[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3730-3744]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       ESTABLISHING AN OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS--Continued

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Hawaii has been yielded 1 minute from the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentlewoman whether she 
would yield an additional minute.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman needs an additional minute, 
I am going to give him mine.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 
2 minutes.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, we have got a new grand jury in the House, the Office of 
Congressional Ethics, and we have the House Ethics Committee. We have 
two identical, competing committees by design. Now, I defy anybody in 
this House to go to your next Rotary Club meeting and try to explain 
what that is all about.
  Any referral to the Office of Congressional Ethics will be seen as 
tantamount to a guilty verdict. Any other conclusion by the House 
Ethics Committee will be seen as a coverup. Mark my words, that is 
exactly what is going to happen.
  This is about ethics, not criminal prosecution. I have heard words 
like ``corruption'' used around here as if we are some sinkhole of 
depravity. If a criminal matter is at issue, it should be in the hands 
of the Federal Attorney, not appointees of the Speaker or the majority 
leader.
  I can't figure out where the ethics complaints come from. Are they 
dropped off at the door? What criteria will be applied by the OCE? This 
is about the House, and its membership should decide whether any Member 
has failed to meet its standards, not appointees who have not served or 
are not currently Members of the House.
  An ethics investigation is by definition peer review. Any appointee 
to the Office of Congressional Ethics who has not served in the House 
has no credibility in terms of judging Members or the conduct of House 
standards.
  And does anybody believe that complaints won't be in the media 
immediately, regardless of validity? The press irritation with the 
House Ethics Committee is because it has actually practiced 
confidentiality.

[[Page 3731]]

  This is an invitation to ideological mischief and character 
assassination. We say this is about our ability to police ourselves. 
The effect will be just the opposite. The House Ethics Committee no 
longer has any discernable function other than to affirm whatever has 
been referred to it.
  All this makes me sad, and it makes me angry. I have devoted every 
bit of energy in my life for nine terms to this House. I revere the 
opportunity for service in the people's House. With this proposal we 
are indicting ourselves. We are retreating before those who would tear 
this House down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an 
additional minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 
an additional minute.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. We are retreating before those who would tear this 
House down, who denigrate our commitment and make us out to be little 
more than crooks and knaves and hustlers.
  We are the guardians of the Nation's liberty. We are the defenders of 
its constitutional imperatives. We are the people's House. We should be 
proud to stand up for this House, its institution and its legacy. 
Instead, we cringe before our critics and turn over our obligation to 
govern ourselves to others.
  If we have no respect for ourselves, how can we expect it from 
anybody else? I have faith and trust in my constituents. I have faith 
and trust in you, my colleagues of the House. We need to have faith and 
trust in each other.
  The regard and affection I have for every Member of this House is 
deep and abiding, the affection I started when I was the last man to be 
sworn in by Tip O'Neill before he retired when Bob Michel was here. In 
that spirit, I love the House of Representatives. It defines my life. 
It should define yours.
  This proposal is not worthy of the House and our responsibility to 
it. Turn it down.

                              {time}  2045

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I take a back seat to no one in this House on 
loving this institution.
  The issue, my friends, is not whether we have respect for one 
another. Too often, it is demonstrable on this floor that we don't.
  The issue is, Will the American people have respect for us? That is 
the issue. That is the critical issue that confronts us this evening. 
Not because any of us are pointing fingers at anybody else in this 
House.
  But unless you were sound asleep prior to the last election, unless 
you were living in another country in another land in another time, you 
know what the people thought about this, the people's House that we 
love. That, my friends, is why we are in the majority, because the 
people thought changes were necessary in this House.
  The people asked for change. They asked for accountability. There 
have been some things said on this House floor that are not accurate. 
Mr. Tiahrt said that Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker, and Mr. Boehner, the 
minority leader, would make independent appointments to this.
  Mr. Capuano changed that as a result of the suggestions of these 
Members. It was a good change because it meant that Mr. Boehner and Ms. 
Pelosi are going to have to agree on six people.
  It has been said on this House just now that this replaces the Ethics 
Committee. It absolutely does not. Does it complement it? I think it 
does, but it does not replace it. Nor does it substitute its judgment 
for the Ethics Committee.
  The Ethics Committee can continue to operate as it does now and can 
initiate, it does not need to wait on this committee. It can initiate 
the defense of the ethics of this House, 435 of us elected by our 
neighbors and friends. We are all sad when one of us comes short of the 
expectations of our constituents, as we should, because we know only 
too well, those of us who have served for significant periods of time 
in the public's fear, that the acts of each of us is often attributed 
to the rest of us.
  There needs to be a confidence level among the American people in the 
people's House. How are they going to have that confidence? I suggest 
to you that it is my belief, as one who is not for many of the things 
that the so-called groups are for, who think that it is going to 
change, it will not change, many times, the substance of what we deal 
with.
  I happen to have come to the conclusion that this proposal that Mr. 
Capuano and others have made, and I regret the fact that this is not a 
bipartisan proposal. One of my best friends in life, not just that 
served here in this House, is Senator Ben Cardin. Many of you know how 
close he and I are. He and Bob Livingston worked on the last major 
ethics reform together and came together in a bipartisan fashion.
  I am one who works in a bipartisan fashion. Ask Bob Ney and the Help 
America Vote Act. Ask Steve Bartlett on the Americans with Disabilities 
Act. I believe in operating that way. I wish this were a bipartisan 
product.
  If we had the vote on the Republican alternative, I would vote 
against it. Why would I vote against it? Because it has within its 
framework submitting to the Justice Department after 45 days a 
complaint that the Ethics Committee has not dealt with. I don't think 
that is appropriate for a violation of the rules. It should be within 
the bosom of this body. This proposal copies it there.
  This does not give subpoena power to people to go on fishing 
expeditions. It gives to six people, selected jointly by Mr. Boehner 
and Speaker Pelosi, who I hope and believe that they will agree upon 
people of very high integrity and good common sense. Because when they 
say, and somebody comes along and says in a press conference, Steny 
Hoyer has violated the rules, none of us can protect ourselves against 
that. That's the business we are in. We are all targets and we are all 
vulnerable.
  But it is my belief that this body will be composed of the kinds of 
people that I think Speaker Pelosi and Mr. Boehner will appoint, and 
not Members.
  I am a lawyer. I will tell you, the public is not too convinced that 
lawyers are good at self-regulation. Some of you are doctors. The 
public is not particularly convinced that doctors are good self-
regulators, or CPAs or other professions.
  That's what we are talking about. We are talking about to the 
American public we do act properly, we do keep the faith. We are 
honest, and we are prepared to answer for our conduct and give 
confidence to you, the American people, that it is the people's House, 
not our House, the people's House.
  I suggest to you, my friends, that whatever can happen, whatever 
could happen, whatever scenario you fear can happen right now with the 
existing process, all this does, it adds a complementary body, 
hopefully, and I believe, of citizens of very high repute who will, in 
turn, be able to say to the American public, yes, this group of 
Americans is honest, hardworking, and serving you well.
  Are there, from time to time, exceptions? There are. But let us have 
the confidence to tell to the American people our conduct is, and we 
want it to be, above reproach, and we do not fear the oversight and 
accountability that this proposal suggests. I urge my colleagues, have 
confidence in those that Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi will appoint. Have 
confidence in yourselves and in your colleagues, and let us this night 
give confidence to our constituents and the American people.
  Vote for this proposal.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Maryland has just advocated 
vigorously bipartisanship in this process.
  I am now happy to yield 2 minutes to the coauthor of a bipartisan 
proposal, my friend from Chattanooga, Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

[[Page 3732]]


  Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I stood right here a few years ago against my party in 
favor of reform. I got scars on my back from standing for reform. But I 
heard John Tanner say when I got to Congress that neither party has an 
exclusive on integrity and ideas, and I believe that is true.
  I want to tell you tonight, on the same platform I stood a few years 
ago when I joined then minority in this reform, there is good reform 
and there is bad reform. This is bad reform. I don't care what you say 
about it, how kind you are about it, this is bad reform. It is not good 
for the institution. It is not workable.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a four-page document by Ken 
Kellner, the senior counsel for your majority Ethics Committee, 
explaining all the problems.

