to the chairman and ranking member, why should we 
close the doors after all these years?
  I urge my colleagues, in the sense of fairness, we have raised the 
bar for non-Members filing complaints, and properly so. We have reached 
a fair compromise. Let us not slam the door totally and pretend that we 
only can present information against a Member. That is wrong. We will 
lose the confidence of the outside world, and rightly so. I urge my 
colleagues to reject the Murtha amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I will take only a brief period of time to point out to the 
gentleman from Maryland in his argument that, in fact, the hypothetical 
that he presented does cause some concern. That is, for example, a 
staff member having some concern about the activities of the Member, up 
to and including, we hope not, some type of sexual harassment. But the 
dilemma that the gentleman placed us in is simply not there.
  Perhaps the gentleman does not realize that when Republicans took 
majority control the very first act, the Congressional Accountability 
Act, 104th Congress--Public Law 104-1--set up the Office of Compliance 
so that the staff and the Member would not have to deal with this at 
the ethics level. The act deals with the professional employment 
relationships and Republicans will not tolerate a Member treating an 
employee in that fashion, nor should they have to go to the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct to get a solution. It is the Office of 
Compliance that would deal with employee complaints.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, 
and I support the effort as it relates to the legal aspects, but that 
committee has no authority to discipline the Member as far as that 
Member's activity on the floor of this House. Only the body can do 
that.
  Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand that, but 
the gentleman's argument is one that poses a dilemma which is not 
there. I happen to believe that the standards of official conduct, it 
is not called ethics, is for peer group review. And I have in the past 
examined materials brought to me, and when I thought it reached a 
particular level I sent it on to the committee. That is part and parcel 
of our responsibility.
  Any reasonable proposal will not stop prior to reaching the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct.
  My only response was to the gentleman in his hypothetical dilemma, I 
thought he needed to know that at the beginning of last Congress, when 
Republicans took control, we solved his problem.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the bipartisan task force.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership on this issue. It is with the highest 
regard for the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], and he knows I 
mean that when I say this, that I regretfully rise in opposition to his 
amendment and for the following reasons:
  The task force strove to strike a balance in terms of protecting this 
institution and the reputation of the Members of this institution, but 
having a process that was fair and open. I want my colleagues to know 
where we are now, what this task force does and why I think it is 
preferable to what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is proposing.
  Right now an outside person or group can file a complaint against a 
Member on the strength of a newspaper article. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania rightfully said in his comments that outsiders should not 
be able to wreak havoc on the reputations of Members of Congress on the 
basis of a newspaper article.
  The task force agrees. That is why the task force says that in order 
for an outsider to file a complaint against a Member that person must 
have personal knowledge of the offense that he or she is complaining 
about. Nonmembers who file a complaint on the basis of a newspaper 
article do not qualify. We say it positively and we say it negatively 
in here.
  And then an outside person can file a complaint, if they give it to a 
Member, if the outsider does not have personal knowledge. Members who 
sponsor a nonmember's filing of information offered as a complaint 
shall certify that the complaint is acting in good faith and that the 
matter described in the filing warrants the attention of the committee.
  So the task force also agreed with the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
that the Member should have to certify to the validity of the 
complaint. The language the gentleman from Pennsylvania is offering, if 
passed by this body, would be tantamount to preventing outsiders from 
offering amendments unless the Member of Congress went even further.
  I believe we have struck a balance. We are taking heat from both 
sides. The outside community thinks that the task force went too far in 
raising the bar for outside complaints; some

[[Page H7557]]

Members think that that bar should be raised higher. We think the task 
force struck the appropriate balance, which is fair to Members, 
respects the reputation of the House of Representatives. With that I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the Murtha amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania giving me the opportunity to speak to this amendment. I 
rise in strong support of this amendment. This, in my opinion, is the 
most important amendment we will consider. It maintains the ethics 
process as peer review, as our Founding Fathers envisioned it to be.
  Without this amendment, each Member will be subject to complaints 
filed for political purposes and by election opponents and by 
ideological foes for the sole purpose of a headline or perhaps, more 
sinister, to destroy someone's reputation.
  In Washington we have seen that if a legislator's agenda, based on 
merit or majority vote, cannot be stopped by someone, they can succeed 
by attacking their ethics, their reputation. The media is often a 
willing partner in pursuing the scandal for ideological purposes or as 
a way to sell their product.
  Let me give my colleagues an example. In 1982, we had the big sex 
scandal here, where a reporter for one of the large organizations got 
our poor little pages back there, programmed them, got them to thinking 
there was all this stuff going on, and every night every one of us was 
subject to the idea of who are these rotten people here? Who are the 
bad guys?
  Then what happened? After we spent $2 million of the taxpayers' 
dollars, these kids bowed their head and said we made it all up. The 
question was asked, where did you get the names to make it all up? We 
got them from a reporter from CBS. Did we see CBS stand up and say, 
gee, we're sorry we spent all that money; it was all a lie; it was all 
a mistake? Anyone remember seeing that? I cannot remember seeing that. 
To this day people do not even know that.
  So it kind of bothers me, this strong, strong fourth estate who has 
no accountability to us at all, who will come and see us with sweet and 
light and nice things to say about us, then write bitter and vicious 
things about us. Where is their accountability? Let me say we have to 
make those people somewhat accountable, if we possibly can. And if we 
cannot, this amendment is the only salvation we have. In my opinion, 
this is the most important amendment I have seen brought up to this.
  Article I, section 5 of the Constitution clearly provides for the 
Congress to punish its Members. Only Members of Congress may present a 
privileged resolution to this floor concerning a fellow Member. It is 
appropriate in an internal peer review process that House Members and 
only House Members are allowed to properly file complaints before the 
committee.
  This does not mean that citizens and others are denied access to the 
committee. The door is not shut, contrary to what my friend from 
Maryland said. They are not. Anyone in the country can send information 
to the committee, bringing to our attention information regarding a 
Member or a staffer of the House.
  And the committee can, keep this in mind, the committee can self-
initiate a complaint against a Member when they are so inclined to do 
it. Two of the three investigations voted by the committee for the last 
Congress were initiated by information brought to the committee 
attention rather than by properly filed complaints to the committee.
  As chairman of the committee, I do not want this agenda set by 
outsiders who have established a fund raiser base in Washington by 
writing and filing complaints against Members of Congress.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I appreciate the comments of the chair of the committee, but I think 
it is a bit naive to expect that if we close the door to direct filing 
of complaints that we are going to all of a sudden not get newspaper 
articles or not get matters that are brought to the public's attention 
through press conferences or the like about the conduct of Members of 
this body. That is just plain naive.
  I also think we do a disservice to the Member if we do not have a 
reasonable process to be able to resolve the issue within our ethics 
process. By closing the door we tell the public we do not want to hear 
from them. We are a restricted group and we will take care of our own 
problems. That is just going to make it worse for the Members of this 
institution and worse for the institution.
  My friend from California, Mr. Thomas talked about the process that 
we have for the violation over employee rules. That is fine, but a 
person who has gone through this matter should have a choice of forum. 
If they want to bring the matter as an ethics issue, that employee 
should have the opportunity to do it, and for us to say no is just 
plain wrong.

                              {time}  1430

  Or to say that that employee has got to shop to find a Member of the 
House to certify is putting an unreasonable requirement. Please look at 
the underlying resolution. We changed the current rules significantly 
in this regard. We made a lot of progress.
  I just urge my colleagues who think that this will provide better 
protection against unwarranted complaints, I think just the opposite 
will occur, that they will be closing the process, removing the public 
confidence, and making it more likely than less that scandals will go 
unabated.
  We have an obligation to listen to all parties. We made a reasonable 
requirement for additional standards for non-Members to file 
complaints. It is reasonable. Please accept the bipartisan results. Let 
us try it. It is in the best interest of the House.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha] for yielding me the time.
  I just heard an amazing statement that the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen], the chairman of the Ethics Committee, that he might be naive, 
because he said the Committee on Standards can initiate its own inquiry 
given enough information and the disposition to do so.
  The fear that I have with the initiative of the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] 
is that they will politicize the ethics process in an election year. 
Every campaign check a Member gets is going to raise a flag.
  Now, they think they are immunizing the process from frivolous 
complaints by saying ``You must have personal knowledge, not a 
newspaper account.'' We have the telephone. We read something in the 
paper. We pick up the phone. We call somebody who is quoted. We have 
personal knowledge, we have the Freedom of Information Act to provide 
the requisite knowledge.
  The fact is, if outside people can file these ethics complaints in an 
election year, we will have a blizzard of them filed. I do not know how 
the committee is going to deal with them all as they pile up. 
Perceptions are everything in politics. ``He is under investigation by 
the Ethics Committee.'' That is all they have to say, and we have got 
to spend weeks defending ourselves. It is wrong.
  When do we start to take into consideration the real world? 
Information is available from any source on the globe. The committee, 
which is bipartisan, Democrat and Republican, can initiate a complaint 
if nobody wants to do it or will do it. But we are opening the door to 
a flood of partisan ethics complaints in an election year. The struggle 
for power, the negative campaigning, all of this comes into the mix. I 
think we are doing a disservice to Members, because the accusations are 
going to be there and the truth will have a difficult time catching up 
with them.
  Someone said that ``charges and allegations fly on falcons' wings, 
but truth shuffles along in wooden shoes.'' I am just suggesting this 
is a serious mistake. We are injecting a political layer into what 
ought to be depoliticized. I think we will live to regret the 
consequences.

