[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 17, Chapters 34 - 40]
[Ch. 37. Resignations]
[D. Resignations of Officers, Officials, and Employees]
[Â§ 9. Procedure]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 474-515]
 
                               CHAPTER 37
 
                              Resignations
 
         D. Resignations of Officers, Officials, and Employees
 
Sec. 9. Procedure


Officers

Sec. 9.1 A Speaker has resigned ``effective upon the election of his 
    successor.''

    On May 31, 1989,(1) Speaker James C. Wright, Jr., of 
Texas, was recognized by the Chair on a question of personal privilege. 
During the course of his remarks, the Speaker announced to the House 
his resignation as Speaker effective upon the election of his successor 
and his intention subsequently to resign as a Member of the House. 
Speaker Wright was the first Speaker to resign since Speaker Schuyler 
Colfax in 1869.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 135 Cong. Rec. 10431-41, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. For a listing of Speakers of the House, see www.clerk.house.gov/
art--history/house--history/speakers.html.
            See also 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE--JIM WRIGHT, SPEAKER OF THE 
                                     HOUSE

        The Speaker pro tempore. (Mr. Foley).(3) The Chair 
    recognizes the distinguished Speaker of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Thomas S. Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask that I may be heard on a 
    question of personal privilege.
        The SPEAKER pro tempore. The distinguished Speaker is 
    recognized for 1 hour.
        (Mr. Wright asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
    his remarks and include extraneous matter.)
        Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, for 34 years I have had the great 
    privilege to be a Member of this institution, the people's House, 
    and I shall forever be grateful for that wondrous privilege. I 
    never cease to be thankful to the people of the 12th District of 
    Texas for their friendship and their understanding and their 
    partiality toward me.
        Eighteen times they have voted to permit me the grand privilege 
    of representing them here in this repository of the democratic 
    principles.
        Only a few days ago, even in the face of harsh news accounts 
    and bitter criticisms, they indicated in a poll taken by the 
    leading newspaper in the district that 78 percent of them approved 
    of my services, and that includes 73 percent of the Republicans in 
    my district. I am very proud of that.
        And you, my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--I owe a 
    great deal to you. You have given me the greatest gift within your 
    power to give. To be the Speaker of the U.S. House of 
    Representatives is the grandest opportunity that can come to any 
    lawmaker anywhere in the Western World, so I would be deeply remiss 
    if I did not express my sincere appreciation to you for that 
    opportunity.
        I would hope that I have reflected credit upon the people of my 
    district who know me best, perhaps, and upon

[[Page 475]]

    the people of this House who, next to them, know me best.
        I am proud of a number of things that we have done together 
    while you have let me be your Speaker. I am proud of the record of 
    the 100th Congress.
        Many people feel that it was the most responsive and productive 
    Congress in perhaps 25 years, and all of you who were here in that 
    Congress had a part in that.
        Many of the things we did were truly bipartisan in character. 
    Together we made it possible for great leaps forward to be made in 
    such things as U.S. competitiveness in the world. Together we 
    fashioned the beginnings of a truly effective war on drugs--to 
    stamp out that menace to the streets and schools and homes of our 
    Nation.
        We began the effort to help the homeless, and we still have 
    work to do to make housing affordable to low-income Americans so 
    that there will not be any homeless in this country.
        We did things to help abate the financial disaster of 
    catastrophic illness, to provide for welfare reform, clean water, 
    and a great many other things that I shall not detail.
        For your help, your great work, and for permitting me to be a 
    part of this institution while that was happening, I thank you and 
    I shall forever be grateful for your cooperation.
        I love this institution. I want to assure each of you that 
    under no circumstances, having spent more than half my life here, 
    this House being my home, would I ever knowingly or intentionally 
    do or say anything to violate its rules or detract from its 
    standards. All of us are prone to human error.
        The Speaker of the House is, in fact, the chief enforcer of the 
    rules of the House. It is really a wonderful thing that any Member 
    of the House may, at his or her will, bring questions against any 
    other Member and under our rules the case must be investigated. I 
    have no quarrel with that, nor do I have any criticism of the 
    people who serve on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. 
    That is a thankless job, and we have to have such a committee.
        For nearly a year I have ached to tell my side of the story. 
    True, the questions which I have to respond to keep changing. But 
    today silence is no longer tolerable, nor, for the good of the 
    House, is it even desirable.
        So without any rancor and without any bitterness, without any 
    hard feelings toward anybody, I thank you for indulging me as I 
    answer to you, and to the American people, for my honor, my 
    reputation, and all the things I have tried to stand for all these 
    years.
        For the past year, while the Committee on Standards of Official 
    Conduct has had these matters under advisement, I have ached for 
    the opportunity to speak. Almost daily I besought the committee to 
    let me come and answer whatever questions the Members had on their 
    minds.
        Finally, on the 14th of September, 1988, they gave me 1 day in 
    which to respond. I gratefully went and spent the whole morning and 
    the whole afternoon, answering as candidly and as freely as I 
    possibly could, any question that anyone asked. I believe when I 
    left everyone was reasonably well satisfied.
        Suffice it to say that the five original charges were dropped, 
    dismissed. In

[[Page 476]]

    their place, however, came three additional charges. Well, some 
    said 69. But the 69 are actually just a matter of multiple counting 
    of the 3.
        In April the committee said, well, the members thought there 
    was some reason to believe that rules may have been violated in 
    these three basic areas.
        I owe it to you, and to the American people, to give a 
    straightforward answer on those three areas.
        While I am convinced that I am right, maybe I am wrong. I know 
    that each of us, as Benjamin Franklin suggested, should be careful 
    to doubt a little his own infallibility.
        Before those charges were issued, press leaks filtered out 
    almost daily, tarnishing my reputation and, by inference, spilling 
    over to the reputation of this institution.
        I pleaded for the privilege to come and answer those questions. 
    Under the rules, that was not permitted to me. And the charges were 
    formally made.
        So let us look at them--one by one--dispassionately.
        The committee has raised three basic questions. It does not say 
    there is clear and convincing proof that I violated the rules; it 
    does not say that the committee knows I violated the rules. The 
    committee said it had some reason to believe I may have violated 
    the rules. For these last few weeks I have been trying to 
    understand that and get an opportunity to address it.
        Now is the day; I am going to do it now.
        The three questions are these: One relates to my wife Betty's 
    employment at $18,000 a year for some 4 years by a small investment 
    corporation which she and I formed with friends of ours, George and 
    Marlene Mallick. Did the salary and the attendant benefits of that 
    employment--the use of an apartment when she was in Fort Worth on 
    company business and the use of a company-owned car--constitute 
    merely a sham and subterfuge and a gift from our friend Mr. 
    Mallick? Betty's employment and those things related to it--were 
    they gifts?

                                {time}  1610

        Members have read in the papers the suggestion made by 
    committee counsel that I may have received up to $145,000 in gifts 
    from my friend, Mr. Mallick. Half of it, $72,000, was Betty's 
    income, Betty's salary. The other half involved the use of a car 
    and use of an apartment. The question is whether this is right or 
    wrong. Let us look at it.
        Betty's employment--was this a gift? The first question, I 
    suppose Members might be asking, is why was Betty working for the 
    corporation. Why did we put her to work at $18,000 a year? The 
    answer is very simple. She was the only one of the four of us who 
    had the time and the inclination to handle the job--to look into 
    the investment opportunities that our investment corporation was 
    created to explore. George Mallick was too busy looking after his 
    own interests. He has business interests of his own. Marlene 
    Mallick was raising a family. I was busy being a Member of Congress 
    and majority leader. I did not have any time to spend on it. Betty 
    alone, among all of us, had the time, the opportunity, the 
    experience, and the desire to give effort and energy to exploring 
    and promoting investment opportunities.

[[Page 477]]

        She did, indeed, perform work. It paid off for the little 
    corporation. She did it well. She studied and followed the stock 
    market on regional stocks. I had brought into the corporation some 
    that I had owned personally, in my personal estate. Betty advised 
    us as to the best time to sell, the best time to buy, and the 
    corporation made some money on those regional stocks. Not a lot of 
    money by some people's standards, but we made some money. Betty's 
    work paid for her salary, several times over.
        She made very frequent contacts with a drilling company that 
    was working on a series of exploratory west Texas gas wells, in 
    which each of the partners had an interest, having all borrowed 
    money from the corporation in order to invest. She visited the site 
    of drilling and maintained contact with the company for us.
        She went to New York and studied the gemstone business and the 
    corporation made an investment in gemstones. We made some money on 
    that. Betty also looked into the possibility of the corporation, 
    Mallightco, building an apartment complex for young people but she 
    concluded that the interest rates were unfavorable. Betty also 
    spent a considerable amount of time studying the wine culture 
    industry which was then just getting started in Texas. She made an 
    economic study that concluded it was too speculative for a little 
    corporation of our type.
        She looked into other prospective investments such as a small 
    and limited partnership in the movie, ``Annie,'' and a prospective 
    venture in sulfur extraction, but advised against both of those 
    investments. It was lucky for us that she did because people 
    investing in them lost money.
        Now I want to include for printing in the Record affidavits 
    from several business people who know from their personal 
    experience and attest to the work that Betty did in this regard. 
    There will appear in the Record, at this point, an affidavit by 
    Pamela L. Smith, one by Kay F. Snyder, one by John Freeman, one by 
    Louis A. Farris, Jr., and one by J.B. Williams, all attesting to 
    their personal knowledge of the things Betty did in working for the 
    corporation at $18,000 a year.
        The affidavits follow:

                                 Affidavit
    State of Texas,
    County of Tarrant, ss:

            Personally before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary 
        Public in and for the County of Tarrant, State of Texas, duly 
        commissioned and qualified, there came and appeared Pamela L. 
        Smith, who being first duly sworn, did depose and say:
            ``My name is Pamela L. Smith, my address is 921 Holly, 
        Crowley, Texas 76036. I am the Managing Director of The Mallick 
        Company and its affiliates.
            I have read in newspapers, magazines and hear on T.V. that 
        Mr. Phelan has made the charge that Mallightco was a sham 
        corporation and Mrs. Betty Wright did not do work or earn her 
        pay. These charges are completely false and I have given 
        testimony of this information to the Ethics Committee when I 
        appeared before them.
            I was first introduced to Mrs. Wright in 1973 by my 
        employer Mr. Mallick. I was 23 years old. Through the years 
        Mrs. Wright became a role model to me. Mrs. Wright encouraged 
        me to join a professional business women's club. On her advice, 
        I

[[Page 478]]

        joined Zonta International in 1978. I became the youngest 
        President of the Fort Worth Chapter in 1982.
            I became associated with Mrs. Wright professionally when 
        she began working for Mallick Properties, Inc. in 1979. Mrs. 
        Wright worked on the Mallick Concept from 1979-1981. The 
        Mallick Concept was a small apartment unit designed for the 
        young adult to be built throughout the Sunbelt area. Mrs. 
        Wright, along with other staff including myself, studied 
        approximately 10 different cities throughout the Sunbelt 
        states. Mrs. Wright was excited about being a part of a team to 
        develop and construct an apartment designed especially for 
        young people. Mrs. Wright liked the idea of an apartment that 
        was affordable for young people--first-time apartment dwellers 
        and young married couples out on their own.
            Mrs. Wright traveled often to many cities to discuss the 
        concept with attorneys, city planners and engineers. Mrs. 
        Wright along with others would survey the cities and locate 
        building sites. She would return, complete her notes, and help 
        prepare lengthly written reports.
            In the latter part of 1979, I helped assemble and form the 
        corporation Mallightco Inc. to be owned by the Mallicks and the 
        Wrights. The Wright's contribution was $58,127 in stocks and 
        securities. The stock was delivered to me. As assistant 
        secretary of Mallightco, the stock was under my safekeeping. 
        Thereafter, I was in charge of day-to-day operations of 
        Mallightco, Inc., under Mr. Mallick's direction.
            In 1981, Mrs. Wright left Mallick Properties' payroll and 
        went on the Mallightco Inc. payroll at $18,000 a year.
            Mrs. Wright pursued many business opportunities presented 
        to Mallightco, including, but not limited to the following:
                                             1. Barite and chemical.
                                          2. Lou Farris--Chain Bank.
                                                3. Everman Property.
                                            4. Nigerian Oil Trading.
                                                      5. Matrix Oil.
                                6. Brazos River Vineyard and Winery.
                                            7. ``Annie''--the movie.
                                         8. Oil and gas investments.

            Additionally, Mrs. Wright met with Mr. Mallick and business 
        associates on so many occasions that it is impossible to recall 
        each, but I attended dozens of meetings with Mrs. Wright and 
        Mr. Mallick from 1981 through 1984 on Mallightco business both 
        in and outside of our offices.
            For newspapers or Mr. Phelan to suggest that Mrs. Wright 
        did not work is unreasonable and untrue. In addition to the 
        above projects, I know that Mrs. Wright regularly tracked stock 
        market/interest rate trends and discussed on the telephone by 
        long distance Mallightco business affairs.''
            Sworn to upon my oath, this 15th day of April, 1989.
                                                  Pamela L. Smith.

            Given under my hand and seal of office this 15th day of 
        April, 1989.

                                                  Dorothy C. Wing.

        Notary Public in and for the State of Texas.



                                 Affidavit
    State of Texas,
    County of Tarrant, ss:

            Personally before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary 
        Public in and for the County of Tarrant, State of Texas, duly 
        commissioned and qualified, there came and appeared Kay F. 
        Snyder, who being first duly sworn, did depose and say:
            ``My name is Kay F. Snyder, my address is 3813 Mattison, 
        Fort Worth, Texas 76107. I am Director of Dining Enterprises, 
        Inc. the corporate owner and operator of restaurants located in 
        Fort Worth.