                     Review of Task Force Proposal

       Bill: I looked over the draft resolution forwarded by Rep. 
     Smith. I suggest you review it closely as well. Review of the 
     draft was not to critique the need for or merits of the 
     proposal, but to identify areas in which the proposal would 
     interfere with the operations of the Committee. We cannot 
     anticipate all plausible areas of concern prior to actual 
     implementation, but I did the best I could.
       1. The new ``Office'' or ``Board'' is expressly authorized 
     to take up matters on its own initiative and to conduct 
     interviews and obtain testimony in its ``review'' of such 
     matters. See Section 1(c)(1)(A). This raises several 
     concerns, listed below:
       As the Committee noted in its earlier feedback to the task 
     force, the interview of witnesses by both the new entity and 
     the Committee might result in conflicting statements that 
     would undermine the value of testimony from that witness.
       Statements from witnesses would also likely be obtained 
     prematurely due to the time deadlines imposed on the new 
     entity. Sometimes there are valid investigative reasons not 
     to reveal the existence of an investigation to a witness 
     until other witnesses are interviewed or other evidence 
     obtained. In the course of its proceedings, the new entity 
     might reveal critical evidence or information to key 
     witnesses. The failure of those witnesses to keep this 
     information confidential may be very harmful to the integrity 
     of any future Committee inquiry.
       The ``self-initiation'' discretion could undermine current 
     rules that limit complaints to those filed by Members. An 
     agent could provide information to the new entity that would 
     trigger review under its rules. There is no accountability as 
     to the source of information, unlike with respect to 
     ``complainants,'' who must certify that the ``information is 
     submitted in good faith and warrants the review and 
     consideration of the Committee,'' and who must provide a copy 
     of the complaint and all attachments to the respondent. See 
     Committee Rules (d) and (e).
       2. The new entity must ``transmit to the individual who is 
     the subject of the second-phase review the written report and 
     findings of the board[.]'' See Section 1(c)(2)(C)(ii). In 
     addition, the report will include ``findings of fact,'' ``a 
     description of any relevant information that it was unable to 
     obtain or witnesses whom it was unable to interview [] and 
     the reasons therefore,'' and a recommendation for the 
     issuance of subpoenas where appropriate.''
       It is a bad idea for the Committee's purposes that the 
     ``written report and findings of the board'' be transmitted 
     both to the Committee and to the individual under review. 
     This will provide information to a potential respondent at an 
     inappropriate stage, including alerting the respondent as to 
     witnesses who have been identified as potential recipients of 
     subpoenas. At a minimum, this would provide opportunities for 
     the coordination (or appearance of coordination) of 
     testimony. Potential respondents would also be alerted as to 
     difficulties encountered in obtaining information from 
     certain witnesses. This could discourage negotiated outcomes 
     if a respondent knows that certain individuals are not 
     cooperating witnesses.
       This process is not sensitive to the need for 
     confidentiality of witness information at the early stages of 
     an investigation. Members, staff, and private individuals 
     should be able to provide information in confidence, at least 
     at the initial stages. The new rules may have an anti-
     whistleblower effect and possibly employment ramifications 
     for individuals as well. For example, what if it is revealed 
     that a current employee is providing or refusing to provide 
     information about his or her employing Member? A previous 
     ethics task force was ``mindful'' of the need to ``protect 
     the confidentiality of a witness prior to publicly 
     disclosing'' a statement of alleged violation. Report of the 
     Ethics Reform Task Force on H. Res. 168, 105th Cong., 1st 
     Sess. at 25 (June 17, 1997).
       The proposal is also inconsistent with Committee rules and 
     practices that keep investigative information confidential. 
     Under Committee Rule 26(f), evidence gathered by an 
     Investigative Subcommittee that would potentially be used to 
     prove a violation ``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 . . . shall 
     be made public until'' a Statement of Alleged Violation is 
     made public by the Committee or an adjudicatory hearing is 
     commenced.
       There is no rule or precedent in effect for the new entity 
     for dealing with concerns of the Department of Justice in 
     cases of concurrent jurisdiction. As noted, under the 
     proposed process, there is considerable potential for the 
     making of inconsistent statements by witnesses and for the 
     release of confidential information. It this occurs, it could 
     easily undermine active criminal investigations.
       The Board may make ``findings of fact'' as part of their 
     submission. This is generally a function for a trier of fact 
     after an opportunity for a defendant/respondent to cross-
     examine witnesses or challenge the evidence. What if the 
     findings differ from those reached by the Committee?
       3. There appears to be a requirement that the Committee 
     publicly disclose Board submissions to the Committee. See 
     Section 3(2). This would occur if the Committee declines to 
     empanel an Investigative Subcommittee or if one year has 
     passed from the date of the referral from the new entity.
       This means that the Committee must release the Board's 
     findings, even if the Committee has already determined to 
     handle the matter non-publicly. This is inconsistent with the 
     discretion now with the Committee (and investigative bodies 
     generally) to exercise judgment as to what matters to address 
     in a non-public fashion. With the possibility of review by 
     the new entity and public disclosure of conduct, there will 
     be greatly reduced incentive for witnesses and investigated 
     parties to cooperate with the Committee or to do so with 
     complete cooperation and candor.
       This procedure also may place artificial pressure on an 
     Investigative Subcommittee to complete its work in well less 
     than a year, regardless of the impact on the investigation. 
     While such a time period may be sufficient, neither the 
     Department of Justice nor other law enforcement entities and 
     regulatory bodies, are subject to such limitations as they 
     would generally impact adversely on the completeness of an 
     inquiry.
       4. A provision in the proposal provides that the Office 
     will cease its review of a matter on the request of the 
     Committee ``because of the ongoing investigation of such 
     matter by the Committee.'' See Section 1(d).
       This rule should be clarified to make clear that it 
     includes informal fact-finding efforts by the Chair and 
     Ranking Member of the Committee. Otherwise, this important 
     rule may only have effect in the unusual case of empanelled 
     subcommittees. New language could be ``because of the ongoing 
     review of this matter by the Committee in accordance with the 
     Committee's rules.'' Section 1(d) and Section 3(3) should be 
     revised.
       5. If the new entity ceases such review at the request of 
     the Committee it will ``so notify any individual who is the 
     subject of the review.'' See Section 1(d).
       There are valid circumstances under which the Committee 
     would not want to notify an individual that it is undertaking 
     review of a matter until it is ready to do so for valid 
     investigative and privacy reasons. In general, it is not the 
     routine practice of law enforcement entities to notify 
     individuals. Such disclosures could trigger protective 
     behaviors that might undermine an investigation, as well as 
     lead individuals to hire of attorneys (perhaps unnecessarily 
     and at considerable expense). [By analogy, would it be 
     appropriate in all cases to notify a respondent that the 
     Committee has referred evidence of criminal conduct to the 
     Department of Justice? In many cases, it is in the interests 
     of criminal law enforcement that such referrals be made in 
     confidence.]
       6. The new entity must adopt a ``rule requiring that there 
     be no ex parte communications between any member of the board 
     and any individual who is the subject of
     any review by the board.'' See Section 1(c)(2)(E)(iv).
       This provision should be revised to prohibit communications 
     from any interested persons and any member of the board, as 
     well as make explicit that ex parte contacts include those 
     made by counsel. A useful provision to examine in considering 
     ex parte prohibitions is the provision contained in Federal 
     Election Commission regulations pertaining to contacts with 
     any Commissioner. See 11 C.F.R. Sec. 201.2.

                                           Kenneth E. Kellner,

                                      Senior Counsel, Committee on
                                    Standards of Official Conduct.

  They kept a lid on it till today, and the bill is up tonight, and 
here it is. It is bad reform.
  If you think that the steroid and baseball hearings are a distraction 
over the business of the people of this country, wait until tomorrow 
when this goes into effect, when outsiders are firing political shots 
at each other, listening to people back home want us to quit bickering 
and sniping and firing shots at each other and get these important 
things done for them.

[[Page 3733]]

  The gentlelady said she yields the customary time. This is not a 
customary process. The rule was shut down. There are no substitutes, 
there is no recommit, there are no alternatives, and there is no 
consideration of a bipartisan alternative by two people with integrity 
who have been working together for weeks to have a day to say, no, this 
is a better approach.
  Have former Members, first time ever that outsiders are part of this 
process, but they are former Members. They have no ax to grind. They 
will call it like it is. Let's take a logical step.
  But let me tell you, if this is based on trying to hold the House, 
that's a false strategy. When we put our reelection as a majority above 
the people's business and honor and integrity we lost, and we should 
have, and you are doing the same thing.
  Don't do this, House. It's not good for this country, and it's not 
good for us.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia, a member of the bipartisan Ethics Task Force, Mr. Scott.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is the unfortunate reality 
that the House of Representatives has seen its share of unethical 
behavior on the part of public officials elected to represent and serve 
their constituents. Moreover, this problem is not one confined to 
Democrats or Republicans. Rather, it is a problem that we all need to 
recognize and take steps to address.
  For these reasons, and with the interest of the American people in 
mind, we need a fair and just manner to investigate any allegations of 
unethical behavior by a Member of the House. With this goal in mind, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) introduced H. Res. 895, 
and I support his efforts.
  H. Res. 895 takes every possible step to ensure equality, fairness, 
and nonpartisanship in addressing questions of ethics. It establishes a 
new independent Office of Congressional Ethics within the House of 
Representatives to be governed by a board that will be comprised of six 
members jointly appointed by the Speaker of the House and the minority 
leader.
  To further ensure fairness and prevent preferential treatment, 
current Members of the House of Representatives and lobbyists are not 
eligible to serve as board members. Moreover, removal of a board member 
may only occur with the approval of both the Speaker and the House 
minority leader.
  The Office of Congressional Ethics could include former Members of 
the House, but all of the members of the board would be qualified by 
virtue of their exceptional public standing. This office has the 
potential to clean up politics and, in turn, restore the public's faith 
in politics in the political process.
  This has the support of Common Cause, U.S. PIRG, and two very well-
respected scholars in government and politics, Thomas Mann of the 
Brookings Institute and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise 
Institute.
  I support H. Res. 895 and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
reform.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend from Ohio how 
many speakers she has remaining.
  Ms. SUTTON. We have several more speakers.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina, a member of the bipartisan Ethics Task Force, Mr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Ethics 
Task Force, I rise today to support the establishment of the 
Independent Office of Congressional Ethics for the House of 
Representatives.
  The 110th Congress, under new leadership, has already adopted a 
comprehensive package of rules, lobbying, and earmark reforms. Today we 
can take another positive step by creating the Office of Congressional 
Ethics. The proposal before us is the result of a year-long effort by 
the Ethics Task Force ably and fairly led by our distinguished 
colleague, Mr. Capuano.
  Some have argued tonight that this proposal takes reform too far, 
others not far enough. I believe that the office would improve on the 
current ethics enforcement process in two important ways.
  First, it will provide a mechanism for a quick and impartial review 
of potential ethics violations, bypassing the bipartisan conflicts that 
have bogged down enforcement.
  Secondly, it will ensure accountability and transparency by requiring 
reasonable reporting and public disclosure of the activities of the 
office and the Ethics Committee.

                              {time}  2100

  A number of changes have been made to strengthen the proposal and 
address Member concerns. The proposal is not perfect, but it is a move 
in the right direction. I support H. Res. 895, and I urge my colleagues 
to do so as well.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a member of the ethics task force.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve 
elected Members of the House of Representatives who will perform their 
duties with the highest standards of decorum and ethical conduct.
  When a Member of this body fails to follow the rules of the House, 
violates ethical standards, or brings dishonor upon this House, it is 
our duty and our responsibility to act. The people we serve expect no 
less. The ethics process needs improvement, so let us act to ensure the 
integrity of this House.
  I was appointed by Speaker Pelosi to serve as a member of the Special 
Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, and I would like to commend Chairman 
Capuano for his forthright leadership, his patience, and his respect 
for this institution. It was also a pleasure working with Ranking 
Member Lamar Smith and all my Democratic and Republican colleagues on 
the task force.
  Today I rise in strong support of this resolution to establish an 
Office of Congressional Ethics. I commend Speaker Pelosi for her 
courage to take on this challenge for the well-being of this House.
  With the passage of this resolution, we will create an independent 
Office of Congressional Ethics. This office will be separate from the 
Ethics Committee. It will have an appointed board comprised of 
distinguished Americans who are not Members of this House.
  This independent board will review ethics complaints and make formal 
recommendations to the Ethics Committee for dismissal or for further 
investigation. This resolution leaves the power of all final decisions 
to the Ethics Committee. The resolution also establishes time lines for 
the Ethics Committee to act on referred investigations and requires 
that the committee make public statements about actions or inactions on 
these matters. I believe that improving this process will benefit the 
Members and reassure the public that ethics is a priority of this 
Congress.
  Clearly this proposal is not perfect. It is a compromise, and it 
commences an ongoing effort to ensure that ethics remain at the 
forefront of this Congress. Even while preparing for floor action, 
Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Capuano made significant changes in order 
to address this concern.
  I support the resolution and urge my colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend we have a couple of 
speakers remaining, and if she has more than that, we will continue to 
reserve the balance of our time.
  Ms. SUTTON. We have two and myself to close.
  Mr. DREIER. At this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to our 
hardworking friend from Stillwater, Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, this rule finds a way to create an ethics 
resolution that could encourage unethical behavior. This rule could 
create a place where potentially artificially manufactured scandal 
could be given a show trial by partisan inquisitors for the purpose of 
creating doubt about the character of Members of this Congress, all 
under the color of respectability, credibility, and authority.

