[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 44 (Thursday, April 14, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2077-H2081]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring 
of the majority leader the schedule for the coming week.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority leader, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the distinguished whip for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 2 p.m. for 
legislative business. We will consider several measures under the 
suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to 
the Members' offices by the end of the week. Any votes called on these 
measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m.
  On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will convene at 10 a.m. for 
legislative business. We will likely consider additional legislation 
under the suspension of the rules, as well as H.R. 6, the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
informing us of that schedule.
  Mr. Leader, tomorrow is a day on which the conference report on the 
budget is supposed to be adopted, as you well know. However, the House 
is yet to appoint conferees. When might we appoint conferees, given the 
fact that we are already behind schedule?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, 
obviously we would have liked to have met the statutory deadline of 
April 15, but, unfortunately, we will not. I am advised that the 
Speaker has not yet decided when he would like to appoint the conferees 
to meet with the Senate, but it could occur as early as next week.
  Hopefully, within the next few weeks we will have a conference report 
for the House to consider that provides for the extension of the pro-
growth tax policies enacted in 2001 and 2003, reduces non-security 
discretionary spending, and provides for important reforms of 
entitlement programs.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. 
Obviously he articulates reasons that he believes this bill is an 
important piece of legislation.
  In light of the fact that the Speaker has not yet decided who he 
wants to appoint as conferees, does the gentleman have any thought as 
to when we might contemplate having the conference committee meet and 
then, of course, the conference report on the floor? I ask that from 
two perspectives: one, as the representative of the party who would 
like to know what is going on, as I am sure the gentleman would as 
well; and, secondly as an appropriator.
  As the gentleman knows, until the conference committee report is 
adopted, it has the appropriations committees somewhat in limbo as it 
relates to allocations to the committees and then allowing us to make 
the 302(b) allocations.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield further to my friend in terms of what 
expectations he might have as to timing from this point to when we 
might adopt a budget, in light of the fact it is my understanding from 
the staff of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) that there is 
hope that we will start to mark up bills sometime in mid-May. I do not 
know whether the majority leader has the same understanding or not.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman continuing to 
yield. The gentleman has touched on many points. I am advised, and I 
stand to be corrected, but having served on the Committee on 
Appropriations, the rules allow that once we pass the April 15 deadline 
for having a budget, the Committee on Appropriations is allowed to 
start their work without a budget.
  I am advised also by the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) 
of the Committee on Appropriations, who is walking in front of me right 
now and hopefully will correct me if I am wrong, that the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Lewis) has begun the appropriations process 
in earnest and he has a very ambitious schedule. In fact, I am told 
that we will have the opportunity to schedule appropriations bills for 
the floor by the middle of May, and I anticipate, not anticipate, we 
have set as a schedule, another way of putting it, we have turned over 
the schedule to the Committee on Appropriations to get their work done. 
It will be a very ambitious appropriations schedule starting the middle 
of May.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I would be pleased to yield to my friend, the gentleman 
from California, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Appropriations 
colleague yielding me a moment just to say that my colleague, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I have spent a lot of time 
together discussing these questions and the schedule and otherwise. The 
relationship is extremely positive, and I believe he and I this week, 
before the week is out, will have a chance to sit down and talk about 
302(b)s, for example. We are going to move forward very expeditiously, 
and I think it will benefit, one more time, my colleague and I, who are 
Appropriations members together, and it will benefit our committee 
greatly.

[[Page H2078]]

  I very much appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's observation.
  My presumption is then, Mr. Chairman, before he leaves the floor, my 
presumption would be, for the Members of the House and also for the 
members of the Committee on Appropriations, that the Committee on 
Appropriations will proceed as if the House numbers were the numbers? 
Am I correct on that? I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, we have come to the conclusion, 
by looking at some recent history, that we can, within pretty close 
margins, measure what our likely allocations will be. The subcommittees 
are proceeding as though there are numbers, recognizing full well that 
we will have to respond to the final budget package as they have given 
it to us and as we have talked between subcommittee chairmen, but we 
can pretty well guesstimate.
  In the past, I believe that we have tended to delay our process 
because we decided we had to wait until the budget process was already 
complete, and we let supplementals interfere with that process, et 
cetera. So, in the past, we found ourselves sending our product to the 
other body just as we go past the end of the fiscal year, hardly giving 
them the time to do the kind of work that they would like to do, thus 
the omnibus, et cetera.
