Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my colleague from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

I am happy to engage in a colloquy.

To my friend, I want to also thank you for the good-faith discussions and negotiations we've had. I appreciate your support for this bill and your work toward a sustainable loan modification program.

I agree with you that loan modifications are a key component to a comprehensive plan.

I thank my friend, Mrs. Tauscher, for her thoughtful work on this matter. It has made this bill a better bill and one that, I think, we can all be proud of. I appreciate your effort.

I would yield further.

Thank you.

I would just note further the participation of others in Congress who worked to make this a better bill: our colleague Dennis Cardoza, who is part of the second-degree Lofgren-Tauscher-Cardoza amendment, as well as Congressman Brad Miller, Congressman Jim Marshall, and of course the chairman of the committee, Congressman John Conyers. Thanks to all who worked so hard on this.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say a word about the manager's amendment to make sure that everyone is clear.

The second-degree amendment is going to make sure that fairness is restored to the bankruptcy laws to give needed relief to homeowners at a time when there is a truly historic crisis in the housing market.

The manager's amendment strengthens the good faith provisions of the bill to ensure that borrowers who can't afford to pay their debts do so. The good faith provision also requires the court to take into consideration an offer of a qualified loan modification. And when an affordable loan modification is available, we want homeowners to take that route.

The manager's amendment also advises courts to consider the Treasury's guidelines in crafting modifications, and in doing so, it works seamlessly with the Obama administration's Making Homes Affordable Plan. In both instances, fairness and affordability are the touchstones.

It doesn't make any kind of sense that relief in Chapter 13 is denied to homeowners while it is provided to speculators and investors, which is what the current law provides. By changing the law, we've restored basic fairness to the system.

In addition to the heightened good faith requirement, the amendment would extend the pre-filing notice from 15 to 30 days and require the debtor to submit financial documentation to the lender so a meaningful negotiation

could take place. It also enhances the clawback provision to increase the amount of appreciation returning to the lender if a home should be sold for profit after judicial modification.

I really, as I said earlier, want to thank my colleagues, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. Miller for their efforts.

Bankruptcy should be a last resort. And I'll tell you, bankruptcy is no picnic. For an extended period of time, all of the debtor's personal financial life is in public. You can't spend anything without permission of the court. You can't tithe to your church unless the bankruptcy judge says ``okay.'' Santa can't come to your house on Christmas unless the court permits expenditures for a toy. It is a permanent mark on your record.

And so to think that someone would go into that proceeding frivolously with that kind of stain, that burden and that kind of a stigma, is just not realistic. And I hope the people understand this is not something that people do in a frivolous way or an unthoughtful way.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be granted 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1106, as well as to include extraneous material.

I have this amendment at the desk.

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

(Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, this important bill gives families whose home mortgages are in distress a better opportunity to come to terms with their lender, to bring their mortgage payments in line with prevailing lending rates in the lending market and with prevailing values in the housing market. This is the same opportunity that owners of vacation homes, investment properties, private jets, and luxury yachts have long enjoyed. I think it's only fair that we offer it now to average families as well. The economic crisis engulfing this country and the world had its start in the housing foreclosure crisis. The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act will begin to address this underlying cause, and it will provide meaningful relief to struggling homeowners.

In developing this legislation, we have benefited at every step of the way from constructive engagement from members on and off the Judiciary Committee, from lenders and brokers, from consumer groups, from bankruptcy judges and trustees. With their help, we've reached consensus on a series of significant changes culminating in the manager's amendment before us today. I should note that the amendment is the Lofgren-Tauscher-Cardoza amendment, and the changes that it encompasses make this a much better bill.

Under the manager's amendment, the homeowner must notify the lender, submit financial records and work in good faith for at least 30 days to try to modify a mortgage outside of the bankruptcy using the Obama mortgage modification plan outlined yesterday. We provide also that, should those efforts not prove fruitful and as a last resort an individual ends up in Chapter 13 proceedings, the court should utilize the Obama mortgage modification plan as a guideline for the court in reviewing and in helping a homeowner to meet obligations.

We also have required that bankruptcy courts will use the FHA appraisal guidelines, repayment plans, and for equal monthly mortgage payments. If a homeowner sells a home while still under a Chapter 13 payment plan, the lender is going to share in the profit, and that's only fair. The closer in time of the mortgage modification, the greater the lender's share, and the manager's amendment actually further increases the lender's share at each point over the period.

Homeowners who engage in bad faith, such as filing for bankruptcy when they could really afford to pay their mortgages, will be disqualified for assistance in chapter 13, and a special Justice Department task force is set up to investigate reports of possible mortgage fraud. These are in addition to improvements already made at earlier stages. The changes are all described in greater detail in a summary that was sent to all of your offices today. I have brought copies of a summary with me today.

In short, we have sought to respond in a reasonable manner to every single concern brought to our attention. We've achieved a balanced reform that will bring meaningful help to families in genuine need without costing taxpayers a dime.

The bill is not going to usher in a rash of bankruptcy filings. In fact, by setting up a homeowner-lender negotiating process that begins well before bankruptcy, it is designed to keep more families out of bankruptcy and out of foreclosure. The number of new chapter 13 mortgage modifications that may result will be far less than the number of foreclosures that will be prevented, and preventing foreclosures is the key. That will benefit not only homeowners and their families but also neighborhoods, their communities, their lenders, and the entire American economy.

It's worth noting that any time there is a foreclosure, the average decline of property values for neighboring property is 9 percent, so this is important to every American to avert these foreclosures.

I thank Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Marshall, Brad Miller, John Conyers, and all of the other Members who have worked so hard to improve this bill through the manager's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I would just note that yesterday was the anniversary of our Constitution's going into effect, March 4, 1789. In that Constitution was article I, section 8 that provides for bankruptcy.

I would yield 40 seconds to Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Chairman, I would further yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just note that the National Association of Community Development Credit Unions has announced their support of this measure as altered.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), who's worked so hard on this measure, who was the author of the underlying bill in the last Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 15 seconds to Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, Mr. Maffei.

Let me mention one point that has been discussed, which is the potential that enacting this legislation would somehow impact future interest rates for principal mortgages.

I would like to mention that Mark Zandi, who was Senator John McCain's economic adviser during his campaign for President, said this: ``Given that the total cost of foreclosure to lenders is much greater than that associated with Chapter 13 bankruptcy, there is no reason to believe that the cost of mortgage credit across all mortgage loan products should rise.''

I think that this is a bogus argument. And I think that if we don't act to provide fairness to this system, we will be letting down our constituents, and once again, the little guy will lose.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) at this point.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia, who, I would like to point out, was actually, in his prior life before Congress, an expert in this area of the law.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Nearly six million households are facing the possibility of foreclosure in our country. And as a result, responsible families who did everything right, who have a traditional mortgage, are facing foreclosure or their neighborhoods are struggling. It's estimated that each foreclosed home reduces the price of the surrounding property-- people who did nothing wrong--by 9 percent, or sometimes more. That's when the meth dealers move that is the ``sometimes more.''

This bill takes a number of steps. We've talked about bankruptcy, but that's just a small part of it. It provides a safe harbor for servicers to modify loans. It increases the FDIC insured rate for banks. It makes improvements to the HOPE for Homeowners Program. But it also narrowly affects the exemption for primary residences under Chapter 13.

As has been pointed out, speculators can go into Chapter 13 and get complete relief; it's only the individual homeowner who is not able to get that relief. That's just not fair. There's no way you can possibly defend how that is fair, that the big guys and the speculators get their way, but the individual struggling homeowner does not.

We have worked very hard in these last few weeks to narrow this provision, to listen to every objection that was honestly made, that was credible, and to accommodate it. This amendment is a consensus measure that makes the bill better. I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The issue it addresses is already addressed in the bill and, again, in the manager's amendment. This would take the issue another step further, and I will say it's a step too far.

This would have the effect of making it practically impossible for a family to move to pursue another job. Families would not only keep their homes, they would be trapped there.

The bill also leaves no room for a homeowner to reap a windfall, either calculated or happenstance, so this amendment is unrequired.

I would note that the Price amendment would turn homeowners really into renters for life. It would remove any incentive for a homeowner who needed to sell a house to seek top value in the sale of that house or even to keep up appearances on that house.

It's a mistake, and it's not what the American Dream is all about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) 1 minute.

I would yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I believe I have the right to close, do I not? Does the gentleman have additional speakers?

No, we don't.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would enrich lenders and really gut the bill, damage communities and damage home values. In the bill there is a responsible provision for lenders who have had their mortgages adjusted in chapter 13 to recover on a graduated basis, should property values appreciate at sale. What this amendment would do would be to turn homeowners into renters for life.

I will just point out something else. In bankruptcy law, if you are a speculator, you go in and you buy three condominiums on spec, and you hope you are going to make a fortune on it. But, instead, the market turns. You go into chapter 13, you can get the principal written down, you can get the interest written down but the homeowner in a condo cannot.

I would point out that if condo values rise, the speculator under the Price amendment gets all the value, the lender gets none. Only the homeowner would be made a renter for life. Now, how is that fair in America, a country that's looking for fairness?

I would like to note that currently, if a lender forecloses on a home, it receives none of the home's appreciation. So what is in the manager's amendment, the balanced amendment--I want to credit Mr. Marshall for his excellent work in putting this in--is a vast improvement over current bankruptcy law as it relates to homeowners.

Now, why is this important? Lenders benefit by getting part of their appreciated value and by savings on foreclosure costs. Homeowners share in the value of their home's increasing value, and that's the American Dream.

I would note also that it provides incentives for homeowners who have gone through the tragic circumstance of losing so much and reorganizing in chapter 13 and the stigma that that entails. It provides them incentive to continue to keep up their properties, to paint their houses and to keep up appearances because they have a stake in the future as well, it's not just some remote bank.

Finally, communities benefit because homeowners have this incentive to maintain their properties. So it's important that this measure proceed. As I mentioned earlier, the Price amendment would basically gut this bill and that would be a mistake.

With 6 million homeowners facing foreclosure, that is a disaster not just for those 6 million but for their neighbors. I have seen areas in our country where half the houses are in foreclosure, and I will tell you, it's a nightmare for everyone in that community. The meth dealers move in, the property values decline.

Reject the Price amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment offered by my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

It was a pleasure to work with him to reach agreement on his amendment, and I appreciate his commitment to ensuring that Americans have credit counseling under the Bankruptcy Code, especially in these difficult economic times.

His amendment, Mr. Peters' amendment, ensures that homeowners will be able to meet their obligations, to obtain credit counseling without risking foreclosure. It strikes the right balance, and it shows real foresight, judgment and skill on Mr. Peters' part, and I appreciate supporting his amendment, and I appreciate his presence here in our body.

Mr. Chairman, that is not a germane point. I would raise a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, I rise this March day to celebrate ``Red Cross Month.'' Since 1943, we have been celebrating March as Red Cross Month and promoting the services provided to the public by the Red Cross each day. The Red Cross has been at the forefront of helping individuals and families prevent, prepare for, and respond to large and small scale disasters for more than 127 years.

In my district, the Santa Clara Chapter of the American Red Cross helps many people in times of need. They range from victims of disasters such as house or apartment fires, floods or mudslides, and earthquakes; to victims encountered through national disasters such as Hurricanes Ike and Katrina and international disasters such as the 2005 tsunami and the philippine earthquake.