[[Page 3734]]

  Mr. Speaker, it is ingenious because partisans remove themselves as 
the original accusers. Incredibly, after a 90-day period of show 
trials, the unreformed Ethics Committee in Congress will again take up 
the case, returning us to where we were before all this started, with 
no reform.
  In effect, the bill creates a bureaucracy of smear and witch hunt. It 
institutionalizes the politics of personal destruction with a potential 
of creating show trials with a public expense account.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a deeply ironic proposal that instead of 
combating corruption could reward it, and I urge all Members of this 
body to vigorously oppose this rule.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the ethics task force, 
Mr. Capuano.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out a couple of things 
that have been said. I think the general attitudes have all been 
mentioned, but there are a couple of points.
  Relative to this memo that came out today dated November 9, just in 
case people don't notice, the draft didn't come out until December 19. 
Almost every point made in that memo was addressed in the draft that 
was submitted December 19. There were a few things we couldn't address 
because they go to the basic point of whether you can have an 
independent entity or not. I can list it, and I will list it, but I 
didn't have time to do it between the time we got it and the time of 
the debate, but you will have a memo on your desk within the next few 
days addressing every single point made in that memo that was addressed 
in the proposal.
  As far as bipartisanship, I think people need to know I have a list 
of at least 10 items that were taken up specifically as Republican 
proposals, starting with term limits for the OCE board members and 
joint appointments of the OCE board members. Those are Republican 
proposals we adopted. There are several others we will go into at a 
later time.
  Finally, people have to understand that this is not something brand 
new. It might be new to Congress, but more than 25 States already have 
independent commissions that review their legislators. If it is okay by 
them, why are you so afraid of it here?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship is something that everyone has said we 
need to have as we deal with this issue. The distinguished Speaker, my 
fellow Californian, Ms. Pelosi, said when she was minority leader that 
ethics reform must be done in a bipartisan way.
  The majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, stood in the well when this bill was 
pulled 2 weeks ago and said he wanted to see this work done in a 
bipartisan way. Mr. Wamp and Mr. Hill have worked in a bipartisan way. 
We need to have bipartisanship.
  I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so in fact we can do what the American people want us to do, 
work in a bipartisan way because the integrity of this institution is 
absolutely essential if we are going to succeed in governing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of 
the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Ohio, 
Congresswoman Sutton, for yielding and for managing this very 
challenging bill this evening with such dignity.
  This is an important time for us, my colleagues, because we are 
sending a message to the American people as to who we are. We know each 
other to be honorable individuals who come here with the best 
motivation. Our title ``Representative'' is our job description, to 
represent the people of our districts. We gain respect for each other 
as we work on issues across the aisle, across the region, across 
generations in every way, representing the beautiful diversity of our 
country.
  Unfortunately, the American people do not share our view of ourselves 
here in the Congress and our reputation has received tarnish. Part of 
that tarnish came from a culture of corruption that preceded the 
Democratic takeover of this Congress. When I became Speaker of the 
House, I said it was necessary to drain the swamp that is Washington, 
D.C. so that the people will understand that we are here for the 
people's interest and not the special interests.
  And so this legislation that is before us today represents what I 
believe is necessary for us to convey to the American people what we 
owe them: our best effort to have this Congress live up to the highest 
ethical standard.
  And I know of what I speak because I had the responsibility to serve 
on the Ethics Committee for 6 years when we took up some terrible 
issues. The bank scandal, remember that? Many of you weren't here yet, 
but it was a horrible time. The Newt Gingrich case, it was a horrible 
time. During that time, as divided as we were, Democrat and Republican, 
I would pray at night that something exculpatory would come along, 
something that would say we don't need to continue this case because 
there is evidence that these charges are not true. It is hard, it is 
hard to pass judgment on your colleagues. It is very difficult.
  And I say that in the most bipartisan way, and we worked together on 
that committee in a very bipartisan way during some very difficult 
times.
  After 6 years, I thought my service was over; and I had to spend 
another year on what Mr. Hoyer referenced as the Livingston-Cardin 
Committee to rewrite the rules. We thought we did a really good job; 
but, obviously, a review of them some years later said we have to do 
more.
  But that has been the story of ethics in the Congress. Since the 
Ethics Committee was first created in 1967, the House has set 
increasingly higher standards of conduct to guide Members because 
public service is a public trust. As I said, in recent years that trust 
has been eroded, and we have come here to drain the swamp.
  Just last year on the first day of the Congress, the New Direction 
Congress, the House implemented new and sweeping changes to the gift 
and travel restrictions. Last September we passed the historic Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act, historic lobbying and ethics reform 
that is now the law of the land.
  Today, the New Direction Congress will, for the first time, open the 
ethics process up to the participation of our fellow citizens, which 
will make this institution more accountable to the people who sent us 
here, the American people. I welcome their assistance.
  I want to say a word about Mr. Capuano. I want to thank him for his 
service to our country. In recognizing him, I want to recognize the 
participation of all of the members, Democrats and Republicans, on the 
task force, for their service to this House; and I believe there was a 
good-faith effort made to keep this process as bipartisan as possible. 
And that is the best you can do. If at the end of the day there is not 
a willingness to make the reforms necessary to restore the confidence 
of the American people in the Congress of the United States, then you 
cannot be held back because some do not want to act.
  Mr. Capuano, I believe, led this effort in a way that was bipartisan 
and sensitive to the institution's history and traditions. And I must 
say that I received, early on, compliments from his co-Chair, the 
Republican co-Chair of the committee, about working with Mr. Capuano. 
He said something like, I am sorry you appointed him because he is very 
good to work with. That was supposed to be a joke.
  In any event, I would like to extend special thanks to him for 
undertaking this very difficult task, not only in trying to make 
something that is important work, but also to convince our colleagues 
that this is the route to take.
  Now as I said, I served on the committee under the old rules and I 
helped write the new rules, and there is always a time to revisit all 
of it. And there will be a time to revisit these rules as well.
  A special thanks to my friend, Mr. David Hobson, for his work on the 
task force and for his many years of distinguished service in the 
Congress. We

[[Page 3735]]

will miss his thoughtful deliberations and his contributions to our 
country. Thank you, David Hobson.
  As I mentioned, I served on the Ethics Committee during some very, 
very difficult times; and I want to extend my deep respect and 
appreciation to those who serve on this committee now and who have 
served past and present. Until you have undergone that, until you have 
undergone that, you cannot really understand how difficult it is. And 
how happy you are when your term of office ends. But I want to salute 
them, all of them, past and present, for their important work.
  I have deep respect for what Mr. Capuano, striving to work in a 
bipartisan way, has tried to achieve. Adopting the Capuano Task Force 
recommendations will provide the public and the House with the 
assurance that credible, credible allegations of wrongdoing will be 
addressed by the Ethics Committee in a timely fashion. I emphasize the 
word ``credible'' because I have no doubt that the main target of this, 
and who do you think the main target of any outside groups to this 
group will be? You're looking at her. You are looking at her.
  But I am willing to take that risk because I also trust, yes, I also 
trust, my polite colleagues, I also trust that this group will rid 
itself of frivolous, baseless complaints and send a message to those 
who would file repeated frivolous complaints that is their price to pay 
to do this. I consider this a protection.
  It will bring an additional measure of transparency to the ethics 
enforcement process. It creates this transparency, I think it is 
important to note, without compromising the House's constitutional 
prerogatives to discipline its Members without interfering with the 
work of the Ethics Committee and without altering the substantive rules 
governing the conduct of the committee's deliberations.
  I fully realize that bringing non-Members to this enforcement 
mechanism is not only a step forward; it is a departure. It is a 
departure from the traditions of the House.
  To those who have those concerns, I pledge that I will work closely 
with my friend, the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, to jointly appoint 
the members of this new Office of Congressional Ethics, fair men and 
women who understand the importance of nonpartisan behavior and the 
compelling need to act fairly to protect the interests of the public, 
the House, and especially the Members.

