Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am joined here tonight by three distinguished colleagues.

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) was a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 101st, 103rd, and 104th Congresses. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) cochaired with Congressman Bob Livingston at the time the 1997 ethics bipartisan task force created to review and propose changes to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct rules and procedures and was the ranking minority member of the subcommittee that investigated the complaint against then-Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Second, I am joined by the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), who was ranking minority member on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 105th, the 106th, and the 107th Congresses and for the first 2 months of the 108th Congress until my appointment as ranking member. Additionally, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) was the ex officio member of the 1997 bipartisan task force created to review and propose changes to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's rules and procedures.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am joined by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who prior to coming to Congress served as the Norfolk County District Attorney for a considerable period of time, from 1975 to 1996. In the 108th Congress, he was a member of the ethics pool appointed by the minority leader and was a member of the investigative subcommittee formed to look into the allegations made by then- Representative Nick Smith arising out of the events occurring during the Medicare vote taken on November 2, 2003.

Collectively, these gentlemen have a tremendous amount of experience serving the House of Representatives on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct over a long period of time. Not surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, that is the topic of our Special Order tonight.

The subject that we will be discussing this evening under the Special Order concerns the rules that govern the ethics process in the House of Representatives. This discussion, I think, will highlight the clear need to repeal the changes in those rules that were included in the rules package that was adopted when the House convened in January of this year, a rules package that was adopted on a strict party line vote with all Republicans voting for and all Democrats voting against.

While a discussion of the rules of this nature necessarily involves a number of technical points, Mr. Speaker, there should be no mistaking the overriding importance of what we are talking about. Because of the ethics rules changes that were included in the rules package I mentioned, the House of Representatives is now at a crossroads in its ethics process.

The issue now before the House is, in fact, whether the House will continue to have a credible ethics process that can be effective in protecting the reputation and the integrity of this institution.

Mr. Speaker, this is my 9th year as a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and my third year as ranking minority member of that committee, and I have studied the ethics process carefully during that time. My firm conclusion is that the House will not and cannot have a credible ethics process unless the rules changes that were made earlier this year are repealed.

There are at least two reasons why this is so, Mr. Speaker. First, there cannot be a credible ethics process in the House of Representatives unless changes in the ethics rules are made, as they have always been made in the House, Mr. Speaker, in the past years, in an open, thoughtful and, most importantly, in a genuinely bipartisan manner. But these rules changes were the result of a closed, secret process in which no one from this side of the aisle was ever consulted; and the votes of the rules package were, as always, strictly party line votes.

Second, the fact is that, at a minimum, these rules changes, the specific changes that are attempting to be imposed by the Committee on Rules, will seriously undermine the ability of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to perform its key responsibilities of investigating and making decisions on allegations of wrongdoing.

It is for these reasons that I have introduced House Resolution 131, which would entirely repeal two of the three rules changes made earlier this year and would repeal as well the objectionable provisions of the third rules change.

Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to elaborate on each of the reasons for the resolution that I have introduced, turning first to the closed, partisan manner in which these rules changes were adopted this past January.

Mr. Speaker, the ethics process in the House of Representatives dates back to the late 1960s, nearly 40 years ago. It was recognized at the very outset that there could not be a meaningful ethics process in this body unless it is a genuinely bipartisan one. This makes perfect sense because an ethics process that is dominated by the majority party in the House will become simply another tool of partisan warfare and will have no credibility whatsoever.

So both when the committee was created and the ethics rules were established in 1968, as well as when the rules changes were made in the rules in 1989 and again in 1997, those actions, those creation of the rules, fashioning of the rules, recommending the rules to the House, that whole process was the result of a thoughtful, deliberative process that was, in fact, genuinely bipartisan in nature.

The task force, created with an equal number of Democrats, an equal number of Republicans, whether the Republicans were in control of the House at the time or whether the Democrats were in control of the House at the time, all of the rules changes and their adoption and their recommendation to the House of Representatives came out of a genuinely bipartisan process.

The process that was used earlier this year stands in stark contrast to those earlier efforts. Those rules changes were drafted in secret, and their text was publicly released literally only hours before they were to be voted on on the House floor. At no time was anyone on this side, on the minority side, of the aisle ever consulted about those changes. Likewise, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct itself was not consulted about those rules changes; and, indeed, it is not at all clear who was consulted about them or whether their proponents really fully understood the meaning and the implications of the changes which they wrought.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that the rules changes resulting from such a closed, summary process, it will come as no surprise that they are seriously flawed; and that leads me, Mr. Speaker, to the second reason why these changes must be repealed.

As I have mentioned, the rules changes were passed by the majority earlier this year. They fall into three categories. The first rules change relates to the automatic dismissal of complaints that are filed with the committee, automatic dismissal of complaints the first rule allows; the second rule granting certain so-called due process rights to Members, a cynical characterization of due process I might add; and the third so-called right to counsel provisions are contained in the last rules change.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin with the automatic dismissal rule. The automatic dismissal rule of the complaint, it constitutes a radical and particularly destructive change in the rules. Up until now, a complaint filed with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and keep in mind that under the rules no one other than a Member of the House may file a complaint before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, but under the old rules a complaint could be dismissed only by a majority vote of the committee.

Under the automatic dismissal rule which the majority is trying to impose upon the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in its rules passed earlier this year, a complaint can be dismissed just by the passage of time. A

period as brief as 45 days from the date of the complaint is deemed to satisfy the procedural requirements of the rule; and if it is not disposed of any other way, the passage of that 45 days will result in automatic dismissal of the complaint. Members of the committee could have during that period sat on their hands, or they may have been engaged in the August recess because it is not legislative days, it is calendar days.

One wonders if the drafters of this rule were even aware that in 1997, the House strongly rejected an automatic dismissal rule that was far less restrictive than this one. The proposal considered at that time applied where a motion before the committee to refer a complaint to an investigative committee did not pass, and it provided in that instance for automatic dismissal of the complaint after 180 days from the date of the vote, a lot longer than 45 days under this automatic dismissal rule. But even with the 180-day automatic dismissal, this House of Representatives in the only recorded vote in the full House on a bipartisan basis rejected the idea of a complaint being automatically dismissed that is pending before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct simply by the passage of time.