This year in my district, the American Red Cross Chapter is hard at work and has already responded to local disasters, including a 5-unit townhome fire on January 12, 2009 that left 14 people homeless and caused more than $2 million in damages.

The Red Cross is committed to making our homes and our communities safe and works closely with local, state and national partners to help people personalize their risk to natural hazards and make preparedness a personal priority. Join me in applauding the hard work of the American Red Cross volunteers and celebrating March as American Red Cross Month.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 45) raising awareness and promoting education on the criminal justice system by establishing March as ``National Criminal Justice Month''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Congressman Ted Poe of Texas for introducing this legislation.

Establishing March 2009 as National Criminal Justice Month will help increase awareness of the harmful effects of crime, not only on the immediate victims, but on our society as a whole. It will also help bring public focus on the need to make our criminal justice system as effective as possible, not only in responding to crime, but in helping to reduce its incidence.

Millions of Americans have been victimized by crime. Millions more are on parole, on probation, or incarcerated. And our Nation spends billions of dollars each year on efforts to address crime. And yet too many Americans say they have little confidence in the criminal justice system.

There are a number of steps we can take to address this lack of confidence. For one, we could invest more resources in education. Educated Americans not only have more opportunities, they also have a greater appreciation of the effects they have on the world around them, and they certainly have a much dramatically lower incidence of criminal behavior.

By failing to invest in education, we have allowed a cradle-to-prison pipeline to develop. What we should be building is a cradle-to-college pipeline instead. And we see the unfortunate results on any given day, over 2\1/2\ million incarcerated in our prisons, almost all of them poor, almost two-thirds of them African American or Latino.

There's another thing we need to do, and that's to focus beyond the step of incarceration and to think about rehabilitation, keeping first- time offenders from becoming repeat offenders. That requires investing meaningfully in vocational training, education, counseling and other skills development that prisoners need in order to re-enter society and become productive citizens.

Congress took an important step in that direction last year when it passed the Second Chance Act. Now we need to follow through with adequate funding to make its promises take hold.

Third, I think it's time we acknowledge the failure of the so-called War on Drugs as our government has fought it over the last few decades. Increasingly stiffer and stiffer sentences for non-violent drug offenses hasn't worked, not to significantly reduce illegal drug use or the criminal enterprise that has grown up to feed it. It's worked only to swell the prison population.

It's time that we brought more of the focus on intervention, treatment and yes, fact-based education to come to grips with the drug problem. The Drug Courts program has been more successful in curtailing recidivism because of its focus on treatment. Studies show that those sent to Drug Court have a 1-year recidivism rate, only one-sixth as high as those sent to prison for a similar offense.

I believe making this month National Criminal Justice Month can help the many in our communities who are dedicating themselves to reducing crime bring greater awareness to their efforts.

I encourage my colleagues to support H. Res. 45 as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no additional speakers, so I would continue to reserve if the gentleman has speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I once again commend the gentleman for introducing this legislation. I urge its passage. I share his enthusiasm for our system of justice, that preserves the rights of the defendant but also elevates the needs of the victims for justice.

We honor those who work in our system, be they judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, police officers, and I would say, yes, also drug treatment people who are trying to prevent crime from recurring. So this month celebrates those in our community who serve in the criminal justice system. They deserve our thanks.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1127) to extend certain immigration programs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1127 extends two immigration programs, one for religious workers and one for doctors who serve in medically underserved areas, through the end of this fiscal year. If we do not extend these programs, they will sunset on March 6, 2009, just 3 days from today. These programs are too important to let expire.

The Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Program allows religious workers to enter the United States to do important work. The 5,000 religious workers eligible for these visas each year are called to a vocation or are in traditional religious occupations with bona fide nonprofit religious organizations. They are missionaries, counselors, instructors, and pastoral care providers. Considering the current economic crisis we are experiencing and the degree to which Americans are turning to religious organizations for help, these religious workers are needed now more than ever.

The other program is the so-called Conrad ``J Waiver,'' a critically important immigration program that helps medically underserved communities attract highly skilled physicians. This program is crucial to the States as it helps them attract doctors who have received their medical training in the United States to work in areas that desperately need doctors.

Its importance was demonstrated again a year and a half ago when a tornado utterly destroyed the town of Greensburg, Kansas. Without this program, that town would not have had any doctors. They were of tremendous help in keeping casualties to a minimum. We need to keep this program going so that States can attract medical talent and can keep the doors of small town clinics open.

Both of these programs have strong bipartisan support, and this bill would extend the programs through the end of the fiscal year when the issue can be revisited, hopefully, in a much broader context.

I commend committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith for his work in making this a bipartisan measure. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers.

If the gentleman has additional speakers, I would reserve and allow him to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman has additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I would just urge, again, support for this measure. I would also like to include in the Record a letter dated today signed by a number of religious groups, including the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the Mennonites, the National Association of Evangelicals, the U.S. Catholic Conference of Catholic Bishops and others outlaying the need for religious workers in this country and urging support of the bill.

March 4, 2009.

Dear Representative: We write to strongly urge the House of

Representatives to pass H.R. 1127, legislation that would

extend the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker

Visa Program through September 30, 2009. As you know, without

congressional action, this important program is set to expire

on March 6, 2009.

The Special Immigrant Non-Minister portion of the Religious

Worker Visa Program became law in 1990. Originally enacted

with a sunset provision, it has enjoyed broad, bipartisan

support in Congress and has been reauthorized four times

since then.

Under this important program, up to 5,000 visas each year

are available for religious workers employed by a broad range

of religious denominations and organizations. Religious

communities that participate in the program have found these

special visas vital to carrying out their work. The following

are just a few examples of how large and small religious

denominations and organizations use the visas to benefit

their own communities and the larger society:

Catholic dioceses and Catholic institutes of religious men

and women rely heavily upon religious sisters, brothers, and

lay missionaries from abroad, who are sponsored and qualify

for these permanent residency visas. Some fill a growing need

in the Catholic Church for those called to religious

vocations. Others provide critical services to local

communities in areas including religious education, and care

for vulnerable populations such as the elderly, immigrants,

refugees, abused and neglected children, adolescents and

families at risk.

Jewish congregations, particularly in remote areas with

small Jewish communities, rely on rabbis, cantors, kosher

butchers, Hebrew school teachers, and other religious workers

who come from abroad through the religious worker program.

Without them, many Jewish communities would be unable to

sustain the institutions and practices that are essential to

Jewish religious and communal life.

Smaller religious communities rely on the visa, as well.

For example, the lifetime vocation of members of the Church

Communities International, a religious communal order,

includes a commitment to Christian brotherhood and faithful

service through the provision of emergency relief, housing

assistance, food distribution, education, medical care,

counseling and mediation. To affect its ministries, the order

depends upon the ability afforded by the program to relocate

non-clergy religious members from its locations overseas.

Other religious denominations, such as the Methodist and

Baptist churches, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Lutheran

Church, the Hindu faith, the Church of Scientology, and the

Seventh Day Adventist Church, also rely on the visas to bring

in non-minister religious workers, who, in addition to

providing some of the same services mentioned above, also

work in areas as diverse as teaching in church schools,

temple workers, producing religious publications, sustaining

prison ministries, and training health care professionals to

provide religiously appropriate health care.

Because of the increasingly diverse ethnic makeup of our

religious congregations and the nation as a whole, the

special immigrant religious worker visa category is

particularly important in addressing the specific pastoral

and service-related needs of ethnic groups, including the

Hispanic, Asian, and African communities. A special category

for non-minister religious workers is also necessary because

religious organizations face obstacles in using traditional

employment immigration categories, which historically have

not fit their unique situations.

We ask that you support H.R. 1127, which would extend this

important program, prior to its expiration on March 6, 2009.

Your support is vital for the continuation of the Non-

Minister Special Immigrant Religious Worker Visa program and

for the service of its beneficiaries on behalf of religious

organizations and communities across the nation.

Thank you for your continuing support of the Religious

Worker Visa Program and your assistance in achieving a

permanent extension of this program.

Respectfully,

American Jewish Committee; Catholic Legal Immigration

Network, Inc.; Church Communities International;

Conference of Major Superiors of Men; Hebrew Immigrant

Aid Society; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service;

Mennonite Central Committee, United States.

National Association of Evangelicals; National Spiritual

Assembly of the Bahai of the United States; The Church

of Scientology International; The First Church of

Christ, Scientist, Boston, MA; United Methodist Church,

General Board of Church and Society; World Relief; U.S.

Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I would just briefly note that as to the H-2B program, we are struggling mightily to see if we can reach consensus on that. We have efforts underway. I can make no guarantee that we will be successful, but there are active efforts underway to see if consensus can be reached.

As for the other issues raised, I would just like to note that Mr. Smith and I have worked very closely to make sure that this program, the Religious Workers Program, has integrity. And we now have 100 percent site visits for every church that applies, which we are advised informally by DHS, has really brought a much greater level of integrity to this system. And I think it's a product of the work that we did in the last Congress that helped us to be able to say that today.

So I urge support of this measure.

As for the reciprocity issue, I look forward to hearing the ranking member's proposals. I would just note, however, that because Russia is not very happy when we send evangelicals to their country, it doesn't mean that we should deny Russian Orthodox believers in the United States the assistance of Russian Orthodox member laypeople. I think that we'll work through these issues. This is an important step forward. And I urge its support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I submit for publication the attached copy o the Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the U.S. House of Representatives for the 111th Congress. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct adopted these rules pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2(a)(1) on February 10, 2009. I am submitting these rules for publication in compliance with House Rule XI, clause 2(a)(2). The Committee is reviewing its rules and will make revisions to conform with House rules pertaining to the Office of Congressional Ethics. The revised rules will be submitted for publication after they are adopted by the Committee.

Foreword

The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is unique in

the House of Representatives. Consistent with the duty to

carry out its advisory and enforcement responsibilities in an

impartial manner, the Committee is the only standing

committee of the House of Representatives the membership of

which is divided evenly by party. These rules are intended to

provide a fair procedural framework for the conduct of the

Committee's activities and to help ensure that the Committee

serves well the people of the United States, the House of

Representatives, and the Members, officers, and employees of

the House of Representatives.

Part I--General Committee Rules

Rule 1. General Provisions

(a) So far as applicable, these rules and the Rules of the

House of Representatives shall be the rules of the Committee

and any subcommittee. The Committee adopts these rules under

the authority of clause 2(a)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of

the House of Representatives, 111th Congress.

(b) The rules of the Committee may be modified, amended, or

repealed by a vote of a majority of the Committee.

(c) When the interests of justice so require, the

Committee, by a majority vote of its members, may adopt any

special procedures, not inconsistent with these rules, deemed

necessary to resolve a particular matter before it. Copies of

such special procedures shall be furnished to all parties in

the matter.

(d) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member shall have access

to such information that they request as necessary to conduct

Committee business.

Rule 2. Definitions

(a) ``Committee'' means the Committee on Standards of

Official Conduct.

(b) ``Complaint'' means a written allegation of improper

conduct against a Member, officer, or employee of the House

of Representatives filed with the Committee with the intent

to initiate an inquiry.

(c) ``Inquiry'' means an investigation by an investigative

subcommittee into allegations against a Member, officer, or

employee of the House of Representatives.