[[Page H7558]]

  So please vote for the Murtha amendment. Take politics out of this 
process by supporting the Murtha amendment.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I hate to correct the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. This 
amendment does not take us back to status quo. It does not. Currently 
there are procedures for non-Members to file complaints. That is 
eliminated. The three-Member refusal is gone. The transmittal by a 
Member automatically is gone.
  These changes move us backward. They do not maintain the status quo. 
If this amendment maintained status quo, I would not have anywhere near 
the objection that I have. But it takes us backward, before the 
beginning of any rules in this House, as to the access that non-Members 
have in filing complaints with Congress. It is for that reason that I 
am so much opposed to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I hope all the Members will pay some 
attention to these remarks because they are personal. Every bit of the 
discussion to this point has been in the abstract. But I have been 
through this.
  I have had someone attack me for no other reason than personal, 
political gain. I have had to go through the process of being sued for 
slander by someone who attacked me, who attacked my integrity, who came 
after me for no purpose other than to try to destroy me politically, 
and I had to go through it. I had to have an attorney.
  Anybody who stands here and talks about an outside group being able 
to come into this House and make a complaint, as if we are cutting off 
access, people who have no desire other than to come and to take them 
apart, not just politically but destroy them as a person.
  I am willing to submit myself at any point to the judgment of my 
peers in this House. But I am unwilling to open up the floodgates of 
the crime of slander and libel against a Member that will surely come 
with this. I have been through it.
  I ask any Member to think about what it is like when all of this is 
put out in the newspapers and people ask them about it and the attack 
is on them, and they wake up in the middle of the night in frustration 
and rage, knowing that they are innocent.
  I was attacked by somebody who altered a tape on the grounds that he 
knew what I was really saying, so he had altered the tape to make sure 
that everybody else would know it. He found an attorney that could come 
after me. And the day before the trial started, after all the 
depositions, after all the accusations, the suit was withdrawn. I was 
left to hang. And do my colleagues know what the attorney said to me? 
``If you want to counter sue, you are going to have to pay for that.'' 
This was done for no other purpose than for political attack.
  I respect the work that was done with this. Believe me, where the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] is concerned, where the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is concerned, no one respects them 
more. They have the most thankless job. I sincerely mean that. I 
respect this.
  But the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chair of the committee, 
has said that this will provide an agenda set by outsiders; and I 
guarantee my colleagues, that is what is going to happen.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chair of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, has said that we have to prevent the injection of 
politics. And I tell my colleagues, if we do not have this amendment, 
we will have the injection of politics with a vengeance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would indicate that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] now has 30 seconds remaining, and the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is the perception of the Chair that the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cardin], serving as managers of the bill under the terms of House 
Resolution 230, will have the right to close in the event that they 
control time in opposition to an amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise not in defense of any one of my colleagues who 
might be charged with an ethics complaint, certainly not in defense of 
myself should I ever suffer that fate.
  I rise in defense of this institution. If my colleagues think this 
institution already belongs to special-interest groups because of the 
money that flows into politics, then dare they turn this institution to 
outside groups, who can hold each one of them hostage with a threat of 
an ethics complaint in order to get their way on this House floor?
  If they want to turn this body over to the outside groups, vote 
against the Murtha amendment. That will do it.
  If they want to preserve in this House our own obligation to police 
ourselves, then vote for the Murtha amendment.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not turning over anything to anybody outside of 
this institution. We are not turning over anything. The resolution 
before us restricts the rights of non-Members to file complaints. It is 
more restricted than the current rules. So let us please stick to what 
the facts are.
  We have, we think, imposed reasonable standards on what non-Members 
should have to comply with in order to file a complaint with our 
committee. We used as precedent the rules of the other body, and in the 
other body non-Senators can file complaints based upon personal 
knowledge. They cannot be based upon newspaper accounts.
  We think that is the appropriate way. We believe it is an improvement 
over the current system.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been operating under these procedures since we 
adopted ethics rules in this House. Every time we have had a bipartisan 
effort to reform the process, we have tried to improve the process.
  If this amendment is adopted, I will make two observations: It will 
be the first major change in our ethics rules that will be done on a 
partisan basis because it did not go through the bipartisan operation 
that we had agreed with. And it will be the first major retreat, the 
first major retreat and pull-back of ethics procedures in this House. 
That would be, I think, a sad day for the House of Representatives.
  I understand the frustration that the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. 
Abercrombie] expressed on the floor of this House. It was not an ethics 
complaint that caused this frustration. But I understand his 
frustration to be unjustly accused.
  All of us have gone through being unjustly accused. All of us who 
serve in public life have subjected ourselves and our families to 
unjust accusations because, just because, of our public service. That 
is wrong.
  The Constitution gives us the right to judge our own Members. We 
should require non-Members to pass a certain knowledge test before they 
can activate a complaint. But how we conduct the ethics process in this 
House is very important. And for us to say that we are going to reform 
it by denying direct filings, to me, is a major mistake.
  I would urge each Member, as they come over to vote, to please 
consider what is in the best interest of this institution. We have 
worked in a bipartisan manner to try to reform this process. It is 
important that that bipartisanship continue. A vote for this amendment, 
I regret, will work against the bipartisan cooperation that we have had 
on our task force.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Murtha amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H7559]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 193, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 409]

                               AYES--228

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--193

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Kim
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bonilla
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     McCollum
     Meek
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Schiff
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1501

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania and Mr. DICKS changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. CLEMENT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 105-250.


                 Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Tauzin

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Tauzin:
       Page 14, line 21, after the period, add the following new 
     sentence: ``If 180 calendar days have passed since a motion 
     to establish an investigative subcommittee did not prevail, 
     the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice.''.
       Page 15, line 12, before the quotation marks, add the 
     following new sentence: ``If 180 calendar days have passed 
     since a motion to establish an investigative subcommittee did 
     not prevail, the complaint shall be dismissed without 
     prejudice.''.
       Page 22, line 16, strike ``and'', on line 20, strike the 
     period and insert ``; and'', and after line 20, insert the 
     following new paragraph:
       (9) if 180 calendar days have passed since a motion to 
     establish an investigative subcommittee did not prevail, the 
     committee shall send a letter to the complainant and the 
     respondent stating that the complaint has been dismissed 
     without prejudice.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 230, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] rise in opposition to 
the amendment?
  Mr. BERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] will control 
15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first congratulate the House on the last vote, 
and also simultaneously congratulate the committee on the fine work it 
did in bringing this package to the floor. I believe the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] 
have done this House a great service, and all committee members, in the 
work they have done.
  However, the last vote points out that the House Members do see a 
need to make additional improvements in the package, and the strong 
vote just occurred to make sure that this process is as depoliticized 
as possible is an indication that Members in fact have that intent 
today.
  I hope Members have the same intent as you examine the next issue 
that is embodied in this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is time we faced an ugly fact, and that ugly 
fact is that the ethics process over the last several Congresses, 
perhaps reaching back even beyond the last several, has become heavily 
politicized. It is one thing for honest ethics complaints to be made 
and addressed by our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and 
eventually by the Members on this floor; it is another thing for ethics 
complaints to be filed purely for political purposes, meant to 
discredit and disarm and to take away people's credibility in this 
Chamber as we try to debate the issues of national import.
  The ethics process is supposed to be an internal process whereby we 
honestly in a bipartisan manner examine the complaints that are 
honestly raised about Members' conduct in order to serve ethically in 
this Chamber.
  When that process is politicized, as it has been over the last 
several Congresses, and I say perhaps even beyond that, to the point 
that ethics complaints amount to tens, and even sometimes multiples of 
tens complaints

[[Page H7560]]

against Members, most of which are found to have no merit, many of 
which just hang around with the tie vote of Democrats and Republicans 
on the committee, never having that ethics complaint resolved because 
in fact it is tied up as a political complaint, that I think you get 
the picture of how badly the process dissolves into anarchy.
  If we want to make this process secure, we have to reach some 
balances in it. We have to ensure that honest ethical complaints do in 
fact have time to mature at the committee, that the committee has a 
chance to investigate them, that information can flow in, to either 
decide for the committee that it must move forward on that complaint, 
or that it should reject it as a frivolous or political charge. That 
time necessary for this to happen is debatable, but this amendment 
speaks of it in about a 6-month time period.
  It says in effect that after over 6 months of hearings or intense 
examination by the committee, if an ethics complaint is still 
deadlocked, something ought to be done. If it is clearly a real and 
substantial complaint, that 6-month time period will not stop its 
refiling nor stop its consideration by the committee. But if it is a 
frivolous one, tied up on a tie vote based upon politics, Democrats 
voting one way, Republicans voting the other way, because it is a 
political complaint, then it seems to many of us in this Chamber that 
after 6 months something ought to happen.
  Now, what ought to happen? I want to point out, I did not enter this 
debate because I am a member of the committee. I got involved because 
many Members have expressed concerns about this package and have asked 
us to try to work to perfect it even more. I would urge Members to 
please follow this debate, because it is critical to the integrity of 
this institution and our ethics process.
  Mr. Chairman, what should happen after 6 months? Should a complaint 
be automatically dismissed with prejudice because it is tied up on a 
tie vote politically? The answer is no, it should not be automatically 
dismissed with prejudice, because in fact it may be a good complaint. 
It may be that we simply cannot get past our partisan nature to deal 
with it, to move forward on it. So dismissing it with prejudice is, I 
think, a wrong option, and I have not chosen that option in this 
amendment.
  What we have suggested in this amendment is that after 6 months, if a 
complaint is tied up on a tie vote, the committee cannot move forward 
nor backwards on it, something ought to happen. What we suggest is that 
it ought to be dismissed without prejudice, that a letter ought to go 
out to the person who is accused saying we cannot go forward or 
backwards; we are dismissing it without prejudice.
  What happens then? If it is a frivolous complaint, it is very likely 
it will not get refiled the next day. If it is a serious complaint, it 
is very likely somebody will refile it the next day and insist that the 
committee take it up, and perhaps provide additional information to 
make sure the committee can possibly break this political deadlock.
  If it is a frivolous complaint and one is the subject of that 
frivolous complaint, at least he will have a letter saying that after 6 
months the committee could not decide to move forward or backwards on 
it. He has something in his hand to say that this is likely politics. 
If it is filed again the next day because somebody believes it is 
serious enough, he is going to have to deal with it again, and rightly 
so.
  It is simply an attempt to set some time limits on these deadlocked 
ethics complaints that hang over one like the sword of Damocles, 
constantly reminding people that you perhaps may not be ethical, 
constantly shadowing and overshadowing your efforts to have a credible 
debate in this House.
  I suggest there is no better way to discredit someone in politics 
today than to discredit them personally. That is the subject of our 
campaigns lately. We do not argue ideas any more. We do not argue how 
good we might serve in public office. Too often our campaigns are how 
bad the other person is and how rotten they are personally.
  The ethics process has now become a part of that. We ought to deplore 
that trend in our ethics system in this body, because it denigrates 
from the integrity of this body itself.
  What we are saying is if this thing is going to continue to be 
politicized, if frivolous political complaints are going to continue to 
be filed, they ought not hang out over people indefinitely. Someone in 
this Chamber ought to eventually get a letter saying we cannot break 
the deadlock, it is tied up politically at the committee, and unless 
someone is willing again to refile and reinstitute it, that you at 
least have a letter saying so, so you can properly deal with it and 
move on with your life and public service.
  Now, is that a protection for the Member alone? The last amendment 
and this amendment that Members are suggesting to this package are not 
just designed to protect a Member against frivolously or politically 
motivated attacks or charges. This amendment is designed to protect 
this institution, because as the ethics process itself is supposed to 
weed out those unethical characters who arrive here, it is also 
designed and it is supposed to protect this institution from the 
political processes that have become so ugly in America, that tend to 
destroy the integrity and the credibility of all of us who try to work 
in the interests of our constituents and the national good.
  I suggest to you this is a very modest amendment. It does not end a 
complaint that is valid. It simply after 6 months sends a letter out to 
the person saying at this point we are dismissing it without prejudice 
so that you and everybody else can know that the committee has 
deadlocked, it has not moved forwards or backwards. I suggest this is a 
good, valid improvement on the package, and I urge the adoption of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my hope to yield time both to the chairman and 
the ranking member of the task force on this issue, and then to close 
myself in perhaps some more detail.
  I just want to start off this discussion by saying that I view this 
amendment fundamentally differently than the other amendments that are 
coming before us, in that to me, I understand fully the intentions of 
the authors of this amendment, but in reality, when we come right down 
to it, if one is totally cynical and defeatist about the ability of 
this House to have peer review, if your commitment to the ideological 
and partisan battles that this House is engaged in and that this Nation 
is engaged in is so important that they obliterate any notions of guilt 
or innocence, and should it permeate and invade the entire ethics 
process, then you vote for this amendment.
  But if we still have some hope that people of goodwill can isolate 
themselves from the partisan pressures and the ideological battles, and 
can make judgments even about their peers based on the facts in front 
of them and the established rules of conduct, we never want to say that 
by a certain period of time, either guilt or innocence automatically 
comes by operation of law.
  This is an amendment that I think kills the ethics process in terms 
of what we want, because it promotes and incentivizes partisanship and 
deadlock throughout the whole process. So I really hope my colleagues 
will look at this amendment a little bit differently than we have 
looked at some of the other amendments that are coming before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In response to my friend, let me point out, this amendment does not 
establish guilt or innocence. It does not say after 6 months one is 
either guilty or innocent. That is why the provisions of dismissal 
without prejudice are included in this amendment. Without prejudice 
means the committee makes no decision of guilt or innocence. It says, 
``We are deadlocked, we cannot decide.'' Unless one is really serious 
about this complaint and refiles it, we cannot handle it.
  Let me make this simple statement and I hope my colleagues take it to 
heart. Dishonest, politically motivated complaints brought before our 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct do as much damage to the 
integrity of this House and the political