                              {time}  2115

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I pledge that the House leadership, and I know 
I heard, listened with great interest to what Mr. Hoyer had to say 
about this, and thank you, Mr. Hoyer, for your extraordinary leadership 
on making Congress more accountable and live up to a high ethical 
standard. Our leadership will closely monitor the work of the new 
Office of Congressional Ethics and continually review all reasonable 
proposals intended to guarantee the highest ethical conduct and a more 
transparent and effective ethics process. Whether they relate to the 
new panel or the Ethics Committee itself, if additional changes are 
required, we will propose them.
  And since I mentioned Mr. Hoyer's name, I want to associate myself 
with one of the remarks he made. I thought it was 30 days. Mr. Hoyer 
said 45 days. But in a very short period of time, according to the 
proposal that the Republicans are putting forth, in a very short period 
of time if the Ethics Committee had not disposed of those charges, they 
would go to the Justice Department. They would go to the Justice 
Department.
  Well, the Ethics Committee is about the rules of the House, about 
conducting ourselves in a way that brings honor to the House. Many of 
those issues are not matters for the Justice Department. The Justice 
Department knows when its jurisdiction should weigh in.
  This is about the facts, the rules of the House, and sometimes the 
law of the land. It's not about hearsay, rumor, suspicion, I thought 
so, somebody told me. It's about the facts, the rules and the law of 
the land. That is all that matters. That is all that matters.
  I think that this evening this Congress has an opportunity to send a 
message to the American people, and as we do, each and every one of us 
does as well. Our votes will speak for themselves. We are willing to 
take a chance to make a vote on something we might have written 
differently. And I don't know one bill I've ever voted for that I 
wouldn't have, something you might have written differently, but 
something that can strive to remove the doubt that is in the minds of 
the American people about the integrity of this body.
  I hope that you will all join in voting for this. It is worthy of 
your support. I know that, with my vote, I will be able to say I did 
everything I could, respecting the work of those who undertook this for 
practically 1 year to come up with a proposal that was fair, that was 
effective, and that helped us drain the swamp and say to our bosses, 
the people who sent us here, we honor you with our service, and we 
pledge to you that we will always serve in a Congress that upholds the 
highest ethical standard.
  This is an important vote. I urge our colleagues to vote ``aye.'' And 
I thank Mr. Capuano once again for his extraordinary leadership.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we can attain the bipartisanship that the 
distinguished Speaker and the majority leader would like us to have. We 
can do so by defeating the previous question so that we can make that 
in order.
  I am happy to yield the balance of our time to my friend from 
Westchester, Ohio, the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.
  Mr. BOEHNER. My colleagues, rebuilding the bonds of trust between 
those of us who serve in this institution and the American people 
should be our highest priority. And I think the American people have 
every right to expect the highest ethical standards of every Member of 
this institution, and I think it is our obligation to deliver on that 
commitment to the American people.
  Clearly, the Speaker believes that we need to establish this Office 
of Congressional Ethics because the Ethics Committee process is broken. 
Let me say, I agree with her. It is broken. It didn't work under 
Republican control here for at least the last 5 or 6 years that we had 
the majority in this House, and the lack of evidence that I've seen 
over the last 15 months, it's not worked well under the Democratic 
majority either.
  In December of 2006, as the Speaker was waiting to take her position, 
she and I sat down and we talked about this. I expressed to her at the 
time my serious reservations about some outside, independent group that 
was responsible to no one. And I mentioned to the Speaker at the time 
that I thought that our obligations, as the leaders of this 
institution, were to stand up to make sure that this process really did 
work.
  I think every Member of this institution wants the Ethics Committee 
process to work fairly, to work honestly, and to work in a bipartisan 
fashion, because it is our obligation to the American people and the 
obligation of each and every one of us, for the future of this 
institution, to make sure that this process works fairly, honestly, and 
in a bipartisan way.
  I was here in 1991. Some of you were. Most of you weren't. I was 
standing right on the back wall when I and some of my colleagues had 
information that we read in USA Today about Members of Congress 
bouncing 8,300-some-odd checks the year before at the House bank. Some 
of us wanted to know why or how, what was going on at the House bank. 
And before we could get to the microphones with our privileged 
resolution, the Speaker of the House was down here in the well of the 
House. The majority leader was down here in the well of the House. Even 
the Republican leader was here in the well of the House, and all three 
of them basically said the same thing: We didn't do anything wrong, and 
we won't do it again.
  So, for those of you that have concerns about the habits of this 
institution to sweep these issues under the rug, I saw it, and I've 
seen it since on both sides of the aisle.

[[Page 3736]]

  When we will not rise up to meet our responsibility as Members, to 
judge each other and to hold ourselves to a higher ethical standard, I 
know that tendency. And for those new Members that are here who want to 
bring this process and make it more transparent and make it more open, 
trust me, there's no one who will work more closely with you to make it 
happen. The Ethics Committee process, again, I'm going to say it again, 
needs to work fairly, it needs to work honestly, and it needs to work 
in a bipartisan fashion.
  In 2005 and 2006, the then minority leader, Ms. Pelosi, the minority 
whip, Mr. Hoyer, castigated the majority to no end over the issue of, 
it might have been in 2004 and 2005, over the issue of making changes 
to the ethics process and the ethics rules in a partisan manner. And I 
agreed with them. And those changes were later rescinded by a vote in 
this House.
  But over the last 15 months, three times we've had bipartisan, I mean 
partisan changes to the rules brought to the floor of this House and 
forced down Members' throats. Three times. Tonight is the fourth time, 
the fourth time that we've gone down the same path that people decried 
and decried. And I think all of us on both sides of the aisle know that 
if this process is going to work fairly and honestly and in a 
bipartisan manner, it needs to be written in a bipartisan manner. No 
other way around it.
  The members of the task force, Mike Capuano, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, the other three Democrat members, Lamar Smith and the 
other three Republican members really did hard work and really tried to 
come to some agreement. But when you start to create this outside 
entity, as an excuse, as a way of saying we're doing something, instead 
of actually fixing the problem, that's where we could never come to an 
agreement.
  I look around this House and I know that there are a majority of the 
Members of this House who are opposed to the creation of this Office of 
Congressional Ethics. I see you. I know who you are. You all know it.
  We've been through this process. The 18 years that I've been here, 
we've been through this process of self-flagellating ourselves and 
introducing new ethics packages, passing them on the floor of the 
House, all of it, all of it under some rules of public pressure.
  But what we really have never done is to create an ethics process 
that does work fairly and honestly in a bipartisan manner. I don't know 
what goes on down there, and I understand there's a reason for some 
secrecy, but to have some idea that something is moving in the ethics 
process would be helpful, to know that they are investigating case 
number whatever it is and that it will move.
  But I do think that the proposal that we have tonight before us is 
partisan. I don't think it'll work. And I don't think it's in the best 
interest of the American people or this institution.
  The current Ethics Committee is made up of five members appointed by 
the Speaker and five members appointed by the minority leader. It's 
bipartisan. The problem we have is that the process itself has not 
worked. And it's been frankly 10 years since it's worked very well. 
Now, there's a lot of ways to make it work. I think more transparency 
and more accountability. And I think Members could come to an agreement 
on making that process work, although I do believe the most important 
thing that will make it work is a commitment by the leaders on both 
sides of the aisle to say, we expect the Ethics Committee to work; we 
expect them to do our job. And the two leaders need to stand there and 
uphold those Members and the work that they do on behalf of this entire 
House. It can happen.
  But the new proposal is three Members appointed by the Speaker and 
three Members appointed by myself and we have to come to an agreement. 
We have six Members that we could, six Members on this outside 
organization that we could agree on.
  Now, the Speaker and I have come to some agreements here over the 
last couple of weeks, and it's been a very nice and wonderful 
experience. But to think that we can come to an agreement on six people 
to serve on this outside panel strikes me as a stretch. I can't imagine 
who in their right mind would want to serve on this outside panel 
because of the fighting that's going to occur, not by Members, but by 
partisan groups on both sides who are going to want to be filing 
frivolous complaints. And the problem with this outside process is that 
it does not have the secrecy and accountability that's necessary to 
ensure that Members' reputations aren't drug through the mud by some 
partisan charge that may have no basis in fact at all. None.
  Now, if the bipartisan process that we have called the Ethics 
Committee doesn't work, why would we think that this bipartisan outside 
Ethics Committee is going to work any better?
  I just want to say that this institution means a lot to me. It means 
a lot to, I think, all of us who serve. And before I came to the floor, 
I was watching the proceedings from my office, and I saw the new 
Member, the gentleman from Illinois, sitting here, probably was 
scratching his head wondering on his first day in Congress he's in the 
middle of this big partisan fight. It's not usually this way. But I've 
got to tell you that it really isn't usually this way.
  What we're about to undertake here is something that will never be 
undone, if we do it. And if we do it wrong, which I believe it is being 
done wrong, it will be something that this institution and its Members 
will live with for a long, long time to come.

                              {time}  2130

  And I think there's only one real answer, and I want all of my 
colleagues to really seriously consider doing the right thing tonight. 
I think that we ought to defeat the previous question. I think that we 
ought to send this back to a committee that can, in a bipartisan way, 
find a way to make the Ethics Committee process work in the fair, 
honest and bipartisan manner in which we all want it to work. Let's not 
paper over the problem. Let us go fix the problem, and the problem is 
the Ethics Committee process itself.
  And so I would ask my colleagues to thank the great work of the 
bipartisan group of Members who tried to put this together, thank them 
for their job and the job they did for this institution. But let's also 
reject this proposal, agree that we will work together in a bipartisan 
way to do the right thing for our Members, our colleagues, this 
institution and for the American people.
  Defeat the previous question.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I insert a March 11 letter from the Ethics 
Committee chairwoman, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, into the Record at this 
point.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Standards of 
           Official Conduct,
                                   Washington, DC, March 11, 2008.
       Dear Colleagues: Today, I am disappointed that the Ranking 
     Member of the Ethics Committee, Representative Doc Hastings, 
     would violate the Ethics Committee's confidentiality rules by 
     releasing a confidential communication between two attorneys 
     who work for the Committee.
       Both Representative Hastings and I agreed that the Ethics 
     Committee could not and should not give advice to the 
     committee charged by House Leadership with reviewing the 
     ethics process itself. In his letter, Representative Hastings 
     said ``Upon receipt of his letter, I shared Rep. Smith's 
     request with Chairwoman Tubbs Jones and urged her to join me 
     in submitting official comments to Rep. Capuano's task force 
     on behalf of our Committee--a request to which she did not 
     agree''. That is not true. We did however agree to send a 
     letter outlining the functions of the ethics committee 
     process which is signed by both Representative Hastings and 
     myself. (This letter is available upon request). We also 
     agreed to allow our counsel to attend some of the meetings of 
     the outside ethics committee and to address some of the 
     concerns we raised. Some of these concerns are reflected in 
     the Office of Congressional Ethics' final product.
       Indeed the Oath of Office, Rule 7(a), proscribes this 
     conduct when we declare ``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.''
       Rule 7(d) provides that Members and staff of the Committee 
     shall not disclose to any person or organization outside the 
     Committee, unless authorized by the Committee,

[[Page 3737]]

     any information regarding the Committee's or a subcommittee's 
     investigative, adjudicatory or other proceedings, including 
     but not limited to: (i) the fact of nature of any complaints; 
     (ii) executive session proceedings; (iii) Committee or 
     subcommittee report, study or other document which purports 
     to express the views, findings, conclusions or 
     recommendations of the Committee or subcommittee in 
     connection with any of its activities or proceedings; or (iv) 
     any other information or allegation respecting the conduct of 
     a Member, officer or employee, of the House.
       Today, Representative Hastings stated he had no desire to 
     release ``the memo'' if this matter had not come to the 
     floor. If Representative Hastings was as altruistic as he 
     claims to be having had this memo since November 2007, he 
     would have initiated a process whereby our counsel could have 
     time to prepare a response that might have been available for 
     public review after being approved by the Chair and Ranking 
     Member. This ``memo'' was actually an internal email 
     communication between lawyers of the Committee and not 
     approved for release by the Chair or Ranking Member. By 
     releasing the said internal communication, Representative 
     Hastings could in fact reduce the confidence that the 
     nonpartisan counsel has in communicating with members 
     uncertain that their work product would be kept confidential.
       Representative Hastings' reliance on Rule 7(g) which 
     states, ``Unless otherwise determined by a vote of the 
     Committee, only the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of 
     the Committee, after consultation with each other, may make 
     public statements regarding matters before the Committee of 
     any subcommittee, does not relieve him of the obligation to 
     comply with the rules of confidentiality.
       As Chair of the Ethics Committee, I have taken great 
     strides not to give an opinion on the proposed Office of 
     Congressional Ethics and I had hoped that my ranking member 
     could place himself above the fray and not act for a partisan 
     purpose. I see now that he cannot.
       I do not seek to have sanctions brought against 
     Representative Hastings at this time in hope that we can 
     continue the work of this bipartisan committee. I do however 
     want to make it clear that if he continues to release 
     confidential communication, I will seek to have him 
     sanctioned for violations of the Code of Official Conduct.
           Sincerely,
                                            Stephanie Tubbs Jones,
                                                       Chairwoman.