Even that proposal was defeated on a bipartisan vote because it was recognized that any automatic dismissal rule simply promotes deadlock and partisanship on the committee. It promotes inaction. It encourages members not to fulfill their responsibility. This is especially so in those controversial, high-profile complaints that come before the committee, and it is in the handling of complaints of that kind that the committee's credibility is most at stake.

Mr. Speaker, if the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is to be worthy of its name, its members must give thoughtful, reasoned consideration to every complaint that comes before it; and any rule that would truncate that responsibility, that would provide for an automatic dismissal of the complaint based on the inaction of the members cannot be allowed to stand if our credibility is going to remain intact.

The rules changes that grant certain so-called due process rights to Members apply whether the committee or an investigative subcommittee proposes to conclude a matter by issuing a letter or other statement that references the conduct of a particular Member. While statements of that kind do not constitute and are not characterized as a sanction, the committee has been very cautious about issuing them; and, of course, like any other committee action, such a statement cannot be issued without the bipartisan support of committee members.

It is also important that statements of this kind are issued only where the conduct involved has not been the subject of a formal investigation, and a determination has been made that the issuance of such a statement in an appropriate way to resolve a complaint or other allegation of misconduct is an appropriate disposition.

Where a Member is going to be the subject of such a letter or similar statement, it is not, I agree, unreasonable to grant that Member certain rights, such as prior notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond, but the rules changes go well beyond this for they also grant such a Member the right to demand that the committee create an adjudicatory, a trial, if you will, subcommittee that is to conduct an immediate hearing, an immediate trial, on the conduct in question. Where the committee proposes to resolve the complaint by issuance of a letter, this trial would take place without any formal investigation of the matter ever having been conducted, without a single subpoena ever having been issued or a single deposition ever been taken. It gives the Member the right to jump immediately to the trial stage.

No committee that is at all serious about conducting its business would allow itself to be put in such a situation. It emasculates that part of the committee's power and ability to, in proper due process order, develop the factual basis for a disposition perhaps involving a trial.

It may well be that this immediate trial provision was included in the rules in order to force the committee, whenever a complaint is filed, to decide between two alternatives: either dismiss the complaint without having any comment whatsoever on the conduct of the respondent, or refer the complaint to an investigative subcommittee for formal investigation. But there is no valid reason to hamstring the committee in this manner.

The resolution I have proposed would repeal the right to demand an immediate trial but would substitute instead the far more reasonable right to demand that the committee commission a formal investigation of the conduct in question.

Mr. Speaker, the third rules change, the so-called right to counsel provision, is particularly mischievous, and it might be better characterized as the ``right to orchestrate testimony provision.''

This rules change prohibits the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from requiring in any circumstances that a respondent or witness in a case retain an attorney who does not represent someone else in the case. This change is particularly egregious in that two separate investigative subcommittees of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct had raised the concern that an attorney's representation of multiple clients in a case may impair the fact- finding process, and those investigative subcommittees recommended to the full committee the adoption of a rule or policy under which multiple representation could be barred. In short, the ethics process in the House has been seriously damaged by both the substance of these rules changes and the summary partisan manner in which these changes were adopted.

In the case of the latter rule, imagine the lawyer that is representing the accused having the absolute right to represent all of the witnesses that are going to be interviewed in the case, certainly undermining the ability of the committee to do its job.

But we are still in the early months of this Congress, and it is not too late to undo the damage that has been done. We can once again have an ethics process in the House that commands the confidence and respect of both the Members of this body and the public.

The first step, Mr. Speaker, is to repeal those rules changes and to affirm that any changes in either the substantive ethics rules or the rules governing committee procedure will be made as they have always been made in the past, only in a deliberative, open and genuinely bipartisan manner.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

I thank my friend from Maryland.

I would like to invite our colleague from California (Mr. Berman) to join this discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from

California and the gentleman from Maryland alike, who, based upon years of commitment to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct process in the House and lots of experience with different cases and the fashioning of different rules, for their very insightful comments.

I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a Member who has a very long history, a distinguished career in law enforcement as a District Attorney in his home State of Massachusetts, who in the last Congress served extremely admirably the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as he was called off the investigative subcommittee pool to review one of the most unusual cases that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has looked at. I thank the gentleman for joining us tonight.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think that is exactly where we are today. There, in fact, has not been such a moment, and we have this process that is offensive in and of itself, that is a serious break with all tradition with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct when its formation was conducted in a bipartisan manner. The subsequent rules changes, as both the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) have described in considerable detail because they were involved, all those processes were bipartisan. They brought us bipartisan rules, and they brought us rules that were voted on by the full House of Representatives as a bipartisan package. The process was not offensive. Neither were the rules offensive.

In this case, the process breaks with that tradition. It is patently partisan. The most partisan vote we have in the House of Representative is a party-line vote, and that is a vote that attempts to impose these rules upon the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, a party-line vote. All the Republicans voting for them; all the Democrats voting against them. So the process is tainted.

So it is no surprise that these three rules are extremely offensive. If they had been fashioned in a bipartisan process, they would have been vetted. They would have been challenged. They have would have been compromised in that task force format, and they would not have come to the body flawed as they were.

When we undertake a partisan process, we cannot create a bipartisan entity. It is definitionally impossible to do.

So now we have three rules. We have had to suffer under a partisan process established to affect a bipartisan committee. But we also have three rules that are terribly flawed.

And the bottom line here is tonight and the message that we want to get across to our colleagues and to the whole Nation is that if we are going to have a bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, we have to have a bipartisan process to fashion the rules and to constitute the committee, and we also have to challenge these three rules that are brought to us in a partisan process.

Automatic dismissal of a complaint after 45 days is extremely mischievous to the process. As all of my colleagues have pointed out, rules should exist to

help people do the right thing. An automatic dismissal rule in 45 days incentivizes Members in a highly charged partisan institution to sit on their hands for 45 days and let this responsibility pass to have an automatic. The same sort of undermining is taking place with regard to a rule that will automatically allow an accused to get their lawyer to represent all of the witnesses that the committee is trying to investigate.