[[Page H7561]]

process in America as do honest complaints that are not properly 
handled. Dishonest, politically motivated complaints brought before our 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that hang out there, 
undecided, with no message coming out of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct about what is going on, do more damage to the 
integrity of our process than an honest complaint that is mishandled. I 
believe that is true.
  If we have any doubts about how ugly and how awful our politics have 
gotten, go back and read, I think it was a Time Magazine essay several 
years ago which talked about the nature of our politics in America 
today. It said, in effect, that if we have spent all of these years on 
television and all of these years on 1-minutes denigrating one another 
personally, talking about each other's motives, talking about how awful 
we personally are in this process, then we have done a great job 
because Americans tend not to believe us all.
  I used to joke when the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and 
I ran for Governor of Louisiana, that he went around the State for a 
year telling people how I would make a terrible Governor, and I went 
around the State for a year telling them what a terrible Governor he 
would make, and they ended up believing both of us and they elected 
Buddy Roemer.
  The fact of the matter is that as Democrats and Republicans talk so 
evil about each other, as our campaigns and our ethics complaints 
become so politically motivated, we destroy not just the person we 
attack, we destroy the entire process and the integrity of our 
institutions.
  The Time Magazine article went on to say that if Burger King and 
McDonald's had spent 10 years on television not telling us about how 
good their hamburgers were, but if they had spent 10 years on 
television telling us how the other guy's hamburgers were going to kill 
us, we would not stop eating the other guy's hamburgers, we would not 
eat hamburgers anymore.
  That is what is happening in the American political process. 
Americans are convinced by Democrats that Republicans are rotten and 
convinced by Republicans that Democrats are rotten, and we wonder why 
more people are registering independent, and we wonder why only 49 
percent of Americans even chose to vote in the last Presidential 
election. We wonder why Americans are turned off. It is because our 
processes promote the kind of ugly political slander that so many of 
these charges before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
have now come to represent.
  All I am saying is that after 6 months the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct cannot even decide to go forward or backward on a 
complaint, it ought to issue this letter, not of guilt or innocence, a 
simple letter saying that, without prejudice, we no longer consider 
this complaint before us, unless somebody re-brings it because they 
really think it is serious. That is the least we ought to do to begin 
cleaning up this process, depoliticizing it, and returning to some kind 
of comity and respect for one another, not only as human beings but as 
people who dedicate their lives and their careers to public service.
  I happen to enjoy my service here not just because of what I do. I 
happen to enjoy it because I am able to work with some of the best 
people I know in this country, people who sacrifice their families, 
their time, their money, their possibilities of great careers in other 
adventures in this country to spend time here in Washington debating 
the great issues of the day. I am proud of the great majority of my 
colleagues for that. I am proud and, indeed, I am excited about getting 
to know my colleagues and having shared this experience in public 
service.
  Why do we keep denigrating this House? Why do we allow our ethics 
process to become a political process instead? Do we not have enough 
ugly politics in America that we have to bring it into the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct in this House? Can we not end it? Can we 
not adopt this little amendment that says after 6 months, if we are 
tied up politically over an ethics complaint, that somebody ought to 
get a letter saying we are tied up politically and we cannot move 
forward or backward and we dismiss it, without prejudice, until and 
unless somebody brings it forward with credible evidence, for somebody 
on one side or the other to agree to move forward or backward on the 
complaint. This is just one small effort to bring some sense, some 
common sense and some dignity back into our process.
  Please take this amendment seriously. Please consider voting for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the task force 
and a man who I think has established during his tenure here his 
concern for the institution and for the process.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to say to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], my friend, that the people in 
Louisiana made a terrible mistake back in the Governor's election. They 
should have chosen one of us. Second, I would say that I take my hat 
off to the gentleman for not only a wonderful speech but for 
contributing mightily to this process.
  The fact is that as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], my 
cochair, and other members of this task force have pointed out, we have 
sweated blood, sweat, and tears in the confection of this bill to come 
up with what I believe to be a very conscientious and well intentioned 
bill to provide protection for the Members. We do have due process 
rights for the Members, and at the same time provide a fabric of rules 
by which the standards of official conduct could be adjudicated for the 
whole world to see, so that it would maintain the integrity or the 
confidence of the American people in the integrity of the system.
  I cannot say we did a perfect job. In fact, the majority of the House 
has now determined that we could have done a little better if we had 
not allowed the filing from outside Members of complaints against 
Members. I think that that is a significant issue to be determined by 
the full House and that is why I supported the rule. I do not think 
that was an issue that should have been handled just by even a 
bipartisan task force of 12 Members such as we did and have that serve 
as the final word.
  So I was delighted, especially after my friend from Louisiana came to 
me with very significant arguments on the merits of that particular 
issue and convinced me that that ought to be debated and evaluated by 
all the Members of the House. I commend the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Tauzin] for his analytical work on not only that issue, but on 
this one as well. His passion surpasses anything I have heard in recent 
times about the need to restore faith and integrity in this body; about 
the need to get away from partisan politics, and it was exactly that 
sentiment that motivated I think most, no, all of the Members of the 
task force, all of the staff that contributed to the product that is 
with us today.
  I think that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] has absolutely 
correctly identified the problem that has been recognized by all of the 
previous task forces which have devised ethics rules to be administered 
by the House of Representatives. Ever since the invocation of the first 
body of rules, I will tell my colleagues that this deadlock rule has 
been around.
  Well, what happens if we have half of the Members on one side and 
half of the Members on the other side? Every task force up until this 
date has said we cannot resolve that. It does not happen very often. I 
dare say if we go back and talk to the members of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct, we will find that up until this last 
Congress it really did not happen very frequently at all. It did happen 
a lot in the last Congress, and that was wrong, and it is a problem. 
But what do we do about it?
  I say that the gentleman's solution is a significant one, but it is 
not one that I can endorse at this time because if it were imposed, in 
effect what we would have is yes, if a frivolous charge were brought 
against a Member of one party and he were a popular Member of that 
party, and he were able to prevail, Lord help us, on the Members of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on his side, then they would 
go

[[Page H7562]]