  The cooperation between the two bodies, I must say to my colleague, 
is better than I could ever have imagined. It is a fabulous, growing 
relationship, and I think it will benefit both of the bodies.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman's original question was when will we see a conference 
report for the budget come to the floor. I am hoping as soon as 
possible, obviously. I have no idea when the negotiations with the 
House and the Senate will start in earnest, when we will appoint the 
conference committee. There is very little difference, quite frankly, 
from the House bill and the Senate bill, and I would assume that the 
major issues will be taken care of in a matter of days, if not a couple 
of weeks.
  So I would assume that we could have a conference report on a budget 
hopefully by the first of May. At least that is what we would like to 
see happen.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Reclaiming my time, the business that the gentleman from Texas has 
set forth for next week is the energy business. Given the schedule the 
gentleman has just announced, would the gentleman expect the bill to be 
on the floor both Wednesday and Thursday?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is correct, 
both Wednesday and Thursday. This is a major, major piece of 
legislation, as the gentleman from Maryland knows. This bill has passed 
this House before. It required lengthy debate. It also required time to 
consider amendments, and we anticipate it taking all of Wednesday and 
most of Thursday to complete.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the leader.
  Given the time that is allocated to this bill, I presume, as the 
Leader has apparently indicated, that it is the expectation of the 
Committee on Rules to have a full amendatory process. My expectation is 
you are not going to have a fully open rule but that you would have 
some modified open rule. Am I correct on that?
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
Obviously, I cannot anticipate what the Committee on Rules may do on 
this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, some of us do not believe 
that is quite as obvious as the gentleman does.
  I yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I do recall that in the last Congress when we approached the energy 
bill there was I think at least 20, if not more, amendments allowed on 
the bill. I would anticipate that the same approach, because the bill 
is very similar to the bill we passed in the last Congress, would be 
taken.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the Leader's 
observation. I know that, on our side, we had a discussion on that bill 
this morning. All of us believe the energy bill is a very, very 
important piece of legislation. All of us are concerned about the gas 
prices that are confronting all of our constituents. I have a number of 
employees who commute significant distances. Although they live 
relatively close by, it is a 45-minute commute in traffic and a lot of 
gas, and they spend a lot of money on gasoline. In addition to that, 
energy independence, of course, is part of our national security. So we 
are hopeful that we will fashion a bill in a bipartisan way that we can 
see passed and signed by the President.
  Mr. Speaker, the last item I would ask the Majority Leader about is, 
as the gentleman knows, the ethics process in the House is essentially 
at a standstill. The gentleman has made that observation, obviously; 
and we have made that observation as well. Efforts to move the ethics 
process forward have failed so far, both in committee and on the floor, 
when virtually all of the Members on the gentleman's side of the aisle, 
now twice, have voted to table motions that would have provided for the 
appointment of a bipartisan task force to make recommendations to 
restore public confidence in the ethics process.
  As the gentleman knows, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), he 
was sitting to my left here, although he is now to my right; maybe he 
is running for office and wants to position himself; but the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and Mr. Livingston performed an outstanding 
service for this House in coming together and adopting and presenting, 
proposing a bipartisan ethics process. We had that in place, as the 
gentleman knows, and it was changed, we believe, in a partisan fashion.
  We oppose that change, as the gentleman knows, as does the former 
chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). He and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have a bill, and that bipartisan resolution has 
now 207 cosponsors, and that would simply return the ethics rules to 
where they were, adopted bipartisanly, proposed bipartisanly by the 
Livingston-Cardin Committee, and it would return to a place where we 
believe the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct would not be at 
impasse.

  We are also concerned about, as the gentleman knows, the chairman's 
proposition that we have a partisan division now of the ethics staff, 
which heretofore has been a bipartisan, I might even say nonpartisan, 
staff.
  I would respectfully inquire, given that background, which the 
gentleman knows, of course, if and when we might see House Joint 
Resolution 131 on the floor. As I say, it has 207 cosponsors. It 
reflects the bipartisan agreement of the Livingston-Cardin committee 
and the bipartisan vote of this House some years ago in adopting the 
Livingston-Cardin option.