[[Page 479]]

            Beginning in 1978, I and my husband at that time, Armand 
        Jones, began a vineyard in Parker County, Texas. Our vineyard 
        was successful and in the early 1980's we then began exploring 
        the idea of developing a winery project to produce wine at our 
        vineyard and to market it in the restaurants we owned, as well 
        as to conduct tours of the vineyard and winery.
            Beginning in 1981, I had discussions with the Mallick 
        group, initiated by Betty Wright. Although we never entered 
        into a joint venture for the development of this project, I 
        personally met with Betty Wright, Congressman Jim Wright and 
        Mr. George Mallick and other representatives of their group 
        over a period of several years to investigate the feasibility 
        of this project.
            The first substantive meeting was in July of 1984 and 
        included Betty Wright, Jim Wright and I; however, all of the 
        business that was discussed was between Betty and myself. Over 
        the next year, Betty and I had numerous meetings at the 
        vineyard, and telephone conferences regarding the project. Our 
        meetings were lengthy, lasting from five to eight hours each. 
        On one occasion, Betty Wright, Jim Wright and I spent a full 
        day touring the vineyard and reviewing projections and 
        proposals regarding the winery. Subsequent to my multiple 
        meetings with Betty Wright, I had at least 8 meetings with 
        George Mallick. After extended research, projections and 
        negotiations, we were unable to reach an agreement and the 
        joint venture was never consummated.
            From the inception, this proposed joint venture was a 
        project in which Betty Wright took an active part, contributing 
        many hours of her time and her management and business skills 
        to the analysis and development of the project. She initiated 
        our negotiations and was active throughout the process. In all 
        our meetings, she was well informed on the subject, asked 
        intelligent questions and was thorough in pursuing the details 
        of the project knowledgeably and in a business-like manner. In 
        fact, when I was in meetings with both George Mallick and Betty 
        Wright, Betty led the discussion.
            In summary, as regards the Mallick group's consideration of 
        our winery proposal, Betty Wright was in charge and in control 
        of the project. She initiated the contact, invested many hours 
        of her time and had an active, meaningful and integral role in 
        the Mallick group's analysis and evaluation of our proposal.''
            Sworn to upon my oath, this 15th day of April, 1989.
                                                    Kay F. Snyder.

            Given under my hand and seal of office this 15th day of 
        April, 1989.

                                                  Dorothy C. Wing.

        Notary Public in and for the State of Texas.



                                 Affidavit
    State of Texas,
    County of Tarrant, ss:

            Personally before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary 
        Public in and for the County of Tarrant, State of Texas, duly 
        commissioned and qualified, there came and appeared John A. 
        Freeman, who being first duly sworn, did depose and say:
            ``My name is John A. Freeman, and my address is 5100 
        Crestline, Fort Worth, Texas 76107. I am an investor with 
        interests in many different industries. I came to Fort Worth in 
        1967 and was introduced to Congressman Wright by Mr. Amon 
        Carter, Jr. in 1968.
            Shortly after Mr. Wright married Betty Wright I met them at 
        a reception and continued to see them at irregular intervals. 
        In 1978 and 1979 I mentioned to Congressman Wright

[[Page 480]]

        that I had enjoyed moderate success in investing in some 
        shallow wells with Southeastern Resources. He said that he only 
        had modest funds to invest but would like to invest in oil and 
        gas exploration. I told him of a well that I had an interest in 
        and he invested in a small percentage.
            In 1979, at Congressman and Betty Wright's anniversary 
        party, Betty introduced me to Mr. George Mallick and asked if I 
        could meet with them at some convenient time to discuss 
        business opportunities.
            Shortly after that anniversary party, I met with Betty at 
        Mr. Mallick's office and she explained that he was an investor 
        as I was, and she was to assist him in looking for 
        opportunities in the real estate, oil, or possibly other areas 
        and that she would appreciate the chance to look at 
        opportunities I might be interested in and that they in turn 
        would do the same for me. I then met with Mr. Mallick and he 
        discussed his various business experiences.
            In early 1979 or 1980, I was having dinner with Mr. Jim 
        Ling in Fort Worth and discussing the formation of a company to 
        acquire interests in the energy field. Mr. Mallick and Betty 
        Wright were dining at the same club and come by the table and 
        were introduced to Mr. Ling. The following day I called Betty 
        and told her that I was discussing an investment in Matrix 
        Energy with Mr. Ling and it might be something that Mr. Mallick 
        would be interested in. She told me that her position was no 
        longer that of an employee but that she and Mr. Mallick had 
        formed a company that they jointly owned. I furnished her all 
        the information I had on Matrix Energy. Approximately six 
        months later, I received a call from Betty and she told me that 
        they had no interest in Matrix.
            In 1982, I met with Congressman Wright in Fort Worth and he 
        informed me that George Mallick and Betty were in New York 
        working and that he was going to join them when he left Fort 
        Worth. At that time, I was working with an institutional 
        investor and was planning to meet with them in New York. As I 
        was going to be in New York, I arranged to meet with George, 
        Jim and Betty there. We met and I told them what I was 
        presently working on in the real estate field and they asked to 
        meet with me in Fort Worth to see if they had any projects that 
        we might do together.
            Betty, George and I met in Fort Worth approximately two 
        weeks later and I was furnished a description of property that 
        they either knew of or controlled to see if we had any 
        interest. I submitted properties that I had and the other 
        properties to my investor. It was decided that we should pursue 
        one project that Betty and Mr. Mallick had submitted.
            I called Betty and she referred me to Mr. Mallick. We then 
        worked for a period of approximately 2 months on our 
        feasibility study during which time I met with Betty and George 
        on several occasions. As a result of our failure to pre-lease 
        the project, we decided not to build the building. Betty was 
        active throughout the development and consideration of this 
        project.
            Beyond the consideration of these two projects, I had 
        numerous contacts with Betty and George in New York City where 
        I ran into them while they were pursuing various business 
        investments.
            In summary, to my personal knowledge, Betty Wright was an 
        active and hard working member of the Mallick investment group. 
        She was the person who introduced me to George Mallick and she 
        worked with George and me throughout our consideration of the 
        Ling investment and the office building project in Fort Worth.

[[Page 481]]

            Based on my personal experience with Betty Wright and 
        George Mallick, Betty was a full and equal partner in 
        everything we tried to do together. She was the primary reason 
        I was involved with Mallightco and she was involved every step 
        of the way.''
            Sworn to upon my oath, this 15th day of April, 1989.

                                                  John A. Freeman.

            Given under my hand and seal of office this 15th day of 
        April 1989.

                                                  Dorothy C. Wing.

        Notary Public in and for the State of Texas.
    State of Texas,
    County of Tarrant, ss:

                                 Affidavit

            Personally before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary 
        Public in and for the County of Tarrant, State of Texas, duly 
        commissioned and qualified, there came and appeared Louis A. 
        Farris, Jr., who being first duly sworn, did depose and say:
            ``My name is Louis A. Farris, Jr., and my address is 8214 
        Westchester, Suite 91J, Dallas, Texas 75225. I am President of 
        Empire Financial Corporation.
            Over a period of several months beginning in the summer of 
        1983, I had three meetings in my Dallas office with George 
        Mallick and Betty Wright to discuss various investments 
        proposals for which I was seeking partners.
            At our first meeting, Congressman Wright was also in 
        attendance. George, Betty, the Congressman and I discussed my 
        group's interest in acquiring common stock of the First 
        National Bank of Weatherford then held by Mallightco. As a 
        result of our discussions, the First National Bank of 
        Weatherford, bought the stock from Mallightco for approximately 
        $25,000.
            Over the next several months George, Betty and I met two 
        more times in my office. At the time I was attempting to 
        assemble a chain of banks in several states and I was looking 
        for partners and investors. George and Betty reviewed my 
        proposal, but decided not to participate in that venture with 
        me.
            From the outset of our meetings, I was told that George and 
        Betty were co-owners of an investment company and all of my 
        dealings with them confirmed such an arrangement. George and 
        Betty both participated in all of our discussions and 
        negotiations. In every way, Betty was a full and responsible 
        partner in all of their dealings with me.
            Sworn to upon my oath, this 15th day of April, 1989.

                                              Louis A. Farris, Jr.

            Given under my hand and seal of office this 15th day of 
        April, 1989.

                                                  Dorothy C. Wing.

        Notary Public in and for the State of Texas.



                                 Affidavit
    State of Texas,
    County of Tarrant, ss:

            Personally before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary 
        Public in and for the County of Tarrant, State of Texas, duly 
        commissioned and qualified, there came and appeared J. B. 
        Williams, who being first duly sworn, did depose and say:
            ``My name is J.B. Williams, my address is 6150 Indigo 
        Court, Fort Worth, Texas 76112. I am Chief Executive Officer of 
        Southeastern Resources Corporation, an independent oil and gas 
        producer. Beginning in 1979, Congressman Jim Wright, his wife, 
        Betty Wright, George Mallick and his wife, Marlene Mallick 
        began a business relationship with our

[[Page 482]]

        company which led to the drilling of approximately 25 oil and 
        gas wells over a period of 2-3 years, with the production from 
        these wells continuing for approximately 10 years. The business 
        relationship began with a meeting in 1979 in which Mr. and Mrs. 
        Wright and Mr. and Mrs. Mallick met with our company and 
        various personnel, George Jett, Vice President of Field 
        Operations, Jean Williams, Executive Vice President, Dan 
        Flournoy, Comptroller, Bill McCormick, Field Engineer and later 
        on field people and other administrative personnel.
            I had the perception that George Mallick and Betty Wright 
        made the ultimate decisions to participate in the drilling of 
        the wells with our company. That perception was simply because 
        Betty and George asked more questions, and Betty in particular 
        asked for and received the various contract forms and 
        geological data of the intended area of drilling interest. 
        Later on and for several years Betty made many visits to our 
        office to gather information on the joint interest. She also 
        made many telephone calls with regard to same.
            To the best of my memory Betty made more than one trip to 
        Brown County for on-site inspection of the joint oil and gas 
        interest and on one occasion Congressman Wright, Betty, George 
        and Marlene visited several wells with me and I was impressed 
        by Betty's technical questions. My memory is not specific but 
        the impression lingered that she, more than anyone else in the 
        Mallick group, including George Mallick, attempted to learn the 
        why and wherefores of the business in which the group was 
        investing its money.
            On many occasions I made visits to the Mallick offices on 
        Hulen Street to discuss some aspects of the group's oil and gas 
        interest and in my memory George always called Betty into these 
        meetings and appeared to rely on her for dates, recall, 
        opinions and decisions. These are lingering and lasting 
        impressions as opposed to specifics, but I can testify under 
        oath that though I was not aware of any details of any 
        employer-employee relationship between Mallick and Betty 
        Wright, she was in my strong opinion an integral person in the 
        on-going business affairs of the Wrights and Mallicks, and in 
        regard to their investments with my company, she took a 
        leadership role.
            I have known George many years and greatly admire his 
        entrepreneurial enterprise but like most of us business types 
        his successes have been attendant with some failures. It is not 
        more than a personal opinion but during Betty's years with 
        George, I judged she helped him achieve a balance that he 
        didn't have in the years before or after their association.
            This affidavit is given on a voluntary basis. I have 
        neither seen nor talked with Congressman Wright (except to see 
        him on television) since May of 1988. I have not seen the 
        Mallicks for several years, although I have spoken to George on 
        the telephone as recently as last month and we did discuss the 
        investigation. Congressman Wright, Betty Wright, the Mallicks 
        nor anyone else has asked me to volunteer this information.
            The purposes of this affidavit is to personally refute the 
        Ethics Committee allegation and accusations that Betty Wright 
        was a sham employee of George Mallick. I will be glad to 
        testify before any authorized investigative body to the truth 
        of these statements.''
            Sworn to upon my oath, this 15th day of April, 1989.
                                                    J.B. Williams.

            Given under my hand and seal of office this 15th day of 
        April, 1989.

                                                  Dorothy C. Wing.

[[Page 483]]

        Notary Public in and for the State of Texas.

        The outside counsel employed by the committee has suggested 
    that Mrs. Wright's employment somehow amounted to a gift. I do not 
    know why, but he assumed that the services she rendered could not 
    have been worth $18,000 a year. How he concludes that she did not 
    perform duties is to me a mystery.
        On page 20 of the statement of alleged violation, there is a 
    very strange suggestion that, ``there was no evidence either 
    supporting or establishing that the money paid to Mrs. Wright was 
    in return for identifiable services or work products.'' Frankly, I 
    do not know exactly what Mr. Phelan means by ``work products.''
        Does he want so many pages of old shorthand notes? So many 
    pages of typed manuscript? Betty was not a carpenter.
        Is a woman's mental study, her time and her advice, not to be 
    counted as a work product? How the committee could conclude that 
    there was ``no evidence'' that Betty performed duties is very 
    puzzling to me. There certainly is no evidence that she did not.
        When I was before the committee, that was not one of the things 
    that was being considered. The committee did not ask me to go into 
    any elaborate details as I have just done--to tell them the things 
    that she did.
        The committee assumed--assumed--that there was no evidence. Oh, 
    but there was evidence. Both the people of whom questions were 
    asked, aside from myself, Mr. Mallick and Pamela Smith, testified 
    that she did indeed work.
        Mr. Phelan's report says that Pamela Smith could not identify 
    any more than maybe 12 days in the whole 4-year period in which 
    Betty worked. That is an inaccurate representation of what Mrs. 
    Smith said. Pamela Smith, both in this affidavit and in her 
    testimony before the committee, clearly said she saw Betty there 
    from 5 to 7 days every month including weekends. Mrs. Smith spoke 
    of her knowledge of Betty doing work in Washington and New York and 
    elsewhere. So there was surely evidence.
        Well, is one to conclude that my wife's services to a little 
    corporation were worth less than $18,000? For most of her adult 
    life Mrs. Wright has been a business person. She has been an 
    officer in a large hotel, an officer in a successful real estate 
    and construction firm, and a professional staff person on a 
    congressional committee. She was making more than $18,000 when she 
    worked for the congressional committee.
        And here is the irony, the supreme irony: In 1976, when I was 
    elected majority leader, Betty voluntarily left her job as a 
    professional staff person on the committee so as to avoid any 
    criticism of this institution or of her husband on the grounds that 
    we both were on the public payroll. How many colleagues in the 
    House and the Senate do Members know whose wives are on the public 
    payroll, doing good work? Yet Betty did not want to be the cause 
    for even unfounded criticism. She was legally entitled to continue. 
    She had occupied that job before our marriage. But she chose to 
    leave, to save the institution and her husband from unwarranted 
    criticism. That is the kind of person she is.