(d) ``Investigative Subcommittee'' means a subcommittee

designated pursuant to Rule 19(a) to conduct an inquiry to

determine if a Statement of Alleged Violation should be

issued.

(e) ``Statement of Alleged Violation'' means a formal

charging document filed by an investigative subcommittee with

the Committee containing specific allegations against a

Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives

of a violation of the Code of Official Conduct, or of a law,

rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to

the performance of official duties or the discharge of

official responsibilities.

(f) ``Adjudicatory Subcommittee'' means a subcommittee

designated pursuant to Rule 23(a) that holds an adjudicatory

hearing and determines whether the counts in a Statement of

Alleged Violation are proved by clear and convincing

evidence.

(g) ``Sanction Hearing'' means a Committee hearing to

determine what sanction, if any, to adopt or to recommend to

the House of Representatives.

(h) ``Respondent'' means a Member, officer, or employee of

the House of Representatives who is the subject of a

complaint filed with the Committee or who is the subject of

an inquiry or a Statement of Alleged Violation.

(i) ``Office of Advice and Education'' refers to the Office

established by section 803(i) of the Ethics Reform Act of

1989. The Office handles inquiries; prepares written opinions

in response to specific requests; develops general guidance;

and organizes seminars, workshops, and briefings for the

benefit of the House of Representatives.

(j) ``Member'' means a Representative in, or a Delegate to,

or the Resident Commissioner to, the U.S. House of

Representatives.

Rule 3. Advisory Opinions and Waivers

(a) The Office of Advice and Education shall handle

inquiries; prepare written opinions providing specific

advice; develop general guidance; and organize seminars,

workshops, and briefings for the benefit of the House of

Representatives.

(b) Any Member, officer, or employee of the House of

Representatives may request a written opinion with respect to

the propriety of any current or proposed conduct of such

Member, officer, or employee.

(c) The Office of Advice and Education may provide

information and guidance regarding laws, rules, regulations,

and other standards of conduct applicable to Members,

officers, and employees in the performance of their duties or

the discharge of their responsibilities.

(d) In general, the Committee shall provide a written

opinion to an individual only in response to a written

request, and the written opinion shall address the conduct

only of the inquiring individual, or of persons for whom the

inquiring individual is responsible as employing

authority.

(e) A written request for an opinion shall be addressed to

the Chair of the Committee and shall include a complete and

accurate statement of the relevant facts. A request shall be

signed by the requester or the requester's authorized

representative or employing authority. A representative shall

disclose to the Committee the identity of the principal on

whose behalf advice is being sought.

(f) The Office of Advice and Education shall prepare for

the Committee a response to each written request for an

opinion from a Member, officer, or employee. Each response

shall discuss all applicable laws, rules, regulations, or

other standards.

(g) Where a request is unclear or incomplete, the Office of

Advice and Education may seek additional information from the

requester.

(h) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to

take action on behalf of the Committee on any proposed

written opinion that they determine does not require

consideration by the Committee. If the Chair or Ranking

Minority Member requests a written opinion, or seeks a

waiver, extension, or approval pursuant to Rules 3(1), 4(c),

4(e), or 4(h), the next ranking member of the requester's

party is authorized to act in lieu of the requester.

(i) The Committee shall keep confidential any request for

advice from a Member, officer, or employee, as well as any

response thereto.

(j) The Committee may take no adverse action in regard to

any conduct that has been undertaken in reliance on a written

opinion if the conduct conforms to the specific facts

addressed in the opinion.

(k) Information provided to the Committee by a Member,

officer, or employee seeking advice regarding prospective

conduct may not be used as the basis for initiating an

investigation under clause 3(a)(2) or clause 3(b) of Rule XI

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, if such Member,

officer, or employee acts in good faith in accordance with

the written advice of the Committee.

(l) A written request for a waiver of clause 5 of House

Rule XXV (the House gift rule), or for any other waiver or

approval, shall be treated in all respects like any other

request for a written opinion.

(m) A written request for a waiver of clause 5 of House

Rule XXV (the House gift rule) shall specify the nature of

the waiver being sought and the specific circumstances

justifying the waiver.

(n) An employee seeking a waiver of time limits applicable

to travel paid for by a private source shall include with the

request evidence that the employing authority is aware of the

request. In any other instance where proposed employee

conduct may reflect on the performance of official duties,

the Committee may require that the requester submit evidence

that the employing authority knows of the conduct.

Rule 4. Financial Disclosure

(a) In matters relating to Title I of the Ethics in

Government Act of 1978, the Committee shall coordinate with

the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Legislative

Resource Center, to assure that appropriate individuals are

notified of their obligation to file Financial Disclosure

Statements and that such individuals are provided in a timely

fashion with filing instructions and forms developed by the

Committee.

(b) The Committee shall coordinate with the Legislative

Resource Center to assure that information that the Ethics in

Government Act requires to be placed on the public record is

made public.

(c) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to

grant on behalf of the Committee requests for reasonable

extensions of time for the filing of Financial Disclosure

Statements. Any such request must be received by the

Committee no later than the date on which the Statement in

question is due. A request received after such date may be

granted by the Committee only in extraordinary circumstances.

Such extensions for one individual in a calendar year shall

not exceed a total of 90 days. No extension shall be granted

authorizing a nonincumbent candidate to file a statement

later than 30 days prior to a primary or general election in

which the candidate is participating.

(d) An individual who takes legally sufficient action to

withdraw as a candidate before the date on which that

individual's Financial Disclosure Statement is due under the

Ethics in Government Act shall not be required to file a

Statement. An individual shall not be excused from filing a

Financial Disclosure Statement when withdrawal as a candidate

occurs after the date on which such Statement was due.

(e) Any individual who files a report required to be filed

under title I of the Ethics in Government Act more than 30

days after the later of--

(1) the date such report is required to be filed, or

(2) if a filing extension is granted to such individual,

the last day of the filing extension period, is required by

such Act to pay a late filing fee of $200. The Chair and

Ranking Minority Member are authorized to approve requests

that the fee be waived based on extraordinary circumstances.

(f) Any late report that is submitted without a required

filing fee shall be deemed procedurally deficient and not

properly filed.

(g) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to

approve requests for waivers of the aggregation and reporting

of gifts as provided by section 102(a)(2)(C) of the Ethics in

Government Act. If such a request is approved, both the

incoming request and the Committee response shall be

forwarded to the Legislative Resource Center for placement on

the public record.

(h) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to

approve blind trusts as qualifying under section 102(0(3) of

the Ethics in Government Act. The correspondence relating to

formal approval of a blind trust, the trust document, the

list of assets transferred to the trust, and any other

documents required by law to be made public, shall be

forwarded to the Legislative Resource Center for such

purpose.

(i) The Committee shall designate staff counsel who shall

review Financial Disclosure Statements and, based upon

information contained therein, indicate in a form and manner

prescribed by the Committee whether the Statement appears

substantially accurate and complete and the filer appears to

be in compliance with applicable laws and rules.

(j) Each Financial Disclosure Statement shall be reviewed

within 60 days after the date of filing.

(k) If the reviewing counsel believes that additional

information is required because (1) the Statement appears not

substantially accurate or complete, or (2) the filer may not

be in compliance with applicable laws or rules, then the

reporting individual shall be notified in writing of the

additional information believed to be required, or of the law

or rule with which the reporting individual does not appear

to be in compliance. Such notice shall also state the time

within which a response is to be submitted. Any such

notice shall remain confidential.

(1) Within the time specified, including any extension

granted in accordance with clause (c), a reporting individual

who concurs with the Committee's notification that the

Statement is not complete, or that other action is required,

shall submit the necessary information or take appropriate

action. Any amendment may be in the form of a revised

Financial Disclosure Statement or an explanatory letter

addressed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

(m) Any amendment shall be placed on the public record in

the same manner as other Statements. The individual

designated by the Committee to review the original Statement

shall review any amendment thereto.

(n) Within the time specified, including any extension

granted in accordance with clause (c), a reporting individual

who does not agree with the Committee that the Statement is

deficient or that other action is required, shall be provided

an opportunity to respond orally or in writing. If the

explanation is accepted, a copy of the response, if written,

or a note summarizing an oral response, shall be retained in

Committee files with the original report.

(o) The Committee shall be the final arbiter of whether any

Statement requires clarification or amendment.

(p) If the Committee determines, by vote of a majority of

its members, that there is reason to believe that an

individual has willfully failed to file a Statement or has

willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information

required to be reported, then the Committee shall refer the

name of the individual, together with the evidence supporting

its finding, to the Attorney General pursuant to section

104(b) of the Ethics in Government Act. Such referral shall

not preclude the Committee from initiating such other action

as may be authorized by other provisions of law or the Rules

of the House of Representatives.

Rule 5. Meetings

(a) The regular meeting day of the Committee shall be the

second Tuesday of each month, except when the House of

Representatives is not meeting on that day. When the

Committee Chair determines that there is sufficient reason,

meetings may be called on additional days. A regularly

scheduled meeting need not be held when the Chair determines

there is no business to be considered.

(b) The Chair shall establish the agenda for meetings of

the Committee and the Ranking Minority Member may place

additional items on the agenda.

(c) All meetings of the Committee or any subcommittee shall

occur in executive session unless the Committee or

subcommittee, by an affirmative vote of a majority of its

members, opens the meeting or hearing to the public.

(d) Any hearing held by an adjudicatory subcommittee or any

sanction hearing held by the Committee shall be open to the

public unless the Committee or subcommittee, by an

affirmative vote of a majority of its members, closes the

hearing to the public.

(e) A subcommittee shall meet at the discretion of its

Chair.

(f) Insofar as practicable, notice for any Committee or

subcommittee meeting shall be provided at least seven days in

advance of the meeting. The Chair of the Committee or

subcommittee may waive such time period for good cause.

Rule 6. Committee Staff

(a) The staff is to be assembled and retained as a

professional, nonpartisan staff.

(b) Each member of the staff shall be professional and

demonstrably qualified for the position for which the

individual is hired.

(c) The staff as a whole and each individual member of the

staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan

manner.

(d) No member of the staff shall engage in any partisan

political activity directly affecting any congressional or

presidential election.

(e) No member of the staff or outside counsel may accept

public speaking engagements or write for publication on any

subject that is in any way related to the employment or

duties with the Committee of such individual without specific

prior approval from the Chair and Ranking Minority Member.

(f) All staff members shall be appointed by an affirmative

vote of a majority of the

members of the Committee. Such vote shall occur at the first

meeting of the membership of the Committee during each

Congress and as necessary during the Congress.

(g) Subject to the approval of the Committee on House

Administration, the Committee may retain counsel not employed

by the House of Representatives whenever the Committee

determines, by an affirmative vote of a majority of the

members of the Committee, that the retention of outside

counsel is necessary and appropriate.

(h) If the Committee determines that it is necessary to

retain staff members for the purpose of a particular

investigation or other proceeding, then such staff shall be

retained only for the duration of that particular

investigation or proceeding.

(i) Outside counsel may be dismissed prior to the end of a

contract between the Committee and such counsel only by a

majority vote of the members of the Committee.