side with him saying it is frivolous. And the Members of the other 
party would say that it was meaningful, and if nothing happened after 
180 days it would be kicked out.
  If, in fact, it were a frivolous charge, that might be a good 
solution, but what if it was a significant charge? What if it was a 
meritorious charge? What if it was a concrete, ironclad, deadlock 
charge, but the guy was so popular that the Members of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct decided to divide on partisan lines and 
do nothing?
  In that case, in that case, I think an automatic dismissal of that 
charge, no matter how meritorious but simply because it was deadlocked, 
would bring disrepute upon the House of Representatives, and for that 
reason I cannot support it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if that is what this amendment did, I would 
not support it either. However, the amendment does not provide for 
automatic dismissal. In fact, it provides that if it is a major, hard 
rock, absolutely grounded charge, that that Member who filed it can 
file it the next hour, the next day. He can refile it. It simply is a 
process to get rid of those frivolous ones that I know my colleagues 
want to get rid of.
  No, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has not found a 
good solution. Maybe I have.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] has expired.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, there is a solution to a deadlocked 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It was suggested over the 
last 2 years many times how to get out of the dilemma of having a 5 to 
5 or a 2 to 2 vote, and that was to bring the full force of the House 
of Representatives to decide whether it was a frivolous or whether it 
was a serious complaint, to bring it to the floor of the House of 
Representatives for a disposition of the complaint.
  Unfortunately, when we brought that up at the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct, we also deadlocked on bringing it to the floor. So 
the fact of the matter is, there is a solution, but even then the 
majority or the minority, depending on who was in the majority or 
minority, did not want to bring it to the floor for resolution. I say 
that because that is a continuing problem.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, my friend points out again the need for us 
to move to a solution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde], the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I will have to talk faster than I usually do.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from California, Mr. Howard 
Berman, in a jury trial, if the jury is deadlocked and the judge keeps 
calling them out asking, have you reached a verdict? can you reach a 
verdict? after some period of time, he dismisses the jury, and the 
State's attorney can bring the charges again or forget it. That is what 
this process is doing.
  Now, is 6 months too short? Do we want it 8 months? But at some 
period, when the jury is hung, you can't let the charges hang there 
forever.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes my point. The judge 
does not start off the jury deliberations by saying, guys, I want a 
verdict in x time, and if it is not, it is automatically dismissed, 
because if he would, he would guarantee that the initial positions, or 
particularly the positions on the side of acquittal, would never 
change, because they know that if they hold out until that time 
certain, that is the result that would happen. That is why the 
gentleman makes my point.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has 
expired.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. But, Mr. Chairman, the fact is, a hung jury, and the court 
says, can you reach a verdict? and the foreman says, Your Honor, we are 
hopelessly deadlocked. The judge does not keep the thing pending, he 
declares a mistrial, and the State's attorney can either bring the case 
again or go on to bigger and better things.
  But bring this thing to finality, to closure, instead of keeping the 
jury in the jury room indefinitely.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman completely. That is why I 
pledge to the gentleman and to this House that, No. 1, if we are 180 
days into this process and we are deadlocked, we have already failed.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman change the rules to 
accomplish what we wish to accomplish by amendment by rule?
  Mr. BERMAN. The one thing I know is that if we say in the rules at 
the beginning that this is what will happen after 180 days, we are 
raising the likelihood of the deadlock massively.
  And what I have told several people, and I repeat here on the floor, 
is that if I am in a committee meeting and we are in deadlock and 
people are acting in good faith, and it is a close question, because if 
it is a frivolous issue, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the 
chairman of the committee, and I have dismissed it before it ever got 
to that full committee level, because under this task force report we 
have the ability to do that; but if it is a close question and we are 
deadlocked and we cannot work it out, long before those 180 days, this 
particular Member, if he is on the side of going forward with an 
investigation, changes his vote, because he does not want to see 
Members hanging out to dry week after week, month after month, 
understanding what this means to them, their political and personal 
futures, and their families.
  All I am saying is, 180 days or any time certain works against 
solving those kinds of problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cardin], the ranking member or cochair of the task force, who has done 
a tremendous job on this whole issue.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying resolution makes it much less likely 
that we are going to have a deadlock vote in the committee. We have 
given the chairman and ranking member a lot more ability to manage the 
work load of the committee. So I think the prospect of a hung jury, in 
all due respect, is much less under the procedures that we have in the 
underlying resolution.
  I might also point out, as a result of the last amendment that was 
adopted, we are now talking about complaints filed by Members. We 
showed a mistrust for the public in the last amendment that we adopted. 
Now we are saying we cannot even really have confidence that our 
Members will bring proper complaints. Therefore, we have to have some 
automatic dismissal process.
  Enough is enough. We have not had a hung jury in the work of the 
Ethics Committee since I have been on it in the last 6 years. Did we 
take too long to resolve issues? We did. The rules package before us 
deals with those concerns. On frivolous complaints, we handled them 
quickly. There has not been a problem there.
  The ranking member is right. If you have a 6-month deadline, if you 
have a complaint filed against a highly visible Member of this House, 
that Member is not going to find it difficult to convince the Members 
from his or her party to delay matters in order to get a dismissal. We 
may say it is a dismissal without prejudice, but he has this letter to 
wave, and the person is going to believe that the matter has been 
resolved. If it is not resolved, we have not done a favor to the 
Member.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

[[Page H7563]]

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have just made a suggestion to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman], and he seemed favorably disposed. The problem is the date 
certain. It encourages gridlock if you have to wait for a certain date.
  Let us remove the date and just say that in the pendency of a 
complaint, if the chairman and the ranking member together agree that a 
disposition is unlikely, then they shall dismiss without prejudice the 
pending claim. That leaves it up to you to decide, and you do not have 
that incentive to deadlock.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the chairman and 
ranking member already have that power under the rules to take whatever 
motion they want to to the full committee.
  I assume that the chairman and ranking member supporting it were not 
going to have a partisan deadlock in the committee, so therefore they 
will be able to resolve it through whatever motion they want to take to 
the full committee. If they want to dismiss without prejudice, the 
chairman and ranking member can take it to the full committee without 
prejudice.
  Mr. HYDE. I would ask the gentleman, May we agree to make this 
amendment in order?
  Mr. CARDIN. They do not need the amendment. They already have the 
power within the rules package to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, for all the reasons that we have said, this well-
intended amendment would only add more likelihood rather than less 
likelihood that we will run into a partisan deadlock.
  We have provided in these rules that the chairman and ranking member 
have the power that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary would like to now reemphasize by an additional amendment. It 
is not necessary. The power is within the committee to so act. We have 
provided a lot more tools for them to be able to do it. We do not wish 
to put an arbitrary deadline. It will only encourage gridlock and a 
problem.
  The last point I want to maintain, and I know the gentleman from 
Louisiana is well intended in his amendment, frivolous complaints have 
been handled quickly by this committee. To refer otherwise is just not 
accurate. Many of the complaints have been well debated. We came back 
and reached conclusions.
  We have not been deadlocked in the committee. In each case it may 
have taken too long, but we were able to reach conclusions. If we had 
an automatic dismissal, it would have prevented us from continuing to 
do our work until we were able to reach a conclusion.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would first like to deal with the issue raised by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Let us go through an orderly examination of the House rules and the 
committee rules, and then what I tell the gentleman is that his 
suggestion, the notion of the chair and ranking member coming forward 
to dismiss without prejudice, we can put that into our committee rules 
at our first meeting, if there is a first meeting of a full committee 
of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and incorporate the 
gentleman's suggestion into those committee rules, because, to me, the 
gentleman's suggestion makes sense.
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] says, and I think he 
probably is right, but I want to look at it closely, that the current 
rules allow that result.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Let me first thank the gentleman for his offer to do 
that, Mr. Chairman. With the gentleman's consent, let me take the time 
he has yielded to compliment him and the committee personally. This 
committee is one I think most of us have great confidence in.
  I cannot say that about the last committee. The concern I have is, 
while I think the whole House has great confidence in these gentlemen, 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] and the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and others who serve on the committee 
currently, the problem is that they are not always going to be here. 
They are not always going to be there to make sure this process does 
work the way it was intended. The problem is, it can get politicized 
again, as it was in the last committee.
  All I am trying to suggest is that at some point when the gentleman 
is not there and when we have a committee that is more partisan than, 
thank God, the gentlemen have been in the way they have handled this 
business, what do we do after 180 days when, as the gentleman says, 
they have already failed and there is no disposition?
  Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time, I would just say, while I very much 
appreciate the comments and intention behind them, I am not a great 
believer in the ``great man'' theory of history. The last committee had 
the most difficult issue I could ever contemplate to deal with. I do 
not know that it pays to spend a lot of time looking at it.
  All I want to say is that the gentleman is either terribly hurting 
the process with his amendment or he is doing very little in this 
automatic dismissal without prejudice.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 236, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No 410]

                               AYES--181

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker

                               NOES--236

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez

[[Page H7564]]


     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Kim
       

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bonilla
     Clay
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Hastings (FL)
     Largent
     Meek
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Porter
     Schiff
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1557

  Messrs. COSTELLO, WALSH, and SHIMKUS changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 105-250.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Bunning

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Bunning:
       Page 17, strike line 22 and all that follows thereafter 
     through page 18, line 9, and insert the following: amended in 
     the first sentence by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``, except in the case of a subcommittee of the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, a subpoena may be 
     authorized and issued only when authorized by an affirmative 
     vote of a majority of its members''.
       Page 18, line 21, strike ``without the approval'' and 
     insert ``when approved by an affirmative vote of a majority 
     of the members''.

                              {time}  1600

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 230, the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] rise in opposition 
to the amendment?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise, along with the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. 
Abercrombie], my Democratic colleague, to offer an amendment. The 
amendment is simple. And although it might seem a little technical, it 
gets right to the core of how an ethics investigation complaint is 
handled.
  For my colleagues who have never had the rare pleasure of serving on 
the Ethics Committee, let me just quickly review how it deals with 
complaints.
  After the committee reviews an initial complaint, it can just dismiss 
the complaint or it can decide that it merits deeper examination, and 
the committee then begins what is known as a PI, or a preliminary 
inquiry. In doing so, the committee forms an investigative subcommittee 
and outlines the scope of the subcommittee's investigative authority. 
But later, after digging into the complaint, if the subcommittee 
decides it wants to go beyond the original scope of authority granted 
to it, the rules are not really concise on how to proceed.
  This is where our amendment comes in. The task force package would 
give the subcommittee power to issue subpoenas and the ability to 
expand its inquiry by a majority vote of the subcommittee members. Our 
amendment says that the subcommittee, if it decides it wants to expand 
its inquiry, it has to get the approval of the full committee. We also 
require the subcommittee to get full committee approval before issuing 
subpoenas.
  Let me tell my colleagues how it works presently. If a subcommittee 
that is investigating an inquiry comes back and decides they want to 
issue a subpoena, the chairman and ranking member are consulted; and if 
the chairman and ranking member sign off, there is no vote of the full 
committee.
  The problem occurs when the ranking member and chairman disagree on 
the scope and expansion or issuing a subpoena. That has happened in the 
last 2 years. When that occurred, the chairman brought the expanded 
request to the full committee. And since the investigative subcommittee 
had already voted to expand their scope, when we got to the full 
committee there was enough votes, including the subcommittee, to expand 
the inquiry by going back to the full committee.
  Mr. Chairman, launching an Ethics Committee investigation is very 
weighty stuff. Expanding the scope or deciding to issue subpoenas are 
significant and delicate decisions that ought to be made by more than 
three people. It ought to be made by the full committee. They can just 
about be the most important decisions made in any case before the 
Ethics Committee. And these are calls that the entire committee needs 
to make, not just a handful or three members.
  It is up to the full committee to decide whether or not to 
investigate a complaint in the first place. If the subcommittee decides 
to branch off into new, unchartered waters, it is hard to see why the 
full committee should not have to sign off on it, too.
  Let me remind my colleagues that the integrity of the subcommittee in 
the ethics process is not jeopardized by asking the full committee to 
include and approve of the investigation going forward in expansion, 
because we are not making any judgments on the complaints that will be 
brought back by the full subcommittee for adjudication before the full 
committee.
  As a 6-year veteran of the Ethics Committee, I can tell my colleagues 
we have wrestled with these questions over the years. They are very 
important. To his credit, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], my 
colleague and head of the investigative subcommittee working on the 
Speaker's case, came back to the full committee in the last Congress 
when his subcommittee wanted to expand its scope. There was a 
difference of opinion between the chairperson and ranking member on 
what to do, so the chairperson brought to the full committee whether we 
should expand or whether we should not expand. It was definitely the 
right thing to do, and it is the way things ought to be handled in the 
future.
  As I said at the outset, this probably seems like a small, even 
nitpicking amendment to some Members. But it really gets to the heart 
of how the Ethics Committee works and how it investigates complaints.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge very strong adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the 
amendment of my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], 
because I think that, however well-intentioned his amendment is, it 
does complicate the process and fly in the face of an expeditious 
administration of committee business as well as the fair administration 
of committee business.