[[Page 484]]

        Now it just seems to me that there is not any justification at 
    all for any person even raising a question about whether she earned 
    her $18,000 a year. Should a Member of Congress have to prove that 
    his wife earned that much money? Bear in mind, this money was not 
    paid by Mr. Mallick. The money was paid by the corporation of which 
    Betty and I were half owners.
        In addition to charging that Betty's salary was a gift, the 
    outside counsel contends, in summing up $145,000 in gifts, that 
    Betty had the use of the company car. That is true, she did. For 
    the first 3 years it was used largely by Mr. and Mrs. Mallick. The 
    next 4 years, Betty had most use of it.
        It was not Mr. Mallick's car, it was the company car. The 
    company bought and paid for it. We owned half of it. The next 4 
    years Betty had most of the use of it.
        I have done what I can to resolve any doubt. I wanted to do the 
    right thing--the honorable thing. I bought and paid for that car 
    out of my personal funds.
        The trustee of my blind trust, at my instruction, paid the 
    corporation full book value for the car on the day Betty first 
    started driving it on company business, plus interest. The interest 
    amounted to about $3,000.
        What more can I do? Does that make it right? That has already 
    been done.
        Concerning the apartment, Betty and I have been more than 
    anxious to do what is right and honorable about that. We did not 
    think there was anything wrong with paying a per diem rate. The 
    apartment was not held out for rent to anybody else. It was not 
    owned for rental purposes. The Mallick family did not want anybody 
    also in the apartment. The family owned about six apartments in 
    this unit or complex. They held those apartments out for their 
    employees and their families. There would not have been anybody in 
    the apartment paying any amount of money at all if they had not 
    permitted us, when we were in town, to occupy the apartment. We 
    paid on a daily basis for our use of that apartment.
        But in an effort to resolve any doubt, last year I told Mr. 
    Mallick that I did not like the situation being criticized. He said 
    ``Ralph Lotkin, the counsel for the Committee on Standards, said it 
    was all right.'' Mr. Mallick pointed out that 4 years ago, there 
    was in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram newspaper a statement quoting 
    the chief counsel of the Committee on Standards, Mr. Lotkin, as 
    saying that be [sic] did not see anything improper with the per 
    diem arrangement on the apartment. I relied on that.
        Nevertheless, last year I said to George Mallick, ``I want to 
    buy the apartment, George. I want to pay you for it.'' I did. I 
    paid the amount suggested as appraised by two real estate persons 
    in Fort Worth, $58,000. Now, if anybody thinks that is too low a 
    price, I will sell it to you today for $58,000.
        Well, I just wanted to clear the air and remove doubts and say 
    that if we made a mistake, we have done what we can to set things 
    right. I do not think we violated any rules. I think you are 
    entitled to know that, and my respect for you leads me to want to 
    tell you that.
        The second alleged violation is based on the assumption that 
    Betty's employment and the job benefits that she had

[[Page 485]]

    were gifts, and the further assumption that George Mallick, our 
    friend and business partner, had a direct interest in influencing 
    legislation, which would make it a violation of the rules for us to 
    accept gifts from him.
        Now how does the committee arrive at that suggestion? I have 
    known Mr. Mallick for more than 25 years. He has been my friend. He 
    has been a good, decent, hard-working man, a man of Lebanese 
    extraction. His father had a wholesale grocery store in Fort Worth. 
    His grandfather came there with a wagon, a cart. George has been a 
    moderately successful businessman.
        Never once in all the years I have known this man has he ever 
    asked me to vote for or against any piece of legislation--not once. 
    That is not the basis of our friendship. That is not the way our 
    relationship goes. You have friends like that; they do not ask you 
    for anything. All they want is to be a friend. Not one time has he 
    asked me to intercede with any administrative agency of government 
    in his behalf or in behalf of any institution in which he has an 
    interest--not once.
        How do they say that he had a direct interest in influencing 
    legislation? Well, on page 58 of the committee report, it is 
    suggested that simply because he was in the real estate business 
    and because he had some oil and gas investments, the committee 
    might ``infer''--that is the word--the committee might infer that 
    he could be deemed a person with an interest of a direct nature in 
    legislation.
        The committee suggested he might have an interest in the Tax 
    Code. Well, who does not? Every taxpayer has an interest in the Tax 
    Code. Anybody who ever expects to receive Social Security has an 
    interest in the Social Security laws. All people have an interest 
    of some kind in the results of legislation; do they not?
        That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about 
    whether or not they have an interest in trying to influence the 
    course of legislation.
        Now where would you go to find out what that means? If somebody 
    wants to associate with you in some way and be in business with you 
    back home in a perfectly legal way, where would you go to find out 
    whether they have an interest in legislation or not? Whom would you 
    consult if you were in doubt about it? I was not in doubt, but 
    suppose you were. Would you think you could consult the 
    publications of the committee or consult the people who wrote the 
    rules?
        Well, the people who wrote the rules do not think George 
    Mallick had an interest in legislation. David Obey was the chairman 
    of the committee that drafted those rules. He asserts clearly, 
    unequivocally, emphatically, and unambiguously, both in an 
    affidavit and an op ed he wrote for the Washington Post, the 
    definition that does not fit George Mallick's case. Mr. Mallick 
    does not have an interest in legislation, as defined under the 
    rules, the rules that David and his committee wrote.
        Harold Sawyer, a former Republican Member from Michigan, who 
    served on that committee along with David Obey, says the same 
    thing. I have an affidavit from Mr. Sawyer in which he states 
    exactly that same conclusion.
        And there is an affidavit of Donald F. Terry, who is currently 
    employed by the Committee on Small Business, but

[[Page 486]]

    who was a staff member of the Commission on Administrative Review 
    which was charged in 1976 with responsibility for drafting new 
    rules of official conduct for the House. Most of what he refers to 
    has to do with the question of book royalties, and I shall come to 
    that next.
        But in these matters, these three people who had a great deal 
    to do with writing the rule say that is not what they intended when 
    they wrote the rule. I offer these for printing in the Record, as 
    follows:

                   [From the Washington Post, Apr. 25, 1989]

                The Wright Report--They're Misapplying the Rules

                                (By David Obey)

            I would like to offer some thoughts about the manner by 
        which Congress and the nation reach judgments on the ethics of 
        public men and women.
            My only particular credential is that in 1977 I chaired the 
        commission that rewrote, reformed and strengthened the House 
        Code of Conduct under which Speaker Jim Wright is now being 
        judged.
            Of course, the ethics of public figures should be judged in 
        a broad context. It is ironic, as George Will has thoughtfully 
        noted [op-ed, April 18], that in the '80s the ethics of public 
        figures are being discussed solely in terms of personal or 
        financial acts.
            When I first unpacked my bag of Wisconsin progressive 
        values 20 years ago, as an idealistic 30-year-old newcomer to 
        Congress, I had the idea--and still have the idea--that public 
        decisions which deny decent shelter to today's poor and steal 
        from the living standards of tomorrow's families in order to 
        continue the fiction that wealthy people are undertaxed are at 
        least as unethical as, say, Judge Ginsburg's smoking a 
        marijuana cigarette or a Cabinet nominee's feeling a female 
        knee in public. So is lying to Congress about financing an 
        illegal war.
            Of course, there must be a higher standard than that of the 
        marketplace for those of us who serve in public life. That is 
        why members of Congress disclose the amounts and sources of 
        their outside income even though those who report our actions 
        and shape public opinion in the process do not (disregarding 
        Adlai Stevenson's warning that those who shape the public mind 
        may do evil just as great as those who steal the public purse).
            I will reach no final conclusion about the speaker's case 
        until I have all the facts. My purpose in writing is to help 
        ensure that House rules for which I have prime responsibility 
        are correctly understood and applied by the House, which must 
        live by them, and the public, which must be served by them.
            I do so with reluctance because rewriting those rules in 
        1977 was painful. Those rules changes cost some of my 
        colleagues a lot of money--more than $100,000--and while the 
        vast majority have recognized that I was simply doing my job 
        for the good of the institution, a few have never forgiven me.
            The issue before the standards committee at the moment is 
        not, as some have written, whether Jim Wright should remain as 
        speaker. The issue is whether he has broken House rules. In my 
        view, two rules cited by the standards committee in its initial 
        report a week ago are being misapplied.
            Book Royalties: In examining the meaning of the rule of 
        book royalties, the committee report makes two mistakes:
            (1) It asserts that the intention of my commission in 
        drafting the House rule can be determined by

[[Page 487]]

        reading Senate debate. But the House rule was adopted before 
        that Senate debate took place on the basis of testimony before 
        us that occurred 77 days before Senate consideration.
            (2) Committee Counsel Richard Phelan was ``guided by the 
        language of Advisory Opinion 13'' in determining the royalty 
        provision. That is wrong because the advisory opinion had 
        nothing to do with the copyright exemption. It was drafted to 
        distinguish between earned and unearned income from businesses. 
        It was never even considered in the context of royalty income.
            If today's committee feels that the speaker violated House 
        rules in his actions on book royalties, it must cite different 
        rules and a different line of reasoning than the one contained 
        in its erroneous report.
            Interest in Legislation: The second misapplied rule is the 
        committee's new definition of who has a distinct interest in 
        legislation. This is crucial because it would determine if or 
        when the speaker received illegal gifts from George Mallick, a 
        business associate and a 30-year close, personal friend. The 
        committee report determined that Mallick had a direct interest 
        in legislation ``by virtue of the fact that he had large 
        holdings and investments.'' That interpretation is an 
        absolutely arbitrary ex post facto rewriting of the rule.
            In writing the gift limitation, we made no distinction 
        whatsoever on the basis of a citizen's economic status. 
        Advisory Opinion 10, produced to guide members through this 
        tricky thicket, spelled out four specific covered categories: a 
        lobbyist, one who hires a lobbyist, one who maintains a 
        separate political action committee, or one who the member 
        knows has a distinct and special interest that sets him apart 
        from others in his class. We specifically warned that members 
        must be wary of gifts over $100 ``unless such gift is from a 
        close, personal friend.''
            That language (and constant assurances I gave numerous 
        members in 1977--that it would not be construed to require 
        members to become accountants in their dealings with lifelong 
        personal friends) makes it reasonable to assume that for 1981-
        1985 Wright could have concluded the rule did not cover 
        Mallick. I do not know whether he was covered after 1985 
        because I do not have all the facts. The standards committee 
        will, I am sure, review those events carefully.
            I am confident that the House and the committee will be 
        mindful of their public obligation and will do whatever is 
        right. But T.S. Eliot also warned us that the greatest treason 
        is to ``do the right deed for the wrong reason.''
            One other point: I am amused when some members of the press 
        blithely dismiss as weak the rules under which Wright is being 
        judged. Any reading of the congressional debate that took place 
        at the time would leave no doubt that they were regarded as far 
        too strong by many thoughtful members. And they were also 
        regarded as being too tough by some members of the press, 
        including a highly respected reporter for The Post who wrote an 
        op-ed piece the day we adopted these rules, urging their defeat 
        because they were too meddlesome. I do not mind the change of 
        opinion expressed by some in the press today, but I do mind the 
        sanctimony that occasionally accompanies that change of 
        opinion.
            No branch of government in our 200-year history has so 
        thoroughly and excruciatingly examined the conduct of anyone 
        within it as has the House in this instance. That should bring 
        credit, not condemnation, on the House in which I proudly 
        serve.


[[Page 488]]





        [U.S. House of Representatives before the Committee on 
            Standards of Official Conduct]

                       Affidavit of Harold S. Sawyer

               In the matter of Speaker James C. Wright, Jr.
    State of Michigan,
    County of Kent, ss:

            I, Harold S. Sawyer, am competent to give affidavits at 
        law, and testify as follows:
            1. I am a partner in the Grand Rapids law firm of Warner, 
        Norcross & Judd. I served as a Republican Member of Congress 
        from 1977 to 1985.
            2. In 1978, I served as a Republican Member of the House 
        Select Committee on Ethics (``the Preyer Committee''), which 
        drafted and later issued a number of Advisory Opinions 
        implementing and interpreting the House's Rules of Official 
        Conduct.
            3. During my service as a member of the Preyer Committee, 
        our Committee had occasion to consider Rule XLIII, Clause 4, 
        which prohibits members from accepting gifts from persons with 
        a ``direct interest in legislation.'' We were very concerned 
        with who would be considered to have a direct interest for 
        purposes of the Rule, since virtually anyone who holds 
        property, belongs to a profession, receives Social Security or 
        any other form of government assistance, or works as a farmer 
        has a ``direct interest'' in legislation before Congress. In 
        the broad sense, any citizen does, but that certainly was not 
        what the Rule intended.
            4. In my opinion, Rule XLIII Is specifically limited to the 
        three classes of individuals described in the Rule: lobbyists, 
        officers or directors of lobbyists, and any person retained by 
        a lobbyist. Under the legal principal of exressio unus exclusio 
        alterius, persons not falling within one of these specific 
        three categories is not covered by Rule XLIII and does not have 
        a ``direct interest'' in legislation for purposes of the Rule. 
        To avoid the application of this rule, a draftsman normally 
        states ``including but not limited to'' or words to this 
        effect. This was deliberately not done.
            5. My understanding from public reports is that Mr. 
        Mallick--the person from whom Speaker Wright is charged with 
        having accepted a gift--is not a person who falls within any of 
        the three categories delineated in Rule XLIII. If he is not, 
        then in my opinion Speaker Wright cannot have violated the 
        Rule.
            6. While I was serving on the Select Committee, we adopted 
        Advisory Opinion No. 10, which interprets Rule 43. The Advisory 
        Opinion indicates that an individual who ``has a distinct or 
        special interest in influencing or affecting the federal 
        legislative process which sets such individual . . . apart from 
        the general public'' is, for purposes of Rule XLIII, an 
        individual with a ``direct interest'' in legislation. In my 
        opinion, the Advisory Opinion was intended to describe, not 
        expand, the scope of Rule XLIII. Indeed, an Advisory Opinion 
        cannot lawfully expand the scope of a House Rule.
            7. Even to the extent some members of the Select Committee 
        might have believed that Advisory Opinion No. 10 expanded the 
        scope of Rule XLIII, Mr. Mallick still would not constitute an 
        individual with a ``direct interest'' in legislation, assuming 
        that the media description of his activities is accurate. No 
        one serving with me on the Select Committee ever even suggested 
        that, under Advisory Opinion No. 10, an individual would be 
        deemed to have a ``direct Interest'' in legislation simply 
        because he had real estate investments, oil and gas 
        investments, or loans from federally insured lending 
        institutions. Indeed, if such a person

