K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, the Path to Prosperity budget on the floor this week reaffirms once again that House Republicans are the only ones in Washington providing genuine, serious solutions to our country's spending-driven debt crisis. We have released a budget that cuts government spending responsibly, enacts commonsense reforms, and, most importantly, balances the government's books within 10 years. Mr. Speaker, what have we heard from the President? Well, nothing. The President hasn't even submitted his budget to Congress yet, and it is on track to be one of the latest budget submissions in history. And the Democratic-controlled Senate's budget, of course, raises taxes and never, ever breaks even. That is not what America needs, Mr. Speaker. With our budget, House Republicans have provided a genuine blueprint for creating more jobs and opportunity in America today.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight an important oversight in the implementation of the sequester that this CR does not address: the inclusion of several private, non-profit organizations in the scope of the sequester. We all recognize the importance of eliminating our country's growing deficit and debt. While the sequester is in no way the best solution to this problem, we cannot afford to ignore our nation's debt crisis. Meaningful spending cuts are absolutely required in order to get our fiscal house in order. As a CPA, I am concerned about two organizations in particular, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and the Financial Accounting Standards Board. These two organizations were designed from their inception to be independent of the federal budget process. High-quality accounting and independent audit oversight is critical to providing transparent, consistent, comparable, relevant, and reliable financial information to investors. Because of the complexity and the competing stakeholder interests associated with accounting standards, Congress has repeatedly determined that the establishment and enforcement of these standards should be managed by independent, private-sector organizations. In order to insulate the PCAOB and FASB from coercion and to protect their independence, Congress authorized these organizations to collect fees as dedicated sources of funding in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These fees are not federal dollars; they never touch the Treasury or any other governmental entity, and are not subject to appropriation. In fact, Section 109(c)(1) of Sarbanes-Oxley specifically says: ``accounting support fees and other receipts of the [PCAOB] and [FASB] shall not be considered public monies of the United States.'' Importantly, neither the PCAOB nor FASB has any budget authority, or the ability to obligate and expend funds on behalf of the Federal government. Section 109(i) of Sarbanes-Oxley clarifies their independence further by stating: ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to render either the [PCAOB], [FASB], or both, subject to procedures in Congress to authorize or appropriate public funds, or to prevent such organization from utilizing additional sources of revenue for its activities . . .'' Despite this clear Congressional intent to keep the PCAOB and FASB independent of the Federal budget process, OMB included them both in the President's Budget, making them subject to sequestration under the BCA. Yet, because their revenues are not federal monies, sequestering their funds would have no impact on the Federal budget and would not reduce the deficit one dollar. Sequestration of the PCAOB and FASB's accounting support fees would jeopardize the independence of the accounting standards-setting and auditing process, and provide the Federal government with unintended and unprecedented control over these institutions. That type of control is precisely what Congress sought to avoid when it made the PCAOB and FASB independent of the Federal budget process in Sarbanes-Oxley. Absent correction, I fear that FASB's sister organization, the Government Accounting Standards Board--GASB--will also be subject to sequester. Like the PCAOB and FASB, GASB had its independence firmly established with its own authorization to collect fees and its complete separation from the federal budget written into Dodd-Frank. In order to implement Congressional intent and maintain the independence of the accounting and auditing community, we must exempt these private, non-profit organizations from the President's Budget and clarify that these and other similarly situated entities are not subject to current or future sequestration under the BCA. I would like to insert into the Record a bipartisan letter signed by nine members of the Congressional Caucus on CPAs and Accountants. While the letter is focused on FASB and GASB, it is equally applicable to the PCAOB and shows the bipartisan concern that protecting the independence of these organizations has. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, February 26, 2013. Hon. Barbara Mikulski, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Patty Murray, Chairman, Senate Budget Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington,

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for setting up this evening to honor our friend and colleague, Sam Johnson. Sam's career and exploits have been talked about several times now, and I won't repeat those, but there are a couple of things I would like to highlight. One, not only was he an Air Force pilot, but he was also a member of the elite Thunderbirds, which is the Air Force's best of the best. That is a demonstration team that goes across this country and around the world representing the Air Force, representing our country. Another thing about Sam is that he had the good fortune of marrying Shirley. If you read Sam's book, ``Captive Warriors,'' one of the most poignant parts of that book is Shirley's unwavering, steadfast belief that Sam was still alive. There was a long time while Sam was in captivity that we didn't have proof of life. Shirley was being told by some very influential folks that Sam had perished, and she just flat out simply refused to believe that, throughout all of the evidence. And so for a number of years there she held that vigil, and it was rewarded, of course, by Sam's coming home some 40 years ago this week. I don't have a lot of heroes on this Earth. Sam Johnson is one of them. If I ever get around to writing memoirs and somebody asked me what am I the most proud of of service in this House, one of those things will be being able to say that I'm among the select and privileged group to have served with Sam Johnson. He is a warrior of the best order, and it is with the most heartfelt emotions that I can muster that I thank him for his service. If I count the years correctly, it's 29 in the Air Force, 10 years in the Texas Legislature, and some 22 years here. That's 61 years. I don't know how old Sam is, but that has got to be about half his life anyway. So it is with great pleasure that I thank Sam for his long service to our country. Thank you, Sam.