(j) In addition to any other staff provided for by law,

rule, or other authority, with respect to the Committee, the

Chair and Ranking Minority Member each may appoint one

individual as a shared staff member from the respective

personal staff of the Chair or Ranking Minority Member to

perform service for the Committee. Such shared staff may

assist the Chair or Ranking Minority Member on any

subcommittee on which the Chair or Ranking Minority Member

serves. Only paragraphs (c) and (e) of this Rule and Rule

7(b) shall apply to shared staff.

Rule 7. Confidentiality

(a) Before any Member or employee of the Committee,

including members of an investigative subcommittee selected

under clause 5(a)(4) of Rule X of the House of

Representatives and shared staff designated pursuant to

Committee Rule 6(j), may have access to information that is

confidential under the rules of the Committee, the following

oath (or affirmation) shall be executed in writing:

``I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose,

to any person or entity outside the Committee on Standards of

Official Conduct, any information received in the course of

my service with the Committee, except as authorized by the

Committee or in accordance with its rules.''

Copies of the executed oath shall be provided to the Clerk

of the House as part of the records of the House. Breaches of

confidentiality shall be investigated by the Committee and

appropriate action shall be taken.

(b) No member of the staff or outside counsel may make

public, unless approved by an affirmative vote of a majority

of the members of the Committee, any information, document,

or other material that is confidential, derived from

executive session, or classified and that is obtained

during the course of employment with the Committee.

(c) Committee members and staff shall not disclose any

evidence relating to an investigation to any person or

organization outside the Committee unless authorized by the

Committee.

(d) Members and staff of the Committee shall not disclose

to any person or organization outside the Committee, unless

authorized by the Committee, any information regarding the

Committee's or a subcommittee's investigative, adjudicatory

or other proceedings, including but not limited to: (i) the

fact or nature of any complaints; (ii) executive session

proceedings; (iii) information pertaining to or copies of any

Committee or subcommittee report, study or other document

which purports to express the views, findings, conclusions or

recommendations of the Committee or subcommittee in

connection with any of its activities or proceedings; or (iv)

any other information or allegation respecting the conduct of

a Member, officer or employee of the House.

(e) Except as otherwise specifically authorized by the

Committee, no Committee member or staff member shall disclose

to any person outside the Committee, the name of any witness

subpoenaed to testify or to produce evidence.

(f) The Committee shall not disclose to any person or

organization outside the Committee any information concerning

the conduct of a respondent until it has transmitted a

Statement of Alleged Violation to such respondent and the

respondent has been given full opportunity to respond

pursuant to Rule 22. The Statement of Alleged Violation and

any written response thereto shall be made public at the

first meeting or hearing on the matter that is open to the

public after such opportunity has been provided. Any other

materials in the possession of the Committee regarding such

statement may be made public as authorized by the Committee

to the extent consistent with the Rules of the House of

Representatives. If no public hearing is held on the matter,

the Statement of Alleged Violation and any written response

thereto shall be included in the Committee's final report on

the matter to the House of Representatives.

(g) Unless otherwise determined by a vote of the Committee,

only the Chair or Ranking Minority Member of the Committee,

after consultation with each other, may make public

statements regarding matters before the Committee or any

subcommittee.

(h) The Committee may establish procedures necessary to

prevent the unauthorized disclosure of any testimony or other

information received by the Committee or its staff.

Rule 8. Subcommittees--General Policy and Structure

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of these Rules, the

Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee may

consult with an investigative subcommittee either on their

own initiative or on the initiative of the subcommittee,

shall have access to evidence and information before a

subcommittee with whom they so consult, and shall not thereby

be precluded from serving as full, voting members of any

adjudicatory subcommittee. Except for the Chair and Ranking

Minority Member of the Committee pursuant to this paragraph,

evidence in the possession of an investigative subcommittee

shall not be disclosed to other Committee members except by a

vote of the subcommittee.

(b) The Committee may establish other noninvestigative and

nonadjudicatory subcommittees and may assign to them such

functions as it may deem appropriate. The membership of each

subcommittee shall provide equal representation for the

majority and minority parties.

(c) The Chair may refer any bill, resolution, or other

matter before the Committee to an appropriate subcommittee

for consideration. Any such bill, resolution, or other matter

may be discharged from the subcommittee to which it was

referred by a majority vote of the Committee.

(d) Any member of the Committee may sit with any

noninvestigative or nonadjudicatory subcommittee, but only

regular members of such subcommittee may vote on any matter

before that subcommittee.

Rule 9. Quorums and Member Disqualification

(a) The quorum for an investigative subcommittee to take

testimony and to receive evidence shall be two members,

unless otherwise authorized by the House of Representatives.

(b) The quorum for an adjudicatory subcommittee to take

testimony, receive evidence, or conduct business shall

consist of a majority plus one of the members of the

adjudicatory subcommittee.

(c) Except as stated in clauses (a) and (b) of this rule, a

quorum for the purpose of conducting business consists of a

majority of the members of the Committee or subcommittee.

(d) A member of the Committee shall be ineligible to

participate in any Committee or subcommittee proceeding in

which such Member is the respondent.

(e) A member of the Committee may seek disqualification

from participating in any investigation of the conduct of a

Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives

upon the submission in writing and under oath of an affidavit

of disqualification stating that the member cannot render an

impartial and unbiased decision. If the Committee approves

and accepts such affidavit of disqualification, or if a

member is disqualified pursuant to Rule 17(e) or Rule 23(a),

the Chair shall so notify the Speaker and ask the Speaker to

designate a Member of the House of Representatives from the

same political party as the disqualified member of the

Committee to act as a member of the Committee in any

Committee proceeding relating to such investigation.

Rule 10. Vote Requirements

(a) The following actions shall be taken only upon an

affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the

Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate:

(1) Issuing a subpoena.

(2) Adopting a full Committee motion to create an

investigative subcommittee.

(3) Adopting or amending of a Statement of Alleged

Violation.

(4) Finding that a count in a Statement of Alleged

Violation has been proved by clear and convincing evidence.

(5) Sending a letter of reproval.

(6) Adopting a recommendation to the House of

Representatives that a sanction be imposed.

(7) Adopting a report relating to the conduct of a Member,

officer, or employee.

(8) Issuing an advisory opinion of general applicability

establishing new policy.

(b) Except as stated in clause (a), action may be taken by

the Committee or any subcommittee thereof by a simple

majority, a quorum being present.

(c) No motion made to take any of the actions enumerated in

clause (a) of this Rule may be entertained by the Chair

unless a quorum of the Committee is present when such motion

is made.

Rule 11. Committee Records

(a) All communications and all pleadings pursuant to these

rules shall be filed with the Committee at the Committee's

office or such other place as designated by the Committee.

(b) All records of the Committee which have been delivered

to the Archivist of the United States shall be made available

to the public in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives.

Rule 12. Broadcasts of Committee and Subcommittee Proceedings

(a) Television or radio coverage of a Committee or

subcommittee hearing or meeting shall be without commercial

sponsorship.

(b) No witness shall be required against the witness' will

to be photographed or otherwise to have a graphic

reproduction of the witness' image made at any hearing or to

give evidence or testimony while the broadcasting of that

hearing, by radio or television, is being conducted. At the

request of any witness, all media microphones shall be turned

off, all television and camera lenses shall be covered, and

the making of a graphic

reproduction at the hearing shall not be permitted. This

paragraph supplements clause 2(k)(5) of Rule XI of the Rules

of the House of Representatives relating to the protection of

the rights of witnesses.

(c) Not more than four television cameras, operating from

fixed positions, shall be permitted in a hearing or meeting

room. The Committee may allocate the positions of permitted

television cameras among the television media in consultation

with the Executive Committee of the Radio and Television

Correspondents' Galleries.

(d) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to

obstruct in any way the space between any witness giving

evidence or testimony and any member of the Committee, or the

visibility of that witness and that member to each other.

(e) Television cameras shall not be placed in positions

that unnecessarily obstruct the coverage of the hearing or

meeting by the other media.

Part II--Investigative Authority

Rule 13. House Resolution

Whenever the House of Representatives, by resolution,

authorizes or directs the Committee to undertake an inquiry

or investigation, the provisions of the resolution, in

conjunction with these Rules, shall govern. To the extent the

provisions of the resolution differ from these Rules, the

resolution shall control.

Rule 14. Committee Authority to Investigate--General Policy

(a) Pursuant to clause 3(b) of Rule XI of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the Committee may exercise its

investigative authority when:

(1) information offered as a complaint by a Member of the

House of Representatives is transmitted directly to the

Committee;

(2) information offered as a complaint by an individual not

a Member of the House is transmitted to the Committee,

provided that a Member of the House certifies in writing that

such Member believes the information is submitted in good

faith and warrants the review and consideration of the

Committee;

(3) the Committee, on its own initiative, establishes an

investigative subcommittee;

(4) a Member, officer, or employee is convicted in a

Federal, State, or local court of a felony;

(5) the House of Representatives, by resolution, authorizes

or directs the Committee to undertake an inquiry or

investigation; or

(b) The Committee also has investigatory authority over:

(1) certain unauthorized disclosures of intelligence-

related information, pursuant to House Rule X, clauses

11(g)(4) and (g)(5); or

(2) reports received from the Office of the Inspector

General pursuant to House Rule II, clause 6(c)(5).

Rule 15. Complaints

(a) A complaint submitted to the Committee shall be in

writing, dated, and properly verified (a document will be

considered properly verified where a notary executes it with

the language, ``Signed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me

on (date) by (the name of the person)'' setting forth in

simple, concise, and direct statements--

(1) the name and legal address of the party filing the

complaint (hereinafter referred to as the ``complainant'');

(2) the name and position or title of the respondent;

(3) the nature of the alleged violation of the Code of

Official Conduct or of other law, rule, regulation, or other

standard of conduct applicable to the performance of duties

or discharge of responsibilities; and

(4) the facts alleged to give rise to the violation. The

complaint shall not contain innuendo, speculative assertions,

or conclusory statements.

(b) Any documents in the possession of the complainant that

relate to the allegations may be submitted with the

complaint.

(c) Information offered as a complaint by a Member of the

House of Representatives may be transmitted directly to the

Committee.

(d) Information offered as a complaint by an individual not

a Member of the House may be transmitted to the Committee,

provided that a Member of the House certifies in writing that

such Member believes the information is submitted in good

faith and warrants the review and consideration of the

Committee.

(e) A complaint must be accompanied by a certification,

which may be unSworn, that the complainant has provided an

exact copy of the filed complaint and all attachments to the

respondent.

(f) The Committee may defer action on a complaint against a

Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives

when the complaint alleges conduct that the Committee has

reason to believe is being reviewed by appropriate law

enforcement or regulatory authorities, or when the Committee

determines that it is appropriate for the conduct alleged in

the complaint to be reviewed initially by law enforcement or

regulatory authorities.

(g) A complaint may not be amended without leave of the

Committee. Otherwise, any new allegations of improper conduct

must be submitted in a new complaint that independently meets

the procedural requirements of the Rules of the House of

Representatives and the Committee's Rules.

(h) The Committee shall not accept, and shall return to the

complainant, any complaint submitted within the 60 days prior

to an election in which the subject of the complaint is a

candidate.

(i) The Committee shall not consider a complaint, nor shall

any investigation be undertaken by the Committee, of any

alleged violation which occurred before the third previous

Congress unless the Committee determines that the alleged

violation is directly related to an alleged violation

which occurred in a more recent Congress.