[[Page 489]]

        has a ``direct interest,'' then Advisory Opinion No. 10 has 
        rendered Rule XLIII essentially meaningless, since virtually 
        anyone would have a ``direct Interest.'' This was not the 
        purpose or intention of the Committee on which I served.
            8. As I previously have advised this Committee, I do not 
        believe that Speaker Wright's conduct relating to the sale of 
        books and the receipt of royalties can possibly have violated 
        House Rule XLVII, the limit on Outside Earned Income. The Rule 
        expressly excludes copyright royalties from the earned income 
        limit. This was a blanket exemption. In my opinion, any 
        qualified lawyer with whom the Speaker had consulted as to 
        whether he could sell books on which he was paid a royalty 
        without having the annual 30 percent limit apply, in lieu of 
        accepting honorariums, certainly would have advised him that he 
        could do so under the plain terms of Rule XLVII. While this 
        Committee may conclude that the blanket exemption of copyright 
        royalties is unwise, it cannot fairly or lawfully reinterpret 
        that Rule and apply a new definition retroactively in the 
        current proceedings against the Speaker.
            9. Since Speaker Wright plainly has not violated the letter 
        of the Rule, it would be grossly unfair, in my opinion, to 
        conclude that he has violated the ``spirit'' of the Rule. It is 
        difficult to perceive what the ``spirit'' of the Rule is. It 
        cannot be the restriction of outside income per se, since 
        unearned income is unlimited, as is earned income from farming, 
        ranching, or any other family-controlled business. Nor can the 
        ``spirit'' be to limit the time spent by members on outside 
        activities, since a member is permitted to give four times as 
        many $500 speeches as he is $2,000 speeches, and since there is 
        no limit at all on unpaid speeches. Indeed, my understanding is 
        that the Speaker gave hundreds of speeches for which he 
        received no honorarium and in connection with which he sold no 
        books. I point this out only to illustrate the danger and 
        unfairness of attempting to enforce the ``spirit,'' rather than 
        the letter, of a House Rule. Lawyers, after all, spend much of 
        their time advising clients as to how to comply with the letter 
        of the law while neither attempting nor even being able to make 
        any sense of the law or determine its ``spirit.''
            10. I do not know the Speaker well, and have no partisan 
        interest in this matter, as should be obvious from my political 
        affiliation. However, as a lawyer and as one who served on the 
        Select Committee during the relevant period, I feel obliged to 
        note the extremely serious legal shortcomings in the 
        Committee's preliminary interpretation of the House Rules the 
        Speaker has been charged with violating.
            Further affiant sayeth not.

                                                 Harold S. Sawyer.

            Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22nd day of May, 
        1989.

                                                Barbara J. Callan.

        Notary Public, Kent County, Michigan.



        [U.S. House of Representatives before the Committee on 
            Standards of Official Conduct]

                        Affidavit of Donald F. Terry

                 in the matter of Speaker James C. Wright, Jr.
    District of Columbia.

            I, Donald F. Terry, am competent to give affidavits at law, 
        and testify as follows:
            1. I am currently employed by the House Committee on Small 
        Business. I was a staff member on the Commission on 
        Administrative Review, which was charged in 1976

[[Page 490]]

        with the responsibility for drafting new Rules of Official 
        Conduct for the House. I also am the former Staff Director of 
        the House Select Committee on Ethics, which interpreted and 
        implemented the House Rules of Official Conduct, once they were 
        adopted by the House on March 2, 1977.
            2. In my capacity as Staff Director of the Select 
        Committee, I drafted Advisory Opinion No. 13, which was adopted 
        by the Select Committee to clarify the application of House 
        Rule XLVII (the Rule dealing with limitations on Members' 
        outside earned income).
            3. My understanding, and--to my knowledge--the 
        understanding of all members of my staff and of the Select 
        Committee at the time, was that the express copyright royalty 
        exclusion contained in Rule XLVII was a blanket exclusion.
            4. During the course of drafting Advisory Opinion No. 13, I 
        had several meetings and conversations with Douglas D. 
        Drysdale, a member of the law firm of Caplin & Drysdale, who 
        had been retained by the Select Committee to provide expert 
        counsel and technical assistance concerning issues relating to 
        the application of House Rule XLVII. One provision proposed by 
        Mr. Drysdale for inclusion in Advisory Opinion No. 13 was a 
        subparagraph entitled ``Real Facts Controlling.'' The 
        subparagraph, which I accepted for inclusion in my draft of the 
        Advisory Opinion, provides that ``The limitations proposed by 
        Rule XLVII may not be avoided by devices designed to circumvent 
        them. In all cases, the real facts will control'' My 
        understanding of this provision and the basis on which I 
        included it in the draft was that it principally related to the 
        concern that a Member might try to mischaracterize earned 
        income (which is limited under Rule XLVII) as unearned income 
        (which is not limited). To my recollection, there was no 
        discussion either between me and Mr. Drysdale or in my 
        conversations with members regarding the specific application 
        of this subsection to Rule XLVII's exclusion of copyright 
        royalties from the earned income limitation.
            5. Mr. Drysdale and his law firm did submit proposed 
        language specifically relating to copyright royalties, which 
        language arguably would have restricted the otherwise blanket 
        copyright royalty exclusion in Rule XLVII. I rejected this 
        proposed language, however, just as I rejected a number of 
        other provisions proposed by Mr. Drysdale in his 29-page 
        memorandum. Because I rejected at a staff level the copyright 
        royalty language proposed by Mr. Drysdale, to the best of my 
        knowledge, it was never reviewed by the members of the Select 
        Committee, and, therefore, cannot be now used as a basis to 
        interpret application of Rule XLVII.
            6. In the course of the investigation of Speaker Wright, 
        neither the Outside Special Counsel nor any member of the 
        Committee's staff has interviewed me or otherwise sought my 
        view as to the proper interpretation of Rule XLVII or Advisory 
        Opinion No. 13.
            Further affiant sayeth not.

                                                  Donald F. Terry.

            Sworn to and subscribed by the undersigned Notary Public on 
        this 22 day of May, 1989, to certify which witness my hand and 
        seal of office at 1:35 PM.

                                               Thomas J. Lankford.

        Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia.
        Where else might you turn if you were in doubt? Might you not 
    possibly go to the committee itself and see what advisory opinions 
    it has given? Here is the publication the committee sends to all of 
    us to tell us what is and what is not legal. Each year we receive 
    this as

[[Page 491]]

    instructions for filling out our financial disclosure statements. 
    Appendix E is an advisory opinion No. 10 which defines who has a 
    direct interest in legislation under the rules. It says:

            If the Member does not believe that the donor of the gift 
        has a distinct or special interest in the congressional 
        legislative process which set him clearly apart from the 
        general public, then the Member should feel free to accept such 
        gifts.

        That is the official advice from the committee given to every 
    Member. Then it defines, in summary, who has an interest in 
    legislation as prohibited under the rule. It given four classes. 
    That is all.
        Listed first are registered lobbyist. George Mallick is not a 
    registered lobbyist.
        Next comes any person who employs a registered lobbyist. George 
    Mallick never did that.
        Third, it refers to somebody who directs or operates a 
    political action committee. George Mallick has never done that.
        And finally, any other individual which the Member ``knows''--
    not ``should know'' or ``ought to suspect or ``ought to infer,'' 
    but which the Member knows has distinct or special interest in 
    influencing or affecting the legislative process. The definition is 
    not just somebody who has got an interest financially in the 
    outcome of legislation. Not at all. It is rather somebody you know 
    who has a direct or special interest in influencing the outcome of 
    the legislative process which sets that individual apart from the 
    general public.

                                {time}  1630

        My colleagues, that was just simply not the case with George 
    Mallick. He had no direct interest in legislation of any type.
        Now we have motions before the committee to set aside that 
    presumption of Mr. Mallick's having a direct interest in 
    legislation. Personally, I do not have reason to believe he has.
        The only thing the committee has suggested is that in 1986 his 
    son borrowed money from a savings and loan to build a shopping 
    center, wholly apart and separate from any investments Betty and I 
    had. Then in 1987, the lending institution had to foreclose on the 
    son's loans.
        But note the years involved here. Betty was employed, 
    purportedly as a gift, from 1981 to 1984. Mr. Mallick could not 
    have known in 1981 and 1984 that his son was going to borrow money 
    in 1986, and that the thing would go bad in 1987, and that an 
    economic decline would make it possible for him to pay off his note 
    on time. He could not have known that in any way.
        I ask my colleagues: ``Would you stretch this rule to the point 
    of saying it covers that just anybody who has a member of his 
    family who owes money to a bank or a savings and loan?''
        Of course my colleagues would not. That would cover more than 
    half the citizens of the country.
        The people who wrote the rules do not believe that Mr. Mallick 
    is covered. So I think under all reasonable circumstances that our 
    dismissal motion ought to be agreed to. Our motion ought to be 
    agreed to, if rules mean anything--if we are not just going to turn 
    the whole thing on its head and change the rules by whim every time 
    we turn around.
        Now the third count that remains in the statement of alleged 
    violations

[[Page 492]]

    which concerns the sales of a book called ``Reflections of a Public 
    Man,'' which I wrote and which was sold sometimes in bulk 
    quantities to people who took it and gave it away to other people--
    students, newspapers, public officials, and members of their 
    organizations. Did I want these books circulated widely? Of course 
    I did. My colleagues know that I wanted to get the widest possible 
    distribution of the book. A book that you write, you know, is a 
    part of you. You think of it as a child almost.
        Now this book probably is not great literature, but I like it. 
    Marty Tolchin of the New York Times, John Silber, president of 
    Boston University; Jim Lehrer of the MacNeil/Lehrer Report; and Dr. 
    Bill Tucker, chancellor of TCU, all said nice things about it. And 
    I appreciate that.
        Now, the contention of the committee, as I understand it, is 
    that the publication of this book, from which I got $3.25 for every 
    one that sold, was a kind of a sham and a subterfuge in itself and 
    an overall scheme for me to exceed and violate the outside earnings 
    limitation on a Member of Congress. Do my colleagues think that I 
    would so something like that?
        The purpose of the book was to publish something that could be 
    sold at a small price and get wide distribution. If monetary gain 
    had been my primary interest, do my colleagues not think I would 
    have gone to one of the big Madison Avenue publishers--the houses 
    that give writers big advances?
        I know people who have received advances before a single book 
    sells from those big companies--advances twice or three times as 
    much as I got in the total sale of all those books. If it had been 
    a scheme to get around outside earning limits, that is what I might 
    have done.
        I hear that a woman author of a book called ``Mayflower 
    Madam,'' got $750,000 in advance royalties. Our former Speaker, Mr. 
    O'Neill, is said to have received $1 million for his excellent and 
    readable book in advance before any of them were sold. I have read 
    that a woman named Kitty Kelly received as much as $2 million in 
    advance royalties for a book she has written on Nancy Reagan and 
    which, as I understand it, is not even an authorized biography. 
    Well, so much for that.
        It is true, I think, that people on my staff were eager to sell 
    these books. They knew I wanted them sold. I have got to accept 
    full responsibility for that if it was wrong. But the rule does not 
    say it was wrong.
        It could not have been an overall scheme to avoid outside 
    earning limits because the rules are clear. They are not equivocal. 
    The rules expressly exempt royalty income, and that, too, is 
    attested to by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and it is 
    attested to by Donald Terry who gives the rationale. There were not 
    any exceptions; book royalties were exempted.
        Now maybe book royalties should not have been exempt. But the 
    rules clearly say that they are.
        Maybe somebody got the impression that buying a book was a 
    price of getting me to make a speech. I never intended that 
    impression. I never suggested that. I hope that friends of mine did 
    not.
        Of all the books that were sold, the committee suggests that 
    seven cases

[[Page 493]]

    involved instances where individuals associated with organizations 
    to which I made speeches bought multiple copies of the book and 
    distributed them among members of the organization or others.
        Now I have not been permitted to see a copy of their testimony, 
    so I do not know exactly what the witness said. I have asked people 
    on my staff, ``Did you tell these folks that they had to buy these 
    books or I wouldn't make a speech?'' and they said, ``no, they did 
    not.''
        The total amount, as I figure, from all of those sales involved 
    only about $7,700. That is what I received.
        My colleagues know I would do whatever was necessary, whatever 
    was right. If any of those people were under the impression that I 
    was not going to make a speech to them unless they bought a bunch 
    of books, and if they wanted their money back, I would give them 
    that money. I do not want the money. That is not important. What is 
    important is a person's honor and his integrity.
        During that 3-year period, the committee says there were seven 
    instances where I made speeches to groups that bought copies of 
    these books. In that period, I made at least 700 speeches for which 
    I did not get any honorarium at all, and no one offered to sell 
    anybody a book. Do my colleagues suppose that, if this had been an 
    overall scheme, that there would not have been a wider kind of an 
    experience than that? I do not know. I am just saying to my 
    colleagues that I did not intend to violate the outside earning 
    limitation, and I do not believe legally that I did.
        Some of the rest of my colleagues make a lot of speeches. I 
    ask, ``How many speeches do you suppose you make that you don't get 
    anything for?'' Most of us make many.
        One other thing about the book that I suppose needs elaboration 
    involves the allegation in the statement of alleged violations that 
    a man named S. Gene Payte, a reputable businessman in Fort Worth, 
    paid for more books than he got from the publisher. That is what 
    was said in the report of the outside counsel.
        S. Gene Payte, upon reading that report, issued an affidavit 
    that is not ambiguous at all. Here is what Mr. Payte says, I will 
    read in part this affidavit and put the whole thing in the Record.
        He says:

            I have read the Report of Special Outside Counsel Richard 
        J. Phelan on the Preliminary Inquiry conducted pursuant to the 
        Committee's June 9, 1988 resolution, as it relates to my 
        testimony. I also have reviewed the transcript of my deposition 
        testimony. The Report, and also the conclusions reached by the 
        Special Counsel, ignores much of the most pertinent testimony 
        in the transcript, takes certain statements out of context, 
        distorts clear statements of fact and in general, fails fairly 
        and accurately to summarize the matters as to which I 
        testified.