The gentleman from Massachusetts was a prosecutor for 25 years or however long it was, and the gentleman, I know, understands how mischievous that would be to an investigative process.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes the point that in the case that he worked on, and it is unnecessary to mention it by name, but that his investigative subcommittee, he and his colleagues, did an excellent job. And one of the reasons they did is because they were able to keep that information between the witnesses apart. They were not able to have coordination. Their testimony was not contaminated in that way. And that is why they came up with such a clean, hard decision, which was adopted unanimously by the investigative subcommittee and was adopted unanimously by the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, how long did it take them to come with that investigation?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, exactly. Under the new rules, to be perfectly clear about it, the 45-day period would toll once an investigative subcommittee were appointed. But the point here is that the effort of any of those who did not want to have to fulfill their responsibilities and actually consider the merits of the case, anyone, any party, any five members who had that attitude could simply avoid the question of creating an investigative subcommittee and easily do it. There are two clocks that run when a complaint is filed, a 45- day clock and a 30-day clock to answer it; and then you would have 15 days to actually dispose of the matter

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that opportunity exists with H. Res. 131, the resolution that I introduced on March 1, that is now pending before the Committee on Rules. Last week I wrote the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules and respectfully requested an opportunity to testify before the Committee on Rules in support of H. Res. 131, to raise some of the questions that have been so eloquently and capably discussed here tonight.

I think the gentleman's point is very well taken: the rules package was an omnibus rules package. These are three ethics rules embedded in the rules package, so it did not get the kind of visibility, the kind of attention that it would get if H. Res. 131 were brought to the floor of the House. Then we would have an opportunity to fully debate all of these issues and, more importantly, our colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, would have a chance to vote on these discrete rules, understanding how important they are to ensuring a credible ethics process and restoring it to a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me thank you tonight for overseeing our Special Order. I express special appreciation to

these three distinguished Members of the House, my colleagues, for their participation.

I think this has been an extremely reasoned, hopefully informative and persuasive prayer to the Republican leadership to look at this issue, to take a second look at it, be impressed by the fact that we are not operating in a bipartisan process, and we must if we are going to have a credible Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and then to look substantively at these three rules, how they undermine, create mischief, make it impossible, really, to conduct the oversight, the ethical oversight of the House of Representatives in a way that will make the institution proud and make us credible to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the 109th Congress's rules package, which was adopted this past January on a straight party-line vote, included provisions that made major unfortunate changes in the rules governing consideration of ethics complaints by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I am today introducing a resolution that would amend or repeal those provisions.

There cannot be a credible ethics process in the House of Representatives unless the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is able to consider complaints against Members and staff in a thorough, efficient, and nonpartisan manner. I am concerned that those provisions of the rules package, if allowed to stand, will seriously undermine the committee's ability to perform this critical responsibility.

The rules package made essentially three changes in the rules governing ethics complaints. The first change is the Automatic Dismissal Rule, which requires the committee to consider an act on any complaint within a period as short as 45 days or else the complaint will be automatically dismissed.

The second is a set of changes that applies where the committee, or an investigative subcommittee, decides to conclude a matter by issuing a letter, notification, or a report that refers to the conduct of a particular Member. These changes provide a number of so-called ``due process'' rights to such a Member, one of which is the right to demand that the committee establish an adjudicatory subcommittee to conduct an immediate trial on the matter.

The third change concerns the matter of a single attorney representing more than one respondent or witness in a case before the committee. Under this change, the committee is prohibited from requiring that a respondent or witness retain an attorney who does not represent someone else in the case.

Mr. Speaker, turning first to the Automatic Dismissal Rule, the Automatic Dismissal Rule constitutes a radical change in the rules governing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's consideration of complaints. From the time the committee came into existence until the adoption of this rule, there was only one way that a complaint filed with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct could be dismissed, and that is by a majority vote of the committee. Because under the prior rules a complaint could be disposed of only by a committee vote, committee members were required to analyze the claims made in a complaint, to collect and consider additional information on the conduct in issue, and to discuss complaints among themselves in an effort to reach a resolution.

With the enactment of the Automatic Dismissal Rule, the need for this study, fact gathering, and discussion within the committee will be significantly reduced, if not entirely eliminated, in any instance in which five committee members are initially inclined to vote to dismiss the complaint. What incentive would those members have to give genuine consideration to the complaint? Under the new rule, they need do nothing more than sit on their hands and the complaint will disappear.

Of course, this rule change will have its greatest impact on the controversial high-profile complaints that come before the committee, but it is in the handling of complaints of that kind that the committee's credibility is most at stake. In short, while the long-term interests of the House require that committee consideration of all complaints in a reasoned, nonpartisan manner be made, the effect of the Automatic Dismissal Rule will be instead to promote partisanship and deadlock within the committee.

Why was the Automatic Dismissal Rule included in the rules package? The sole rationale that was offered for the Automatic Dismissal Rule was that it would ``restore the presumption of innocence.'' Yet how does the Automatic Dismissal Rule restore the presumption of innocence? If a complaint against a Member is dismissed automatically because of committee inaction over a period as short as 45 days, is that Member in any position to claim vindication or that his conduct has been cleared by the committee?

The far more likely effect of a dismissal in those circumstances is that there would continue to be a cloud over that Member. So this rules change, in fact, does no favor for any Member who is the subject of a complaint. And no matter what the impact of the particular Member involved, any automatic dismissal of a valid complaint would do incalculable harm to the image and reputation of the House of Representatives as an institution.

It is also very pertinent to note that about 7 years ago when the report of the House bipartisan task force on ethics reform was before the House, Members had a meaningful opportunity to consider an automatic dismissal rule and they rejected such a proposal on a strong bipartisan vote. At that time the proponents of the rule argued that it would be unfair to a Member to have a complaint pending indefinitely before a deadlocked committee and that the proposed rule was akin to a judge declaring a mistrial when a jury was deadlocked. The fallacy of that argument was exposed when it was pointed out that a judge, in sending a case to the jury, never gives a set number of days for deliberation before a mistrial will be declared because to do that may guarantee that the jury will be deadlocked.

It is also noteworthy that the Automatic Dismissal Rule that was considered and rejected in 1997 gave the committee a far longer period of time to attempt to act on the complaint. That proposal was key to a committee vote on an unsuccessful motion to refer a complaint to an investigative committee, and it provided for automatic dismissal only if the committee failed to dispose of the complaint within 180 days after that vote.

The sheer unreasonableness of the Automatic Dismissal Rule that was enacted in the rules package for this Congress in January is shown in that the amount of time allowed for committee consideration of a complaint is as short as 45 days and cannot exceed 90 days. Because under committee rules a Member is allowed 30 days to file an answer to a complaint, that means the committee may have as few as 15 days to consider a complaint and answer, as well as whatever other facts it is able to gather in that brief period of time, before the complaint is automatically dismissed.