  Mr. Speaker, when the laws and congressional rules are violated, the 
American people suffer. They suffer in policy and they suffer in 
spirit. They're cheated out of their right to proper representation. 
When Americans went to the polls in the last election, they sent a 
clear message that they are concerned about the state of our 
government. The American people want to know that we are here for them, 
not for the lobbyists, not for special interests and not for self-
interest. They deserve nothing less. That is what this is about.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of concerns about the 
resolution before us today. First, I am concerned that granting the 
power and authority to investigate Members of Congress to an 
independent, outside entity cedes away too much of the power granted to 
the legislative branch by the Constitution of the United States. We 
need to be clear about what it is we are doing today; we are altering 
the scheme created by Framers of the Constitution in a way that weakens 
this body.
  The Constitution grants Members of Congress important protections 
that allow us to carry out our official duties free from the threat of 
investigation by an outside entity. Among other things, the immunity 
provided by the speech and debate clause allows us too vigorously 
pursue our oversight responsibilities without fear of retribution. 
Rather than allow some outside body to decide the standards that should 
be used to judge whether a Member of Congress is capable and 
responsible enough to carry out his or her duties, the Constitution 
vests that power in the voters, and with Congress itself.
  I understand the problem that this resolution is attempting to 
address: People in this country are losing faith in the institutions of 
government. I believe that delegating the authority for investigating 
Members of Congress to an outside entity only confirms these fears. I 
believe that rather than giving into the skepticism and cynicism 
inherent in this view, we need to show people that government is 
responsible and that it can work.
  If the Committee on Standards and Conduct is no longer capable of 
carrying out this responsibility, by all means we should find a way to 
reform it, empower it, and give it the tools it needs to uphold the 
integrity of this body. However, it seems to me that it would be unwise 
and unnecessary for us to tell the American people that we are no 
longer capable of policing our own.
  Regardless of what we do here today, it will remain up to the voters 
to decide who represents them in this body. As the dean of the House, I 
have had the privilege to serve in this body and represent the people 
of my District for many years. During my time in the House I have 
witnessed politicians be indicted, be forced to resign because of 
public pressure, and be investigated and reprimanded by the House. I 
have also seen politicians accused of wrongdoing, or tarnished by the 
mere appearance of wrongdoing, who have been given the opportunity to 
make their case before the voters and return to this body.
  In today's world, where the Internet and 24 hour cable news amplify 
and repeat almost any charge, regardless of its veracity, it seems 
unlikely that many Members of Congress will be able to avoid public 
scrutiny if they commit illegal or unethical acts. The question before 
us is not whether we want those who commit such acts to go unpunished, 
but what is the best way to ensure that they are held accountable. 
While I respect the views of those who believe an independent office is 
necessary, I cannot bring myself to agree. Ultimately, I will place my 
faith in the voters and in this body to ensure that the House of 
Representatives remains a strong and honorable institution.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. 
Res. 895, establishing within the House of Representatives an Office of 
Congressional Ethics, and for other purposes, introduced by my 
distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Capuano. 
This important legislation will establish an independent Office of 
Congressional Ethics in the House of Representatives that will address 
concerns about House transparency and accountability.
  Ethics and legal scandals plagued the Republican Congress. The cozy 
relationship between Congress and special interests we saw during the 
109th Congress resulted in serious lobbying scandals, such as those 
involving Jack Abramoff.
  But that is not all. Under the previous Republican leadership of the 
House, lobbyists were permitted to write legislation, 15-minute votes 
were held open for hours, and entirely new legislation was sneaked into 
signed conference reports in the dead of night.
  The American people registered their disgust at this sordid way of 
running the Congress last November and voted for reform. Democrats 
picked up 30 seats held by Republicans and exits polls indicated that 
74 percent of voters cited corruption as an extremely important or a 
very important issue in their choice at the polls.
  Ending the culture of corruption and delivering ethics reform is one 
of the top priorities of the new direction Congress. That is why as our 
first responsibility in fulfilling the mandate of this critical 
election, Democrats offered and passed last year an aggressive ethics 
reform package. Today, we are here to pass yet another piece of ethics 
legislation, illuminating that this Democratic Congress has nothing to 
hide. We are committed to accountability and financial transparency and 
as such will continue to pass ethics legislation until we are satisfied 
that any and all ethics concerns have been addressed. We seek to end 
the excesses we witnessed under the Republican leadership and to 
restore the public's trust in the Congress of the United States.
  This important legislation amends Rule XXVI, Financial Disclosure, of 
the Rules of the House by requiring members of the board of the Office 
of Congressional Ethics to file annual financial disclosure reports 
with the Clerk of the House. It furthermore Amends Rule XI, Procedures 
of Committees and Unfinished Business, to permit the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct to undertake an investigation upon 
receipt of a report regarding a referral from the Office of 
Congressional Ethics and sets forth provisions concerning the public 
disclosure of board findings. The rules outlined within this 
legislation state that the board is directed to address any joint 
allegation within 7 calendar days, ensuring that any and all 
allegations are expediently handled. Through the creation of the Office 
of Congressional Ethics, the House will significantly increase the 
transparency and accountability of its ethics enforcement process 
through greater timely reporting by a body of individuals who are 
independent from the House.
  Mr. Speaker, it is wholly fitting and proper that the Members of this 
House, along with all of the American people, paid fitting tribute to 
the late President Gerald R. ``Jerry'' Ford, a former leader in this 
House, who did so much to heal our Nation in the aftermath of 
Watergate. Upon assuming the Presidency, President Ford assured the 
Nation: ``My fellow Americans, our long National nightmare is over.'' 
By his words and deeds, President

[[Page 3738]]