        And the conclusion reached by the Special Counsel that Wright 
    violated the rule was, quoting the affidavit, ``based on his [Mr. 
    Phelan's] categorical assertion that, `Gene Payte did not receive 
    the books?' ''

                                {time}  1640

        The Special Counsel asserts,

[[Page 494]]

            Payte

        And I am quoting--

            Testified that he only received between 300 and 500 copies 
        of the old book for his $6,000 and makes the flat statement, 
        ``Gene Payte did not receive the books.'' Citing as authority 
        Payte's transcript, on page 77.

        Now here is what Payte says:

            On the contrary, I did not so testify. I stated not once, 
        but three times, that I believed 1,000 books were delivered to 
        me.

        And he cites the transcript of this testimony, pages 27, 40, 
    and 41.
        Mr. Payte goes on:

            The Special Counsel ignores this testimony. Instead, he 
        cites Transcript 77. That citation does not support the Special 
        Counsel's assertion. Transcript 77 shows that Congressman 
        Myers--not I--made the comment, ``I believe you said you 
        received 3 to 500 books.''
            I did not confirm his recollection, my reply being, ``I 
        would like to have the new books.'' (Tr. 77). In fact, I never 
        so testified.

        So this is a copy of that affidavit which I should like to 
    submit for the Record, together with a copy of a letter that was 
    sent by the committee to Mr. Payte after he issued this affidavit 
    telling him he ought not to comment.

                         Affidavit of S. Gene Payte
    The State of Texas,
    County of Tarrant, ss:

            Before me the undersigned authority on this date personally 
        appeared S. Gene Payte, known to me to be the person whose name 
        is subscribed hereto, and he being duly sworn did depose and 
        say the following:
            My name is S. Gene Payte. I reside at 6450 Sumac, Fort 
        Worth, Tarrant County, Texas 76116. I have personal knowledge 
        of the matters contained herein.
            On or about October 17, 1988, I was called to testify in 
        the proceeding before the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct of the U.S. House of Representatives, in the matter of 
        Speaker James C. Wright, Jr.
            I have read the Report of Special Outside Counsel Richard 
        J. Phelan (``R.'') on the Preliminary Inquiry conducted 
        pursuant to the Committee's June 9, 1988 resolution, as it 
        relates to my testimony. (R. 85-86). I also have reviewed the 
        transcript (``Tr.'') of my deposition testimony. The Report, 
        and also the conclusions reached by the Special Counsel, 
        ignores much of the most pertinent testimony in the transcript, 
        takes certain statements out of context, distorts clear 
        statements of fact and in general, fails fairly and accurately 
        to summarize the matters as to which I testified.
            The conclusion reached by the Special Counsel that ``Wright 
        violated Rule XLIII, Clause 4 (R. 86) was based on his 
        categorical assertion that, ``Gene Payte did not receive the 
        books.'' (Id.). The Special Counsel asserts, ``Payte testified 
        that he only received between 300 and 500 copies of the old 
        book for his $6,000 (R. 86), and makes the flat statement, 
        ``Gene Payte did not receive the books'' (Id), citing as 
        authority, ``Payte Tr. 77''.
            On the contrary, I did not so testify. I stated, not once, 
        but three times, that I believe 1,000 books were delivered to 
        me. (Tr. 27, Tr. 40, Tr. 41). The Special Counsel ignores this 
        testimony. Instead, he cites Tr. 77. That citation does not 
        support the Special Counsel's assertion. Transcript 77 shows 
        that Congressman Myers--not I--made the comment, ``I believe 
        you said you received three to five hundred books.'' I did not 
        confirm his recollection, my reply being, ``I would like to 
        have the

[[Page 495]]

        new books.'' (Tr. 77). In fact, I never so testified. 
        Apparently, Congressman Myers had in mind a telephone 
        conversation (a transcript of which I had furnished to the 
        Committee) which I had had with a reporter several months 
        earlier when the question had first arisen and before I had the 
        opportunity to check any records or refresh my memory. In that 
        conservation I had stated that over a period of time I bought 
        and gave away about a thousand books, but I also had stated in 
        the telephone conversation that I took delivery of, ``just four 
        or five hundred books, or three or four hundred books.'' There 
        had been some confusion in that early telephone interview both 
        as to the question of whether I was to receive additional books 
        from an anticipated new printing and as to whether the books 
        from the original printing which I actually [sic] had received 
        constituted what I termed ``delivery'' of all of the books 
        which I had purchased and which I was to receive. At no time in 
        my deposition before the Committee did I testify that I had 
        received only between 300 and 500 books. When Mr. Kunkle put 
        the question to me directly, my response was, ``No, I think he 
        delivered more than that.'' (Tr. 52). I did not intend to say, 
        and did not say to the Committee in my testimony, that I had 
        received only that number of books. However, I was still 
        desirous of receiving additional books which would identify Mr. 
        Wright as Speaker rather than Majority Leader. As I testified 
        before the Committee (which testimony was ignored by the 
        Special Counsel in his Report), I believed that Mr. Moore had 
        delivered 1,000 books to me, but I was ``not for sure'' (Tr. 
        27) and I repeated twice thereafter that I believed I had 
        received approximately 1,000 books. (Tr. 40, Tr. 41). Later in 
        my testimony, when Mr. Kunkle asked if it was my best 
        recollection that in fact Mr. Moore delivered somewhere between 
        300 and 500 books to me, I responded that I thought that he 
        delivered more than that. (Tr. 52).
            Since testifying, I have discovered positively that in fact 
        approximately 1,000 books were delivered to me. While I had 
        believed this to be the case, I had not been absolutely certain 
        of the fact. I now am certain. I had taken two large cases of 
        books to the home which I have in Rockport, Texas and had 
        forgotten this fact. These books, together with the books which 
        I had in Fort Worth, totaled 1,000. To reiterate, I received 
        all of the 1,000 books which I purchased.
            I also am disturbed by the false statements, implications 
        and innuendoes contained in the Report relative to my 
        motivation in purchasing the books. As I testified, it is true 
        that I had desired to make a cash gift to Jim Wright as an 
        expression of appreciation for all that he has done for the 
        community, the state and the nation. (Payte Ex. 4, Tr. 21). I 
        have made a practice for several years of giving money to 
        various charities, individuals, family members and things in 
        which I believe, (Tr. 18, Tr. 35-36, Tr. 55, Payte Ex. 15). It 
        is my belief that the members of the Congress are underpaid, 
        particularly with the necessity to support two households, and 
        I wished to make a contribution to a Congressman whom I admired 
        and whom I felt had been of service to his community, state and 
        nation. (Tr. 32). Since I had not had any direct interest in 
        legislation, had none at the time and did not expect to have 
        any such interest in the foreseeable future, I had believed 
        that it would be permissible to make a gift with no strings 
        attached to Jim Wright. However, he refused to accept it. I 
        then learned that he was interested in distributing his book, 
        ``Reflections of a Public Man,'' as widely as possible and I 
        felt that it would be worthwhile to do so. I believed that 
        distribution of the book,

[[Page 496]]

        particularly among young people, might encourage them to go 
        into public service. (Tr. 28, Tr. 32, Tr. 36, Tr. 53, Tr. 77). 
        This was not a subterfuge to attempt to put money into Jim 
        Wright's pocket that I could not otherwise give him, although 
        of course I realized that he would get some benefit from 
        whatever the royalties might be. (Tr. 36).
            The Special Counsel states in his Report, ``Payte contacted 
        his attorney, Tom Law. Law and Payte continued to search for a 
        way to help Wright. Law suggested that instead of giving Wright 
        cash, Payte make a contribution to support bringing one of 
        Jim's book up to date with a new addition.'' (R. 85). That 
        statement is absolutely untrue. Mr. Law never made any such 
        suggestion. I made the decision on my own and later told him 
        about it. The statement that my attorney, Tom Law, ``advised 
        Payte how to make a cash contribution to Wright by paying to 
        have Wright's book `updated'.'' (R. 168). Also is wholly 
        untrue. Mr. Law and I did not even discuss ``how to make a cash 
        contribution to Wright by paying to have Wright's book 
        updated.'' Our only discussion, before I decided to buy the 
        book, was my having asked him whether I could make a cash 
        contribution to Jim Wright. He asked me whether I had any 
        direct interest in legislation, whether I had had such an 
        interest in the past, and whether I anticipated that I would 
        have in the future. When I responded in the negative to each of 
        these questions, he told me that he believed that such a gift 
        would be permissible, but that he was concerned that there 
        conceivably could be some Congressional rule regarding such a 
        gift which he would want to check out before he gave me a final 
        conclusion. He also told me that such a gift conceivably could 
        be misinterpreted and perhaps be embarrassing, even though it 
        was perfectly legitimate. He went out of the city shortly after 
        this conversation, and I proceeded to attempt to make the gift 
        to Mr. Wright. However, he would not accept it and returned the 
        check. At this point, knowing of Mr. Wright's desire to 
        distribute his book widely, I made the decision to purchase a 
        large quantity of Jim Wright's books and support bringing the 
        book up to date with a new edition. I made this decision on my 
        own without consultation with Mr. Law. He later wrote a letter 
        to Mr. Dee Kelly, President of the Wright Congressional Club in 
        Fort Worth, and reported the facts to him as a matter of 
        interest. (Payte Ex. 4).
            Signed this 21st day of April 1989.

                                                    S. Gene Payte.

            Sworn to and subscribed before me by S. Gene Payte, this 
        21st day of April 1989.

                                                 Christy Moak Cox,

                                                    Notary Public.



                  Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,

                          Washington, DC, May 5, 1989.
    Mr. S. Gene Payte,
    6450 Sumac,
    Fort Worth, TX.

            Dear Mr. Payte: It has come to our attention that on April 
        21, 1989, you executed an affidavit addressing matters raised 
        during your testimony before the Committee on October 17, 1988. 
        In particular, your affidavit states that you were called to 
        testify before the Committee in connection with the Preliminary 
        Inquiry in the matter of Representative James C. Wright, Jr.; 
        and that as a result of having reviewed the transcript of your 
        deposition and the report of the Special Outside Counsel, you 
        have taken exception to a number of statements attributed to 
        you at the time of your testimony.

[[Page 497]]

            Regardless of the position you have taken in your April 21, 
        1989, affidavit, which has been publicly circulated, the fact 
        remains that at the time of your deposition you were expressly 
        admonished by the Ranking Minority Member who presided at the 
        deposition ``that these proceedings have been taken in 
        executive session, which means you are not to discuss anything 
        that took place here with anyone other than your counsel.'' The 
        transcript of the deposition reflects your agreement with the 
        instruction given to you by the Ranking Minority Member. See, 
        October 17, 1988, transcript at pp. 77-78.
            In view of the foregoing, your affidavit represents a 
        course of conduct in direct violation of the admonition given 
        to you at your October 17, 1988, deposition. Accordingly, we 
        wish to notify you that the matter of your violation may be 
        taken up by the Committee and, once again, to direct you to 
        refrain from any further discussion of your testimony with 
        anyone not serving as your legal counsel.
              Sincerely,

                                                  Julian C. Dixon,

                                                         Chairman.

                                                    John T. Myers,

                                          Ranking Minority Member.