This Automatic Dismissal Rule must be repealed, Mr. Speaker, and it would be repealed upon approval of the resolution that I am offering.

Regarding the provisions of the rules package that provide certain so-called ``due process'' rights to Members, the resolution that I am proposing does not repeal those provisions in their entirety, but it does make a significant change in them. Where the committee or an investigative subcommittee proposes to issue a letter or other document that includes comments that are critical of a Member's conduct, it is reasonable to provide that Member with certain rights, such as prior notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond.

But the so-called ``due process'' provision of the rules package goes well beyond this, for they also provide a Member with the right to demand that the committee create an adjudicatory subcommittee to conduct an immediate trial on the conduct in question.

As a practical matter, Mr. Speaker, the effect of granting this right to Members is that the committee no longer has the ability to resolve a complaint by means of a letter that is issued in lieu of undertaking a formal investigation. In other words, under the due process provisions as now in effect, the committee, as a practical matter, now has only two options regarding each of the allegations made in a complaint: send the matter to an investigative subcommittee for a formal investigation or dismiss it.

Why is this so? It is important to understand that the committee would propose to resolve a complaint by the issuance of a letter of the kind referenced here only where it determines that a formal investigation of the matter is not warranted. While these letters are based on and reflect the information available to the committee on the conduct alleged in the complaint, the fact is that as of the time that the committee would propose to issue such a letter, not a single subpoena in the matter would have been issued and not a single witness would have been deposed. Yet these due process provisions confer upon the respondent Member the right to demand an immediate trial regarding that matter, a trial that would take place with no formal investigation ever having been conducted.

No committee that is at all serious about conducting its business would allow itself to be put in that position. The other due process provisions that confer this same right with regard to certain notifications issued by the committee and certain reports issued by investigative subcommittees suffer the same flaw.

The resolution I am proposing corrects this flaw by deleting the Member's right to demand an immediate trial and providing instead that the Member has the right to demand the establishment of an investigatory subcommittee to conduct a formal investigation in the matter in question. Possibly that investigation would conclude that the Member did not violate any law, rule or standard.

But if instead the subcommittee determined that there was substantial reason to believe that a violation had occurred, then there would be a trial before an adjudicatory subcommittee. Under the resolution I am proposing, a Member would also continue to have the rights to prior notice and an opportunity to respond to a letter, notification or report that references that Member's conduct.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the third change in the rules that was made by the 109th Congress rules package concerns the matter of a single attorney representing more than one respondent or witness in a case before the committee. The rules package added provisions to the rules labeled ``right to counsel provisions'' that absolutely prohibit the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from requiring a respondent or witness retain an attorney who does not represent anyone else in the case. My resolution would repeal those provisions.

The committee has had no rule that prohibits a single attorney from representing more than one respondent in a case and neither the committee nor any subcommittee has ever prohibited a party or witness from retaining an attorney who represents someone else in the case. But two separate investigative subcommittees, including the subcommittee that investigated House voting on the Medicare legislation in 2003, specifically raised the concern that multiple representation may impair the fact-finding process and recommended that the committee adopt a rule or policy that addresses this concern.

The reasons for these subcommittees' concern is very clear: Representation of multiple respondents or witnesses by a single attorney potentially seriously undermines any effort by an investigative subcommittee to sequester witnesses and thereby to obtain their full and candid testimony. In fact, in the other case in which the investigative subcommittee raised this concern, the Member who was under investigation had arranged for his own attorney to represent nearly a dozen of the witnesses who had been called before the investigative subcommittee.

We see the problem clearly. Yet the right to counsel provision of the rules package entirely disregards the experience of and the recommendations made by these investigative subcommittees, and they absolutely preclude the committee from taking any action to address this problem. Almost certainly those provisions of the rules package will serve to encourage respondents and witnesses to employ the same counsel in cases before the committee and will thereby make the problem identified by the investigative subcommittee far worse.

In short, Mr. Speaker, no matter what the intent of any of these provisions of the rules package might have been, their effect will be at a minimum to seriously undermine the ability of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to consider and act on complaints in a credible way. In particular, the practical effect of the so-called due process provisions now in effect is to substantially eliminate the committee's ability to resolve a complaint short of a formal investigation and thus to force the committee to decide between either dismissing a complaint entirely or sending it to a formal investigation.

Under the new automatic dismissal rule, where there are five committee members whose initial inclination is to vote to dismiss the complaint, the likely result will be an automatic dismissal in a month and a half. Even if a complaint does make it to an investigative subcommittee, the right-to-counsel provisions will make it far more likely that the respondent and witnesses will be represented by the same counsel, and thus will have an opportunity to undermine the subcommittee's work by coordinating their testimony.

Approval of the resolution I am introducing will undo the harm done by these provisions of the rules package. Approval of this resolution will also provide a clear and desperately needed signal to our constituents that the House is firmly committed to protecting its reputation and integrity and that the House does intend to have a fair and effective process for considering and acting upon credible allegations of wrongdoing.

Approval of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is also necessary for one other reason, and that is to affirm the long-standing principle in the House that major changes in the ethics rules and procedures must be made on a bipartisan basis. When the House revisited its ethics rules and procedures in both 1989 and 1997, the work was done through bipartisan task forces that gave thoughtful consideration to proposals from all Members. In contrast, Mr. Speaker, the changes made in the rules package adopted in January were made on a party line vote, with no input whatsoever from anyone in the minority.

Approval of this resolution will be a critical step in restoring the bipartisanship that is essential if there is to be a meaningful ethics process in the House.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday evening, the German Embassy here in Washington will pay tribute to a man of extraordinary talent, a native son whose artistry with a camera has opened the eyes the world over.

Today I rise to salute this remarkable gentleman and his distinguished career. Volkmar Wentzel had an unusual introduction to photography. His father was a photochemist and built a darkroom at the family home in Dresden. He would send his boys there when they misbehaved. One day young Volkmar happened to hit the switch that turned on the red inspection light. There in the darkroom he saw the magic of photography for the very first time.

When he was 9, he and his father built a pinhole camera. It was another defining experience. In his words, ``My camera became the passport to a fascinating life.'' Two years later the Wentzels left Germany, escaping the turmoil that followed World War I. They started a new life here in America, in New York.