Ford helped turn the country back on the right track. He will be 
forever remembered for his integrity, good character, and commitment to 
the national interest.
  This House today faces a similar challenge. To restore public 
confidence in this institution, we must commit ourselves to being the 
most honest, most ethical, most responsive Congress in history. We can 
end the nightmare of the last 6 years by putting the needs of the 
American people before those of the lobbyists and special interests. To 
do that, we must establish an independent Office of Congressional 
Ethics, and as such I offer my whole-hearted support to this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H. Res. 895 and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed H. Res. 895, a 
resolution establishing an independent Office of Congressional Ethics 
within the House of Representatives. I believe it is a long overdue, 
although partial, step to protect the public trust and bring greater 
transparency and accountability to the people's House.
  At the beginning of the 110th Congress, the Speaker said we must 
drain the swamp. We made some changes to the House Rules and passed 
legislation that mandated more extensive limits on gifts and travel, 
greater disclosure of activities by lobbyists, helped slow the 
revolving door of Members of Congress and staff to lobbying on behalf 
of private interests and brought greater transparency to the earmark 
process. Yesterday, following painstaking drafts, we took further 
steps.
  The scandals that have embroiled this institution over the last few 
years because of the unethical conduct of certain Members of Congress 
have eroded the faith that Americans have in our legislative branch of 
government. What has only deepened this cynicism is the belief that 
Congress does a very poor job in investigating the ethical lapses of 
its own Members. The contentious nature of the current ethics process 
has too often led to deadlock and an inability to truly investigate 
claims concerning Members of both parties. While I commend the 
leadership and the membership of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct for the work they have done under trying circumstances, it is 
clear that the process has been missing an independent voice that can 
help us get above the partisanship and rancor that too often accompany 
these types of investigations. This bill is a step toward creating that 
independent voice.
  The legislation establishes an Independent Office of Congressional 
Ethics, composed of six members jointly appointed by the Speaker and 
the Minority Leader. Three of the members of the office will be 
nominated by the Speaker with the concurrence of the Minority Leader; 
three members would be nominated by the Minority Leader with the 
concurrence of the Speaker. The members, who cannot be current Members 
of the House, Federal employees or lobbyists, would serve four-year 
terms with one reappointment possible. The Office would have the 
ability to initiate review by written notice provided by two Office 
members, one of which must be appointed by the Speaker, the other by 
the Minority Leader. The Office would have the ability to refer a 
matter if three members affirmatively vote to move it to the Ethics 
Committee.
  The legislation has the support of a number of groups that have 
called for strong reform of the ethics process, including Common Cause, 
U.S. PIRG and recognized public policy experts such as Norman Ornstein 
of the American Enterprise Institute and Thomas Mann at the Brookings 
Institute. They recognize that in the past, the principle of Congress 
policing itself has just not worked. They have played a vital role in 
making sure that today's resolution comes to a vote so that all of us 
live up to the oath of office we take the first day of every new 
Congress. I also want to commend the Speaker who has promised and 
delivered on her pledge to bring vigorous, ethical leadership to this 
institution. Without taking action, we will only allow public cynicism 
about government to continue to grow. This important resolution will 
bring real ethics reform to Congress. It will help reestablish the 
trust and confidence of the American people in this institution and in 
the principle of honest and open government.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the Democratic majority's 
commitment to ethics reform. In the first 100 hours of this Congress, 
we adopted vital new rules ushering in a new era of openness and fiscal 
responsibility. We then reformed lobbying practices, and this year many 
of us voluntarily will reduce and disclose our earmark requests. To 
continue this commitment to transparency in government, I am pleased to 
support H. Res. 895 and the creation of an independent, bipartisan 
Office of Congressional Ethics.
  A smooth functioning and credible ethics process is critical for both 
the reputations of individual members of Congress and for the future of 
the institution itself. I have consistently supported reform of the 
existing process. At the beginning of 2007, my colleague Greg Walden 
and I reintroduced legislation, the ``Ethics Reform Act,'' which 
abolishes the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and 
establishes a fully independent ethics review process. This plan gives 
oversight authority to a panel of former Members, and empowers the 
independent office to oversee the actions and filings of lobbyists and 
offices.
  While the measure we consider today differs significantly from my 
bill, the spirit behind it is the same. If the intent of having members 
of Congress sit in judgment of their colleagues is to provide both a 
Constitutional check on impropiety and maintain public confidence in 
the institution, then I believe the present system has failed both the 
test of timely justice and of public opinion. Vesting the power of 
preliminary investigation with an independent board can lift the day-
to-day work above partisanship and still keep any punishment of 
violators safely within the purview of the Congress. I believe a more 
independent process will provide greater fairness for both Members 
under review and for the public that demands greater accountability.
  The bill before us today initiates the changes that many of us seek 
and our constituents demand. Ultimately, I would like to see reform 
that fully removes sitting Members from the task of investigating their 
peers, and that instead gives that authority to independent individuals 
with a firsthand understanding of Congress. However I remain profoundly 
encouraged with the progress we have made on the issue of Congressional 
accountability. Instituting the independent ethics mechanism as 
outlined in this bill will benefit Congress, and ultimately, the 
American people.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank many of the people 
who participated in the work of the Task Force, either by coming to 
speak with us and share their views or by contributing on a staff 
level.
  A number of individuals attended meetings at the Task Force's request 
to share their past experiences and offer their opinions on the idea of 
an independent ethics office. We very much appreciate the time they 
gave us. They are Senator Ben Cardin, former Representative Louis 
Stokes, former Representative Robert Livingston, Thomas Mann of the 
Brookings Institution, Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise 
Institute, Donald Wolfensberger of the Woodrow Wilson International 
Center for Scholars, former Federal Election Commission Chairman 
Bradley Smith, Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission Executive 
Director Judge Anthony Wilhoit, President of the Ethics Resource Center 
Dr. Patricia Harned, Sarah Dufendach of Common Cause, Gary Kalman of 
U.S. PIRG, Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, Meredith McGehee of 
Campaign Legal Center, Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and 
Ethics in Washington, Thomas Fitton of Judicial Watch, Lloyd Leonard of 
the League of Women Voters, Senate Ethics Committee Staff Director 
Robert Walker, and Senior Counsel to the House Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct Ken Kellner.
  I would like to extend my particular thanks to Tom Mann, Norm 
Ornstein, Sarah Dufendach, and Gary Kalman, all of whom were very 
committed to seeing a responsible and practical proposal from the Task 
Force and therefore spent many hours in consultation toward achievement 
of that goal.
  The staff who assisted members of the Task Force also deserve our 
thanks and recognition: Bernard Raimo, Counsel to the Speaker; Paul 
Taylor, Chief Republican Counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties; Ed Cassidy, Senior 
Advisor & Floor Assistant to the Republican Leader; Robert F. 
Weinhagen, Jr., Senior Counsel in the Office of Legislative Counsel; 
Jean Louise Beard, Chief of Staff, and Kate Roetzer, Legislative 
Assistant to Rep. Price; Allison Havourd and Rob Guido, Legislative 
Assistants to Rep. Camp; Christopher Hickling, Legislative Director to 
Rep. Meehan; Ben Taylor, Legislative Assistant to Rep. Hobson; Carla 
Murrell-Hargrove, Staff Assistant, and Rashage Green, Legislative 
Assistant to Rep. Scott; Jeff Kahrs, Chief of Staff to Rep. Tiahrt; and 
Emily Lawrence, Legislative Director to Rep. McCollum.
  Mr. Speaker, much of the debate on the Office of Congressional Ethics 
and the process followed by the Task Force in formulating these 
recommendations has centered on the issue of bipartisanship. Although 
my Republican colleagues declined to endorse the final proposal 
outlined in our report dated December 19, 2007, the process up to that 
point had, in fact, been incredibly bipartisan. This is to the credit 
of all of my colleagues on the Task

[[Page 3739]]

Force. We had lively, open, and civil discussions in a series of 
meetings held over the course of a year, and we all value the cordial 
and professional way in which we were able to work together.
  A number of draft proposals were circulated to all members of the 
Task Force throughout the process, starting with an initial proposal 
that was floated in June. As we worked to craft a specific set of 
recommendations, all Members had the opportunity to offer suggestions 
and feedback--and all did. As we worked from a general outline of an 
independent office into a more specific legislative draft, we 
incorporated most of the ideas put forth by Task Force members.
  I would like to point out that the final proposal--as introduced in 
December and as amended for consideration on the House floor--contains 
a litany of concepts put forth by our Republican colleagues. They 
include:
   Term limits for OCE board members;
   Joint appointment of OCE board members;
   Requirement that reviews be initiated with bipartisan agreement;
   Only prospective consideration by the OCE--no retroactive reviews of 
allegations pertaining to acts that occurred before the date of 
adoption;
   Code of conduct for OCE board members and staff that includes 
avoidance of conflicts of interest;
   Financial disclosure form for OCE board members;
   Wording on OCE ability to ``solicit such testimony and receive such 
relevant evidence as may be necessary to carry out its duties'';
   60-day blackout on referrals from OCE to Ethics Committee before an 
election was made mandatory, as opposed to being at the Committee's 
discretion;
   Provision requiring leaks to be investigated; and
   Provision on ex parte communications.
  One other issue to which I would like to respond is the internal memo 
from staff of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that was 
publicized via a Dear Colleague letter on March 11th and submitted for 
the Record that same day. This memo came in the form of an email 
exchange between Ken Kellner, Senior Counsel to the Committee, and Bill 
O'Reilly, Chief Counsel and Staff Director.
  I would like to be absolutely clear that while the written memo was 
never shared with my office prior to their release in the Dear 
Colleague letter, its contents and the concerns of the Ethics Committee 
were shared in November 2007--prior to the introduction of H. Res. 895 
on December 19, 2007. While some of the concerns raised by the 
Committee essentially rose from a basic objection to the creation of an 
independent ethics office within the House and could therefore not be 
addressed without compromising the fundamental concept, others were 
valid and reasonable issues that we took into consideration and 
modified based on Committee staff's suggestion.
  I call Members' attention to five key changes that were made to the 
Task Force proposal in direct response:
   We built in a process for the Ethics Committee to unilaterally take 
a case from the OCE at any time if the Committee feels it necessary or 
appropriate.
   We removed a provision that would direct the OCE to provide a copy 
of its findings to the Member, officer, or employee who is the subject 
of a review. We agreed that it was not ideal to provide what could 
essentially be a ``roadmap'' for an investigation to the subject of a 
review. Therefore, the subject of the review would only see the OCE 
findings when they become available to the public--only after the 
Ethics Committee has a chance to deal with the matter.
   We altered the content of the findings so that cooperative witnesses 
could not be named publicly--precisely because we agreed that the OCE 
would not want to punish legitimate whistleblowers by publicly 
disclosing their names. The change specified that only uncooperative 
witnesses may be named in the findings.
  With respect to Committee concerns about publishing the board's 
findings even if the Committee has decided to handle a matter 
nonpublicly, we made sure to clarify that Ethics Committee rules would 
allow the Committee to dismiss a matter while also issuing a private 
letter to the subject or respondent. If the Committee felt the need to 
handle a smaller infraction privately, they could do so in this manner 
and no publication of the action is required.
   We expanded the ex parte communications prohibition to include ``any 
interested party'' as was suggested.
  These modifications were made to the proposal prior to the release of 
the final Task Force recommendations and introduction of H. Res. 895. 
Members deserve to know that the concerns of the Ethics Committee were 
taken into account by the Task Force and that, while this commentary 
caught many Members by surprise on March 11, we had already been 
briefed on its substance and had responded appropriately.
  The Task Force worked diligently over our 11 months of meetings to 
cooperate on a bipartisan basis and craft a set of recommendations that 
would improve the ethics process in the House of Representatives. While 
I regret that we could not come to a final agreement, I thank my 
colleagues on the Task Force for their efforts and for their commitment 
to this institution.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes 
on any question arising without intervening business.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207, 
nays 206, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 121]

                               YEAS--207

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castle
     Castor
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--206

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan

[[Page 3740]]


     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Boucher
     Capito
     Davis, Lincoln
     Hooley
     Kilpatrick
     Mitchell
     Oberstar
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Tancredo
     Thompson (MS)
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                              {time}  2159

  Messrs. JOHNSON of Illinois, HINCHEY, BUTTERFIELD, STUPAK, BISHOP of 
Georgia, and CLEAVER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. BLUNT. Am I right that the rules of the House read, ``A Record 
vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose 
of reversing the outcome of such vote?''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that that was a rule change that 
was made this Congress this year?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. At the start of this Congress, that is 
correct.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Am I right in 
inquiring that the majority has said that any vote that doesn't change 
for 3 minutes and then changes is a vote being changed for the purpose 
of changing votes?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Has the gentleman asked the chair to 
interpret what the majority has said?
  Mr. BLUNT. May I restate my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may restate the parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BLUNT. Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, if the rule is 
violated that the majority put in the rules package this year, does 
that eviscerate the vote?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. An alleged violation of 2(a) of rule XX may 
give rise to collateral challenge in the form of a question of the 
privileges of the House pursuant to rule IX.
  Mr. BLUNT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Does this rule have 
any impact at all?