  In the alternative, of course, when we might find an opportunity to 
support a bipartisan commission that could again look at this and try 
to get us off the dime.
  I know I have mentioned a number of points, Mr. Leader, but I know 
that the gentleman believes it is important personally and 
institutionally. I have worked with the gentleman institutionally. We 
want to see this institution not mired in ethical questions of our side 
or of the gentleman's side. I think that either direction might get us 
there.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the Leader respectfully if he thinks that we might 
proceed in either direction, or perhaps both, and I yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  This is a very, very important issue that upholds the integrity of 
the House, that has to do with the image of the House in making sure 
that the House can enforce its own rules in a bipartisan way. I would 
just remind the gentleman, with all the work that the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and Mr. Livingston did, which is excellent work, 
unfortunately, we cannot anticipate unintended consequences;

[[Page H2079]]

and once we start implementing that wonderful work, we find out that 
there are some flaws that need to be corrected.
  The Speaker of the House looked at the last few years and decided 
that the rules allowed the use of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct for partisan purposes, and its ability to act in a 
bipartisan way was seriously hindered. Most importantly, there were 
some due-process issues to protect Members of their due-process rights.
  I will give my colleagues one example. The committee, on its own, 
decided to change the way they operated from the past. In the past, 
when the committee wanted to warn a Member about certain actions that 
were not in violation of the rules, they used to send a private letter 
to that Member. This committee and the last committee had decided on 
their own that, without consulting with the affected Member, to send a 
public letter and release the underlying documents to support their 
position, without the opportunity for a Member to face the committee 
and discuss those letters of warning, the Speaker felt very strongly 
that that undermines the rights of every Member, both Democrat and 
Republican, to due process.
  The Speaker, in his office, looked at the standing rules of the 108th 
Congress in this regard and felt that some minor changes needed to be 
made; one, to protect the committee from being politicized; and, two, 
to protect Members' rights of due process. That suggestion by the 
Speaker, as the gentleman knows, was brought to this House and debated 
extensively on this House floor, and those amendments to the rules were 
passed by the entire House, with some nay votes, I understand.
  I think it is unfortunate that we have found ourselves in this 
position, particularly when the Speaker was trying to protect the 
rights of the Members and certainly, more importantly, protect the 
integrity of the institution that we have reached this point. I am 
advised through the Speaker that the chairman of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct is working with his Ranking Member, and I 
would hope that they would come to some sort of agreement in how we get 
past this impasse. Otherwise, the rights of Members will not be 
protected, and I find that extremely unfortunate.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the Leader for 
his thoughtful response. We have a difference of view on the change 
that was made from the Livingston-Cardin and House-adopted ethics rules 
which provided for an investigation of any Member to go forward unless 
a majority of the committee disposed of it. That meant, as the 
gentleman knows, that it would have to be bipartisan, because the 
committee is equally divided, so we would have to have at least one 
other Member, assuming one party was united on either side, one other 
Member of the other party to join in the disposition of a case. And if 
that disposition did not occur, an investigation would go forward.
  Unfortunately, it is our perception, I say to the gentleman, that 
what the Speaker, because the gentleman said the Speaker wanted to 
protect the Members, what the Speaker has done from our perspective 
and, we think, from the perspective of many is created a process where 
on the inaction of the committee, based upon a tie vote so that a 
partisan group can stop an investigation, that the investigation will 
thereby be dismissed. So it turned the process 180 degrees, from having 
a bipartisan vote to dismiss to now having a partisan vote or a 
bipartisan vote necessary to proceed.
  We believe that undermines the protection of the institution. We 
believe that that was not necessary in order to protect individuals and 
Members, which we think is an appropriate due-process protection.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. DeLAY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I certainly will, but let me make one additional point. 
Every previous change that I know of, and you and I have been here 
about the same time. I have been here perhaps a couple of years longer 
than you. Every change that I know of in the ethics rules have been 
affected by a bipartisan agreement until this one. There were only a 
few votes, I think we were almost unanimous on our side, which is not 
unusual, which is why the ethics rules has historically been separate 
and apart, perhaps in the rules package, but agreed to in a bipartisan 
fashion. And that is my concern.
  Mr. DeLAY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. And I will be glad to yield my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. The 
gentleman has raised two issues: one is process and one is substance. 