As a young man, Volkmar set off in search of adventure, but his grand vision to travel to South America stalled in Washington, D.C. By chance, he made new friends who steered to him to Aurora, West Virginia. A colony called the Youghiogheny Forest had been started there by a mix of artists, musicians, writers, doctors and others. It is where they spent slow periods during the Great Depression. They hired Volkmar to look after their property and studios. To our great pride, that is where his career began, in the mountains of Preston County.

The first images he captured were the breathtaking beauty of the countryside. Soon he focused his lens on the people. He gave farm families pictures of their children in exchange for vegetables from their gardens.

One day Eleanor Roosevelt stopped in Aurora for lunch. She was on a trip to Arthurdale, a New Deal Homestead community that she had taken under her wing. The First Lady bought a few of the postcards Volkmar had made. The real profit was not the price she paid, rather, it was the encouragement that Volkmar felt.

He was inspired to come back to Washington to pursue a professional career, and what an amazing career it has been.

I am sure that many of my colleagues have been dazzled by his book, ``Washington by Night.'' It gives a dramatically different view of the city's best known landmarks. Even today, more than 60 years after he captured those images, they still enhance our sense of wonder.

The same is certainly true of Volkmar's long and distinguished career with the National Geographic. From the Himalayas to Newfoundland, his work gave us rich new perspectives, and new understanding, of the world around us. And that is what makes him such a compelling artist. His keen eye, his technical skill, his respectful nature, his gracious manner, all of these things are evident in every photograph he takes.

Of course I have a special affinity for his award-winning work in West Virginia, and I am always proud to tell people that Volkmar and his wife, Viola, consider Aurora to be their home and are active in the local historical society.

The Wentzels recently celebrated his 90th birthday at their Washington residence. Tomorrow's reception will allow his friends and admirers to mark the happy occasion and to salute the work of this outstanding talent and true gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the ethics-related provisions that are in this package at the insistence of the Committee on Rules. I had the honor of serving as ranking member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the last Congress. It was an honor to serve with the gentleman from Colorado (Chairman Hefley), as he always managed to chair the committee in a completely bipartisan manner.

The headlines in this morning's paper say ``GOP Abandons Ethics Changes.'' It turns out that the headline is at best only half right. It is true that the most outrageous ethics undermining provision has been deleted from the rules package, but other provisions, provisions that would make major changes in the way the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct handles enforcements of the rules, they remain.

There should be no misunderstanding that these provisions that remain would seriously undermine the ethics process in the House, both because of the changes they would make in committee procedures, but, and equally important, because of the partisan way in which they are being adopted. If there is to be a meaningful, viable ethics process in the House, it must be a genuinely bipartisan process. That

point should be self-evident. How could there be a legitimate ethics process that is operated on a partisan basis? And to have a bipartisan process, it is absolutely essential that any major changes in the rules be made on a truly bipartisan basis. What is more, because of the importance and the sensitive nature of the ethics rules, it is also essential that any proposed changes be considered in a thoughtful, considered, and open way, with all Members being given the opportunity for input, Democrats and Republicans.

Until today, the House recognized these fundamental points. Until today, the House has not attempted to make major changes in the ethics rules or the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct procedures in a slapdash way, with literally only hours of consideration, and on a party line vote.

It will probably come as no surprise that the materials issued by the Committee on Rules that attempt to justify these amendments are based entirely on misstatements of the current rules. For example, under the benign sounding heading, ``Restore Presumption of Innocence,'' the Committee on Rules memorandum states, ``Currently, if the chairman and ranking minority member take no action on a properly filed complaint within 45 days, the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee.'' Fine. But that statement is incomplete and, therefore, misleading.

The rules that have been in effect since 1997 clearly provide that at any time that a complaint is before the chairman and ranking member for consideration, either one of them may place the complaint on the committee's agenda and when either one of them does that, an investigative committee cannot be established without a majority vote of the committee.

Another example, Mr. Speaker. Under the heading ``Due Process for Members,'' the Committee on Rules memorandum states that, ``Under the current rule, the chairman and ranking member or the committee may take action against a Member without a complaint, notice, or the opportunity to be heard.''

This statement clearly implies that the committee may determine that a Member has committed a violation or impose a sanction without the Member having such rights, and that suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is flatly wrong. The rules are replete with the rights for Members who are accused of any violation.

When you turn to the actual text of the ``due process'' amendments, you find that what these amendments are concerned with is not committee actions that impose sanctions or determine violations, but instead on committee letters or statements that ``reference the official conduct of a Member.'' It may be well that the rules should provide certain rights to a Member whose conduct is going to be discussed in a letter or statement that the committee issues publicly, but what should those rights be? They should be determined through a deliberative, fair, bipartisan process.

But one specific right that this proposed rule provides to those Members is the right to demand an immediate trial in front of an adjudicatory subcommittee of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. But in the circumstances that the rule addresses, that trial would take place before the committee has conducted any formal investigation of the matter. No committee that is serious about conducting its business would allow itself to be put in that circumstance. So the effect of this amendment would be that whenever any alleged misconduct is brought to the committee's attention, the committee may be forced to choose between either launching a formal investigation of the matter or dismissing it entirely. Both of these rule changes lack careful consideration and, more seriously, are brought to us today through a partisan process.

I'd like to address the ethics-related provisions that are in this package at the insistence of the Rules Committee. I had the honor of serving as ranking member of the Ethics Committee in the last Congress, and I also served on the committee for 6 years during another time of controversy in the late 1980s. It was an honor to serve during the last 2 years with Chairman Hefley, as he always managed the committee in a completely bipartisan manner.

A headline in this morning's newspaper says, ``GOP abandons ethics changes.'' It turns out that the headline is at best only half right. It's true that the most outrageous ethics-undermining provision has been deleted from the rules package, but other provisions--provisions that would make major changes in the way the Ethics Committee handles enforcement of the rules--remain.

There should be no misunderstanding that these provisions that remain would seriously undermine the ethics process in the House, both because of the changes they would make in committee procedures, and, equally important, because of the partisan way in which they would be adopted.