Rule 16. Duties of Committee Chair and Ranking Minority Member

(a) Whenever information offered as a complaint is

submitted to the Committee, the Chair and Ranking Minority

Member shall have 14 calendar days or 5 legislative days,

whichever occurs first, to determine whether the information

meets the requirements of the Committee's rules for what

constitutes a complaint.

(b) Whenever the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly

determine that information submitted to the Committee meets

the requirements of the Committee's rules for what

constitutes a complaint, they shall have 45 calendar days or

5 legislative days, whichever is later, after the date that

the Chair and Ranking Minority Member determine that

information filed meets the requirements of the Committee's

rules for what constitutes a complaint, unless the Committee

by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members votes

otherwise, to--

(1) recommend to the Committee that it dispose of the

complaint, or any portion thereof, in any manner that does

not require action by the House, which may include dismissal

of the complaint or resolution of the complaint by a letter

to the Member, officer, or employee of the House against whom

the complaint is made;

(2) establish an investigative subcommittee; or

(3) request that the Committee extend the applicable 45-

calendar day period when they determine more time is

necessary in order to make a recommendation under paragraph

(1) or (2) of Rule 16(b).

(c) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member may jointly

gather additional information concerning alleged conduct

which is the basis of a complaint or of information offered

as a complaint until they have established an investigative

subcommittee or the Chair or Ranking Minority Member has

placed on the agenda the issue of whether to establish an

investigative subcommittee.

(d) If the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly

determine that information submitted to the Committee meets

the requirements of the Committee rules for what constitutes

a complaint, and the complaint is not disposed of within 45

calendar days or 5 legislative days, whichever is later, and

no additional 45-day extension is made, then they shall

establish an investigative subcommittee and forward the

complaint, or any portion thereof, to that subcommittee for

its consideration. If at any time during the time period

either the Chair or Ranking Minority Member places on the

agenda the issue of whether to establish an investigative

subcommittee, then an investigative subcommittee may be

established only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the

members of the Committee.

(e) Whenever the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly

determine that information submitted to the Committee does

not meet the requirements for what constitutes a complaint

set forth in the Committee rules, they may (1) return the

information to the complainant with a statement that it fails

to meet the requirements for what constitutes a complaint set

forth in the Committee's rules; or (2) recommend to the

Committee that it authorize the establishment of an

investigative subcommittee.

Rule 17. Processing of Complaints

(a) If a complaint is in compliance with House and

Committee Rules, a copy of the complaint and the Committee

Rules shall be forwarded to the respondent within 5 days with

notice that the complaint conforms to the applicable rules.

(b) The respondent may, within 30 days of the Committee's

notification, provide to the Committee any information

relevant to a complaint filed with the Committee. The

respondent may submit a written statement in response to the

complaint. Such a statement shall be signed by the

respondent. If the statement is prepared by counsel for the

respondent, the respondent shall sign a representation that

the respondent has reviewed the response and agrees with the

factual assertions contained therein.

(c) The Committee staff may request information from the

respondent or obtain additional information pertinent to the

case from other sources prior to the establishment of an

investigative subcommittee only when so directed by the Chair

and Ranking Minority Member.

(d) The respondent shall be notified in writing regarding

the Committee's decision either to dismiss the complaint or

to create an investigative subcommittee.

(e) The respondent shall be notified of the membership of

the investigative subcommittee and shall have 10 days after

such notice is transmitted to object to the participation of

any subcommittee member. Such objection shall be in writing

and must be on the grounds that the subcommittee member

cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision. The

subcommittee member against whom the objection is made shall

be the sole judge of any disqualification.

Rule 18. Committee-Initiated Inquiry

(a) Notwithstanding the absence of a filed complaint, the

Committee may consider any

information in its possession indicating that a Member,

officer, or employee may have committed a violation of the

Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or

other standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such

Member, officer, or employee in the performance of the duties

or the discharge of the responsibilities of such individual.

The Chair and Ranking Minority Member may jointly gather

additional information concerning such an alleged violation

by a Member, officer, or employee unless and until an

investigative subcommittee has been established.

(b) If the Committee votes to establish an investigative

subcommittee, the Committee shall proceed in accordance with

Rule 19.

(c) Any written request by a Member, officer, or employee

of the House of Representatives that the Committee conduct an

inquiry into such person's own conduct shall be considered in

accordance with subsection (a) of this Rule.

(d) An inquiry shall not be undertaken regarding any

alleged violation that occurred before the third previous

Congress unless a majority of the Committee determines that

the alleged violation is directly related to an alleged

violation that occurred in a more recent Congress.

(e) An inquiry shall be undertaken by an investigative

subcommittee with regard to any felony conviction of a

Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives

in a Federal, State, or local court who has been sentenced.

Notwithstanding this provision, the Committee has the

discretion to initiate an inquiry upon an affirmative vote of

a majority of the members of the Committee at any time prior

to conviction or sentencing.

Rule 19. Investigative Subcommittee

(a) Upon the establishment of an investigative

subcommittee, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the

Committee shall designate four members (with equal

representation from the majority and minority parties) to

serve as an investigative subcommittee to undertake an

inquiry. Members of the Committee and Members of the House

selected pursuant to clause 5(a)(4)(A) of Rule X of the House

of Representatives are eligible for appointment to an

investigative subcommittee, as determined by the Chair and

Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. At the time of

appointment, the Chair shall designate one member of the

subcommittee to serve as the Chair and the Ranking

Minority Member shall designate one member of the

subcommittee to serve as the ranking minority member of

the investigative subcommittee. The Chair and Ranking

Minority Member of the Committee may serve as members of

an investigative subcommittee, but may not serve as non-

voting, ex-officio members.

(b) In an inquiry undertaken by an investigative

subcommittee--

(1) All proceedings, including the taking of testimony,

shall be conducted in executive session and all testimony

taken by deposition or things produced pursuant to subpoena

or otherwise shall be deemed to have been taken or produced

in executive session.

(2) The Chair of the investigative subcommittee shall ask

the respondent and all witnesses whether they intend to be

represented by counsel. If so, the respondent or witnesses or

their legal representatives shall provide written designation

of counsel. A respondent or witness who is represented by

counsel shall not be questioned in the absence of counsel

unless an explicit waiver is obtained.

(3) The subcommittee shall provide the respondent an

opportunity to present, orally or in writing, a statement,

which must be under oath or affirmation, regarding the

allegations and any other relevant questions arising out of

the inquiry.

(4) The staff may interview witnesses, examine documents

and other evidence, and request that submitted statements be

under oath or affirmation and that documents be certified as

to their authenticity and accuracy.

(5) The subcommittee, by a majority vote of its members,

may require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and

testimony of witnesses and the production of such books,

records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and

other items as it deems necessary to the conduct of the

inquiry. Unless the Committee otherwise provides, the

subpoena power shall rest in the Chair and Ranking Minority

Member of the Committee and a subpoena shall be issued upon

the request of the investigative subcommittee.

(6) The subcommittee shall require that testimony be given

under oath or affirmation. The form of the oath or

affirmation shall be: ``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm)

that the testimony you will give before this subcommittee in

the matter now under consideration will be the truth, the

whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so help you God)?''

The oath or affirmation shall be administered by the Chair or

subcommittee member designated by the Chair to administer

oaths.

(c) During the inquiry, the procedure respecting the

admissibility of evidence and rulings shall be as follows:

(1) Any relevant evidence shall be admissible unless the

evidence is privileged under the precedents of the House of

Representatives.

(2) The Chair of the subcommittee or other presiding member

at any investigative subcommittee proceeding shall rule upon

any question of admissibility or pertinency of evidence,

motion, procedure or any other matter, and may direct any

witness to answer any question under penalty of contempt. A

witness, witness counsel, or a member of the subcommittee may

appeal any rulings to the members present at that proceeding.

A majority vote of the members present at such proceeding on

such appeal shall govern the question of admissibility, and

no appeal shall lie to the Committee.

(3) Whenever a person is determined by a majority vote to

be in contempt of the subcommittee, the matter may be

referred to the Committee to determine whether to refer the

matter to the House of Representatives for consideration.

(4) Committee counsel may, subject to subcommittee

approval, enter into stipulations with the respondent and/or

the respondent's counsel as to facts that are not in dispute.

(d) Upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the

subcommittee members, and an affirmative vote of a majority

of the full Committee, an investigative subcommittee may

expand the scope of its investigation.

(e) Upon completion of the investigation, the staff shall

draft for the investigative subcommittee a report that shall

contain a comprehensive summary of the information received

regarding the alleged violations.

(f) Upon completion of the inquiry, an investigative

subcommittee, by a majority vote of its members, may adopt a

Statement of Alleged Violation if it determines that there is

substantial reason to believe that a violation of the Code of

Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, regulation, or other

standard of conduct applicable to the performance of official

duties or the discharge of official responsibilities by a

Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives

has occurred. If more than one violation is alleged, such

Statement shall be divided into separate counts. Each count

shall relate to a separate violation, shall contain a plain

and concise statement of the alleged facts of such violation,

and shall include a reference to the provision of the Code of

Official Conduct or law, rule, regulation or other applicable

standard of conduct governing the performance of duties or

discharge of responsibilities alleged to have been violated.

A copy of such Statement shall be transmitted to the

respondent and the respondent's counsel.

(g) If the investigative subcommittee does not adopt a

Statement of Alleged Violation, it shall transmit to the

Committee a report containing a summary of the information

received in the inquiry, its conclusions and reasons

therefore, and any appropriate recommendation.

Rule 20. Amendments to Statements of Alleged Violation

(a) An investigative subcommittee may, upon an affirmative

vote of a majority of its members, amend its Statement of

Alleged Violation anytime before the Statement of Alleged

Violation is transmitted to the Committee; and

(b) If an investigative subcommittee amends its Statement

of Alleged Violation, the respondent shall be notified in

writing and shall have 30 calendar days from the date of that

notification to file an answer to the amended Statement of

Alleged Violation.

Rule 21. Committee Reporting Requirements

(a) Whenever an investigative subcommittee does not adopt a

Statement of Alleged Violation and transmits a report to that

effect to the Committee, the Committee may by an affirmative

vote of a majority of its members transmit such report to the

House of Representatives;

(b) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a

Statement of Alleged Violation but recommends that no further

action be taken, it shall transmit a report to the Committee

regarding the Statement of Alleged Violation; and

(c) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a

Statement of Alleged Violation, the respondent admits to the

violations set forth in such Statement, the respondent waives

the right to an adjudicatory hearing, and the respondent's

waiver is approved by the Committee--

(1) the subcommittee shall prepare a report for transmittal

to the Committee, a final draft of which shall be provided to

the respondent not less than 15 calendar days before the

subcommittee votes on whether to adopt the report;

(2) the respondent may submit views in writing regarding

the final draft to the subcommittee within 7 calendar days of

receipt of that draft;

(3) the subcommittee shall transmit a report to the

Committee regarding the Statement of Alleged Violation

together with any views submitted by the respondent pursuant

to subparagraph (2), and the Committee shall make the report,

together with the respondent's views, available to the public

before the commencement of any sanction hearing; and

(4) the Committee shall by an affirmative vote of a

majority of its members issue a report and transmit such

report to the House of Representatives, together with the

respondent's views previously submitted pursuant to

subparagraph (2) and any additional views respondent may

submit for attachment to the final report; and

(d) Members of the Committee shall have not less than 72

hours to review any report transmitted to the Committee by an

investigative subcommittee before both the commencement of a

sanction hearing and the Committee vote on whether to adopt

the report.