[[Page H7565]]

  Basically, this amendment deals with two issues: One, the expansion 
of the scope assigned to the subcommittee for investigation. This takes 
place all before the matter ever gets to the full committee for 
adjudication of whether or not the person did what he is charged with 
doing. It is the investigation of the significant issues at hand.
  Now, by this time, the chairman and the ranking member have either 
personally agreed that it constitutes a complaint within the 
jurisdiction of the committee, or by action of the full committee there 
is agreement that it is a complaint for the purposes of investigation. 
So they know that there is going to be an investigation here; and the 
question is whether or not to expand the scope of the investigation 
once they have gotten so far into it, whether or not to consider more 
counts.
  Now, under the existing rules, which have not yet been replaced by 
the package before us today, the rules are very vague, the rules say 
the subcommittee can expand if they want to expand. There really is no 
limitation. So we thought that was too loose. The task force believed 
it was proper to tighten that up. Let us make it a majority, not of the 
members present in the subcommittee, because if two people showed up, 
that would mean one person decides to expand the scope; we said, no, 
let us have a majority of all the members on the subcommittee.
  Now, presumably, a subcommittee is comprised of either four people, 
two of each party. Let us make it a majority of all the people on the 
subcommittee. That means that we would have to have either three out of 
four members of the four-member subcommittee in order to expand the 
scope. That is a real majority. That means a bipartisan agreement to 
expand the scope. Otherwise, there would be no expansion of the scope.
  Now, they say on expansion of scope that that is not good enough; 
they ought to go to the full committee and it ought to be the decision 
of the full committee. Why is that a bad idea? Because it flies in the 
face of this whole bifurcated argument.
  If there is one complaint that we have heard time and time again from 
every Member who has ever been assigned to the task of serving on the 
Ethics Committee, it is ``It is too much work. We cannot do it. We are 
down there in the basement adjudicating on this and that and everything 
else.''
  The majority of the committee was doing every case; in fact, 20 cases 
before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, every Member 
weighing every nuance, issuing every subpoena, weighing every little 
dot and jot of every single case. We said, please free us from this 
intolerable task.
  So in 1989, the task force created subcommittees, the idea being 
those would be investigative subcommittees. Unfortunately, the rules 
were not explicit enough, and the subcommittees were kicking back the 
investigation to the full committee and the full committee was still 
doing all the cases. To this very day, they are still doing all the 
cases.
  If the gentleman gets his way, if the amendment passes, the expansion 
of the scope of the issues before the subcommittee will have to go to 
the full committee; and, therefore, the full committee is going to have 
to look at the whole case anyway and they are all going to be down 
there with balls and chains, tied to a desk, never seeing light of day, 
because the whole committee is going to be doing the work that the 
subcommittee should be doing.
  I think it is a bad idea and it destroys bifurcation. Because the 
subcommittee cannot investigate and then turn the adjudication of the 
charge over to the full committee, there is no division because the 
full committee already knows all the facts.
  Second, the issue of subpoenas. Under the old rules, the right to 
issue subpoenas again was offered; well, it was a subcommittee in 
conjunction with the chairman and ranking member. And in this case, we 
are not too different; actually, the gentleman's amendment is not too 
different.
  But we thought we would strengthen it; we would say no, let us keep 
the chairman or ranking member, if they are not on the subcommittee, 
and certainly they could serve on the subcommittee if they wanted to, 
and they appoint the members of the subcommittee in any event, so they 
know those members are going to be subject to their concerns. But if 
they are not actively involved in the issues being investigated in the 
subcommittee, let us keep them apart and let us let the subcommittee by 
an actual majority vote determine whether or not subpoenas should be 
issued, majority vote--of not the people present--but of the full 
subcommittee.
  So, again, it has to be three out of four of the subcommittee to vote 
on whether or not to issue subpoenas.
  Today a majority of the people present can decide, ``Well, we want to 
issue a subpoena. We will call the chairman. If he rubber stamps it, 
then it is done.'' We actually have strengthened the process beyond 
what the previous rules required.
  If the Bunning amendment passes, we have got to have not only a 
majority of the members present, but we have got to also have the 
consent of the chairman and the ranking member. And since they are not 
serving on the subcommittee in most cases, that again strikes at the 
heart of bifurcation.
  My objections do not go strenuously to that as much as to the 
expansion, because I think that the expansion argument is probably the 
more prevalent. If the expansion argument under the Bunning amendment 
were accepted, in effect, we would have no bifurcation. And every 
member of the full committee, which has been downsized from 12 to 10, 
every member of the full committee will be taking an interest in every 
single issue and every single aspect of every single case, and they 
will never see the light of day because they will be locked and chained 
to their desk down there in the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct.

                              {time}  1615

  I do not think that is a good idea.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  First of all, the way it works is that the ranking member and 
chairman OK subpoenas presently if a subpoena is asked for by the 
subcommittee chairman and ranking member.
  Six years we did not have too much work. We spent too much time 
spinning our wheels. We did not have too much work. The work that we 
had, we could not resolve issues. Seventy-one of them were resolved on 
one Member. The subcommittee, the only time I have ever known a six-
person subcommittee, was on the bank issue. All subcommittees have been 
four-person subcommittees over the last 2 years.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUNNING. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. That is why we created a jury pool, which is part of 
the new rule to create a four-member subcommittee.
  Mr. BUNNING. I understand that. I am not objecting to the six-member 
jury pool.
  The scope of what is investigated is determined prior to the 
formation of the subcommittee, not after the fact but prior to the 
fact.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and urge its 
adoption. This amendment requires that any expansion of the scope of an 
investigation be approved by the full committee. This will protect the 
integrity of the investigation and ensure that all Members are treated 
the same.
  Without this amendment, I can envision a situation where Members 
being investigated for the same issue are treated differently in 
different subcommittees. We protect against that by requiring the full 
committee to approve any expansion of investigation as well as vesting 
subpoena power with the full committee chairman and ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about the idea that, ``Oh, this is 
a bifurcated system. It follows the idea of a grand jury.'' Come on; 
let us get real. It does not follow bifurcation at all. I have served 
on that committee for 12 years. I have played it both ways. We did it 
all; we did it otherwise.
  It is nice to pontificate on these things, but the reality is this: 
What

[[Page H7566]]

happens is, they pick a subcommittee. The other members of the 
committee do not stand away in a new jury. They know what is going on. 
Of course they do.
  So we could have some runaway subcommittee go ahead, they are mad at 
somebody, and so they are subpoenaing, they are adding things, they are 
expanding their scope. Somewhere there has to be a check. We have in 
the Constitution a check and balance. The courts check with us, and we 
check with the executive branch. We are back and forth on this thing. 
This is not the idea at all. This is to give some control over a 
subcommittee. Subcommittees are created by the full committee with the 
charter to investigate. Any time they want to deviate from that 
charter, they should have the approval of the full committee.
  It was former Speaker Jim Wright who criticized the committee for 
investigating far beyond the parameters of the complaint that was filed 
against him. After his resignation, the ethics process was changed so 
that you have one group function as a grand jury and the other function 
as the jury. But the dangers faced by Jim Wright still exist if this 
amendment is not adopted.
  This amendment stands for the principle that an expansion of the 
initial charge to an investigative subcommittee must be justified to 
the full committee and have its approval. Without this amendment, you 
risk having runaway investigations without full committee approval. 
Without this amendment, subcommittees examining the same issues but on 
different Members may, by necessity, treat different Members 
differently.
  This is an extremely important amendment. I applaud the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], the sponsor of the amendment, for offering 
it. He speaks from experience as a former member of the subcommittee 
and as a former chairman of an investigative subcommittee. I strongly 
urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi], one who has contributed vitally to the 
product of the task force.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of our subcommittee 
for yielding me this time and for his leadership in the bipartisan task 
force.
  Today is a happy day for me, Mr. Chairman, because it marks the end 
of my service on the task force since February but, more importantly, 
three terms before that, 6 years and 7, 8 months in the service of 
promoting the ethics of the House of Representatives. From that 
experience, I rise in opposition to the Bunning amendment.
  We have heard the word ``bifurcation'' around here today. For those 
Members who have not been paying attention before but maybe are now, 
that means that Congress previously agreed that we would divide the 
process into investigation and adjudication in terms of the work of the 
members of the committee. The bifurcation, or the subcommittee to do 
the investigation, ensured confidentiality, protected against delay, 
and preserved the integrity of the independent adjudication later 
should there have been charges brought.
  I think it is very, very important for us to preserve the separation 
of functions within the committee. Confidentiality is served, the 
integrity of the investigation is served, and fairness to the Member is 
ensured.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin], my cochair on the task force.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston] for yielding me this time. I agree with the points 
that he has made.
  The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] has been a very valuable 
member of the Ethics Committee. I know that his amendment is sincere. 
We just disagree as to what would be the most efficient way and the 
fairest way in which to operate the Ethics Committee.
  One thing I would like to point out is that there are underlying 
changes that we have made in the rules that will deal with many of the 
problems that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] brought to our 
attention. Let me try to explain.
  Before we have reached the point of expanding the scope of an 
investigation, there will have been at least three votes in the 
committee or by the chairman and ranking member, to protect, to make 
sure that this is a serious matter and certainly one that is proceeding 
in a nonpartisan or a bipartisan manner.
  First, the chairman and ranking member have already determined that 
the information that was submitted is a complaint. Either one could 
have stopped it, but they have mutually agreed that we have a 
legitimate complaint that complies with the rules.
  Second, the chairman and ranking member will have completed the 
initial factfinding and will have determined that it either should go 
forward for investigation or have taken it to the full committee, and 
the full committee has voted for it to go to investigation. So we have 
had a second opportunity to make sure that there is bipartisan support 
to proceed with an investigation.
  Third, the subcommittee will have had to take action to initiate 
investigative powers. It cannot do it by two, it has to do it by a 
majority. It has to be a bipartisan issue. At each phase of that 
process, the respondent will have gotten written notice.
  I underscore that because the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] 
pointed out, and rightly so, the procedures that were available when 
the rules were applicable against the former Speaker Jim Wright. When 
those rules were in effect, there were no notice requirements to the 
respondent.
  We have put in these rules that the respondent will know at every 
stage, including when a complaint is determined to be a complaint, when 
it goes to investigation, when the investigative powers are going to be 
used by the subcommittee, when the scope is being expanded; at each of 
those times, the respondent is entitled to written notice. That is part 
of the due process that has been written into these new rules.
  During the Wright investigation, we did not have a bifurcated 
process. There was nothing to be lost by the full committee being 
involved in that process.
  Members really need to ask themselves, what are they achieving by 
placing another obstacle into the subcommittee's work? What are they 
achieving? And what are they risking? If they require full committee 
action to expand scope, they risk the bifurcation.
  The bifurcation means that those who investigate is a different group 
than those who judge. A Member is entitled to have an independent jury 
make the final determination whether the rules were violated or not.
  The members that do the investigation cannot participate in that 
determination. But yet if we require the subcommittee to go to the full 
committee, those who are going to make the decision as to innocence or 
guilt on the rules violation, the subcommittee, by necessity, is going 
to have to disclose information that should not be disclosed and we are 
not going to have an objective pool in order to make judgment.
  That is what the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 
brought out, and it does violate the bifurcation process and the due 
process to the Member.
  The second is that when we involve more people, we run the risk for 
confidentiality problems.
  The third risk is, it is a delay. Particularly, you have to bring the 
full committee back, you may be in recess, you do not know, but it is a 
delay. We have been talking on the floor over and over again, we do not 
want complaints hanging over Members' heads. You want us to move more 
rapidly in resolving these issues.
  I think the Bunning amendment, as well intended as it is, runs the 
risk of jeopardizing bifurcation, runs the risk of compromising 
confidentiality, and runs the risk of delay. What do we achieve by it? 
Very, very little.
  Yes, there is some protection to go back to the full committee, I 
would grant that. But at this point, when we have already had at least 
three opportunities with the full Ethics Committee to have done some 
action on this in a bipartisan way, I think the time has come that the 
risks involved in confidentiality, in expediting the matter,