If there is to be a meaningful, viable ethics process in the House, it must be a genuinely bipartisan process. That point should be self- evident--how could there be a legitimate ethics process that is operated on a partisan basis? And to have a bipartisan process, it's absolutely essential that any major changes in the rules be made on a truly bipartisan basis. What's more, because of the importance, and the sensitive nature of the ethics rules, it's also essential that any proposed changes be considered in a thoughtful, considered, and open way, with all Members being given the opportunity for input--Democrats and Republicans.

Until today, the House recognized these fundamental points. Until today, the House has not attempted to make major changes in the ethics rules or the Ethics Committee procedures in a slapdash way, with literally only hours of consideration, and on a party-line vote.

It will probably come as no surprise that the materials issued by the Rules Committee that attempt to justify these amendments are based entirely on misstatements of the current rules. For example, under the benign-sounding heading, ``Restore Presumption of Innocence,'' the Rules Committee memorandum states, and I quote:

``Currently, if the chairman and ranking minority member take no action on a properly filed complaint within 45 days, the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee.''

That statement is incomplete--and therefore misleading. The rules that have been in effect since 1997 clearly provide that at any time that a complaint is before the chairman and ranking member for consideration, either one of them may place the complaint on the committee's agenda, and when either one of them does that, an investigative subcommittee cannot be established without a majority vote of the committee.

Another example: under the heading, ``Due Process for Members,'' the Rules Committee memorandum states that, and I quote:

``Under the current rule, the chairman and ranking member, or the committee, may take action against a Member without a complaint, notice, or the opportunity to be heard.''

This statement clearly implies that the committee may determine that a Member has committed a violation or impose a sanction without the Member having such rights, and that suggestion is flatly wrong. The rules are replete with rights for Members who are accused of any violation, and because of the bipartisan makeup of the committee, Members are typically accorded rights well beyond those required by the rules.

When you turn to the actual text of the ``due process'' amendments, you find that what these amendments are concerned with is not committee actions that impose sanctions or determine violations, but instead committee letters or statements that ``reference the official conduct of a Member.'' It may well be that the rules should provide certain rights to a Member whose conduct is going to be discussed in a letter or statement that the committee issues publicly, but what should those rights be?

They should be determined through a deliberative, fair, bipartisan process. But one specific right that this proposed rule provides to those Members is the right to demand an immediate trial in front of an adjudicatory subcommittee of the Ethics Committee. But in the circumstances that the rule addresses, that trial would take place before the committee has conducted any formal investigation of the matter. No committee that is serious about conducting its business would allow itself to be put in that circumstance. So the effect of this amendment would be that whenever any alleged misconduct is brought to the committee's attention, the committee may be forced to choose between either launching a formal investigation of the matter, or dismissing it entirely. There would be no chance for an expedited resolution of the case, even in those instances in which the committee believes it already has all the basic facts, and the conduct involved probably does not warrant a formal sanction. Both of these rule changes lack careful consideration and, more seriously, are brought to us today through a partisan process.

But the proposed amendment that raises even more concern is the one that provides for automatic dismissal of any complaint that

is not acted upon within a period as short as 45 days. When the House last considered Ethics Committee procedures, in 1997, it rejected, on a bipartisan vote, an amendment that would have required the automatic dismissal of any complaint that is not acted upon within 180 days.

The reason that amendment was rejected is that it was recognized that such a time limit would encourage deadlock on the committee, and partisanship among the committee members. Under a time limit, if one side or the other is uncomfortable about dealing with a particular complaint, those Members don't have to discuss it or otherwise try to deal with it--by their just doing nothing, the complaint will disappear. Yet now this provision for automatic dismissal has reappeared, and this time it has a far shorter time frame for committee consideration than the nearly identical provision that the House soundly rejected in 1997.

I want to close by asking all Members, including all Members of the leadership on both sides of the Aisle, to give some serious consideration--not just today, but in the weeks and months ahead--to whether you genuinely want to have a meaningful ethics process in the House, and what we as Members, individually and collectively, have to do in order for such a process to exist. As I said at the outset, for this process to exist, it has to be a truly bipartisan one, and it has to be treated with seriousness and respect. It has to be recognized that the basic purpose of the process is to consider and address legitimate ethics concerns, and if Members are successful in using the process for partisan, political purposes, it is going to fail. The approval of these amendments would seriously undermine the process and, for that reason alone, this rules package should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, a milestone anniversary is being celebrated this month at West Virginia University, in my Congressional District. Twenty-five years ago, the National Small Flows Clearinghouse first opened its doors. It was established by Professors Willem Van Eck and Raul Zaltzman, who wanted to help smaller communities find the best technologies to meet their water treatment needs.

Today, the Small Flows Clearinghouse is a highly successful program of the National Environmental Services Center (NESC). Since 1979, this organization has evolved into a national leader in combating pollution and assisting small communities on water issues. NESC is an expert resource not only on wastewater, but also drinking water, environmental training, infrastructure security and utility management. From its offices in Morgantown, NESC helps to protect public health and the environment in communities all across the country.

The organization will celebrate its 25th anniversary with an open house on July 26 at the university's Evansdale Campus. In marking the occasion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to President David Hardesty, Vice President for Research and Economic Development John Weete, and the NESC team: Executive Director John Mori, Director of Program Development Pam Schade and the entire staff, both past and present.

Their commitment to the health of our people and communities has achieved real results, and I wish them the very best as they begin NESC's next quarter-century of service.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Mr. Timothy M. Vetere of Morgantown, West Virginia for his award-winning entry in the Veterans of Foreign Wars' Voice of Democracy contest. His script is entitled ``My Commitment to America's Future.'' I submit for the Record the text of his entry and commend the VFW for making the Voice of Democracy scholarship program available to students across our Nation.

My Commitment to America's Future

I was walking along the sidewalk downtown one day and I

passed by a large storefront window and caught a quick

glimpse of myself. I have to admit that the first thing I

thought was, ``Hey, I look pretty good.'' I even stopped to

take a second look. And as I stared into my gorgeous baby-

blue eyes, I began to realize that my reflection was

superimposed on an American flag, which was hanging in the

display case.

As I looked closer, I realized that the edges were frayed

and its colors faded and I thought, hmmm, I wonder how it got

that worn? What stories would it have to tell if it could

talk?

I began to envision it in battle somewhere or draping the

coffin of a Vietnam War veteran, or, it looked pretty old,

maybe even a World War II veteran. What if someone's

grandfather had passed it down to his son and that man passed

it to his son who was now honoring the memory of his grandpa

by hanging that flag in his storefront window. Or did this

flag fly outside of an elementary school where children of

the SOs lined up in the courtyard to pledge their allegiance

to the flag and sing ``My Country 'Tis of Thee.''