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding some time and allowing me to add my inadequate words and thoughts for Chris and his family. I had purchased Chris's book a long time ago; but as things go, I just hadn't read it. After he was murdered a week or so ago, I read his book. It was a very unsettling experience. The book is written in what appears to be Chris's voice. I never met Chris, and so I didn't know what he actually sounded like when he spoke. But the book is written in a very conversational tone, and it's almost like you're having that conversation with Chris. You're reading, and you're caught up in the stories, and you're caught up in the action. You go, Oh, he was murdered several days ago. Chris's style of talking about himself and the things that he did on behalf of his country were very self-deprecating, very matter of fact. I'm sure most of the instances in there where he talked about coming close to being hurt or coming close to near-death experiences are sugarcoated from what the real deal was because I know he didn't want his wife and family and many to know. He certainly wouldn't have been bragging about that anyway. But Chris had a very matter-of-fact tone when he was with the SEALs and he was in those battles. Even when he was home, he had a very-- ``casual'' is not the right word--but very matter-of-fact attitude toward the fact that he could be killed, that something bad could happen to him. He also spoke in the book often about his faith and a guardian angel. There was one instance where he just moved differently than he normally would have moved, and a bullet went right where he had been. That's a Holy-Spirit-kind of thing. It just wasn't Chris's time. So you read through that book, but you know Chris has been taken from us, he's been murdered, and America has lost one of her very best to have worn our colors and to have served. I think the thing that comes out of the story in the book was he and his wife's struggle. What was most impressive about it was how torn he was between duty to country and duty to family. He was clear that his first duty was to God, but he was legitimately torn between the responsibilities to not only himself, but his men and the others under his watch and care, and those he protected by killing bad guys before they had a chance to kill our guys. That role he played, he relished it, he cherished it, and he wanted to do it; but he also began to recognize and see the impact it was having on his wife and kids. So the struggle he and Taya went through of trying to come to the decision of, Do I give up something I really love to do, and I feel like my duty to do it, that I will have abandoned my friends if I go in a different direction? How difficult that decision was for him and his family, but that he ultimately decided that his role, God's direction for him, was that he be a full-time father to his two kids and a full- time husband to his wife. The sense of loss from leaving the service, leaving the SEALs--the truth of the matter is he was in a period of our country's history that is not likely to be repeated ever again. I certainly hope not. The way he spoke about the opportunity to lay his life down for others is very matter of fact in that he was certainly willing to do that. I agree with Randy and Louie as they talked about the families. They really are the unsung--I got a little taste of this back when Iraq was going on in a big way and Afghanistan. I've made multiple trips. My wife, Suzanne, is just a basket case while I'm in country. And they never take Members of Congress to any place scary. They're not going to do that. If anything, it would be a helicopter failure or something. For the most part, they never take us anywhere scary, but she doesn't know that. I know it. I know everything is fine. We're wearing suits and ties, and it's fine. But she doesn't know that until I get out of country. As soon as she knew that, I would sense the relief in her. That gives me a microscopic sense of what these families have done for 12 years now across the board with their loved ones downrange. As far as the family is concerned, it's a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week risk for their loved one. The loved one knows when it's scary and when it's not and knows when things are going crazy, but the family back home doesn't. They're dreading that car pulling up out front because they know that their loved one is someplace where they could get hurt or killed. The strength of the American serviceman's and servicewoman's family is to support them throughout this timeframe, where we've asked them as a country to do far more for this country than should ever have been asked of any one individual. Yes, it's an all-volunteer force and, yes, they continue to reenlist, re-up, and go at it. But we've asked them to do more than we should have. They've recognized that we had to ask them to do these things. So I too brag on the families because that really is where the strength of America is shown, in families being able to back Chris up and the things that he was trying to do to make sure he was able to do downrange all he needed to do without worrying about what was going on back home. It is so difficult to lose someone like Chris. We had a wonderful organization in Midland, Texas, called Show of Support, a similar thing to what Chris was doing with his life after he got out, and that is in this instance they take wounded vets on deer hunts. They bring them into town, and they have a big banquet. They take the wives on a shopping spree and to the spa, and then they take the guys hunting. In this past year, they were in the parade heading down to the banquet. And the float that several were on was hit by a train, and four of these men were killed. These men who were killed had already had wounds of war that showed up in their lives every single day. One was killed pushing his wife out of harm's way. So losing those four, the personal experience we think we feel with Chris--and we don't, but we do, because he's one of our best and one of those who has done far more for our country than we should have asked-- does feel personal. I ask folks around Memorial Day every year that we thank our country and we thank folks for the sacrifices made on behalf of our country, but it's generally in the generic, generally as a group. What I ask people to do is I say, Look, I want you to pick out somebody specific. I want you to think about somebody who we're memorializing today who has actually laid down their life in defense of this country. I want it to hurt a little bit. I want it to cost something for you to say the things we say very casually on Memorial Day. I now have someone else I can think about on Memorial Day when we should all, as a country, recognize these collective sacrifices. Sometimes when you recognize them in the collective, it loses the impact, so I would encourage folks to recognize those sacrifices in the specific by picking out somebody you went to high school with who was killed in Vietnam, as in my case, or someone you know--a family member or whomever--about whom you can say, All right, as it ought to hurt just a little bit. I want to thank the gentleman for giving me a chance to add, as I mentioned earlier, my inadequate thoughts on Chris and on his dedication to this country and his sacrifice. I wish Godspeed to his family as they cope with Chris' absence in this life.