On the process side, the gentleman is correct. And the gentleman would 
have to ask the Speaker about the process of bringing the rules to the 
floor in a bipartisan way. And I do not want to second-guess the 
Speaker, and the gentleman may well have a good argument on process.
  But in the substance, the gentleman is correct. And I hope all 
Members are watching this because they need to consider this very 
strongly, that the gentleman cannot have it both ways. The gentleman 
wants a bipartisan process. The Speaker was bringing a bipartisan 
process, which means that in order to proceed to an investigative 
subcommittee you would have to have a majority vote, which would be 
bipartisan, a bipartisan vote to proceed to the investigative 
committee.
  What some partisans had found, that if there was no agreement and 
charges brought against a Member, the Member would be hung out to dry. 
There would be no action, or there could be automatic action without a 
majority vote of the committee. That is the problem. That is what 
allows people to use it for partisan politics is that if one side or 
the other decides to deadlock the ethics committee, then the Member 
that has been charged can be held out and held up for many days, if not 
months, before a resolution of that charge comes.
  The Speaker came up with a way to make sure that the committee is 
bipartisan because it requires a bipartisan vote to move forward.
  The gentleman is suggesting that he would like to change, for the 
House and the rights of the Members, something that is so different 
than the rules of procedures in courts of law. If a grand jury is 
deadlocked in an indictment, there is no process that goes forward. If 
there is a full jury in a trial that is deadlocked, there is no process 
that goes forward. It has to be clear, without a reasonable doubt, with 
no reasonable doubt that the offense is right and needs to proceed. And 
that is why the Speaker created a bipartisan process for that to 
proceed. And it can work for both sides politically. It can work for 
Democrats as well as Republicans. And that is why I say the Speaker was 
trying and worked very hard to protect the rights of the accused, and 
more important than that, the rights of each and every Member of this 
House.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank again the 
gentleman for his thoughtful remarks. We see it differently, Mr. 
Leader. What we have created is the ability of both sides to stop 
investigations in their tracks. Both sides. Our side, if we block up, 
and our five say you are not going to investigate Steny Hoyer, they can 
do it. Formerly they could not do that. And I believe your analogy is 
not apt, and I want to tell you why I think so, Mr. Leader.
  The investigation is the gathering of facts, not the charging, not 
the finding of involvement. We do not use the term ``guilt,'' but the 
finding of involvement. It is an investigation to gather the facts from 
which the decision-makers, whether it be a grand jury or a petit jury, 
whether it be a judge or whether it be a prosecutor who determines 
whether to bring an indictment. Once those decision-makers have the 
facts, they can then make a rational decision, we hope.
  What we have done, however, in changing the rules, which were adopted 
in a bipartisan fashion, is to allow either side to preclude the 
investigator from gathering the facts. That is as if we could preclude 
the police or the FBI or others from gathering facts that they would 
then, in turn, submit to a decision-maker, whether a grand jury to 
bring an indictment, a prosecutor to bring a charge, a petit jury to 
bring a conviction. I think that is inaccurate
  Mr. DeLAY. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H2080]]

  Mr. HOYER. I certainly will yield to the leader, but before I do, do 
you see my point, Mr. Leader? Either one of us could protect ourselves. 
Either one of us, your side could protect yourselves by your five 
holding firm. Our side could protect ourselves by holding firm. That 
may protect us individually, but our position is it does not protect 
the institution, and that is what our concern is. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman has made my 
point. Under the old rules, both sides could protect themselves.
  Mr. HOYER. No, sir. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman is not going to let me respond and 
interrupt me, then this colloquy can end.
  Mr. HOYER. I want to apologize to the gentleman.
  Mr. DeLAY. Thank you. I appreciate that.
  Mr. HOYER. I will yield back to him.
  Mr. DeLAY. As I was saying before I was interrupted, and I appreciate 
the gentleman yielding, the point is that both sides, in the old rules, 
both sides could shut the process down. The difference is, and it is a 
huge difference, the Members would be hanging out there and with no 
resolution.
  And the gentleman is incorrect and misrepresents the process. The 
process starts with the ranking member and the chairman looking at the 
facts as presented to them by the person charging the Member. And then 
they decide whether to submit a recommendation to the full committee to 
proceed further and what action should be taken. So the facts the 
gentleman is talking about start with the ranking member and the 
chairman. Then a recommendation is submitted, just like a DA would 
submit a recommendation to a grand jury. And this is the grand jury 
process, to the committee, and the committee makes a decision whether 
they go forward.