My eyes drifted to the 50 stars and I began to realize how

hard each state must have fought to gain a spot on this

symbol of American Unity.

As a person, I'm one among millions, but as an American I

am an integral part of the greatest nation on earth. The

stripes of the flag represent the purity in the American

heart and sacrifices made by men just like me. I look back on

the giants of history and feel my own insignificance. I am

humbled knowing my own inability to measure up to their

achievements.

I may never command American men in battle on foreign soil

and, I pray to God I never command them on American soil. I

many never land on the moon. I may never discover a cure for

cancer. My name may never be used to inspire school-children

to greater heights.

I may do nothing more than mean it when I say the pledge,

sing the words of the National Anthem at a ball game, or feel

the country's collective sadness when a soldier's flag-draped

coffin is shown on the evening news.

But when I say the pledge maybe one other of my classmates

may see my sincerity and share in it as well. When I sing the

anthem at a ball game, those around me may hear the words

clearly and be inspired to believe in the power behind the

lyrics.

I may never become a giant in American history, but if I

can in some small way influence others to feel the love I

feel for America . . . if I can live my life as an example of

heartfelt patriotism . . .

If I can raise my children with strong American values,

then I will have made America stronger. When you are the one

looking at your own reflection in a store window, or in a

mirror, who will look back at you? Will you be able to say,

``Yes, I am an American citizen.''

We are all united under the American flag and its symbolic

colors. We can be separate individuals or we can work

together to make America stronger, one citizen at a time.

Mr. Speaker, a child abduction is every parent's worst nightmare. Yet all too often, we hear chilling stories of boys and girls taken from their rightful guardians; stolen by strangers or even by members of their family. Today, I want to recognize a program in my district that is working to prevent these awful occurrences.

In Weirton, volunteers have organized an initiative that is called WINK: Watching Its

Neighborhood Kids. This two-part program is bringing the community together to help keep children safe--and to help recover them if they should ever be lost or taken.

Under the WINK Program, safe houses are being established across the city. These are homes and businesses, screened by the Weirton police, that volunteer to open their doors to children who are lost, hurt or threatened. The goal is to eventually have one on every block.

The approved safe houses are given a logo sign to post in their windows. They also are given information on helping children in danger. Children are told about the program in school, and parents are encouraged to show them where safe houses can be found in the neighborhood.

Mr. Speaker, this kind of vigilance and communication is a good way to protect our children. But sometimes, no matter how careful the precautions, young people are lost or missing. That is why the second part of this program is vitally important as well.

In addition to the safe houses, WINK has established a child identification program. It sponsors free registration events across the community. Parents bring in their children for digital photos, for fingerprints or footprints, and for a DNA mouth swab. All of these items--these key identification tools--are given to parents to take home, and keep close at hand.

Experts tell us that when a child is missing, an immediate response is the best response. It helps to increase the odds of a successful recovery. Thanks to the child I.D. program, parents have up-to-date information ready to give to police should the unthinkable happen.

Mr. Speaker, the safety of children is a concern that we all share. Today, I am pleased to salute a special group of people who truly take this concern to heart, and have channeled it into real community action. I ask the House to join me in recognizing the caring volunteers who are behind Weirton's watching its neighborhood kids.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order time at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Jay S. Pifer, a businessman and friend, as he plans his retirement after more than 40 years with Allegheny Energy Company, an integrated energy company with a balanced portfolio of businesses. At a time when too many corporate leaders are failing in their obligations to their customers, employees, investors and community, it is a rare privilege to be able to honor a man who demonstrates on a daily basis what integrity and leadership truly mean.

Mr. Pifer, who began his tenure with Allegheny as an apprentice engineering technician, was named interim president and CEO before being named chief operating officer in June. Like many in the energy production and distribution business today, Allegheny has suffered significant erosion in its financial health which has resulted in a virtually completely turnover in the company's management. During this time of turbulence and upheaval, Jay served to hold the company together, facilitating the transition from the old management team to the new. Further, he agreed to stay on to help the new team while it got its bearings. During this period, Allegheny faced ice, snow and thunderstorms capped recently by Hurricane Isabel, and Jay and his crews performed spectacularly with speed and grace.

Financial troubles notwithstanding, Jay Pifer and Allegheny led the industry in customer satisfaction, named recently as second best on the East Coast. His dedication to his employees, customers, and community served by Allegheny is legendary, and we hate to see him leave. However, his dedication to his family and his faith is even greater, and we understand his desire to spend his time with those who have supported him during these 40 years.

Jay has held many leadership positions with the company, including president of Allegheny Power energy delivery subsidiary, which supplies power throughout the State of West Virginia, as well as Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Ohio. During that time, J.D. Power and Associates recognized Allegheny Power as the second best company in customer satisfaction in the East, and 10th best in the Nation with improvement in each of the last 10 years.

In addition to his service with Allegheny, Jay has been involved in many civic and community activities, only a few of which include serving on the boards of the United Way, the Business Round Tables of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the West Virginia Education Alliance. His commitment to young people includes a long association with the Boy Scouts of America, and he currently serves on the advisory board of the northeast region of the Boy Scouts. He is also an ordained lay Pastor in the United Methodist Church.

In what was described in the Washington Post as perhaps an unprecedented effort to showcase a new approach to conservation, Jay oversaw the sale of a large tract of Allegheny Power land to the Canaan Valley Institute which included one of the largest wetlands east of the Mississippi River, which will now be preserved as a habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife, as well as public recreation. Land and stream management practices are being developed on this land as part of the Canaan Valley Institute's land and water stewardship education program. Jay was instrumental in the expansion of the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, the Nation's 500th national wildlife refuge.

On February 14, 2002, he once again demonstrated his commitment to conservation by engineering the sale of 12,000 acres to the refuge. I was honored to work with Jay on these land transfers which will benefit generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible to catalog here tonight all of Jay's accomplishments and contributions, yet these few examples illustrate what an outstanding gentleman Jay Pifer is.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Jay S. Pifer.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first let me express my appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for his hard work and very capable efforts in putting together a very tough bill. I would like to express my appreciation to him. He has always been courteous. He is extremely capable and very responsive to both the substantive and procedural issues associated with moving this bill forward. That is greatly appreciated.