        What do you think of that? A private citizen, a reputable 
    citizen of my community, is misquoted in a document published at 
    public expense, and sent widely to newspapers throughout the 
    country. It is widely cited as authority, uncritically, and assumed 
    to be accurate. The citizen being misquoted issues an affidavit to 
    straighten it out so that he is not misquoted in the public record, 
    and then he is warned by the committee that he might be held in 
    violation and in contempt of Congress if he does not shut up.
        First amendment rights supersede any rules of any committee, 
    and any citizen of the United States ought to have the right to 
    have his own testimony correctly characterized and not be 
    threatened, or silenced by a House committee. Any House committee 
    owes to a citizen of the United States that right and that 
    privilege.
        Well, those are basically the matters pending before the 
    committee in our motion to dismiss. Those motions could clear the 
    air.
        Rules are important, just as the constancy of what a law means 
    is important. The committee can resolve these particular legal 
    issues as to what constitutes direct interest in legislation and 
    whether or not book royalties are exempt, as the rules say they 
    are.
        I think it is important for the motions to be ruled upon, and I 
    earnestly hope the committee will look at it from that standpoint 
    and grant our motions.
        Members are entitled to know what the rules mean and if they 
    still mean what they meant when they were written and promulgated.
        Now, maybe the rules need to be changed. If so, let us change 
    them in a legal, orderly way. Let us vote on them. Let us vote to 
    change them. Maybe the whole process needs some change and 
    clarification.
        You know, the House may want to consider establishing a House 
    to whom Members can look for official advice and then rely on that 
    advice.
        The rules of the committee itself might need some 
    reconsideration.
        I have gone through this agonizing experience for about a year 
    now. Almost every day there is a new story and a newspaper leak 
    without any

[[Page 498]]

    chance for me to know what is coming next, no chance for me to go 
    to the committee and answer it and say, ``Hey, wait a minute. That 
    is not correct. That is not right.''
        Maybe the committee which is currently required to sit both as 
    a kind of grand jury and a petit jury ought to have a different 
    composition, rather than having those who issue the statement of 
    alleged violations being the same people who have to judge them. I 
    think it clearly is difficult to expect Members who publicly 
    announce reason to believe there is a violation to reverse their 
    position at the hearing stage and dismiss charges against a Member. 
    And maybe once a report of alleged violations is issued, the 
    committee rules ought to allow the Member to respond expeditiously.
        To deny a Member the opportunity to reply quickly can cause 
    serious political injury. It is unfair. Once alleged violations are 
    announced, the committee ought to release immediately to the Member 
    all the evidence that it has to backup what it has alleged.
        In my case, for example, the committee has yet to release any 
    witness testimony or documents that it obtained during the 
    investigation.
        Why hide the evidence? What is there to hide? This ought not to 
    be the kind of proceeding in which strategic maneuvering is allowed 
    to override fundamental principles of fair play.
        I urge the abolition of the gag order, too, which the committee 
    says forbids any witness who comes and makes a deposition from 
    discussing publicly or telling his side of the thing.
        In addition charges which the committee concludes are unfounded 
    should not be published and widely disseminated as though they were 
    true and bear the imprimatur of the committee's approval.
        Now, there are other things you ought to consider. I am not 
    trying to give you an exhaustive list of what might happen. I know 
    there are others who have views that are equally relevant.
        Perhaps we want to consider an outright abolition of all 
    honoraria and speaking fees. Maybe we want to do that in exchange 
    for a straightforward honest increase in the salary for members of 
    all three branches of Government. I do not know. It is up to the 
    House.
        It is intolerably hurtful to our Government that qualified 
    members of the executive and legislative branches are resigning 
    because of ambiguities and confusion surrounding the ethics laws 
    and because of their own consequent vulnerability to personal 
    attack. That is a shame, but it is happening and it is grievously 
    hurtful to our society.
        When vilification becomes an accepted form of political debate, 
    when negative campaigning becomes a full-time occupation, when 
    members of each party become self-appointed vigilanties carrying 
    out personal vendettas against members of the other party. In God's 
    name that is not what this institution is supposed to be all about. 
    When vengeance become more desirable than vindication and harsh 
    personal attacks upon one another's motives and one another's 
    character drown out the quiet logic of serious debate on important 
    issues--things that we ought to be involving ourselves in--surely 
    that is unworthy of our institution, unworthy of our American 
    political process.

[[Page 499]]

        All of us in both political parties must resolve to bring this 
    period of mindless cannibalism to an end. There has been enough of 
    it.

                                {time}  1650

        I pray to God that we will do that and restore the spirit that 
    always existed in this House. When I first came here, all those 
    years ago in 1955, this was a place where a man's word was his 
    bond, and his honor and the truth of what he said to you were 
    assumed. He did not have to prove it.
        I remember one time Cleve Bailey of West Virginia in a moment 
    of impassioned concern over a tariff bill jumped up and made an 
    objection to the fact that Chet Holifield had voted. In those days 
    we shouted our answers to the votes, and Mr. Holifield was there in 
    the back, and Bailey said, ``I object to the vote of the gentleman 
    from California being counted.'' He said, ``He was not in the 
    Chamber when his name was called and, therefore, he is not entitled 
    to vote.''
        It was a close vote. Speaker Rayburn grew as red as a tomato, 
    and I thought he was going to break the gavel when he hammered and 
    said, ``The Chair always takes the word of a Member,'' and then 
    because I was sitting over here behind Cleve Bailey, I heard other 
    Members come and say, ``Cleve, you are wrong. Chet was back there 
    behind the rail. I was standing there by him when he answered. His 
    answer just was not heard.'' Others said he should not have said 
    that. Cleve Bailey, the crusty old West Virginian, came down and 
    abjectly, literally with tears in his eyes, apologized for having 
    questioned the word of a fellow Member. We need that.
        Have I made mistakes? Oh, boy, how many? I have made a lot of 
    mistakes--mistakes in judgment. Oh yes, a lot of them. I will make 
    some more.
        Let me just comment on this briefly, because it is such a 
    sensational thing, and injury has been done to me in this 
    particular moment because of it. John Mack--and many of you 
    remember him, know him, and I think a lot of you like him and 
    respect him. I helped John one time in his life when he was about 
    20 years old. I did not know him and had never met him. I did not 
    know the nature of the crime of which he had been convicted. I knew 
    only that John Mack was a young man whom my daughter had known in 
    high school. My daughter was married to his brother, incidentally, 
    and that is how she knew about John. She mentioned it to me. All I 
    knew was that he had been convicted of assault and that he had 
    served 27 months in the Fairfax County jail.
        Contrary to what has been published, I did not intervene with 
    the court. I did not suggest anything to the court. I did not have 
    anything to do with his sentencing. I really did not know and did 
    not inquire, and maybe that is bad judgment. I did not inquire as 
    to the exact nature of the crime.
        The sheriff's office in Fairfax County called me and asked me 
    if I would know of any job that I could help this young man get. 
    They wanted to parole him. They said he had been a model 
    rehabilitative prisoner. I gave him a job as a file clerk at $9,000 
    a year, and he really blossomed and grew and developed.
        Those of the Members who know him found the story hard to 
    conceive,

[[Page 500]]

    as I did, when finally just 2 years ago I read in the newspaper the 
    precise nature of that crime. It just did not fit his character. 
    John was married and had two beautiful children. He was wonderfully 
    responsible. I think he had become a very fine person.
        Was that bad judgment to hire John? Maybe so. It does not have 
    any thing to do with the rules, but it got all mixed up with it, I 
    do not think though that it is bad judgment to try to give a young 
    man a second chance. Maybe I should have known more about him. But 
    in this case I think he has turned out well.
        I do not believe that America really stands for the idea that a 
    person once convicted should forever be condemned, but I think 
    maybe he ought to have a second chance, and that is what I thought 
    in the case of John Mack. Good judgment or bad, I believe in giving 
    somebody a second chance.
        Have I contributed unwittingly to this manic idea of a frenzy 
    of feeding on other people's reputations? Have I caused a lot of 
    this? Maybe I have. God, I hope I have not, but maybe I have. Have 
    I been too partisan? Too insistent? Too abrasive? Too determined to 
    have my way? Perhaps. Maybe so.
        If I have offended anybody in the other party, I am sorry. I 
    never meant to. I would not have done so intentionally. I have 
    always tried to treat all of our colleagues, Democrats and 
    Republicans with respect.
        Are there things I would do differently if I had them to do 
    over again? Oh, boy, how many may I name for you?
        Well, I tell you what, I am going to make you a proposition: 
    Let me give you back this job you gave to me as a propitiation for 
    all of this season of bad will that has grown up among us. Let me 
    give it back to you. I will resign as Speaker of the House 
    effective upon the election of my successor, and I will ask that we 
    call a caucus on the Democratic side for next Tuesday to choose a 
    successor.
        I do not want to be a party to tearing up this institution. I 
    love it.
        To tell you the truth, this year it has been very difficult for 
    me to offer the kind of moral leadership that our institution 
    needs. Because every time I try to talk about the needs of the 
    country, about the needs for affordable homes--both Jack Kemp's 
    idea and the ideas we are developing here--every time I try to talk 
    about the need for a minimum wage, about the need for day care 
    centers, embracing ideas on both sides of the aisle, the media have 
    not been interested in that. They wanted to ask me about petty 
    personal finances.
        You do not need that for a Speaker. You need somebody else, so 
    I want to give you that back, and will have a caucus on Tuesday.
        Then I will offer to resign from the House sometime before the 
    end of June. Let that be a total payment for the anger and 
    hostility we feel toward each other.
        Let us not try to get even with each other. Republicans, 
    please, do not get it in your heads you need to get somebody else 
    because of John Tower. Democrats, please, do not feel that you need 
    to get somebody on the other side because of me. We ought to be 
    more mature than that.
        Let us restore to this institution the rightful priorities of 
    what is good for

[[Page 501]]

    this country. Let us all work together to try to achieve them.
        The Nation has important business, and it cannot afford these 
    distractions, and that is why I offer to resign.
        I have enjoyed these years in Congress. I am grateful, for all 
    of you have taught me things and been patient with me.

                                {time}  1700

        Horace Greeley had a quote that Harry Truman used to like:

            Fame is a vapor, popularity an accident. Riches take wings. 
        Those who cheer today may curse tomorrow. Only one thing 
        endures: character.

        I am not a bitter man. I am not going to be. I am a lucky man. 
    God has given me the privilege of serving in this, the greatest law 
    making institution on Earth, for a great many years, and I am 
    grateful to the people of my district in Texas and grateful to you, 
    my colleagues, all of you.
        God bless this institution. God bless the United States.
        [Applause.]

    Speaker Wright announced his resignation as Speaker on May 31, 
1989, effective upon the election of his successor, on June 6, 
1989.(3) On that day, Speaker Wright conducted the election 
of his successor; he recognized the chairman of the Democratic Caucus 
and the chairman of the Republican Conference for nominations for the 
Office of Speaker, appointed tellers for an alphabetical roll call 
vote, announced the result of the vote (at which point his resignation 
as Speaker became effective), and appointed a committee to escort the 
Speaker-elect to the chair to be sworn in. The following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 135 Cong. Rec. 10800-803, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              ELECTION OF SPEAKER

        The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the Speaker's announcement of 
    Wednesday, May 31, 1989, the Chair will receive nominations for the 
    Office of Speaker.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
    Gray].
        Mr. [William (Bill) H.] GRAY [III]. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of 
    the Democratic Caucus, I am directed by the unanimous vote of that 
    caucus to present for election to the Office of the Speaker of the 
    House of Representatives the name of the Honorable Thomas S. Foley, 
    a Representative from the State of Washington.
        The SPEAKER. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Lewis].
        (Mr Lewis of California asked and was given permission to 
    revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [Jerry] LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of 
    the Republican Conference, I am directed by the unanimous vote of 
    that conference to present for election to the Office of the 
    Speaker of the House of Representatives the name of the Honorable 
    Robert H. Michel, a Representative from the State of Illinois. . . 
    .
        The SPEAKER. The Honorable Thomas S. Foley, a Representative

[[Page 502]]

    from the State of Washington, and the Honorable Robert H. Michel, a 
    Representative from the State of Illinois, have been placed in 
    nomination.
        Are there any further nominations?
        There being no further nominations, the Chair will appoint 
    tellers.
        The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Annunzio]; 
    the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]; the gentlewoman from 
    Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]; and the gentlewoman from Nebraska [Mrs. 
    Smith].
        The tellers will come forward and take their seats at the desk 
    in front of the Speaker's rostrum.
        The roll will now be called, and those responding to their 
    names will indicate by surname the nominee of their choice.
        The reading clerk will now call the roll.
        The tellers having taken their places, the House proceeded to 
    vote for the Speaker.
        The following is the result of the vote:

                              [Roll No. 73] . . .

        The SPEAKER. The tellers agree in their tallies that the total 
    number of votes cast is 417, of which the Honorable Thomas S. 
    Foley, of Washington, has received 251 and the Honorable Robert H. 
    Michel, of Illinois, has received 164, with 2 voting ``present.''
        Therefore, the Honorable Thomas S. Foley, of Washington, is 
    duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives, having 
    received a majority of the votes cast.

Elected Officers

Sec. 9.2 The resignation of an elected officer of the House (other than 
    the Speaker) is subject to acceptance by the House. In the case of 
    a vacancy among the elected officers of the House, the Speaker is 
    authorized by law to appoint a person ``to act as, and to exercise 
    temporarily the duties of'' the vacant office until a successor is 
    elected.

    On Nov. 18, 2005,(2) the House, by unanimous consent, 
accepted the resignation of Jeff Trandahl as Clerk of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 151 Cong. Rec. 27489, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
            Pursuant to Sec. 208 of the Legislative Reorganization Act 
        of 1946 (2 USC Sec. 75a-1), Speaker Hastert appointed Karen L. 
        Haas, of Maryland, to act as Clerk. Mrs. Haas subsequently was 
        elected as Clerk. See Id. and 153 Cong. Rec. 6, 110th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Jan. 4, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                RESIGNATION AS CLERK OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

        The SPEAKER pro tempore(3) laid before the House the 
    following communication from the Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Lee Terry (NE).

                                              Office of the Clerk,
                                         House of Representatives,
                                Washington, DC, November 18, 2005.
                                             Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
              The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to tender my resignation as 
    Clerk effective upon the appointment of my successor November 18, 
    2005.

[[Page 503]]

        It has been an honor to serve this Institution, its people and 
    the Nation for more than 20 years. I leave knowing the incredible 
    ability of the people who serve here and their commitment to the 
    people they represent.
        I will especially depart with a deep sense of admiration and 
    respect for the individuals working in and with the Office of the 
    Clerk. I wish to thank them for their efforts over the last seven 
    years during my tenure as Clerk of the House.
        With best wishes, I am

            Sincerely,
                                                    Jeff Trandahl.

        The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is 
    accepted.
        There was no objection.

    On Mar. 23, 2000,(4) Speaker pro tempore Ray LaHood, of 
Illinois, laid before the House a letter of resignation from the 
Chaplain. Upon its acceptance by the House, the Speaker appointed 
Father Daniel Coughlin to act as Chaplain and to exercise temporarily 
the duties of that office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 146 Cong. Rec. 3480, 3481, 106th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                           Office of the Chaplain,

                                         House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 2000.

                                             Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,

                                  Speaker, House of Representatives,

                                                    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: During the last 21 years it has been my 
    privilege and honor to serve as Chaplain of the U.S. House of 
    Representatives. I came to the House with a view that the practice 
    of politics can be a noble vocation and should be considered a high 
    calling and I leave with that view strengthened and with my 
    admiration enhanced for the people who serve in government.
        I write now to inform you that effective Thursday, March 23, 
    2000, I resign my office as Chaplain of the House of 
    Representatives.
        It has been a singular opportunity to be elected to the 
    position of Chaplain and now to be named Chaplain Emeritus, as I 
    have sought to serve all the Members of the House and to honor 
    their political and religious traditions. The friendships that have 
    begun here have nourished my life and my work and I leave with 
    appreciation for our years together and with a salute for the 
    opportunities of the future.
        With every good wish, I remain.