Rule 22. Respondent's Answer

(a)(1) Within 30 days from the date of transmittal of a

Statement of Alleged Violation, the respondent shall file

with the investigative subcommittee an answer, in writing and

under oath, signed by respondent and respondent's counsel.

Failure to file an answer within the time prescribed shall be

considered by the Committee as a denial of each count.

(2) The answer shall contain an admission to or denial of

each count set forth in the Statement of Alleged Violation

and may include negative, affirmative, or alternative

defenses and any supporting evidence or other relevant

information.

(b) The respondent may file a Motion for a Bill of

Particulars within 10 days of the date of transmittal of the

Statement of Alleged Violation. If a Motion for a Bill of

Particulars is filed, the respondent shall not be required to

file an answer until 20 days after the subcommittee has

replied to such motion.

(c)(1) The respondent may file a Motion to Dismiss within

10 days of the date of transmittal of the Statement of

Alleged Violation or, if a Motion for a Bill of Particulars

has been filed, within 10 days of the date of the

subcommittee's reply to the Motion for a Bill of Particulars.

If a Motion to Dismiss is filed, the respondent shall not be

required to file an answer until 20 days after the

subcommittee has replied to the Motion to Dismiss, unless the

respondent previously filed a Motion for a Bill of

Particulars, in which case the respondent shall not be

required to file an answer until 10 days after the

subcommittee has replied to the Motion to Dismiss. The

investigative subcommittee shall rule upon any motion to

dismiss filed during the period between the establishment of

the subcommittee and the subcommittee's transmittal of a

report or Statement of Alleged Violation to the Committee or

to the Chair and Ranking Minority Member at the conclusion of

an inquiry, and no appeal of the subcommittee's ruling shall

lie to the Committee.

(2) A Motion to Dismiss may be made on the grounds that the

Statement of Alleged Violation fails to state facts that

constitute a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or

other applicable law, rule, regulation, or standard of

conduct, or on the grounds that the Committee lacks

jurisdiction to consider the allegations contained in the

Statement.

(d) Any motion filed with the subcommittee pursuant to this

rule shall be accompanied by a Memorandum of Points and

Authorities.

(e)(1) The Chair of the investigative subcommittee, for

good cause shown, may permit the respondent to file an answer

or motion after the day prescribed above.

(2) If the ability of the respondent to present an adequate

defense is not adversely affected and special circumstances

so require, the Chair of the investigative subcommittee may

direct the respondent to file an answer or motion prior to

the day prescribed above.

(f) If the day on which any answer, motion, reply, or other

pleading must be filed falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or

holiday, such filing shall be made on the first business day

thereafter.

(g) As soon as practicable after an answer has been filed

or the time for such filing has expired, the Statement of

Alleged Violation and any answer, motion, reply, or other

pleading connected therewith shall be transmitted by the

Chair of the investigative subcommittee to the Chair and

Ranking Minority Member of the Committee.

Rule 23. Adjudicatory Hearings

(a) If a Statement of Alleged Violation is transmitted to

the Chair and Ranking Minority Member pursuant to Rule 22,

and no waiver pursuant to Rule 26(b) has occurred, the Chair

shall designate the members of the Committee who did not

serve on the investigative subcommittee to serve on an

adjudicatory subcommittee. The Chair and Ranking Minority

Member of the Committee shall be the Chair and Ranking

Minority Member of the adjudicatory subcommittee unless they

served on the investigative subcommittee. The respondent

shall be notified of the designation of the adjudicatory

subcommittee and shall have 10 days after such notice is

transmitted to object to the participation of any

subcommittee member. Such objection shall be in writing and

shall be on the grounds that the member cannot render an

impartial and unbiased decision. The member against whom the

objection is made shall be the sole judge of any

disqualification.

(b) A majority of the adjudicatory subcommittee membership

plus one must be present at all times for the conduct of any

business pursuant to this rule.

(c) The adjudicatory subcommittee shall hold a hearing to

determine whether any counts in the Statement of Alleged

Violation have been proved by clear and convincing evidence

and shall make findings of fact, except where such violations

have been admitted by respondent.

(d) At an adjudicatory hearing, the subcommittee may

require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and

testimony of such witnesses and production of such books,

records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and

other items as it deems necessary. Depositions,

interrogatories, and sworn statements taken under any

investigative subcommittee direction may be accepted into the

hearing record.

(e) The procedures set forth in clause 2(g) and (k) of Rule

XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply

to adjudicatory hearings. All such hearings shall be open to

the public unless the adjudicatory subcommittee, pursuant to

such clause, determines that the hearings or any part thereof

should be closed.

(f)(1) The adjudicatory subcommittee shall, in writing,

notify the respondent that the respondent and respondent's

counsel have the right to inspect, review, copy, or

photograph books, papers, documents, photographs, or other

tangible objects that the adjudicatory subcommittee counsel

intends to use as evidence against the respondent in an

adjudicatory hearing. The respondent shall be given access

to such evidence, and shall be provided the names of

witnesses the subcommittee counsel intends to call, and a

summary of their expected testimony, no less than 15

calendar days prior to any such hearing. Except in

extraordinary circumstances, no evidence may be introduced

or witness called in an adjudicatory hearing unless the

respondent has been afforded a prior opportunity to review

such evidence or has been provided the name of the

witness.

(2) After a witness has testified on direct examination at

an adjudicatory hearing, the Committee, at the request of the

respondent, shall make available to the respondent any

statement of the witness in the possession of the Committee

which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness

has testified.

(3) Any other testimony, statement, or documentary evidence

in the possession of the Committee which is material to the

respondent's defense shall, upon request, be made available

to the respondent.

(g) No less than 5 days prior to the hearing, the

respondent or counsel shall provide the adjudicatory

subcommittee with the names of witnesses expected to be

called, summaries of their expected testimony, and copies of

any documents or other evidence proposed to be introduced.

(h) The respondent or counsel may apply to the subcommittee

for the issuance of subpoenas for the appearance of witnesses

or the production of evidence. The application shall be

granted upon a showing by the respondent that the proposed

testimony or evidence is relevant and not otherwise available

to respondent. The application may be denied if not made at a

reasonable time or if the testimony or evidence would be

merely cumulative.

(i) During the hearing, the procedures regarding the

admissibility of evidence and rulings shall be as follows:

(1) Any relevant evidence shall be admissible unless the

evidence is privileged under the precedents of the House of

Representatives.

(2) The Chair of the subcommittee or other presiding member

at an adjudicatory subcommittee hearing shall rule upon any

question of admissibility or pertinency of evidence, motion,

procedure, or any other matter, and may direct any witness to

answer any question under penalty of contempt. A witness,

witness counsel, or a member of the subcommittee may appeal

any ruling to the members present at that proceeding. A

majority vote of the members present at such proceeding on

such an appeal shall govern the question of admissibility and

no appeal shall lie to the Committee.

(3) Whenever a witness is deemed by a Chair or other

presiding member to be in contempt of the subcommittee, the

matter may be referred to the Committee to determine whether

to refer the matter to the House of Representatives for

consideration.

(4) Committee counsel may, subject to subcommittee

approval, enter into stipulations with the respondent and/or

the respondent's counsel as to facts that are not in dispute.

(j) Unless otherwise provided, the order of an adjudicatory

hearing shall be as follows:

(1) The Chair of the subcommittee shall open the hearing by

stating the adjudicatory subcommittee's authority to conduct

the hearing and the purpose of the hearing.

(2) The Chair shall then recognize Committee counsel and

the respondent's counsel, in turn, for the purpose of giving

opening statements.

(3) Testimony from witnesses and other pertinent evidence

shall be received in the following order whenever possible:

(i) witnesses (deposition transcripts and affidavits

obtained during the inquiry may be used in lieu of live

witnesses if the witness is unavailable) and other evidence

offered by the Committee counsel,

(ii) witnesses and other evidence offered by the

respondent,

(iii) rebuttal witnesses, as permitted by the Chair.

(4) Witnesses at a hearing shall be examined first by

counsel calling such witness. The opposing counsel may then

cross-examine the witness. Redirect examination and recross

examination by counsel may be permitted at the Chair's

discretion. Subcommittee members may then question witnesses.

Unless otherwise directed by the Chair, questions by

Subcommittee members shall be conducted under the five-minute

rule.

(5) The Chair shall then recognize Committee counsel and

respondent's counsel, in turn, for the purpose of giving

closing arguments. Committee counsel may reserve time for

rebuttal argument, as permitted by the Chair.

(k) A subpoena to a witness to appear at a hearing shall be

served sufficiently in advance of that witness' scheduled

appearance to allow the witness a reasonable period of time,

as determined by the Chair of the adjudicatory subcommittee,

to prepare for the hearing and to employ counsel.

(l) Each witness appearing before the subcommittee shall be

furnished a printed copy of the Committee rules, the

pertinent provisions of the Rules of the House of

Representatives applicable to the rights of witnesses, and a

copy of the Statement of Alleged Violation.

(m) Testimony of all witnesses shall be taken under oath or

affirmation. The form of the oath or affirmation shall be:

``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony you

will give before this subcommittee in the matter now under

consideration will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing

but the truth (so help you God)?'' The oath or affirmation

shall be administered by the Chair or Committee member

designated by the Chair to administer oaths.

(n) At an adjudicatory hearing, the burden of proof rests

on Committee counsel to establish the facts alleged in the

Statement of Alleged Violation by clear and convincing

evidence. However, Committee counsel need not present any

evidence regarding any count that is admitted by the

respondent or any fact stipulated.

(o) As soon as practicable after all testimony and evidence

have been presented, the subcommittee shall consider each

count contained in the Statement of Alleged Violation and

shall determine by a majority vote of its members whether

each count has been proved. If a majority of the subcommittee

does not vote that a count has been proved, a motion to

reconsider that vote may be made only by a member who voted

that the count was not proved. A count that is not proved

shall be considered as dismissed by the subcommittee.

(p) The findings of the adjudicatory subcommittee shall be

reported to the Committee.

Rule 24. Sanction Hearing and Consideration of Sanctions or Other

Recommendations

(a) If no count in a Statement of Alleged Violation is

proved, the Committee shall prepare a report to the House of

Representatives, based upon the report of the adjudicatory

subcommittee.

(b) If an adjudicatory subcommittee completes an

adjudicatory hearing pursuant to Rule 23 and reports that any

count of the Statement of Alleged Violation has been proved,

a hearing before the Committee shall be held to receive oral

and/or written submissions by counsel for the Committee and

counsel for the respondent as to the sanction the Committee

should recommend to the House of Representatives with respect

to such violations. Testimony by witnesses shall not be heard

except by written request and vote of a majority of the

Committee.

(c) Upon completion of any proceeding held pursuant to

clause (b), the Committee shall consider and vote on a motion

to recommend to the House of Representatives that the House

take disciplinary action. If a majority of the Committee does

not vote in favor of the recommendation that the House of

Representatives take action, a motion to reconsider that vote

may be made only by a member who voted against the

recommendation. The Committee may also, by majority vote,

adopt a motion to issue a Letter of Reproval or take other

appropriate Committee action.