I want to join the gentleman in expressing our appreciation to our very capable staff. He has mentioned them all. Let me associate myself with his remarks. Both the majority and the minority have done a tremendous job under very tough circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, the appropriations bill being considered today provides appropriations for a broad array of Federal agencies. While our allocation of $112.7 billion, of which $90 billion represents discretionary spending, sounds large it is, in fact, not adequate to meet the varied needs of these important Federal agencies. It is a stretch to fund the growing number of veterans newly eligible for health care coverage, the renewal of long-standing housing commitments, and the necessity to increase investments in our Nation's research activities. Many accounts in this bill have been flat-funded for too long a period of time. Yes, this bill could use more money.

The veterans medical care increase of $1.3 billion is far short of the $2.4 billion increase provided last year. The Hope VI program is funded at a mere $50 million, down from the current year's $570 million. The EPA Clean Water Revolving Fund is $150 million below the current year. And the CDFI fund is only provided the President's request of $51 million, down from $75 million.

I do intend to work with the Chairman to improve these accounts as the bill moves forward.

Of particular concern, Mr. Chairman, are the veterans accounts. They need attention. There were representations made by those who passed the budget resolution which created expectations that the budget resolution itself did not provide the allocation to meet. Those expectations are fairly out there, they were produced by the budget resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the Kirk amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I rise in support of the amendment.

(Mr. MOLLOHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

The amendment would add $1.8 billion in additional funding to VA medical care. It is demonstrably true that veterans' medical care is in need of additional funding. More than 235,000 veterans are currently waiting six months or more that for initial appointments. Veterans in certain areas of the country have reported waiting two years to see a doctor. The VA has now reached capacity at many health-care facilities and has closed enrollment to new patients at many hospitals and clinics. The VA has even taken the step of placing a moratorium on all marketing and outreach efforts.

These problems are all symptoms of a larger illness--the VA consistently is not provided enough funds to provide all the benefits that are authorized for all veterans--not even in the area of medical care.

The Chairman without a doubt did the best he could by veterans in this bill. However, the fiscal year 2004 Budget Resolution did not allow the VA-HUD Subcommittee to have an allocation that would permit the promises the Republican leadership made to be kept. I know that this amendment will be stricken on a point of order, but I was to express my support of it because we need to do more for veterans medical care.

The gentleman's amendment rightly points out the need for more funding for veterans medical care and is providing an invaluable service by allowing the House to debate the consequences of irresponsible budget agreements and tax cuts to millionaires. Consequences such as not being able to adequately fund promised services to the most deserving among us--our Nation's veterans.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment shines the light on the problem we have in this bill: to provide additional funds for one account, you have to raid another account. There has to be an offset. That is why so many of the account funding levels are very similar this year as to last year.

In this case, the amendment seek to add funds for EPA Superfund clean-up efforts. It is a good thing, certainly. I think that all of us or at least a great majority of us support the Federal Government playing an important role in providing some of the resources that communities across this country need to ensure that former industrial sites are not a health risk and are reclaimed and reused.

The funds permit EPA to not only provide resources for removal and remedial actions, but also to ensure that primary responsible parties contribute to the clean-up of the site, all very good things.

As an indication of the support for these efforts, the bill as presented provides $1.275 billion for the hazardous substance Superfund. This represents a small increase of $10 million from the current year's funding. The amendment would add a further $114 million to the account in bringing the funding level to what the administration requested, but at what cost?

To allow for the increase the President proposed, cuts and program elimination throughout the bill would be the cost. The gentleman has a different offset in mind. He would look to a NASA program, Project Prometheus. NASA is an agency that as many of you know has been essentially flat-funded for most of the past decade. This program started last year would develop radio isotopes, thermo-electric generators, and nuclear propulsion for planetary exploration space craft technology. And this is technology that if developed would make the exploration of different planets cheaper and more reliable.

The bill provides the budget request for the program, $279 million. A reduction of $114 million would cause a severe disruption to this program at a time when NASA cannot afford budget cuts and should be receiving additional resources.

The bill contains funding for $1.275 billion for Superfund activities. That is a slight increase over last year's level. The funding the amendment would add represents an increase of less than 10 percent. However, the cut proposed for the NASA initiative is roughly 40 percent of that program. If the bill before us had reduced funding for Superfund, I might be in a different position, might be; but as it stands, that account is treated as well as any in this bill. One account should not be gutted to provide funding for another when this bill has been as delicately balanced by the chairman as it has been.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

(Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the point is not that the chairman and the subcommittee has not increased funding for veterans in this bill. We certainly have done that. I think the point is that the expectation with the budget resolution, with the advertising the increase in veterans benefits in the budget resolution which the majority passed was significantly higher than the actual allocation that we were able to deal with in the appropriation bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with that. As has been expressed here on the floor, expressed through the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), expressed with the gentleman from Wisconsin's comments, I agree that should funds under the VA-HUD allocation increase, VA medical service would most definitely be one of our first priorities.

Mr. Speaker, This House will suffer a true loss next month. Eve Butler-Gee, our Chief Journal Clerk, will be retiring at the end of August after 20 years of dedicated service. I want to join my colleagues today in recognizing her contributions to this chamber.

Eve began her career here in the House. She then went to work in the private sector. Fortunately for us she returned, and in 1987 was named as minority enrolling clerk of the House.

Eve served as an Assistant Enrolling Clerk for 8 years. Then, in 1995, she was appointed as Chief Journal Clerk. This institution has benefitted greatly from her knowledge, her talent and her commitment to the people's business.

Eve and her hard-working staff are responsible for memorializing the proceedings of this House; ensuring the accuracy and timeliness of the official record of each legislative day. It is a serious responsibility, and it is carried out with true professionalism by Eve and her team. We will miss her, and we will miss her outstanding work.

Mr. Speaker, as we thank Eve for her dedication, we also wish her the very best for a

happy retirement--with much time spent with her husband, Tom; her daughter Lora and Lora's husband John Williams and their son Evan; and Tom's son Sean.

I am proud to also note that Eve has a number of family connections to West Virginia, Mr. Speaker and it is my hope that her travels will bring her to our state often.

It is a pleasure to help recognize the career of one who has served this House so very well. Thank you, Eve, and all the best in the days to come.