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I submit for publication the Committee on Ethics Rules for the 113th Congress. Foreword The Committee on Ethics 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, 113th 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 Ethics. (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) ``Investigate,'' ``Investigating,'' and/or ``Investigation'' mean review of the conduct of a Member, officer or employee of the House of Representatives that is conducted or authorized by the Committee, an investigative subcommittee, or the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. (e) ``Board'' means the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics. (f) ``Referral'' means a report sent to the Committee from the Board pursuant to House Rules and all applicable House Resolutions regarding the conduct of a House Member, officer or employee, including any accompanying findings or other supporting documentation. (g) ``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. (h) ``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. (i) ``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. (j) ``Sanction Hearing'' means a Committee hearing to determine what sanction, if any, to adopt or to recommend to the House of Representatives. (k) ``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. (l) ``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. (m) ``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, including reviews of requests for privately-sponsored travel pursuant to the Committee's travel regulations; 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) Requests for privately-sponsored travel shall be treated like any other request for a written opinion for purposes of paragraphs (g) through (l). (1) The Committee's Travel Guidelines and Regulations shall govern the request submission and Committee approval process for privately-sponsored travel consistent with House Rules. (2) A request for privately-sponsored travel of a Member, officer, or employee shall include a completed and signed Traveler Form that attaches the Private Sponsor Certification Form and includes all information required by the Committee's travel regulations. A private sponsor offering officially- connected travel to a Member, officer, or employee must complete and sign a Private Sponsor Certification Form, and provide a copy of that form to the invitee(s). (3) Any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies, or who knowingly and willfully fails to file a Traveler Form or Private Sponsor Certification Form may be subject to civil penalties and criminal sanctions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001. (g) 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. (h) Where a request is unclear or incomplete, the Office of Advice and Education may seek additional information from the requester. (i) 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(m), 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. (j) The Committee shall keep confidential any request for advice from a Member, officer, or employee, as well as any response thereto. Upon request of any Member, officer, or employee who has submitted a written request for an opinion or submitted a request for privately-sponsored travel, the Committee may release to the requesting individual a copy of their own written request for advice or submitted travel forms, any subsequent written communications between such individual and Committee staff regarding the request, and any Committee advisory opinion or travel letter issued to that individual in response. The Committee shall not release any internal Committee staff work product, communications or notes in response to such a request, except as authorized by the Committee. (k) 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. (l) 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. (m) 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. (n) 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. (o) 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 reports required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act 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) Any reports required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act filed by Members of the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics that are forwarded to the Committee by the Clerk shall not be subject to paragraphs (d) through (q) of this Rule. The Office of Congressional Ethics retains jurisdiction over review of the timeliness and completeness of filings by Members of the Board as the Board's supervising ethics office. (d) 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. (e) 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. (f) 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. (g) Any late report that is submitted without a required filing fee shall be deemed procedurally deficient and not properly filed. (h) 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. (i) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to approve blind trusts as qualifying under section 102(f)(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. (j) The Committee shall designate staff counsel who shall review reports required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act 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. (k) Each report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act shall be reviewed within 60 days after the date of filing. (l) If the reviewing counsel believes that additional information is required because (1) the report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act 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. (m) Within the time specified, including any extension granted in accordance with clause (d), a reporting individual who concurs with the Committee's notification that the report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act 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 