              Sincerely,

                                                    James D. Ford,

                                                         Chaplain.

        The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, and with regret, 
    the resignation is accepted. . . .
        The SPEAKER. Pursuant to 2 U.S. Code, 75a-1, the Chair appoints 
    Father Daniel Coughlin of Illinois to act as and to exercise 
    temporarily the duties of Chaplain of the House of Representatives.

    Business of the preceding Congress transacted after its adjournment 
sine die (including such matters as appointments and communications of 
resignations and subpoenas) is reflected in the Congressional Record on 
the opening

[[Page 504]]

day of the new Congress under separate headings to show that it is not 
business of the new Congress. For example, the Congressional Record for 
Jan. 6, 1999,(5) the first day of the 106th Congress, 
reflects the resignation of the Clerk in the 105th Congress, effective 
Jan. 1, 1999, and the appointment of Jeffrey J. Trandahl to act as 
Clerk and to exercise temporarily the duties of that office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 145 Cong. Rec. 257, 106th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the communication from the Clerk of the House, dated 
Dec. 21, 1998, is as follows:

                                              Office of the Clerk,

                                          House of Representatives

                                Washington, DC, December 21, 1998.

                                                 Hon. Newt Gingrich,

        Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, 
                                                                 DC.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: I write today to inform you of my decision to 
    end my service as Clerk of the House effective January 1, 1999.
        Because of your vision and support, many of the goals you set 
    at the dawn of the 104th Congress have already been achieved, the 
    most significant among them being the amount of immediate 
    legislative information now available to all citizens via the 
    Internet. Many others are well underway and when fully implemented 
    will position this Office to support the efforts of the House in 
    even more dramatic ways as we approach the millennium.
        Thank you for providing such a magnificent opportunity for me 
    to be a part of this unique institution.
        With warm regards.

                                                   Robin H. Carle.

    The text of the communication from the Speaker, dated Dec. 21, 
1998, is as follows:

                                            Office of the Speaker,

                                         House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, December 21, 1998.

                                  Re temporary appointment of Clerk.

                                             Hon. William M. Thomas,

            Chairman, Committee on House Oversight, Longworth House 
                                     Office Building, Washington, DC

        Dear Bill: In accordance with 2 USC Sec. 75a-1, I hereby 
    appoint Mr. Jeffrey J. Trandahl to fill the vacancy in the Office 
    of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, effective January 1, 
    1999. Mr. Trandahl shall exercise all the duties, shall have all 
    the powers, and shall be subject to all the requirements and 
    limitations applicable to the position of Clerk until his successor 
    is chosen by the House and duly qualifies as Clerk.
        Please contact Dan Crowley, General Counsel in the Office of 
    the Speaker, if you have any questions.

              Sincerely,

                                                    Newt Gingrich,

                                                          Speaker.

    On Mar. 12, 1992,(6) the Speaker laid before the House a 
letter of resignation from the Sergeant at Arms. Upon its acceptance by 
the

[[Page 505]]

House, the Speaker appointed Werner W. Brandt to act as Sergeant at 
Arms and to exercise temporarily the duties of that office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 138 Cong. Rec. 5519, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      
                                    U.S. House of Representatives,

                                   Office of the Sergeant at Arms,

                                     Washington, DC March 12, 1992

                                               Hon. Thomas S. Foley,

                             Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,

                                                      Washington, DC

        Dear Mr. Speaker: I respectfully submit to you my resignation 
    as Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives 
    effective March 12, 1992.
        It has been an honor and a pleasure to serve the Members of 
    Congress and this institution for the past 25 years.
        Thank you.

              Sincerely,

                                                        Jack Russ,

                                                 Sergeant at Arms.

        The SPEAKER. Without objection, the resignation is accepted.
        There was no objection.
        The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the provisions of the legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended (2 U.S.C. 75a-1), the Chair 
    appoints Werner W. Brandt of Virginia, to act as and to exercise 
    temporarily the duties of Sergeant at Arms of the House of 
    Representatives.

    On Feb. 28, 1980,(7) Speaker pro tempore James C. 
Wright, Jr., of Texas, laid before the House a letter of resignation 
from the Sergeant at Arms. Upon its acceptance by the House, the 
Speaker appointed Benjamin J. Guthrie, of Virginia, to act as Sergeant 
at Arms and to exercise temporarily the duties of that 
office.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 126 Cong. Rec. 4349, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Id. at p. 4350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      
                                                 Washington, D.C.,

                                                February 28, 1980.

                                        Hon. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,

                                  Speaker, House of Representatives,

                                                    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: It is with deep personal regret that I submit 
    herewith my resignation as Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of 
    Representatives, effective at the close of business February 29, 
    1980.
        The decision to resign at this time has been most difficult, 
    and it is done with a feeling of sincere appreciation for having 
    had the privilege of serving the House for more than thirty years.
        My thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, to all Members, and to my fellow 
    employees for the many personal courtesies and acts of assistance 
    that have enabled me to perform my assigned duties.
        With kind personal regards, I remain,

              Sincerely,

                                               Kenneth R. Harding,

                                                 Sergeant at Arms.

        The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is 
    accepted.
        There was no objection. . . .

[[Page 506]]

        The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended by Public Law 
    197 of the 83d Congress, the Chair announces that today the Speaker 
    has appointed, effective March 1, 1980, Benjamin J. Guthrie, of 
    Virginia, to act as and to exercise temporarily the duties of 
    Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives.
        Without objection, the Chair will now administer the oath.
        There was no objection.
        The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the appointee please come to the 
    well of the House and take the oath of office.
        Mr. Benjamin J. Guthrie appeared at the bar of the House and 
    took the oath of office.
        The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is the Sergeant at Arms, 
    Acting, of the House.

    On Nov. 17, 1975,(9) the Speaker laid before the House a 
letter of resignation from the Clerk. Upon its acceptance by the House, 
the Speaker appointed Edmund Lee Henshaw, Jr., to act as Clerk and to 
exercise temporarily the duties of that office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 36901, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      
                                                 Washington, D.C.,

                                                November 14, 1975.

                                                   Hon. Carl Albert,

                                  Speaker, House of Representatives.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: I hereby submit my resignation as Clerk of 
    the U.S. House of Representatives, effective at the close of 
    business on November 15, 1975.
        With kind regards, I am,

              Sincerely,

                                                  W. Pat Jennings,

                                  Clerk, House of Representatives.

        The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is 
    accepted.
        There was no 
    objection.                          -------------------

             APPOINTMENT AS CLERK OF U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

        The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the provisions of the Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended by Public Law 197, 83d 
    Congress (67 Stat. 387, 2 U.S.C. 75a-1(a)), the Chair appoints, 
    effective at the close of business on November 15, 1975, Edmund Lee 
    Henshaw, Jr., of Virginia, to act as and to exercise temporarily 
    the duties of Clerk of the House of Representatives.
        Will Mr. Edmund Lee Henshaw, Jr., come to the well of the House 
    to take the oath of office.
        Mr. HENSHAW presented himself at the bar of the House and took 
    the oath of office.

    On June 30, 1972,(10) the Speaker laid before the House 
the resignation of the Sergeant at Arms, which was accepted by the 
House.

10. 118 Cong. Rec. 23665, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Washington, D.C.,

                                                     June 8, 1972.

                                                   Hon. Carl Albert,

                                           House of Representatives,

                                                    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: I hereby submit my resignation as Sergeant at 
    Arms of

[[Page 507]]

    the U.S. House of Representatives effective at the close of 
    business June 30, 1972.

              Sincerely,

                                             Zeake W. Johnson, Jr.

                                                 Sergeant at Arms.

        The SPEAKER. Without objection, the resignation will be 
    accepted.
        There was no objection.

    The Speaker then announced his appointment of the same Mr. Johnson 
as temporary Sergeant at Arms to fill the vacancy caused by his own 
resignation.

        The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the provisions of the Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1946; as amended by Public Law 197, 83d 
    Congress (67 Stat. 387; 2 U.S.C. 75a-1(a)), the Chair appoints, 
    effective July 1, 1972, Zeake W. Johnson, Jr., of Tennessee, to act 
    as and to exercise temporarily the duties of Sergeant at Arms of 
    the House of Representatives.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Kenneth R. Harding was elected to the office of Sergeant at Arms on 
        Sept. 25, 1972 (H. Res. 1134). Id. at p. 32000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Johnson was reappointed temporarily to 
his former position until a replacement could be elected.

Non-elected Officers, Officials, and Employees

Sec. 9.3 The resignation of a nonelected officer or official of the 
    House is not subject to acceptance by the House but is laid before 
    the House as a matter of information. In the case of a vacancy 
    among a nonelected officer of the House, a new appointment is made 
    as in the first instance.

    On May 26, 2005,(1) the Speaker pro 
tempore(2) laid the following communication before the 
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 151 Cong. Rec. 11441, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. John R. Kuhl (NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         COMMUNICATION FROM INSPECTOR GENERAL, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

        The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York) laid before the 
    House the following communication from Steven A. McNamara, 
    Inspector General, House of Representatives:

                                      Office of Inspector General,
                                         House of Representatives,
                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2005.

                                 memorandum

        To: Hon. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House.
        Hon. Tom DeLay, Majority Leader of the House.
        Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader of the House.
        From: Steven A. McNamara, Inspector General.
        Subject: Notification of Resignation and Retirement.

        Please accept my offer of resignation, as the Inspector General 
    for the U.S. House of Representatives, effective May 30, 2005. This 
    date will also be my effective date of retirement from Federal 
    Service.
        It has been an honor to serve the House as the Inspector 
    General for the

[[Page 508]]

    last five years. My goal, and that of my staff, has been to help 
    the House achieve the best use of all the dollars it spends, 
    increase efficiencies, and ensure the health, safety, and security 
    of Members, staff, and visitors. Through the combined support of 
    the House Leadership, the Committee on House Administration, and 
    the hard work of my staff, I believe we have helped the House 
    accomplish its administrative goals.
        Now, after slightly more than 35 years of Federal Service, I 
    look forward to a new chapter in my life; the pursuit of a hobby 
    and business venture as a kayak instructor and kayaking guide.
        Once again, it has been a great honor to serve the House of the 
    Inspector General for the last five years. It has been a fulfilling 
    and rewarding experience!

    On Apr. 1, 2004,(3) the Speaker pro 
tempore(4) laid before the House the following letter of 
resignation from John R. Miller, Law Revision Counsel. Pursuant to 2 
USC Sec. 285c, the Speaker pro tempore appointed Peter LeFevre Law 
Revision Counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 150 Cong. Rec. 6258, 6259, 108th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Michael Simpson (ID).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
    communication from John R. Miller, Law Revision Counsel, House of 
    Representatives:
                       Office of the Law Revision Counsel, House of 
                                                    Representatives,
                                   Washington, DC, March 29, 2004.
                                             Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
                  Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: Last October, I completed 28 years of service 
    with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of 
    Representatives. During that time, I have had the pleasure of 
    serving as Assistant Counsel, Deputy Counsel, and for the past 
    seven years Law Revision Counsel. After almost 33 years of service 
    to the Federal Government, it has been very difficult to make this 
    decision and select a particular date, but with your approval, I 
    will retire as Law Revision Counsel, effective May 3, 2004.
        Over the past seven years, the Office has become self-reliant 
    and greatly improved the procedures for preparing and publishing 
    the United States Code. Self-reliance had been the goal of the 
    Office since it was established in 1975. The Office continues to 
    produce the most accurate version of the Code but no longer 
    requires any outside assistance for its production of the Code. 
    This is the result of developing an outstanding staff as well as 
    new procedures for preparing and publishing the Code. The new 
    procedures and computer programs that have been developed and 
    implemented in the past few years will enable the Office to improve 
    its efficiency while maintaining the accuracy of the Code, and 
    eventually will increase the timeliness in which the Code becomes 
    available. While many challenges remain for the Office in our 
    rapidly changing environment, I am confident that the knowledge, 
    experience, and professionalism of the staff will enable the Office 
    to continue its successes and progress.
        Over this period, the Office also has prepared and submitted to 
    the Committee on the Judiciary bills to enact

[[Page 509]]

    two titles of the Code into positive law. In addition, a bill to 
    enact a third title should be transmitted to the Committee shortly. 
    Also, nearing completion is a bill to complete the enactment of 
    Title 46, Shipping.
        None of this could have been accomplished without the support 
    and expertise of the dedicated staff of the Office. I am deeply 
    grateful for their assistance and wish them every success. Finally, 
    I gratefully acknowledge the assistance and support that I, and the 
    Office, have received from the many House Officers and Offices, 
    especially the Speaker, the Chairman of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, the Parliamentarian, and the fine staffs of those 
    Offices and the Committee.

            Respectfully yours,
                                                   John R. Miller,
Law Revision Counsel.                          -------------------

         APPOINTMENT OF LAW REVISION COUNSEL, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

        The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to 2 USC 285c, 
    and the order of the House of December 8, 2003, the Chair announces 
    the Speaker's appointment of Mr. Peter LeFevre as Law Revision 
    Counsel for the House of Representatives, effective May 4, 2004.

    On July 31, 1997,(5) the Speaker laid before the House a 
letter of resignation from the Legislative Counsel of the House, Mr. 
David E. Meade. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 282, the Speaker then 
appointed Mr. M. Pope Barrow as Legislative Counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 143 Cong. Rec. 17033, 17034, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      
                                    U.S. House of Representatives,

                                Office of the Legislative Counsel,

                                     Washington, DC, July 8, 1997.