  Now, what happens in practice is, if that Member that has been 
charged receives from the committee that they are moving towards an 
investigative subcommittee, that is a huge hit on that Member, whether 
he is guilty or not. The press run with it and all kinds of things 
happen, as the gentleman perfectly knows. So that step to go to an 
investigative subcommittee is a very, very important step. And that is 
why the Speaker thought it was really important that a bipartisan vote 
be made in order to get to that step. It starts with his own ranking 
member making a decision, in concert, one vote to one vote, with the 
chairman, whether to submit the recommendation to the committee to 
proceed. And that is where the gentleman's concerns can be taken care 
of as to whether it is going to be blocked one way or another.
  Then once they have made that recommendation, if they make a strong 
recommendation to proceed to an investigative subcommittee, I guarantee 
you, because you have a Republican chairman and a Democrat ranking 
member, the committee is going to follow their recommendation more 
times than not, and you will have a bipartisan, and in many cases, a 
unanimous vote to proceed to the next step.
  The problem is, and it is a real problem that was used, where you 
come to a deadlock, then there is no resolution for the Member that has 
been charged. And the Speaker felt very strongly that that undermines 
the rights of every Member of this House.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished whip for 
yielding. And I have listened to this colloquy. And let me try to add a 
little bit to it, if I might.
  First, I appreciate the leader's acknowledgment on process because 
the process is very important. I think the debate that we are having on 
the floor should have been had prior to the rule being brought under a 
very partisan environment for passage on the first day of session. I 
think if we would have had a chance, Democrats and Republicans, to 
review the rules changes, some of the problems that are now being 
brought out by these rules changes would have been understood.
  So let me get to the policy issue that the leader brings up. And that 
is, yes, the chairman and ranking member can proceed to bring a matter 
before the full committee. But they do not have the investigative power 
in order to understand what is involved in the particular matter.
  I served on the Ethics Committee for over 6 years, during some very 
difficult times, including the bank issues, including a charge against 
the Speaker of the House. And I can tell you this, that if we would 
have had a 45-day deadline considering an investigation of this matter, 
there would have been no way that we could have gotten the necessary 
votes to proceed.
  In my entire time on the Ethics Committee we never had a partisan 
division. We always were able to work out our issues. It was not easy. 
It took time. We had to sit down and listen to each other, get the 
facts.
  In reality, when you look at the rules that we are bound by and the 
facts, generally you will reach consensus and agreement within the 
Ethics Committee, and that is exactly what happens. But if the clock is 
running and there are only 45 days, and after that time there is an 
automatic dismissal, and that is what is in these rules now, it 
encourages a partisan division. It works counterintuitive to trying to 
work out what a consensus would bring out which is in the best interest 
of the institution. And I regret we did not have the opportunity to 
debate that during the process of the adoption of the rules.
  It is interesting to point out that the investigation and the charges 
that were held against Speaker Gingrich brought about a lot of 
controversy on this floor. And the majority leader and the minority 
leader at that time recognized that the only way that we could resolve 
rules changes was to set up a bipartisan task force, and that is when 
Mr. Livingston and myself were the co-chairs. And we listened to the 
debate. And due process for the Member was a very important 
consideration. And we did change the rules in order to provide for 
that, but we did it in a bipartisan deliberation, and that was missing 
this time. And I regret that.
  Mr. DeLAY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would reclaim my time and certainly yield 
to the leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the gentleman 
who worked so hard on that bipartisan ethics reform taskforce that made 
recommendations to the House. And I appreciate that the gentleman is 
trying to protect those rules that he worked on.
  But I remind the gentleman that when those rules were voted on, both 
gentlemen from Maryland voted against the rules they are trying to 
protect today. And then I might say your comments are well taken. The 
length of time is a problem. We have recognized that is a problem and I 
am told, I have not talked to the ethics chairman, but I am told 
through the Speaker that the ethics chairman has offered to negotiate 
the time problem with the ranking member. I do not know what the result 
of that has been, but I know that the Speaker has been informed by the 
chairman that he is more than willing to work on those issues, and I 
know the Speaker told me that he is open to fixing that time problem 
that the gentleman brings up and is concerned about.