report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act or an explanatory letter addressed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. (n) Any amendment shall be placed on the public record in the same manner as other reports required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act. The individual designated by the Committee to review the original report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act shall review any amendment thereto. (o) Within the time specified, including any extension granted in accordance with clause (d), a reporting individual who does not agree with the Committee that the report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act 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. (p) The Committee shall be the final arbiter of whether any report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act requires clarification or amendment. (q) 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 report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act 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 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 Ethics, 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. This rule shall not prohibit the Chair or Ranking Minority Member from disclosing to the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics the existence of a Committee investigation, the name of the Member, officer or employee of the House who is the subject of that investigation, and a brief statement of the scope of that investigation in a written request for referral pursuant to Rule 17A(k). Such disclosures will only be made subject to written confirmation from the Board that the information provided by Chair or Ranking Minority Member will be kept confidential by the Board. (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) Except as provided in Rule 17A, 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 the Committee or 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, 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) 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. (c) 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. (d) 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, undertakes an investigation; (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 (6) a referral from the Board is transmitted to the Committee. (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 relevant 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. Rule 17A. Referrals from the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics (a) The Committee has exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation, administration, and enforcement of the Code of Official Conduct pursuant to clause 1(g) of House Rule X. Receipt of referrals from the Board under this rule does not limit the Committee's discretion to address referrals in any way through the appropriate procedures authorized by Committee Rules. The Committee shall review the report and findings transmitted by the Board without prejudice or presumptions as to the merit of the allegations. (b)(1) Whenever the Committee receives either (A) a referral containing a written report and any findings and supporting documentation from the Board; or (B) a referral from the Board pursuant to a request under Rule 17A(k), the Chair shall have 45 calendar days or 5 legislative days after the date the referral is received, whichever is later, to make public the report and findings of the Board unless the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly decide, or the Committee votes, to withhold such information for not more than one additional 45-day period. (2) At least one calendar day before the Committee makes public any report and findings of the Board the Chair shall notify in writing the Board and the Member, officer, or employee who is the subject of the referral of the impending public release of these documents. At the same time, the Chair shall transmit a copy of any public statement on the Committee's disposition of the matter and any accompanying Committee report to the individual who is the subject of the referral. (3) All public statements and reports and findings of the Board that are required to be made public under this Rule shall be posted on the Committee's website. (c) If the OCE report and findings are withheld for an additional 45-day period pursuant to paragraph (b)(1), the Chair shall-- (1) make a public statement on the day of such decision or vote that the matter referred from the Board has been extended; and (2) make public the written report and findings pursuant to paragraph (b) upon the termination of such additional period. (d) If the Board transmits a report with a recommendation to dismiss or noting a matter as unresolved due to a tie vote, and the matter is extended for an additional period as provided in paragraph (b), the Committee is not required to make a public statement that the matter has been extended pursuant to paragraph (b)(1). (e) If the Committee votes to dismiss a matter referred from the Board, the Committee is not required to make public the written report and findings of the Board pursuant to paragraph (c) unless the Committee's vote is inconsistent with the recommendation of the Board. A vote by the Committee to dismiss a matter is not considered inconsistent with a report from the Board that the matter is unresolved by the Board due to a tie vote. (f) Except as provided by paragraph (g): (1) If the Committee establishes an investigative subcommittee respecting any matter referred by the Board, then the report and findings of the Board shall not be made public until the conclusion of the investigative subcommittee process. The Committee shall issue a public statement noting the establishment of an investigative subcommittee, which shall include the name of the Member, officer, or employee who is the subject of the inquiry, and shall set forth the alleged violation. (2) If any such investigative subcommittee does not conclude its review within one year after the Board's referral, then the Committee shall make public the report of the Board no later than one year after the referral. If the investigative subcommittee does not conclude its review before the end of the Congress in which the report of the Board is made public, the Committee shall make public any findings of the Board on the last day of that Congress. (g) If the vote of the Committee is a tie or the Committee fails to act by the close of any applicable period(s) under this rule, the report and the findings of the Board shall be made public by the Committee, along with a public statement by the Chair explaining the status of the matter. (h)(1) If the Committee agrees to a request from an appropriate law enforcement or regulatory authority to defer taking action on a matter