[[Page H7567]]

and in protecting an independent jury pool outweigh the gain that it 
would be to go back to the full committee.
  For all those reasons, I would urge my colleagues to reject the 
Bunning amendment, and let us go forward with the process that we have 
put into place. It will allow for a more timely consideration. It does 
protect the due process of a Member. We have provided much more due 
process to the Member than we had before these rules were adopted. I 
urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Dear friends, we are getting to the end of this discussion, and I do 
not think we have ever actually taken a look at what it is we are 
discussing. Here it is, 1,299 closely spaced pages of small print.
  I am sure the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] have seen this volume. They 
probably see it in their dreams at night, tumbling off shelves and 
burying them. But the fact of the matter is that this contains the 
Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the rules and practices of the 
House of Representatives. That is what we are talking about.
  That is why I think that this amendment that the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] and I are bringing forward deserves your 
favorable consideration. We should have the full committee if you are 
dealing with the two fundamental issues, whether the scope should 
proceed forward or whether there should be subpoenas issued, to be 
dealt with in the manner in which it has been discussed with this 
amendment.
  I have been told, and I see that the Judiciary chairman is here, that 
if this is an amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Bunning] and the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], it should 
either pass unanimously or be defeated unanimously.
  I am not quite sure how that will work out, but I think what it 
indicates is that this is not a partisan consideration. We are putting 
this forward because we believe it is in the interest of the House as 
an institution, because we love this body, because we have sworn an 
oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and when you defend the 
House of Representatives, when you defend the basic fundamental 
integrity of the House, you are defending this Constitution, you are 
defending these rules. This book is as sacred as we get in a secular 
context in our House of Representatives in our country.
  Therefore, I would like to say at this point, then, that the Members, 
especially the gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from 
Louisiana, deserve our thanks for their hard work, their 
levelheadedness, and I want to say their largeness of spirit. The 
manner in which this has been conducted is proof of that, and I am 
very, very grateful for this opportunity to speak on it.
  All we are saying here is that only the subcommittee authority be 
renewed from its source when it moves into new areas of investigation. 
By clarifying that point, we strengthen the measure before us, we 
strengthen the Ethics Committee and its work, we strengthen the 
integrity of this House, we strengthen democracy. On that basis, dear 
friends, I ask for your favorable consideration of this amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] has 
2\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] has the right to close.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, there is no delaying the process by 
taking the request of the subcommittee back to the full committee. It 
may take 2 hours. In fact, that is exactly how long it took the last 
time the subcommittee came back and asked for expansion of powers. It 
took 2 hours to discuss it before the full committee, and we disposed 
of it and granted the expansion.
  Second, there is no possible chance that the bifurcation, or someone 
investigating and someone adjudicating, would be confused or 
compromised by this process, because the expansion of the investigation 
just says to the full committee, here are the facts, we want to go 
forward on these facts.
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] brought up the fact that 
there are three times that the ranking member and the chairperson, 
whoever it is, has agreed to an investigation; once on the complaint, 
once on factfinding, and one other time when they send it to the 
subcommittee. That is true. But that does not mean that when the 
subcommittee finds additional information that they want to 
investigate, that the full committee has ever seen it.
  I say that as nicely as I can, because in the determination of one 
case last time, the determination on punishment and compromise and 
settlement was made by four people. The rest of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct did not get a chance to even hear what 
the settlement was and what happened, and, therefore, as a member of 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I knew nothing about 
what happened on the subcommittee level.
  The respondent can be notified. I think that is a wonderful thing 
that they have in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct report 
that we have before us.
  Let me tell Members, we have to make sure that the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct and its process remains. All I urge is a 
``yes'' vote on the Bunning-Abercrombie amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment all the Members 
that have come to the well to debate what I think is an incredibly 
important subject and which ultimately governs the way this Congress 
polices its own. It is not a pleasant process, but it is a necessary 
one, and I think that the product of the votes so far have been fair 
and well thought out by the membership at large.
  I compliment my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] for 
his amendment. However well-intentioned it is, I think under the old 
rules and under the experiences that the gentleman has had under the 
old rules it may have been necessary, but I do not think it is 
necessary in the context of the package that is before the House today.
  We have provided respondents subject to ethics complaints more due 
process than has ever been imagined before. The fact is there is ample 
notification, warning, opportunities for counsel and instruction, 
opportunities for finding out the charges against you, opportunities 
for agreeing to or negotiating with the people in charge of the 
complaints without the fear that those negotiations would be used 
against you. All of these various forms of due process have been built 
into the system so that this amendment becomes unnecessary.
  If this amendment were adopted, we will see the bifurcation process 
disturbed and we will see a complication in the free flow of the 
process that becomes, I think, in some circumstances, unworkable and 
encourages a partisan breakdown.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I really think this amendment is 
unnecessary. I do not feel as strongly about it as I have in other 
instances, but I do believe that it is not necessary simply by view of 
the fact that we have adopted in this package wonderful due process 
mechanisms to serve the benefit of individual Members who might be 
charged.
  For that reason I urge the amendment be defeated and that the entire 
package be adopted. I understand there is going to be a motion to 
recommit. I would, obviously, if I get a chance to debate that, urge 
that it not be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank all Members once again for their undivided 
attention and cooperation in this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].

[[Page H7568]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221, 
noes 194, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 411]

                               AYES--221

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--194

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Kim
       

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Baker
     Bonilla
     Clay
     Foglietta
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Hastings (FL)
     Lipinski
     Meek
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Porter
     Schiff
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1652

  Messrs. STOKES, PACKARD, and BILBRAY changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Camp] having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the resolution (H. Res. 168), 
to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan House Ethics Reform 
Task Force, pursuant to House Resolution 230, he reported the bill back 
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Cardin

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
  Mr. CARDIN. I reluctantly oppose the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Cardin moves to recommit the resolution H. Res. 168 to 
     the Committee on Rules with instructions to report the same 
     back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. USE OF NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

       (a) Rules Amendment.--Clause 6(a) of rule X of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(3)(A) At the beginning of each Congress--
       ``(i) the Speaker (or his designee) shall designate a list 
     of 11 Members from the majority party; and
       ``(ii) the minority leader (or his designee) shall 
     designate a list of 11 Members from the minority party;

     who are not members of the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct and who may be assigned to serve as a member of an 
     investigative subcommittee of that committee during that 
     Congress. Members so chosen shall be announced tothe House.
       ``(B) Whenever the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct jointly 
     determine that Members designated under subdivision (A) 
     should be assigned to serve on an investigative subcommittee 
     of that committee, they shall each select the same number of 
     Members of his respective party from the list to serve on 
     that subcommittee.''.
       (b) Conforming Rules Amendment.--Clause 6(b)(2)(A) of rule 
     X of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
     inserting after the first sentence the following new 
     sentence: ``Service on an investigative subcommittee of the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct pursuant to 
     paragraph (a)(3) shall not be counted against the limitation 
     on subcommittee service.''.

     SEC. 2. DURATION OF SERVICE ON THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF 
                   OFFICIAL CONDUCT.

       The second sentence of clause 6(a)(2) of rule X of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read as 
     follows: ``No Member shall serve as a member of the Committee 
     on Standards of Official Conduct for more than two Congresses 
     in any period of three successive Congresses (disregarding 
     for this purpose any service performed as a member of such 
     committee for less than a full session in any Congress), 
     except that a Member having served on the committee for two 
     Congresses shall be eligible for election to the committee as 
     chairman or ranking minority member for one additional 
     Congress. Not less than two Members from each party shall 
     rotate off the committee at the end of each Congress.''.

     SEC. 3. COMMITTEE AGENDAS.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall adopt 
     rules providing that the

[[Page H7569]]

     chairman shall establish the agenda for meetings of the 
     committee, but shall not preclude the ranking minority member 
     from placing any item on the agenda.

     SEC. 4. COMMITTEE STAFF.

       (a) Committee Rules.--The Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing that:
       (1)(A) The staff is to be assembled and retained as a 
     professional, nonpartisan staff.
       (B) Each member of the staff shall be professional and 
     demonstrably qualified for the position for which he is 
     hired.
       (C) The staff as a whole and each member of the staff shall 
     perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner.
       (D) No member of the staff shall engage in any partisan 
     political activity directly affecting any congressional or 
     presidential election.
       (E) No member of the staff or outside counsel may accept 
     public speaking engagements or write for publication on any 
     subject that is in any way related to his or her employment 
     or duties with the committee without specific prior approval 
     from the chairman and ranking minority member.
       (F) No member of the staff or outside counsel may make 
     public, unless approved by an affirmative vote of a majority 
     of the members of the committee, any information, document, 
     or other material that is confidential, derived from 
     executive session, or classified and that is obtained during 
     the course of employment with the committee.
       (2)(A) All staff members shall be appointed by an 
     affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
     committee. Such vote shall occur at the first meeting of the 
     membership of the committee during each Congress and as 
     necessary during the Congress.
       (B) Subject to the approval of Committee on House 
     Oversight, the committee may retain counsel not employed by 
     the House of Representatives whenever the committee 
     determines, by an affirmative vote of a majority of the 
     members of the committee, that the retention of outside 
     counsel is necessary and appropriate.
       (C) If the committee determines that it is necessary to 
     retain staff members for the purpose of a particular 
     investigation or other proceeding, then such staff shall be 
     retained only for the duration of that particular 
     investigation or proceeding.
       (3) Outside counsel may be dismissed prior to the end of a 
     contract between the committee and such counsel only by an 
     affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
     committee.
       (4) Only subparagraphs (C), (E), and (F) of paragraph (1) 
     shall apply to shared staff.
       (b) Additional Committee Staff.--In addition to any other 
     staff provided for by law, rule, or other authority, with 
     respect to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     the chairman and ranking minority member each may appoint one 
     individual as a shared staff member from his or her personal 
     staff to perform service for the committee. Such shared staff 
     may assist the chairman or ranking minority member on any 
     subcommittee on which he serves.