  Mr. CARDIN. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, just for 1 minute.
  Mr. CARDIN. Very briefly?
  Mr. HOYER. Very briefly.
  Mr. CARDIN. Let me just put out that when that issue was before the 
House, the former rules changes, we added a 180-day automatic dismissal 
that was rejected in a bipartisan vote by this body, just to point out 
to the distinguished leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield, I appreciate that.
  Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to the leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield back.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, we obviously have a disagreement in the 
perceptions as to what the rule does and does not do. I think both you 
and I are very concerned about the reputation and integrity of this 
House. I think you share that view and I share that view. It is my 
suggestion that resolving this in a way that is bipartisan will be 
productive for the House.

[[Page H2081]]

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Hefley, the former chairman, I do not agree with Mr. Hefley on a 
lot of things, but I do agree with his perception of how we protect the 
integrity of the House. There may be people on my side of the aisle who 
agree with your perception and not mine. I understand that. The fact 
is, though, that it would be in the best interest of this House and 
this country for us to resolve these matters in a bipartisan way either 
through, as our leader has proposed, a commission to be a joint 
commission equally divided, as was the Livingston-Cardin commission, 
or, in the alternative, to consider H.R. 131.
  The leader is absolutely right, and I made that aside, as you recall. 
We did vote against the rules package, but we had agreed to the 
components, and there was no controversy about the ethics component in 
the rules package. There were other things with which we disagreed, 
obviously, but that was an agreement, and it was reached in a 
bipartisan fashion.
  This was not reached in a bipartisan fashion. And, yes, as both 
parties usually did, I can remember, it is getting more difficult to 
remember, but I can remember when we were in charge and your side used 
to vote unanimously against our rules package and we pretty much do the 
same because we have some disagreements. But there was agreement on the 
rules package as it related to the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, and the reason for that is because both sides felt it to be 
very important.
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield.
  I have to remind the gentleman, and I know going back to 1997 is very 
difficult, but this was not part of the rules package. This was voted 
on September 18, 1997, and it was on the recommendations for reforming 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and the gentleman that 
worked on the recommendation and the gentleman speaking voted against 
the recommendations, not on the House rules package.
  My point, and I do not want to belabor that for the gentleman, I 
think it is very important that if the gentleman is protecting a 
package and a rules ethics reform that he voted against, I think that 
is one thing. But the other thing is we are working in a bipartisan 
way, I hope. The chairman and ranking member are dealing with this. A 
commission would just open up the whole recommendations that the 
gentleman from Maryland worked on and the gentleman from Louisiana 
worked on.
  I do not think we need a complete overhaul of the ethics process, but 
there are certain problems that were found in practice that the Speaker 
felt needed to be done in order to protect the Members. And I have got 
to tell you, the Members on your side of the aisle as well as my side 
of the aisle better think about this very seriously because we do want 
to protect the integrity of the institution. But, as important as that 
is, we also want to protect the rights of the Members.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I think we both agree on that.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) wanted to say something, but 
I wanted to say you were right on the process. I was incorrect on the 
process. It was a separate vote on a separate package, and you are 
right that I and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and others 
voted against it. It was not on these provisions as you know because a 
change was made, not in a partisan sense, according to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) to 
explain his perception and recollection of the process.
  Mr. CARDIN. Just to correct the record, and the leader is correct. We 
did vote against the package. The package was developed in a very 
bipartisan manner through the task force. There were some votes that 
took place on the floor of the House that were recommended against by 
the task force that changed some of the recommendations, and we had a 
motion to recommit to try to clarify that.
  The gentleman is correct on the final vote, but the package itself 
was very much developed in a bipartisan manner through the task force 
in a way that it should have been done, contrary to the process that 
was used on this rules package.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I thank you for taking the 
time. I know you did not have to, and you have been considerate of this 
discussion because you and I know it is an important discussion. 
Because it is an important discussion, I would hope that we could move 
forward to try to get us off this impasse that we have for whatever 
reasons. And whatever is right or wrong, it needs to be resolved.
  There are two suggestions here of how to resolve it. There may be 
other ways to resolve it. But I would hope that in the coming days we 
could move towards, in a bipartisan fashion, move towards resolving 
this issue.

                          ____________________