                                                 Hon. Newt Gingrich,

              Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, 
                                                    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: I would like to resign from my position as 
    the Legislative Counsel of the House of Representatives effective 
    July 31, 1997. I would like to continue my service in the Office of 
    the Legislative Counsel as a Senior Counsel.
        I will leave my position knowing that my Office is finally 
    fully enabled to provide needed services to the House.
        As you know the primary function of the Office is to draft 
    legislation (including amendments and conference reports) which 
    will carry out the policy of the Members involved. Ideally, there 
    would be time for conferences to develop the policy and the persons 
    responsible for the policy would be available. If that can be done 
    it is very satisfactory work to participate in the process. I have 
    taken a real interest in seeing that the Office is able to 
    effectively do its work.
        When I joined the Office in 1962 it had 11 attorneys and did 
    not provide services to all the Committees. A good working 
    relationship had been established with only the Ways and Means 
    Committee and the Committee on Commerce. However, through time and 
    the changes in the Committees, the Office has been able to 
    establish good

[[Page 510]]

    working relationships with all the Committees. Without a doubt, 
    your actions and those taken by your leadership have facilitated 
    the Office in providing services to the Committees and the 
    Leadership. I think it can be said that the House does not act on 
    significant legislation which has not been a responsibility of an 
    attorney in the Office.
        The morale in the Office is quite high because of the action 
    you took on the pay comparability with the Senate and also on 
    account of the Committee responsibilities.
        The tutorial process the Office follows with new attorneys 
    allows the new attorney to begin Committee work with a fellow 
    attorney in about a year. When the new attorney graduates to 
    Committee work they feel they have been given a special 
    responsibility.
        Now an attorney doing Committee work can readily feel that he 
    or she is making a significant contribution to a public measure.
        I am encouraged about continuing in the Office. The Office 
    undertook an extensive audit of its work and the problems presented 
    to it in carrying out its work. As a result of the audit some very 
    interesting work has been developed in communicating our services 
    to the Members. The Office has a web site which provides 
    information about the Office and the services it provides. In 
    addition, we will soon have the capacity to fax material directly 
    from our personal computers. That will relieve us of the time 
    needed to make copies and deliver the work. In addition, the Office 
    has developed a team to mediate differences in the Office. Finally, 
    work has been done in improving the working conditions of the 
    clerical/administrative staff. Consequently, I think we are doing 
    well and we know what our difficulties are and we are prepared to 
    deal with them.
        I have particularly enjoyed serving as the Legislative Counsel 
    under your Speakership.

              Sincerely yours,

                                                   David E. Meade,

                                              Legislative Counsel.

        The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the provisions of section 521 of the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (2 U.S.C. 282), the Chair 
    appoints Mr. M. Pope Barrow as Legislative Counsel of the United 
    States House of Representatives, effective August 1, 1997.
        The Chair would also like to thank Mr. Meade for all his 
    service to the House, and to remind all Members that the work done 
    by the legislative counsels is absolutely essential to the job we 
    do, and without the dedication and hard work and long hours of the 
    legislative counsels, it would be literally impossible to have the 
    legislative process that we now engage in.

    On Jan. 7, 1997,(6) as a matter transacted after the 
preceding adjournment sine die, Speaker Gingrich placed in the 
Congressional Record a letter of resignation from the Law Revision 
Counsel, Edward F. Willett, Jr. On Dec. 1, 1996, pursuant to statute, 
and under a previous order of the House,(7) the Speaker 
appointed

[[Page 511]]

Mr. John R. Miller as the new Law Revision Counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 143 Cong. Rec. 189, 190, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. See 142 Cong. Rec. 25776, 104th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 28, 1996 (H. 
        Res. 546).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      
                                     U.S. House of Representatives

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 1996.

                                                 Hon. Newt Gingrich,

            Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: This past April, I completed 26 years of 
    service with the House of Representatives, first as Assistant Law 
    Revision Counsel and later as Law Revision Counsel for the 
    Committee on the Judiciary and, since the establishment of the 
    Office of the Law Revision Counsel in 1975, as Law Revision Counsel 
    for the House of Representatives. Together with prior executive 
    branch service, my total service is nearing 38 years. Accordingly, 
    I have concluded it is time to retire. I am most grateful for 
    having had the privilege of serving the House as Law Revision 
    Counsel. With your approval my termination as Law Revision Counsel 
    will become effective November 30, 1996.
        Permit me to provide a brief overview of the Office of the Law 
    Revision Counsel. Functions of the Office include the 
    classification of new laws to the United States Code, the 
    preparation and publication of the Code, the preparation of bills 
    to enact titles of the Code into positive law and to repeal 
    obsolete and superseded statutes, and the provision of advice and 
    assistance to the Committee on the Judiciary in carrying out its 
    functions with respect and codification.
        The Office functions with a staff of 18, all of whom have been 
    appointed without regard to political affiliation and solely on the 
    basis of fitness to perform the duties of the position. All have 
    expressed the desire for career service in the Office. This has 
    resulted in low turnover and in a highly motivated, productive 
    staff. My Deputy and the two Senior Counsels have accumulated 60 
    years of service with the Office. Accumulated service of the seven 
    Assistant Counsels totals 74 years and that of the seven support 
    staff 69 years.
        Methods and procedures for the preparation and publication of 
    the United States Code have been modernized. Working with the 
    Government Printing Office, the transition from hot metal to 
    electronic typesetting and composition for printing of the Code was 
    implemented commencing with the 1976 main edition. A computer 
    system was installed in the Office for use in maintaining the code 
    database and updating it to include newly enacted laws. The system 
    permits the text of new laws to be extracted from the bills 
    database and efficiently incorporated into the Code database. 
    Benefits resulting from modernization include increased 
    productivity, virtually error-free text, timelier publication, and 
    substantial reduction in typesetting costs. Main editions of the 
    code were published for 1976, 1982, 1988, and 1994, and annual 
    cumulative supplements were published for each of the intervening 
    years.
        The Code database is also utilized for a computerized Code 
    Research and Retrieval system for the legislative branch and for 
    the annual production of the Code on CD-ROM. Response to the 
    availability of the Code on CD-ROM has been exceptional, with 
    thousands being purchased from the Superintendent of Documents at a 
    unit cost

[[Page 512]]

    of about $35. Commencing in January 1995, the Code and the Code 
    classifications of new laws have been made available (utilizing the 
    Code database) on the House Internet Law Library and on the 
    Government Printing Office Internet access. Usage of the House 
    Internet Law Library to access the Code is increasing significantly 
    each month, with user totals for August in excess of 100,000. The 
    Internet Law Library has been the subject of numerous good reviews 
    and comments from both user groups and individual users.
        As a result of bills prepared by the Office and transmitted to 
    the Committee on the Judiciary, three titles of the Code have been 
    enacted into positive law without substantive change and numerous 
    obsolete and superseded laws repealed. Assistance was provided to 
    the Committee in connection with the substantive revision and 
    enactment into positive law of a fourth title of the Code. Bills to 
    enact three other titles have been transmitted to the Committee and 
    a bill relating to another title is in preparation.
        What has been accomplished could not have been done without the 
    assistance and expertise of an outstanding staff. I am truly 
    indebted to them. The Office has enjoyed a close working 
    relationship with the Committee on the Judiciary with regard to its 
    consideration of bills to enact titles of the Code into positive 
    law, for which I am most appreciative. I also gratefully 
    acknowledge the assistance of the support offices of the House, 
    particularly House Information Resources and the Office of the 
    Legislative Counsel, and of the Government Printing Office.

              Respectfully yours,

                                            Edward F. Willett, Jr.

    On Mar. 1, 1989,(8) Speaker pro tempore Earl Hutto, of 
Florida, laid before the House a letter of resignation from the 
Legislative Counsel of the House, Ward M. Hussey. Pursuant to 
statute,(9) the Speaker later that day appointed David E. 
Meade as Legislative Counsel.10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 135 Cong. Rec. 3084, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. 2 USC Sec. 282.
10. See 135 Cong. Rec. 3097, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 1989.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    U.S. House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, February 16, 1989.

                                                    Hon. Jim Wright,

                             Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
                                                     Washington, DC.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: I hereby submit my resignation as Legislative 
    Counsel of the United States House of Representatives effective at 
    the close of business February 28, 1989.

              Sincerely yours,

                                                   Ward M. Hussey,

                                              Legislative Counsel.

    For tributes to Legislative Counsel Ward M. Hussey and Deputy 
Legislative Counsel Lawrence E. Filson on their respective retirements, 
see Sec. 10.6, infra.
    For the resignation of Lewis Deschler as House Parliamentarian, 
effective June 30, 1974, see Sec. 10.3, infra. For the resignation of 
William Holmes Brown as House Parliamentarian, effective

[[Page 513]]

Sept. 15, 1994, see Sec. 10.4, infra. For the resignation of Charles W. 
Johnson III as House Parliamentarian, effective May 31, 2004, see 
Sec. 10.5, infra.

Sec. 9.4 Resignations of certain employees of the House sometimes have 
    been laid before the House as accepted.

    On Jan. 22, 1962,(1) the Speaker laid before House the 
resignation of the Legislative Counsel of the House which was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 108 Cong. Rec. 584, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      
                                                 January 16, 1962.

                                             Hon. John W. McCormack,

                              The Speaker, House of Representatives,

                                       The Capitol, Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: I hereby submit my resignation as legislative 
    counsel of the House of Representatives, United States, effective 
    at the close of January 31, 1962.

              Sincerely yours,

                                                  Allan H. Perley.

        Mr. [Oren] HARRIS [of Arkansas]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the reply to the letter just read into the Record of 
    the Speaker of the House be included at this point in the Record.
        The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Arkansas?
        There was no objection.
        The letter referred to follows:

                                              The Speaker's Rooms,

                                   House of Representatives, U.S.,

                               Washington, D.C., January 17, 1962.

                                                Mr. Allan H. Perley,

                                                Legislative Counsel,

                                      U.S. House of Representatives,

                                                    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Perley: I am in receipt of your letter of January 16 
    resigning as legislative counsel, House of Representatives, United 
    States, effective at the close of business on January 31, 1962. 
    While I respect very much the reasons which prompted you to take 
    this action, I regret very much you are doing so.
        I am well aware of the fact that you have been associated with 
    the office of the legislative counsel since 1925 and from 1949 
    until the present you have been the legislative counsel. I 
    thoroughly understand the great responsibility of that office, and 
    the tremendous duties devolved upon you. Your life has been 
    dedicated through the House of Representatives in the service of 
    our Government. There is no man who could perform his duties more 
    effectively than you. You have had the respect throughout the years 
    of several Speakers and Members of the House of Representatives. 
    You have my complete respect as you had my confidence.
        In accepting your resignation, reluctantly as I do, but 
    respecting your wishes, I want to highly commend you for the 
    outstanding character of service that you have rendered in your 
    most trying, sensitive and important position. I cannot too highly 
    commend you. Speaking for myself, and for the Members of the House 
    of Representatives, I express to you my sincere thanks for service 
    well done. I also extend to you and Mrs. Perley my very best wishes 
    for many future years of happiness,

[[Page 514]]

    and in any activities in which you might engage, many years of 
    success to you.
        With kind personal regards to you and Mrs. Perley, I am,

              Sincerely yours,

                                                John W. McCormack,

                                                          Speaker.

Minority Employees

Sec. 9.5 The Speaker lays before the House the resignations of minority 
    employees. Formal acceptance of such resignations is not necessary. 
    The Journal entry shows merely that the letters of resignation were 
    laid before the House.

    On Dec. 6, 1973,(1) the Speaker laid before the House 
the resignation of an employee designated by House resolution as a 
``minority employee'', the employee having been appointed as Chief of 
Staff to the Vice President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 39927, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. See H. Jour. p. 1780, 93d 
        Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      
                                                 Washington, D.C.,

                                                 December 5, 1973.

                                                   Hon. Carl Albert,

                                                        The Speaker,

                                                    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: I hereby submit my resignation as one of the 
    Floor Assistants to the Minority, generally known as Minority 
    Sergeant at Arms, effective as of the time that the Honorable 
    Gerald R. Ford becomes the Vice President of the United States.
        It has been a great privilege to serve the House of 
    Representatives for eight years and as one of the elected minority 
    officers in the 91st, 92d and 93d Congresses. May I express to you 
    my personal thanks for your many courtesies and my sincere regret 
    at having to leave the House which I will always revere and love.

              Respectfully,

                                               Robert T. Hartmann,

                                 Assistant to the Minority Leader.

    On Jan. 16, 1967,(2) Speaker McCormack laid before the 
House the resignation of a minority employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 115 Cong. Rec. 444, 445, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. See. H. Jour. p. 87, 
        90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 December 6, 1966.

                                             Hon. John W. McCormack,

                                                        The Speaker,

                                      U.S. House of Representatives,

                                                    Washington, D.C.

        My Dear Mr. Speaker: I feel that the time has come for me to 
    retire from active employment, and it is therefore requested that 
    you accept my resignation as assistant disbursing clerk (minority), 
    United States House of Representatives, as of December 30, 1966.
        You may be assured that my nearly twenty years service as an 
    employee of the House has been a most pleasant and gratifying 
    experience.
        With all good wishes.

              Sincerely yours,

                                           Frederick M. Kissinger.

[[Page 515]]

    On Oct. 31, 1969,(3) the floor assistant to the minority 
having retired under the provisions of Public Law No. 91-93, Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, laid his letter of resignation 
before the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 32550, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. See H. Jour. p. 1039, 
        91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      
                                         House of Representatives,

                               Washington, D.C., October 30, 1969.

                                          The Honorable the Speaker,

                                      U.S. House of Representatives,

                                                    Washington, D.C.

        Sir: I herewith submit my resignation as floor assistant to the 
    minority, U.S. House of Representatives, effective at the close of 
    business, October 31, 1969.

              Respectfully,

                                              Harry L. Brookshire.

    On Jan. 7, 1958,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid 
before the House a communication from Lyle O. Snader, resigning from 
his position as minority clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 104 Cong. Rec. 5, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. See H. Jour. p. 14, 85th 
        Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      
                                                 October 28, 1957.

                                        The Honorable the Speaker,

            United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

        Sir: I herewith submit my resignation as Minority Clerk, United 
    States House of Representatives, effective at the close of business 
    October 31, 1957.

              Respectfully,

                                                   Lyle O. Snader.