     SEC. 5. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS.

       (a) House Rules.--(1) Clause 4(e)(3) of rule X of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3)(A) Notwithstanding clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI, each 
     meeting of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or 
     any subcommittee thereof shall occur in executive session, 
     unless the committee or subcommittee by an affirmative vote 
     of a majority of its members opens the meeting to the public.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI, hearings 
     of an adjudicatory subcommittee or sanction hearings held by 
     the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall be held 
     in open session unless the subcommittee or committee, in open 
     session by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, 
     closes all or part of the remainder of the hearing on that 
     day to the public.''.
       (2)(A) The first sentence of clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
     inserting ``(except the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct)'' after ``thereof''.
       (B) The first sentence of clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by inserting 
     ``(except the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct)'' 
     after ``thereof''.
       (b) Committee Rules.--The Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing that--
       (1) all meetings of the committee or any subcommittee 
     thereof shall occur in executive session unless the committee 
     or subcommittee by an affirmative vote of a majority of its 
     members opens the meeting or hearing to the public; and
       (2) any hearing held by an adjudicatory subcommittee or any 
     sanction hearing held by the committee shall be open to the 
     public unless the committee or subcommittee by an affirmative 
     vote of a majority of its members closes the hearing to the 
     public.

     SEC. 6. CONFIDENTIALITY OATHS.

       Clause 4(e) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4) Before any member, officer, or employee of the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, including members 
     of any subcommittee of the committee selected pursuant to 
     clause 6(a)(3) and shared staff, may have access to 
     information that is confidential under the rules of the 
     committee, the following oath (or affirmation) shall be 
     executed:

     `I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose, to 
     any person or entity outside the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct, any information received in the course of 
     my service with the committee, except as authorized by the 
     committee or in accordance with its rules.'

     Copies of the executed oath shall be retained by the Clerk of 
     the House as part of the records of the House. This 
     subparagraph establishes a standard of conduct within the 
     meaning of subparagraph (1)(B). Breaches of confidentiality 
     shall be investigated by the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct and appropriate action shall be taken.''.

     SEC. 7. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall adopt 
     rules providing that, unless otherwise determined by a vote 
     of the committee, only the chairman or ranking minority 
     member, after consultation with each other, may make public 
     statements regarding matters before the committee or any 
     subcommittee thereof.

     SEC. 8. CONFIDENTIALITY OF COMMITTEE VOTES.

       (a) Records.--The last sentence in clause 2(e)(1) of rule 
     XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
     adding before the period at the end the following: ``, except 
     that in the case of rollcall votes in the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct taken in executive session, the 
     result of any such vote shall not be made available for 
     inspection by the public without an affirmative vote of a 
     majority of the members of the committee''.
       (b) Reports.--Clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentence: ``The preceding sentence shall 
     not apply to votes taken in executive session by the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.''.

     SEC. 9. FILINGS BY NON-MEMBERS OF INFORMATION OFFERED AS A 
                   COMPLAINT.

       (a) Filings Sponsored by Members.--Clause 4(e)(2)(B) of 
     rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
     amended by striking ``or submitted to'', by inserting ``(I)'' 
     after ``(i)'', by striking ``a complaint'' and inserting 
     ``information offered as a complaint'', and by adding after 
     subdivision (I) the following new subdivision:
       ``(II) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, 
     in writing and under oath, from an individual not a Member of 
     the House provided that a Member of the House certifies in 
     writing to the committee that he or she believes the 
     information is submitted in good faith and warrants the 
     review and consideration of the committee, or''.
       (b) Direct Filing.--Clause 4(e)(2)(B)(ii) of rule X of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(ii) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, 
     in writing and under oath, directly from an individual not a 
     Member of the House.''.

     SEC. 10. REQUIREMENTS TO CONSTITUTE A COMPLAINT.

       (a) Procedural Requirements.--The Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall amend its rules regarding procedural 
     requirements governing information submitted as a complaint 
     pursuant to clause 4(e)(2)(B)(ii) of rule X of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives to provide that--
       (1) an individual who submits information to the committee 
     offered as a complaint must either have personal knowledge of 
     conduct which is the basis of the violation alleged in the 
     information, or base the information offered as a complaint 
     upon--
       (A) information received from another individual who the 
     complainant has a good faith reason to believe has personal 
     knowledge of such conduct; or
       (B) his personal review of--
       (i) documents kept in the ordinary course of business, 
     government, or personal affairs; or
       (ii) photographs, films, videotapes, or recordings;

     that contain information regarding conduct which is the basis 
     of a violation alleged in the information offered as a 
     complaint;
       (2) a complainant or an individual from whom the 
     complainant obtains information will be found to have 
     personal knowledge of conduct which is the basis of the 
     violation alleged in the information offered as a complaint 
     if the complainant or that individual witnessed or was a 
     participant in such conduct; and
       (3) an individual who submits information offered as a 
     complaint consisting solely of information contained in a 
     news or opinion source or publication that he believes to be 
     true does not have the requisite personal knowledge.
       (b) Time for Determination.--The Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall amend its rules regarding complaints 
     to provide that whenever information offered as a complaint 
     is submitted to the committee, the chairman and ranking 
     minority member shall have 14 calendar days or 5 legislative 
     days, whichever occurs first, to determine whether the 
     information meets the requirements of the committee's rules 
     for what constitutes a complaint.

     SEC. 11. DUTIES OF CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MINORITY MEMBER 
                   REGARDING PROPERLY FILED COMPLAINTS.

       (a) Committee Rules.--The Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing that whenever 
     the chairman and ranking minority member jointly determine 
     that information submitted to the committee meets the 
     requirements of the

[[Page H7570]]

     committee's rules for what constitutes a complaint, they 
     shall have 45 calendar days or 5 legislative days, whichever 
     is later, after the date that the chairman and ranking 
     minority member determine that information filed meets the 
     requirements of the committee's rules for what constitutes a 
     complaint, unless the committee by an affirmative vote of a 
     majority of its members votes otherwise, to--
       (1) recommend to the committee that it dispose of the 
     complaint, or any portion thereof, in any manner that does 
     not require action by the House, which may include dismissal 
     of the complaint or resolution of the complaint by a 
     letter to the Member, officer, or employee of the House 
     against whom the complaint is made;
       (2) establish an investigative subcommittee; or
       (3) request that the committee extend the applicable 45-
     calendar day or 5-legislative day period by one additional 
     45-calendar day period when they determine more time is 
     necessary in order to make a recommendation under paragraph 
     (1).
       (b) House Rules.--Clause 4(e)(2)(A) of rule X of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives is amended by inserting 
     ``(i)'' after ``(A)'', by striking ``and no'' and inserting 
     ``and, except as provided by subdivision (ii), no'', and by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii)(I) Upon the receipt of information offered as a 
     complaint that is in compliance with this rule and the 
     committee rules, the chairman and ranking minority member may 
     jointly appoint members to serve as an investigative 
     subcommittee.
       ``(II) The chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     committee may jointly gather additional information 
     concerning alleged conduct which is the basis of a complaint 
     or of information offered as a complaint until they have 
     established an investigative subcommittee or the chairman or 
     ranking minority member has placed on the committee agenda 
     the issue of whether to establish an investigative 
     subcommittee.''.
       (c) Disposition of Properly Filed Complaints by Chairman 
     and Ranking Minority Member if No Action Taken by Them Within 
     Prescribed Time Limit.--The Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing that if the 
     chairman and ranking minority member jointly determine that 
     information submitted to the committee meets the requirements 
     of the committee rules for what constitutes a complaint, and 
     the complaint is not disposed of within the applicable time 
     periods under subsection (a), then they shall establish an 
     investigative subcommittee and forward the complaint, or any 
     portion thereof, to that subcommittee for its consideration. 
     However, if, at any time during those periods, either the 
     chairman or ranking minority member places on the agenda the 
     issue of whether to establish an investigative subcommittee, 
     then an investigative subcommittee may be established only by 
     an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
     committee.
       (d) House Rules.--Clause 4(e)(2)(B) of rule X of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new sentences:

     ``If a complaint is not disposed of within the applicable 
     time periods set forth in the rules of the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct, then the chairman and ranking 
     minority member shall jointly establish an investigative 
     subcommittee and forward the complaint, or any portion 
     thereof, to that subcommittee for its consideration. However, 
     if, at any time during those periods, either the chairman or 
     ranking minority member places on the agenda the issue of 
     whether to establish an investigative subcommittee,then an 
     investigative subcommittee may be established only by an 
     affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
     committee.''.

     SEC. 12. DUTIES OF CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MINORITY MEMBER 
                   REGARDING INFORMATION NOT CONSTITUTING A 
                   COMPLAINT.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall adopt 
     rules providing that whenever the chairman and ranking 
     minority member jointly determine that information submitted 
     to the committee does not meet the requirements for what 
     constitutes a complaint set forth in the committee rules, 
     they may--
       (1) return the information to the complainant with a 
     statement that it fails to meet the requirements for what 
     constitutes a complaint set forth in the committee's rules; 
     or
       (2) recommend to the committee that it authorize the 
     establishment of an investigative subcommittee.

     SEC. 13. INVESTIGATIVE AND ADJUDICATORY SUBCOMMITTEES.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall adopt 
     rules providing that--
       (1)(A) investigative subcommittees shall be comprised of 4 
     Members (with equal representation from the majority and 
     minority parties) whenever such subcommittee is established 
     pursuant to the rules of the committee; and
       (B) adjudicatory subcommittees shall be comprised of the 
     members of the committee who did not serve on the 
     investigative subcommittee (with equal representation from 
     the majority and minority parties) whenever such subcommittee 
     is established pursuant to the rules of the committee;
       (2) at the time of appointment, the chairman shall 
     designate one member of the subcommittee to serve as chairman 
     and the ranking minority member shall designate one member of 
     the subcommittee to serve as the ranking minority member of 
     the investigative subcommittee or adjudicatory subcommittee; 
     and
       (3) the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     committee may serve as members of an investigative 
     subcommittee, but may not serve as non-voting, ex officio 
     members.