                              {time}  2200

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair, what 
is the procedure to move ahead to ensure that we have enforcement of 
rule IX?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously stated, an alleged violation 
of clause 2(a) of rule XX may give rise to collateral challenge in the 
form of a question of the privileges of the House pursuant to rule IX.
  Mr. BLUNT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BLUNT. If the vote is necessary for another vote to occur, what's 
the parliamentary way to challenge that vote before the subsequent vote 
occurs?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The challenge would occur collaterally--that 
is, after the fact.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, is blatant hypocrisy a 
violation of the rules of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BLUNT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized 
for purposes of parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BLUNT. What is the proper motion to ask that that vote be 
reconsidered?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Any Member on the prevailing side may move 
to reconsider.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, did I understand that to challenge the vote 
on the previous question that it would rise to a question of the 
privileges of the House? Is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Such a matter could qualify as a question of 
privilege.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the privileges of the House 
have been dishonored, that the rules have been violated.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a parliamentary 
inquiry? The gentleman is recognized for purposes of parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, when could I introduce a privileged motion?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A privileged resolution may be entertained 
after the conclusion of the pending rule.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for purposes of 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BOEHNER. If I can't offer a privileged resolution until this 
business has been completed, there will have been a vote taken on final 
passage of this rule, which basically takes my remedy away from me. I 
believe that under the rule as written by the majority that a vote 
cannot be held open solely for the purpose of trying to change the 
outcome. It was violated.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has described the challenge as 
collateral.
  An alleged violation of clause 2(a) of rule XX may give rise to 
collateral challenge in the form of a question of the privileges of the 
House pursuant to rule IX.
  The question is on the resolution.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to adjourn.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to adjourn is not in order.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized 
for purposes of a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I'm under the impression that the delegates 
from the territories' vote cannot be counted when it makes a difference 
in the outcome of the vote. So could you tell me when those votes can 
be considered and when they can't be considered?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rule to which the gentlewoman refers is 
applicable to the Committee of the Whole only.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 3741]]


  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption will be followed by 5-minute votes 
on any question arising without intervening business; and the motion to 
suspend the rules on H. Res. 936.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 182, answered ``present'' 4, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 122]

                               YEAS--229

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Clarke
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fossella
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--182

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--4

     Delahunt
     Doyle
     Jones (OH)
     Roybal-Allard

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Capito
     Hooley
     Kilpatrick
     Mitchell
     Oberstar
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Tancredo
     Thompson (MS)
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                              {time}  2227

  Mr. GILCHREST changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. MEEKS of New York, McHUGH, WITTMAN of Virginia, ORTIZ, 
HINOJOSA, REYNOLDS, HILL, and ENGLISH of Pennsylvania changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). By the adoption of House 
Resolution 1031, House Resolution 895, as amended, stands adopted.
  The text of House Resolution 895, as amended, is as follows:

                              H. Res. 895

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
                   ETHICS.

       (a) Establishment.--For the purpose of assisting the House 
     in carrying out its responsibilities under article I, section 
     5, clause 2 of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the 
     ``Discipline Clause''), there is established in the House an 
     independent office to be known as the Office of Congressional 
     Ethics (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
     ``Office'').
       (b) Board.--(1) The Office shall be governed by a board 
     consisting of six individuals of whom three shall be 
     nominated by the Speaker subject to the concurrence of the 
     minority leader and three shall be nominated by the minority 
     leader subject to the concurrence of the Speaker. The Speaker 
     shall nominate at least one alternate board member subject to 
     the concurrence of the minority leader and the minority 
     leader shall nominate at least one alternate board member 
     subject to the concurrence of the Speaker. If any vacancy 
     occurs in the board, then the most senior alternate board 
     member nominated by the same individual who nominated the 
     member who left the board shall serve on the board until a 
     permanent replacement is selected. If a permanent appointment 
     is not made within 90 days, the alternate member shall be 
     deemed to have been appointed for the remainder of the term 
     of the member who left the board and the Speaker or the 
     minority leader, as applicable, shall nominate a new 
     alternate subject to the concurrence of the other leader.
       (2) The Speaker and the minority leader each shall appoint 
     individuals of exceptional public standing who are 
     specifically qualified to serve on the board by virtue of 
     their education, training, or experience in one or more of 
     the following fields: legislative, judicial, regulatory, 
     professional ethics, business, legal, and academic.
       (3) The Speaker shall designate one member of the board as 
     chairman. The minority leader shall designate one member of 
     the board as cochairman. The cochairman shall act as chairman 
     in the absence of the chairman.
       (4)(A) Selection and appointment of members of the board 
     shall be without regard to political affiliation and solely 
     on the basis of fitness to perform their duties.
       (B)(i) No individual shall be eligible for appointment to, 
     or service on, the board who--
       (I) is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure 
     Act of 1995;
       (II) has been so registered at any time during the year 
     before the date of appointment;
       (III) engages in, or is otherwise employed in, lobbying of 
     the Congress;
       (IV) is an agent of a foreign principal registered under 
     the Foreign Agents Registration Act;
       (V) is a Member; or
       (VI) is an officer or employee of the Federal Government.
       (ii) No individual who has been a Member, officer, employee 
     of the House may be appointed to the board sooner than one 
     year after ceasing to be a Member, officer, or employee of 
     the House.

[[Page 3742]]

       (5) A vacancy on the board shall be filled for the 
     unexpired portion of the term, utilizing the process set 
     forth in paragraph (1).
       (6)(A) Except as provided by subparagraph (B), terms on the 
     board shall be for two Congresses. A member of the board may 
     not serve during more than four consecutive Congresses.
       (B) Of the individuals appointed in the 110th Congress to 
     serve on the board, 4 shall be designated at the time of 
     appointment to serve only for the remainder of that Congress. 
     Any such individual may be reappointed for an additional term 
     of two Congresses.
       (C) Any member of the board may be removed from office for 
     cause by the Speaker and the minority leader, acting jointly, 
     but not by either, acting alone.
       (7) A member of the board shall not be considered to be an 
     officer or employee of the House, but shall receive a per 
     diem equal to the daily equivalent of the minimum rate of 
     basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule for each 
     day (including travel time) during which such member is 
     engaged in the performance of the duties of the board.
       (8) A majority of the members of the board shall constitute 
     a quorum.
       (9) The board shall meet at the call of the chairman or a 
     majority of its members pursuant to its rules.
       (c) Powers.--The board is authorized and directed to:
       (1)(A) Within 7 calendar days (excluding Saturdays, 
     Sundays, and public holidays) after receipt of a joint 
     written request from 2 members of the board (one of whom was 
     nominated by the Speaker and one by the minority leader) to 
     all board members to undertake a preliminary review of any 
     alleged violation by a Member, officer, or employee of the 
     House of any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of 
     conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member, officer, or 
     employee in the performance of his duties or the discharge of 
     his responsibilities, along with a brief description of the 
     specific matter, initiate a preliminary review and notify in 
     writing--
       (i) the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of that 
     preliminary review and provide a statement of the nature of 
     the review; and
       (ii) any individual who is the subject of the preliminary 
     review and provide such individual with a statement of the 
     nature of the review.
       (B) Within 30 calendar days or 5 legislative days, 
     whichever is later, after receipt of a request under 
     subparagraph (A), complete a preliminary review.
       (C) Before the end of the applicable time period, vote on 
     whether to commence a second-phase review of the matter under 
     consideration. An affirmative vote of at least 3 members of 
     the board is required to commence a second-phase review. If 
     no such vote to commence a second-phase review has succeeded 
     by the end of the applicable time period, the matter is 
     terminated. At any point before the end of the applicable 
     time period, the board may vote to terminate a preliminary 
     review by the affirmative vote of not less than 4 members. 
     The board shall notify, in writing, the individual who was 
     the subject of the preliminary review and the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct of its decision to either 
     terminate the preliminary review or commence a second-phase 
     review of the matter. If the board votes to terminate the 
     preliminary review, then it may send a report and any 
     findings to such committee.
       (2)(A)(i) Except as provided by item (ii), complete a 
     second-phase review within 45 calendar days or 5 legislative 
     days, whichever is later, after the board commences such 
     review.
       (ii) Extend the period described in subparagraph (A) for 
     one additional period of 14 calendar days upon the 
     affirmative vote of a majority of its members, a quorum being 
     present.
       (B) Transmit to the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct a recommendation that a matter requires further 
     review only upon the affirmative vote of not less than 4 
     members of the board.
       (C) Upon the completion of any second-phase review 
     undertaken--
       (i) transmit to the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct the following--
       (I) a written report composed solely of--
       (aa) a recommendation that the committee should dismiss the 
     matter that was the subject of such review;
       (bb) a statement that the matter requires further review; 
     or
       (cc) a statement that the matter is unresolved because of a 
     tie vote; and

     the number of members voting in the affirmative and in the 
     negative and a statement of the nature of the review and the 
     individual who is the subject of the review;
       (II) its findings, if any, composed solely of--
       (aa) any findings of fact;
       (bb) a description of any relevant information that it was 
     unable to obtain or witnesses whom it was unable to 
     interview, and the reasons therefor;
       (cc) a recommendation for the issuance of subpoenas where 
     appropriate, if any; and
       (dd) a citation of any relevant law, rule, regulation, or 
     standard of conduct;

     but not the names of any cooperative witnesses or any 
     conclusions regarding the validity of the allegations upon 
     which it is based or the guilt or innocence of the individual 
     who is the subject of the review; and
       (III) any supporting documentation; and
       (ii) transmit to the individual who is the subject of the 
     second-phase review the written report of the board described 
     in clause (i).
       (D) Hold such hearings as are necessary and sit and act 
     only in executive session at such times and places and 
     solicit such testimony and receive such relevant evidence as 
     may be necessary to carry out its duties.
       (E) Pay witnesses appearing before the Office in the same 
     manner as prescribed by clause 5 of rule XI of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (F) Adopt rules to carry out its duties, which shall 
     include each of the following:
       (i) A rule providing that--
       (I) the board may vote to terminate a preliminary review on 
     any ground, including that the matter under review is de 
     minimis in nature; and
       (II) the board may vote to recommend to the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct that the committee should 
     dismiss a matter that was the subject of a second-phase 
     review on any ground, including that the matter under review 
     is de minimis in nature.
       (ii) A rule requiring that all witnesses sign a statement 
     acknowledging their understanding that the text of section 
     1001 of title 18, United States Code (popularly known as the 
     False Statements Act) applies to their testimony and to any 
     documents they provide.
       (iii) A rule requiring that there be no ex parte 
     communications between any member of the board or staff of 
     the Office and any individual who is the subject of any 
     review by the board or between any member and any interested 
     party, and that no Member, officer, or employee of the House 
     may communicate with any member of the board or staff of the 
     Office regarding any matter under review by the board except 
     as authorized by the board.
       (iv) A rule that establishes a code of conduct to govern 
     the behavior of its members and staff, which shall include 
     the avoidance of conflicts of interest.
       (d) Requests From Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     section, upon receipt of a written request from the Committee 
     on Standards of Official Conduct that the board cease its 
     review of any matter and refer such matter to the committee 
     because of the ongoing investigation of such matter by the 
     committee, the board shall refer such matter to the committee 
     and cease its preliminary or second-phase review, as 
     applicable, of that matter and so notify any individual who 
     is the subject of the review. In any such case, the board 
     shall send a written report to the committee containing a 
     statement that, upon the request of that committee, the 
     matter is referred to it for its consideration, but not any 
     findings.
       (2) If the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
     notifies the board in writing that it is unable to resolve 
     any matter described in paragraph (1), the board shall 
     immediately begin or continue, as the case may be, a second-
     phase review of the matter.
       (e) Limitations on Review.--No review shall be undertaken 
     by the board of any alleged violation of law, rule, 
     regulation or standard of conduct not in effect at the time 
     of the alleged violation; nor shall any review be undertaken 
     by the board of any alleged violation that occurred before 
     the date of adoption of this resolution.
       (f) Prohibition on Public Disclosure.--(1)(A) When an 
     individual becomes a member of the board or staff of the 
     Office, that individual shall execute the following oath or 
     affirmation in writing: ``I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 
     that I will not disclose to any person or entity outside of 
     the Office any information received in the course of my 
     service with the Office, except as authorized by the board as 
     necessary to conduct official business or pursuant to its 
     rules.''. Copies of the executed oath shall be provided to 
     the Clerk of the House as part of the records of the House.
       (B) No testimony received or any other information obtained 
     as a member of the board or staff of the Office shall be 
     publicly disclosed by any such individual to any person or 
     entity outside the Office. Any communication to any person or 
     entity outside the Office may occur only as authorized by the 
     board as necessary to conduct official business or pursuant 
     to its rules.
       (C) The Office shall establish procedures necessary to 
     prevent the unauthorized disclosure of any information 
     received by the Office. Any breaches of confidentiality shall 
     be investigated by the board and appropriate action shall be 
     taken.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall not preclude presenting its report 
     or findings or testifying before the Committee on Standards 
     of Official Conduct by any member of the board or staff of 
     the Office if requested by such committee pursuant to its 
     rules.
       (3) Before the board votes on a recommendation or statement 
     to be transmitted to the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct relating to official conduct of