(d) If the Committee determines a Letter of Reproval

constitutes sufficient action, the Committee shall include

any such letter as a part of its report to the House of

Representatives.

(e) With respect to any proved counts against a Member of

the House of Representatives, the Committee may recommend to

the House one or more of the following sanctions:

(1) Expulsion from the House of Representatives.

(2) Censure.

(3) Reprimand.

(4) Fine.

(5) Denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or

immunity of the Member if under the Constitution the House of

Representatives may impose such denial or limitation.

(6) Any other sanction determined by the Committee to be

appropriate.

(f) With respect to any proved counts against an officer or

employee of the House of Representatives, the Committee may

recommend to the House one or more of the following

sanctions:

(1) Dismissal from employment.

(2) Reprimand.

(3) Fine.

(4) Any other sanction determined by the Committee to be

appropriate.

(g) With respect to the sanctions that the Committee may

recommend, reprimand is appropriate for serious violations,

censure is appropriate for more serious violations, and

expulsion of a Member or dismissal of an officer or employee

is appropriate for the most serious violations. A

recommendation of a fine is appropriate in a case in which it

is likely that the violation was committed to secure a

personal financial benefit; and a recommendation of a denial

or limitation of a right, power, privilege, or immunity of a

Member is appropriate when the violation bears upon the

exercise or holding of such right, power, privilege, or

immunity. This clause sets forth general guidelines and does

not limit the authority of the Committee to recommend other

sanctions.

(h) The Committee report shall contain an appropriate

statement of the evidence supporting the Committee's findings

and a statement of the Committee's reasons for the

recommended sanction.

Rule 25. Disclosure of Exculpatory Information to Respondent

If the Committee, or any investigative or adjudicatory

subcommittee at any time receives any exculpatory information

respecting a Complaint or Statement of Alleged Violation

concerning a Member, officer, or employee of the House of

Representatives, it shall make such information known and

available to the Member, officer, or employee as soon as

practicable, but in no event later than the transmittal of

evidence supporting a proposed Statement of Alleged Violation

pursuant to Rule 26(c). If an investigative subcommittee does

not adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation, it shall identify

any exculpatory information in its possession at the

conclusion of its inquiry and shall include such information,

if any, in the subcommittee's final report to the Committee

regarding its inquiry. For purposes of this rule, exculpatory

evidence shall be any evidence or information that is

substantially favorable to the respondent with respect to the

allegations or charges before an investigative or

adjudicatory subcommittee.

Rule 26. Rights of Respondents and Witnesses

(a) A respondent shall be informed of the right to be

represented by counsel, to be provided at the respondent's

own expense.

(b) A respondent may seek to waive any procedural rights or

steps in the disciplinary process. A request for waiver must

be in writing, signed by the respondent, and must detail what

procedural steps the respondent seeks to waive. Any such

request shall be subject to the acceptance of the Committee

or subcommittee, as appropriate.

(c) Not less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled vote

by an investigative subcommittee on a Statement of Alleged

Violation, the subcommittee shall provide the respondent with

a copy of the Statement of Alleged Violation it intends to

adopt together with all evidence it intends to use to prove

those charges which it intends to adopt, including

documentary evidence, witness testimony, memoranda of witness

interviews, and physical evidence, unless the subcommittee by

an affirmative vote of a majority of its members decides to

withhold certain evidence in order to protect a witness, but

if such evidence is withheld, the subcommittee shall inform

the respondent that evidence is being withheld and of the

count to which such evidence relates.

(d) Neither the respondent nor respondent's counsel shall,

directly or indirectly, contact the subcommittee or any

member thereof during the period of time set forth in

paragraph (c) except for the sole purpose of settlement

discussions where counsels for the respondent and the

subcommittee are present.

(e) If, at any time after the issuance of a Statement of

Alleged Violation, the Committee or any subcommittee thereof

determines that it intends to use evidence not provided to a

respondent under paragraph (c) to prove the charges contained

in the Statement of Alleged Violation (or any amendment

thereof), such evidence shall be made immediately available

to the respondent, and it may be used in any further

proceeding under the Committee's rules.

(f) Evidence provided pursuant to paragraph (c) or (e)

shall be made available to the respondent and respondent's

counsel only after each agrees, in writing, that no document,

information, or other materials obtained pursuant to that

paragraph shall be made public until--

(1) such time as a Statement of Alleged Violation is made

public by the Committee if the respondent has waived the

adjudicatory hearing; or

(2) the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing if the

respondent has not waived an adjudicatory hearing; but the

failure of respondent and respondent's counsel to so agree in

writing, and therefore not receive the evidence, shall not

preclude the issuance of a Statement of Alleged Violation at

the end of the period referenced to in (c).

(g) A respondent shall receive written notice whenever--

(1) the Chair and Ranking Minority Member determine that

information the Committee has received constitutes a

complaint;

(2) a complaint or allegation is transmitted to an

investigative subcommittee;

(3) that subcommittee votes to authorize its first subpoena

or to take testimony under oath, whichever occurs first; and

(4) the Committee votes to expand the scope of the inquiry

of an investigative subcommittee.

(h) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a

Statement of Alleged Violation and a respondent enters into

an agreement with that subcommittee to settle a complaint on

which the Statement is based, that agreement, unless the

respondent requests otherwise, shall be in writing and signed

by the respondent and the respondent's counsel, the Chair and

Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee, and outside

counsel, if any.

(i) Statements or information derived solely from a

respondent or respondent's counsel during any settlement

discussions between the Committee or a subcommittee thereof

and the respondent shall not be included in any report of the

subcommittee or the Committee or otherwise publicly disclosed

without the consent of the respondent.

(j) Whenever a motion to establish an investigative

subcommittee does not prevail, the Committee shall promptly

send a letter to the respondent informing the respondent of

such vote.

(k) Witnesses shall be afforded a reasonable period of

time, as determined by the Committee or subcommittee, to

prepare for an appearance before an investigative

subcommittee or for an adjudicatory hearing and to obtain

counsel.

(l) Prior to their testimony, witnesses shall be furnished

a printed copy of the Committee's Rules of Procedure and the

provisions of the Rules of the House of Representatives

applicable to the rights of witnesses.

(m) Witnesses may be accompanied by their own counsel for

the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional

rights. The Chair may punish breaches of order and decorum,

and of professional responsibility on the part of counsel, by

censure and exclusion from the hearings; and the Committee

may cite the offender to the House of Representatives for

contempt.

(n) Each witness subpoenaed to provide testimony or other

evidence shall be provided the same per diem rate as

established, authorized, and regulated by the Committee on

House Administration for Members, officers and employees of

the House, and, as the Chair considers appropriate, actual

expenses of travel to or from the place of examination. No

compensation shall be authorized for attorney's fees or for a

witness' lost earnings. Such per diem may not be paid if a

witness had been summoned at the place of examination.

(o) With the approval of the Committee, a witness, upon

request, may be provided with a transcript of the witness'

own deposition or other testimony taken in executive session,

or, with the approval of the Chair and Ranking Minority

Member, may be permitted to examine such transcript in the

office of the Committee. Any such request shall be in writing

and shall include a statement that the witness, and counsel,

agree to maintain the confidentiality of all executive

session proceedings covered by such transcript.

Rule 27. Frivolous Filings

If a complaint or information offered as a complaint is

deemed frivolous by an affirmative vote of a majority of the

members of the Committee, the Committee may take such action

as it, by an affirmative vote of a majority deems appropriate

in the circumstances.

Rule 28. Referrals to Federal or State Authorities

Referrals made under clause 3(a)(3) of Rule XI of the Rules

of the House of Representatives may be made by an affirmative

vote of two-thirds of the members of the Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing a crisis of historic proportions in the housing market. Every 13 seconds, a new house in America goes into foreclosure. What this has caused is a dramatic decline in the value of housing all over the United States. For example, in Contra Costa County, across the bay from my home, housing values in one year have declined 53 percent. So those values, the collapsing housing market, is something we need to interrupt. This bill is part of that effort to interrupt the collapse of the housing markets by doing something that we should have done long ago to restore fairness to the bankruptcy system.

Now, bankruptcy has been part of the Constitution since the very beginning of the United States, and what it allows is for people who are insolvent, who cannot pay their bills, to go into bankruptcy court and reorganize. The unfortunate thing is--and the unfair thing--is that people who are bankrupt, who are insolvent, who are in bankruptcy court, can get reorganization for their yacht, for their investment property, for their vacation homes, for their cars, for their credit cards, for their jet airplane, but not for the mortgage on their principal residence. That's not fair. That's not reasonable.

This bill changes that. And in doing so, it restores some fairness to the chapter 13 process.

The voluntary modification system has not worked so well. According to Business Week last week, only 35 percent of the voluntary modifications have actually resulted in lower monthly payments. In fact, in 47 percent of the cases, they've resulted in increased mortgage payments. So it's small wonder that most of those voluntary reorganizations end up with a re-default in 6 months.

I would just like to note not anyone can go into bankruptcy court. You have to be insolvent. We made it very tough in 2005 to get in there. But we do believe that banks and lenders will come to the table with the stick that homeowners could, in fact, go into the bankruptcy court for relief.

It's important to note what this is not. This won't cost the taxpayers one dime. This is about lenders eating part of the cost for the collapse of the housing market. It's not a bailout from the taxpayers. It makes lenders take some responsibility for what has happened. I think it's about time that the banks stood up to their own responsibility and participated in part of this solution, which they have not done to date.

This bill has been narrowed. It's only for retroactive loans. We've made many other adjustments, but it's sound policy. It's something we should do as soon as possible. It's going to help millions of people, and it's going to help stop the collapse of the housing market and the collapse of prices.

Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot discussed here on the floor today that this is a problem that is limited to just a few parts of our country--California, Nevada, Florida. I just think this is important:

I went and got the records for year to year on the rate of foreclosure. In Alabama, there was nearly a 73 percent increase; in Arkansas, a 127 percent increase; in Hawaii, a 139 percent increase; in Kentucky, a nearly 60 percent increase; in Maine, a 104 percent increase; in Missouri, a nearly 60 percent increase; in Nebraska, a 165 percent increase; in New Hampshire, a 356 percent increase; in New Mexico, a 270 percent increase; in North Carolina, a 126 percent increase; in North Dakota, a 150 percent increase.

This is happening all over the United States, and I'll tell you: when foreclosures hit a neighborhood, when half of the block is up for sale in a bank sale, the value of your home declines dramatically, and when the meth dealers move into those naked homes, I'll tell you that it does nothing to increase the value of the homes of the remaining homeowners.

It is essential that we interrupt this foreclosure wave. Now, this very modest bankruptcy piece is a small part of the picture. It's important to note that, contrary to some of the comments, this provision only relates to mortgages entered into before the effective date of this bill. It is not prospective. It is retroactive only. We have further narrowed the provision in the manager's amendment, which will be discussed later, but I think it's worth noting that the bad faith on the part of a debtor throws the whole thing out. We've made tremendous improvements. It's essential that we act soon.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of Mr. Joseph Anthony Zanger, Sr. whose business acumen, community service and family dedication are inspirational.