     SEC. 14. STANDARD OF PROOF FOR ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF 
                   ALLEGED VIOLATION.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall amend 
     its rules to provide that an investigative subcommittee may 
     adopt a statement of alleged violation only if it determines 
     by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
     committee that there is substantial reason to believe that a 
     violation of the Code of Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, 
     regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the 
     performance of official duties or the discharge of official 
     responsibilities by a Member, officer, or employee of the 
     House of Representatives has occurred.

     SEC. 15. SUBCOMMITTEE POWERS.

       (a) Subpoena Power.--
       (1) House rules.--Clause 2(m)(2)(A) of rule XI of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives is amended--
       (A) in the second sentence by striking ``The'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided by the next sentence, the''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting after the second sentence the following 
     new sentence: ``In the case of the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct or any subcommittee thereof, a subpoena may 
     be authorized and issued by the committee only when 
     authorized by a majority of the members voting (a majority 
     being present) or by a subcommittee only when authorized by 
     an affirmative vote of a majority of its members.''.
       (2) Committee rules.--The Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing that an 
     investigative subcommittee or an adjudicatory subcommittee 
     may authorize and issue subpoenas only when authorized by an 
     affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
     subcommittee.
       (b) Expansion of Scope of Investigations.--The Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing 
     that an investigative subcommittee may, upon an affirmative 
     vote of a majority of its members, expand the scope of its 
     investigation without the approval of the committee.
       (c) Amendments of Statements of Alleged Violation.--The 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall adopt rules 
     to provide that--
       (1) an investigative subcommittee may, upon an affirmative 
     vote of a majority of its members, amend its statement of 
     alleged violation anytime before the statement of alleged 
     violation is transmitted to the committee; and
       (2) if an investigative subcommittee amends its statement 
     of alleged violation, the respondent shall be notified in 
     writing and shall have 30 calendar days from the date of that 
     notification to file an answer to the amended statement of 
     alleged violation.

     SEC. 16. DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF RESPONDENTS.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall amend 
     its rules to provide that--
       (1) not less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled vote 
     by an investigative subcommittee on a statement of alleged 
     violation, the subcommittee shall provide the respondent with 
     a copy of the statement of alleged violation it intends to 
     adopt together with all evidence it intends to use to prove 
     those charges which it intends to adopt, including 
     documentary evidence, witness testimony, memoranda of witness 
     interviews, and physical evidence, unless the subcommittee by 
     an affirmative vote of a majority of its members decides to 
     withhold certain evidence in order to protect a witness, but 
     if such evidence is withheld, the subcommittee shall inform 
     the respondent that evidence is being withheld and of the 
     count to which such evidence relates;
       (2) neither the respondent nor his counsel shall, directly 
     or indirectly, contact the subcommittee or any member thereof 
     during the period of time set forth in paragraph (1) except 
     for the sole purpose of settlement discussions where counsels 
     for the respondent and the subcommittee are present;
       (3) if, at any time after the issuance of a statement of 
     alleged violation, the committee or any subcommittee thereof 
     determines that it intends to use evidence not provided to a 
     respondent under paragraph (1) to prove the charges contained 
     in the statement of alleged violation (or any amendment 
     thereof), such evidence shall be made immediately available 
     to the respondent, and it may be used in any further 
     proceeding under the committee's rules;
       (4) evidence provided pursuant to paragraph (1) or (3) 
     shall be made available to the respondent and his or her 
     counsel only after each agrees, in writing, that no document, 
     information, or other materials obtained pursuant to that 
     paragraph shall be made public until--
       (A) such time as a statement of alleged violation is made 
     public by the committee if the respondent has waived the 
     adjudicatory hearing; or
       (B) the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing if the 
     respondent has not waived an adjudicatory hearing;


[[Page H7571]]


     but the failure of respondent and his counsel to so agree in 
     writing, and therefore not receive the evidence, shall not 
     preclude the issuance of a statement of alleged violation at 
     the end of the period referred to in paragraph (1);
       (5) a respondent shall receive written notice whenever--
       (A) the chairman and ranking minority member determine that 
     information the committee has received constitutes a 
     complaint;
       (B) a complaint or allegation is transmitted to an 
     investigative subcommittee;
       (C) that subcommittee votes to authorize its first subpoena 
     or to take testimony under oath, whichever occurs first; and
       (D) an investigative subcommittee votes to expand the scope 
     of its investigation;
       (6) whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a 
     statement of alleged violation and a respondent enters into 
     an agreement with that subcommittee to settle a complaint on 
     which that statement is based, that agreement, unless the 
     respondent requests otherwise, shall be in writing and signed 
     by the respondent and respondent's counsel, the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and the outside 
     counsel, if any;
       (7) statements or information derived solely from a 
     respondent or his counsel during any settlement discussions 
     between the committee or a subcommittee thereof and the 
     respondent shall not be included in any report of the 
     subcommittee or the committee or otherwise publicly disclosed 
     without the consent of the respondent; and
       (8) whenever a motion to establish an investigative 
     subcommittee does not prevail, the committee shall promptly 
     send a letter to the respondent informing him of such vote.

     SEC. 17. COMMITTEE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall amend 
     its rules to provide that--
       (1) whenever an investigative subcommittee does not adopt a 
     statement of alleged violation and transmits a report to that 
     effect to the committee, the committee may by an affirmative 
     vote of a majority of its members transmit such report to the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (2) whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a 
     statement of alleged violation, the respondent admits to the 
     violations set forth in such statement, the respondent waives 
     his or her right to an adjudicatory hearing, and the 
     respondent's waiver is approved by the committee--
       (A) the subcommittee shall prepare a report for transmittal 
     to the committee, a final draft of which shall be provided to 
     the respondent not less than 15 calendar days before the 
     subcommittee votes on whether to adopt the report;
       (B) the respondent may submit views in writing regarding 
     the final draft to the subcommittee within 7 calendar days of 
     receipt of that draft;
       (C) the subcommittee shall transmit a report to the 
     committee regarding the statement of alleged violation 
     together with any views submitted by the respondent pursuant 
     to subparagraph (B), and the committee shall make the report 
     together with the respondent's views available to the public 
     before the commencement of any sanction hearing; and
       (D) the committee shall by an affirmative vote of a 
     majority of its members issue a report and transmit such 
     report to the House of Representatives, together with the 
     respondent's views previously submitted pursuant to 
     subparagraph (B) and any additional views respondent may 
     submit for attachment to the final report; and
       (3) members of the committee shall have not less than 72 
     hours to review any report transmitted to the committee by an 
     investigative subcommittee before both the commencement of a 
     sanction hearing and the committee vote on whether to adopt 
     the report.

     SEC. 18. REFERRALS TO FEDERAL OR STATE AUTHORITIES.

       Clause 4(e)(1)(C) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by striking ``with the approval of 
     the House'' and inserting ``either with the approval of the 
     House or by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members 
     of the committee''.

     SEC. 19. FRIVOLOUS FILINGS.

       Clause 4(e) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5)(A) If a complaint or information offered as a 
     complaint is deemed frivolous by an affirmative vote of a 
     majority of the members of the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct, the committee may take such action as it, 
     by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, deems 
     appropriate in the circumstances.
       ``(B) Complaints filed before the One Hundred Fifth 
     Congress may not be deemed frivolous by the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct.''.

     SEC. 20. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall--
       (1) clarify its rules to provide that whenever the 
     committee votes to authorize an investigation on its own 
     initiative, the chairman and ranking minority member shall 
     establish an investigative subcommittee to undertake such 
     investigation;
       (2) revise its rules to refer to hearings held by an 
     adjudicatory subcommittee as adjudicatory hearings; and
       (3) make such other amendments to its rules as necessary to 
     conform such rules to this resolution.

     SEC. 21. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This resolution and the amendments made by it apply with 
     respect to any complaint or information offered as a 
     complaint that is or has been filed during this Congress.

  Mr. CARDIN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record; and pending that, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to 
recommit be debatable for 4 minutes, equally divided and controlled by 
myself and a Member in opposition thereto.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the motion is considered 
as having been read and printed in the Record.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit will return the rule 
to the original resolution approved by the bipartisan task force. It 
would include the manager's amendment, but none of the other 
amendments. It will give this House a chance to vote on the rules 
package that was approved in a bipartisan manner.
  Mr. Speaker, this will be the last opportunity that this House will 
have to reform the ethics process in a bipartisan manner. We have had a 
good debate on the floor. I think the issues have been well debated. I 
would hope that in the end the Members of this House would understand 
that it is not in our interests to amend the rules when the amendments 
are being passed by such a lopsided, partisan majority. That does not 
further the process. Ethics changes should be worked out in a 
bipartisan manner.
  There is a lot of good in this resolution. The original report is 
what should be approved by this House. I would urge my colleagues to 
support the motion to recommit so that we can pass a bipartisan change 
in our rules package.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the views of my friend, who has served so 
diligently as cochair of this incredibly tough task force. Had I had it 
within my power to go back and reverse time, I would never have served 
on this task force. But I have.
  At various times in this debate, I have had Members on the other side 
of the aisle say they would never vote for the final package if some 
amendments passed, and have had Members on this side say, I would never 
vote for this vital package if other amendments passed, or did not 
pass.
  The fact is, this body, in bipartisan fashion, has tackled three 
tough amendments and has voted. Members on both sides have voted for 
and against all three amendments. It is impossible to say that what has 
happened today has been a partisan diatribe.
  We now have the first bipartisan revision of the task force rules, of 
the rules for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, that have 
passed the House of Representatives since 1989. We have a solid 
revision. We have one that provides for expedited processing and 
enhanced due process, it raises the standard to charge that a violation 
has occurred to a substantial standard, and prohibits frivolous 
filings.
  It is an important package. It is a bipartisan package. I believe 
that it is the best package, now that the Members have had a chance to 
vote on all three amendments, regardless of the outcome. I urge the 
defeat of the motion to recommit and the passage of the final package.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.

[[Page H7572]]

                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of 
rule XV, the Chair announces that he may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if 
ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 236, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 412]

                               AYES--176

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     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
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--236

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     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
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     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
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Kim
       

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baker
     Bonilla
     Clay
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Lipinski
     Meek
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Porter
     Schiff
     Smith, Adam
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1717

  Messrs. KINGSTON, GILLMOR, ARMEY, and DICKS changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Camp]. The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 258, 
noes 154, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 413]

                               AYES--258

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh

[[Page H7573]]


     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--154

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gejdenson
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Kim
       

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Abercrombie
     Baker
     Bonilla
     Clay
     Foglietta
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Lipinski
     Meek
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Porter
     Schiff
     Smith, Adam
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1732

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________