[[Page 3743]]

     any Member, officer, or employee of the House, it shall 
     provide that individual the opportunity to present, orally or 
     in writing (at the discretion of the board), a statement to 
     the board.
       (g) Presentation of Reports to Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct.--Whenever the board transmits any report to 
     the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct relating to 
     official conduct of any Member, officer, or employee of the 
     House, it shall designate a member of the board or staff to 
     present the report to such committee if requested by such 
     committee.
       (h) Compensation of Staff.--Upon the affirmative vote of at 
     least 4 of its members, the board may appoint and fix the 
     compensation of such professional, non-partisan staff as it 
     considers necessary to perform its duties.
       (i) Termination of Staff.--Members of the staff may be 
     terminated during a Congress solely by the affirmative vote 
     of at least 4 members of the board.
       (j) Reimbursements.--The board may reimburse its members 
     and staff for travel, subsistence, and other necessary 
     expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties 
     in the same manner as is permissible for such expenses of 
     other employees of the House.
       (k) Agreements; Retention of Documents by the Clerk.--(1) 
     Before any individual who is appointed to serve on the board 
     (including an individual who is an alternate) or before any 
     individual is hired to be a staff member of the Office may do 
     so, the individual shall execute a signed document containing 
     the following statement: ``I agree not to be a candidate for 
     the office of Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress for purposes of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 until at least 3 years 
     after I am no longer a member of the board or staff of the 
     Office of Congressional Ethics.''
       (2) Copies of the signed and executed document shall be 
     retained by the Clerk as part of the records of the House. 
     The Clerk shall make the signatures a matter of public 
     record, causing the names of each individual who has signed 
     the document to be published in a portion of the 
     Congressional Record designed for that purpose, and make 
     cumulative lists of such names available on the web site of 
     the Clerk.
       (3) The following rules shall be applicable to the staff of 
     the Office:
       (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 non-partisan 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 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 Office without specific prior approval from the chairman 
     and cochairman.
       (1) Funding.--There shall be paid out of the applicable 
     accounts of the House such sums as may be necessary for the 
     expenses of the Office. Such payments shall be made on 
     vouchers signed by the chairman of the board and approved in 
     the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration. 
     Amounts made available under this section shall be expended 
     in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
     House Administration.
       (m) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``Member'' means any Representative in, or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

     SEC. 2. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS.

       Rule XXVI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``3. Members of the board of the Office of Congressional 
     Ethics shall file annual financial disclosure reports with 
     the Clerk of the House on or before May 15 of each calendar 
     year after any year in which they perform the duties of that 
     position. Such reports shall be on a form prepared by the 
     Clerk that is substantially similar to form 450 of the Office 
     of Government Ethics. The Clerk shall send a copy of each 
     such report filed with the Clerk within the seven-day period 
     beginning on the date on which the report is filed to the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and shall have 
     them printed as a House document and made available to the 
     public pursuant to clause 1.''.

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF THE HOUSE.

       Clause 3 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended as follows:
       (1) In paragraph (b)(2), strike ``or'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (A), strike the period and insert ``; or'' at 
     the end of subparagraph (B), and add at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(C) upon receipt of a report regarding a referral from 
     the board of the Office of Congressional Ethics.''
       (2) At the end of paragraph (b), add the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(8)(A) Except as provided by subdivisions (B), (C), and 
     (D), not later than 45 calendar days or 5 legislative days, 
     whichever is later, after receipt of a written report and any 
     findings and supporting documentation regarding a referral 
     from the board of the Office of Congressional Ethics or of a 
     referral of the matter from the board pursuant to a request 
     under paragraph (r), the chairman of the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct shall make public the written 
     report and findings of the board unless the chairman and 
     ranking member, acting jointly, decide or the committee votes 
     to withhold such information for not more than one additional 
     period of the same duration, in which case the chairman 
     shall--
       ``(i) upon the termination of such additional period, make 
     public the written report and findings; and
       ``(ii) upon the day of such decision or vote, make a public 
     statement that the committee has voted to extend the matter 
     relating to the referral made by the board of the Office of 
     Congressional Ethics regarding the Member, officer, or 
     employee of the House who is the subject of the applicable 
     referral.

     At least one calendar day before the committee makes public 
     any written report and findings of the board, the chairman 
     shall notify such board and the applicable Member, officer, 
     or employee of that fact and transmit to such individual a 
     copy of the statement on the committee's disposition of, and 
     any committee report on, the matter.
       ``(B)(i) Notwithstanding subdivision (A)(i), if the 
     committee votes to dismiss a matter which is the subject of a 
     referral from the board of the Office of Congressional 
     Ethics, the committee is not required to make public the 
     written report and findings described in such subdivision 
     unless the committee's vote is inconsistent with the 
     recommendation of the board. For purposes of the previous  
     sentence, a vote by the committee to dismiss a matter is not 
     inconsistent with a report from the board respecting the 
     matter as unresolved due to a tie vote.
       ``(ii) Notwithstanding subdivision (A)(ii), if the board 
     transmits a report respecting any matter with a 
     recommendation to dismiss or as unresolved due to a tie vote, 
     and the committee votes to extend the matter for an 
     additional period as provided in subdivision (A), the 
     committee is not required to make a public statement that the 
     committee has voted to extend the matter.
       ``(iii) Except as provided by subdivision (E), if the 
     committee establishes an investigative subcommittee 
     respecting any such matter, then the report and findings of 
     the board shall not be made public until the conclusion of 
     the investigative subcommittee process and the committee 
     shall issue a public statement of the establishment of an 
     investigative subcommittee, which statement shall include the 
     name of the applicable Member, officer, or employee, and 
     shall set forth the alleged violation. If any such 
     investigative subcommittee does not conclude its review 
     within one year after the board transmits a report respecting 
     any matter, then the committee shall make public the report 
     and upon the expiration of the Congress in which the report 
     is made public, the committee shall make public any findings.
       ``(C)(i) If, after receipt of a written report and any 
     findings and supporting documentation regarding a referral 
     from the board of the Office of Congressional Ethics or of a 
     referral of the matter from the board pursuant to a request 
     under paragraph (r), the committee agrees to a request from 
     an appropriate law enforcement or regulatory authority to 
     defer taking action on the matter--
       ``(I) notwithstanding subdivision (A)(i), the committee is 
     not required to make public the written report and findings 
     described in such subdivision, except that if the 
     recommendation of the board with respect to the report is 
     that the matter requires further review, the committee shall 
     make public the written report but not the findings; and
       ``(II) before the end of the first day (excluding 
     Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays) after the day that 
     the committee agrees to the request, the committee shall make 
     a public statement that it is deferring taking action on the 
     matter at the request of such authority.
       ``(ii) If, upon the expiration of the one-year period that 
     begins on the date the committee makes the public statement 
     described in item (i)(II), the committee has not acted on the 
     matter, the committee shall make a new public statement that 
     it is still deferring taking action on the matter, and shall 
     make a new statement upon the expiration of each succeeding 
     one-year period during which the committee has not acted on 
     the matter.
       ``(D) The committee may not receive any referral from the 
     board of the Office of Congressional Ethics within 60 days 
     before a Federal, State, or local election in which the 
     subject of the referral is a candidate. The committee may 
     delay any reporting requirement under this subparagraph that 
     falls within that 60-day period until the end of such period 
     and in that case, for purposes of subdivision (A), days 
     within the 60-day period shall not be counted.
       ``(E) If, at the close of any applicable period for a 
     reporting requirement under this subparagraph with respect to 
     a referral from the board of the Office of Congressional 
     Ethics, the vote of the committee is a tie or the

[[Page 3744]]

     committee fails to act, the report and the findings of the 
     board shall be made public by the committee, along with a 
     public statement by the chairman explaining the status of the 
     matter.''.
       (3) At the end, add the following new paragraph:
       ``(r) Upon receipt of any written notification from the 
     board of the Office of Congressional Ethics that the board is 
     undertaking a review of any alleged conduct of any Member, 
     officer, or employee of the House and if the committee is 
     investigating such matter, the committee may at any time so 
     notify the board and request that the board cease its review 
     and refer the matter to the committee for its consideration. 
     If at the end of the applicable time period (including any 
     permissible extension) the committee has not reached a final 
     resolution of the matter or has not referred the matter to 
     the appropriate Federal or State authorities, the committee 
     shall so notify the board of the Office of Congressional 
     Ethics in writing. The committee may not request the same 
     matter from the board more than one time.''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This resolution and the amendments made by it shall take 
     effect on the date of its adoption, except that the Office of 
     Congressional Ethics shall not undertake any review of any 
     alleged violation by a Member, officer, or employee of the 
     House of any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of 
     conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member, officer, or 
     employee in the performance of his duties or the discharge of 
     his responsibilities before 120 days after the date of 
     adoption of this resolution.

     

                          ____________________