Joseph was born on December 28, 1927 in San Jose, California. In true American style, Joseph was a descendent of hard-working immigrant families. His ancestors initially worked in the agricultural trade, but went on to build the largest cannery and winery in Santa Clara Valley.

He attended St. Mary's Elementary School in San Jose, Bellarmine College Preparatory, and Santa Clara University, where he majored in economics. After attending college, Joseph moved to Pacheco Pass to help manage the family's orchard operations. In 1953, he married Kathleen Kelsch from Mandan, North Dakota. They raised their four children, Wendy, Allene, Joe, and Gretchen, on their ranch on Pacheco Pass.

For over 50 years, Joseph and his two brothers, George and Eugene, farmed over 600 acres of orchards and vineyards on Pacheco Pass. Joseph's economics major enabled him to develop a business marketing strategy for the California Prune Bargaining Association, which he helped found at the age of 19. For ten years, Joseph represented San Benito and Santa Clara counties on the California/Federal Prune Administrative Committee and on the California Prune Advisory Committee. He also served as the Director of the Santa Clara Valley Winegrowers Association and President of the San Benito County Farm Bureau.

The Zanger family founded Casa de Fruta to complement their farming business. Casa de Fruta started with a small cherry stand built in 1943 and grew in the following decades to include a large fruit stand, restaurant, RV park, lodge, wine tasting, gift shop, barnyard zoo, candy store, service station, and dried fruit mailing business. Joseph oversaw the construction of the buildings and landscaped Casa de Fruta with large rocks that he hauled from the Pacheco Pass tunnel.

Joseph constantly studied safety and economic issues related to the area's transportation system. In 1978, he served on the planning committee for completion of Interstate 5 from Stockton to Santa Nella/ Highway 152. In 2005, he worked to establish a new route for Highway 152/156 to connect with Highway 101 south of Gilroy. Because of the large number of traffic accidents that had occurred on these highways, his work has benefitted the hundreds, if not thousands, of Californians who travel along those highways.

I have the pleasure of employing one of Joseph's grandchildren, Meggie, in my Washington, D.C. office and I join her in celebrating her grandfather's life and accomplishments. I thank the Zanger family for their contributions to our region in California and, on behalf of our community in California's 16th Congressional District, offer sincere condolences on Mr. Zanger's passing.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a very happy announcement.

Our colleague, Congressman Brad Sherman, and his wife, Lisa, had their first child last night--a beautiful baby girl. Molly Hannah Sherman is 7 pounds, 15.6 ounces. I am pleased to report that mother and baby are doing splendidly and that the father is expected to recover.

Announcement by the Chair

Madam Speaker, there's much not to like in this bill and there's a lot to be angry about how we got here, and if this passes, our job will not be done. We will have further efforts that will be required, especially to stabilize the housing market.

I chair the California Democratic Delegation. I want to share with Members the communications we have received from California's Governor and the Treasurer of the State of California.

The Governor tells us, and this is a quote, ``It is daunting that California, the eighth largest economy in the world, cannot obtain financing in the normal course of its business to bridge our annual lag between expenditures and revenues. This means that California may soon be forced to delay payments for critical services, such as teachers, law enforcement, and nursing homes. The same thing would happen to California cities and counties.''

Our Treasurer, Bill Lockyer, has told us, ``For 10 days, State and local governments have been closed out of credit markets--long-term and short-term--in spite of the fact they represent no default risk and provide a good tax return to investors.'' He says, ``Without prompt Federal action to address the economic crisis, we may have no market access. That means the State's cash reserves will be exhausted near the end of October. Payments for teachers' salaries, nursing homes, law enforcement, and every other State-funded service would stop or be significantly delayed. California's 5,000 cities, counties, school districts, and special districts would face the same fate.''

There is a $7 billion revenue anticipation note that the State needs to float to meet cash flow needs, and they cannot sell those revenue anticipation notes because of the credit freeze.

Folks, what this means is that the State of California, the eighth largest economy in the world, will not be able to meet payroll by the end of this month unless we take action to unfreeze these credit markets. I wanted to make sure that every Californian and, really, every American knew.

State Capitol,

Sacramento, CA, October 2, 2008.

Hon. Henry M. Paulson, Jr.

Secretary of the Treasury,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Secretary, First of all, let me commend you for

your leadership to enact emergency economic stabilization

legislation. This credit crisis has the power to grind the

U.S. economy to a halt if swift and decisive action is not

taken immediately. The federal rescue package is not a

bailout of Wall Street tycoons--it is a lifeboat for millions

of Americans whose life savings, businesses, retirement plans

and jobs are at stake. I have communicated this message to

the entire California Congressional delegation and will

continue to press for passage of an emergency rescue plan.

Like many other states, California is feeling the enormous

effects of this crisis on our economy. California's economy

is dynamic and resilient, but also uniquely sensitive to

national and international economic conditions and

fluctuations in the financial markets. The credit crisis has

frozen investment and commerce, forcing businesses and

families to stop purchasing goods and services. This has

resulted in tens of thousands of lost jobs and billions of

dollars in lost tax revenue to the state.

Most immediately, California and a number of other state

and local governments are experiencing the lack of liquidity

in the credit markets firsthand. Many states and local

governments have been unable to secure financing for bond

offerings and for routine cash flow used to make critical

payments to schools, local governments and law enforcement.

While some states may be able to absorb a delay or obtain

high-interest financing through private banks, California is

so large that our short-term cash flow needs exceed the

entire budget of some states. We expect to issue $7 billion

in Revenue Anticipation Notes for short term cash flow

purposes in a matter of days.

Absent a clear resolution to this financial crisis that

restores confidence and liquidity to the credit markets,

California and other states may be unable to obtain the

necessary level of financing to maintain government

operations and may be forced to turn to the Federal Treasury

for short-term financing.

The economic fallout from this national credit crisis

continues to drain state tax coffers, making it even more

difficult to weather the continuation of frozen credit

markets for any length of time. I will continue to do all I

can to encourage passage of the emergency rescue plan.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger,

Governor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to entertain motions to suspend the rules on the legislative day of Thursday, October 2, 2008, relating to the following measures: S. 3197; S. 3641; and H.R. 7221.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It is obviously important that we make sure that any of our armed servicemembers who have suffered a financial loss because of their service have access to relief through the bankruptcy courts. That's the least we can do to assist these fine men and women.

But I rise also to say that there are other things that are not yet before us in the bankruptcy arena that we, I believe, are gaining some bipartisan support for.

Many of us have expressed concern that lacking in the recovery package that we will be voting on tomorrow is any provision that deals with the primary mortgage, mortgage on a primary residence, that might be one of many tools to deal with the underlying crisis that has created this worldwide economic instability.

I would have preferred that such a measure be in the recovery package, but it is not essential that the measure be part of the package. It is possible to move such a measure separately.

We were here earlier in the week. I complimented my colleague from Utah saying that it was unlikely we would be on the floor together again because he is not returning, but here we are. And I would just like to compliment him for the hard work and discussions that he has put in behind the scenes over the last several weeks to see if disagreements can be resolved and if parties can come together in the interest of the country. I can't say that we have accomplished that yet, but I think that we have an opportunity, and I actually am quite optimistic that we will be successful in that effort that would be very important for our country.

I see the gentleman standing there. I wonder if I could yield to him, if he wishes to make a comment.

I wonder, I did yield, but we have other speakers. So I wonder if--and we can have this further discussion--but whether on the mortgage, primary residence mortgage issue, you think there is further opportunity to make progress between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives, and nonconservatives?

I will do so because I don't want to take advantage of the chairman's yielding me unlimited time when there are other speakers.

But I would just say in the discussions that we have had that have been

very honest and very practical--and I think totally bipartisan, I would even say nonpartisan--trying to find common ground in the interest of the American people in this. I have a sense of optimism that we can do something important on the mortgage bankruptcy issue aside from this recovery package that is coming.

Having said that, I will yield back to the chairman of the committee, and perhaps Mr. Cannon will use some of his time to further explore this.

Thank you for yielding.

I would just note that in fact in the rescue package there is a provision requiring the Secretary to renegotiate loans and that will actually, I think, be of tremendous value in dealing with the foreclosure crisis that we face when the government owns the whole mortgage, all of the mortgage. But because securities are being purchased because the credit markets are frozen, we won't necessarily own all of the mortgages in every case. And half of the subprimes have second and third mortgages that will be able to defeat any effort to renegotiate.

So I think that moving a narrowly crafted, for-subprime-only primary residence mortgage measure either later in this Congress or early next might be something that could avoid the $2.1 trillion in mortgages that are set to reset and certainly are at risk of default in the next 18 months.

I am just stating here today, I think we have an opportunity to accomplish that working across the aisle and working across ideological barriers because really we're all in the same place. We want Americans to be safe and secure in their homes. If they are able to meet their obligations, we should go the extra mile to allow them to do that.

I just want to say once again how much I have appreciated working with you, Congressman Cannon, over these years. And I said this earlier this week, but if you look at your voting record, you've got one of the most conservative voting records in this Congress, and as I mentioned, I do not. But that has never prevented us from working together to find solutions for the American people.

I really think you're a remarkable legislator, someone whom I respect a great deal, and I thank you for your service to our country.

If I may, I think the Secretary has the authority to acquire all mortgages. We fear that he may not. I frankly think if the Secretary--or his successor, starting in January-- were to make that a priority, we would solve more of this problem than if it was just done in the natural course of events. I personally believe we need another remedy that I pledge to try and move separately from this package having to do with the bankruptcy primary residence mortgage issue that we have discussed at tremendous length.

If the gentleman would yield, as we both know, because we were on the same conference call with one of the foremost authorities in the United States on this subject, the expectation is, in the natural course of events, that about 20 percent of the acquisition of securities would result in owning all of the rights in order to do a negotiation.

So when you look at the entire package, it's not what we want, but it's not nothing either. I mean, if you could actually renegotiate 20 percent of the reset, it would have a market impact. What you're suggesting, I think, makes sense. And I think, also, that the bill that's coming back would allow the Secretary to actually do what you have suggested because there is that discretion in the measure.

If we did what you've suggested, if the experts are correct that we will have 20 percent of all ownership to renegotiate as provided for in the bill, we're still going to need an additional tool which we're not going to get in this bill, but to do a narrow carve-out for the subprime markets to be able to--for judicial intervention for those areas that we cannot get the rights for.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

If the gentleman would yield.

If I may, I'm glad you did that explanation. And for people listening who don't have a subprime, it's going to affect them as well. Because if you have a prime mortgage but every neighbor in your entire neighborhood has had their property values collapse, your property value is also going to collapse. So this is everybody.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize and congratulate Paul Guerrero on his 80th birthday. Mr. Guerrero is a long-time advocate for minority small business concerns and was named San Joaquin County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce's Advocate of the Year in 2006. Prior to moving to the Central Valley, Mr. Guerrero and his family lived in Santa Clara County, and I worked closely with him to ensure that minority and women contractors had a fair opportunity to bid on government contracts. Mr. Guerrero serves on the Board of Directors for the California Small Business Association and is the President and CEO of the California Small Business Entrepreneurs, Inc. Mr. Guerrero is a strong leader of the small business community, and I am honored to have him as a friend.

On behalf of Mr. Guerrero's family and friends, I would like to congratulate him on this milestone birthday and wish him many more to come.