referred by the Board under paragraph (b)-- (A) The Committee is not required to make public the written report and findings of the Board pursuant to paragraph (c), except that if the recommendation of the Board is that the matter requires further review, the Committee shall make public the written report of the Board but not the findings; and (B) The Committee shall make a public statement that it is deferring taking action on the matter at the request of such law enforcement or regulatory authority within one day (excluding weekends and public holidays) of the day that the Committee agrees to the request. (2) If the Committee has not acted on the matter within one year of the date the public statement described in paragraph (h)(1)(B) is released, the Committee shall make a public statement that it continues to defer taking action on the matter. The Committee shall make a new statement upon the expiration of each succeeding one-year period during which the Committee has not acted on the matter. (i) The Committee shall not accept, and shall return to the Board, any referral from the Board within 60 days before a Federal, State, or local election in which the subject of the referral is a candidate. (j) The Committee may postpone any reporting requirement under this rule that falls within that 60-day period until after the date of the election in which the subject of the referral is a candidate. For purposes of calculating any applicable period under this Rule, any days within the 60-day period before such an election shall not be counted. (k)(1) At any time after the Committee receives written notification from the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics that the Board is undertaking a review of alleged conduct of any Member, officer, or employee of the House at a time when the Committee is investigating, or has completed an investigation of the same matter, the Committee may so notify the Board in writing and request that the Board cease its review and refer the matter to the Committee for its consideration immediately. The Committee shall also notify the Board in writing if the Committee has not reached a final resolution of the matter or has not referred the matter to the appropriate Federal or State authorities by the end of any applicable time period specified in Rule 17A (including any permissible extension). (2) The Committee may not request a second referral of the matter from the Board if the Committee has notified the Board that it is unable to resolve the matter previously requested pursuant to this section. The Board may subsequently send a referral regarding a matter previously requested and returned by the Committee after the conclusion of the Board's review process. Rule 18. Committee-Initiated Inquiry or Investigation (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. The Chair and Ranking Minority Member may also jointly take appropriate action consistent with Committee Rules to resolve the matter. (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 investigation 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)(1) 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. (2) Not later than 30 days after a Member of the House is indicted or otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct in any Federal, State or local court, the Committee shall either initiate an inquiry upon a majority vote of the members of the Committee or submit a report to the House describing its reasons for not initiating an inquiry and describing the actions, if any, that the Committee has taken in response to the allegations. Rule 19. Investigative Subcommittee (a)(1) 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. (2) 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 members of the Committee shall engage in a collegial discussion regarding such objection. The subcommittee member against whom the objection is made shall be the sole judge of any disqualification and may choose to seek disqualification from participating in the inquiry pursuant to Rule 9(e). (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 relevance 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 inquiry. (e) Upon completion of the inquiry, 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 members of the Committee shall engage in a collegial discussion regarding such objection. The member against whom the objection is made shall be the sole judge of any disqualification and may choose to seek disqualification from serving on the subcommittee pursuant to Rule 9(e). (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) 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. A subpoena for documents may specify terms of return other than at a meeting or hearing of the subcommittee. 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)(1)-(4), (6)-(7) 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 committee 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 committee 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) No later than two weeks or 5 legislative days after the Chair of the Committee designates members to serve on an adjudicatory subcommittee, whichever is later, the Chair of the adjudicatory subcommittee shall establish a schedule and procedure for the hearing and for prehearing matters. The procedures may be changed either by the Chair of the adjudicatory subcommittee or by a majority vote of the members of the subcommittee. If the Chair makes prehearing rulings upon any question of admissibility or relevance of evidence, motion, procedure, or any other matter, the Chair shall make available those rulings to all subcommittee members at the time of the ruling. (j) 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 relevance 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. (k) Unless otherwise provided, the order of an adjudicatory hearing shall be as follows: (1) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee shall open the hearing with equal time and during which time, the Chair shall state 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 relevant 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) 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. (l) 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. (m) Each witness appearing before the subcommittee shall be furnished a printed copy of the Committee rules, the relevant provisions of the Rules of the House of Representatives applicable to the rights of witnesses, and a copy of the Statement of Alleged Violation. (n) 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. (o) 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. Committee counsel or respondent's counsel may move the adjudicatory subcommittee to make a finding that there is no material fact at issue. If the adjudicatory subcommittee finds that there is no material fact at issue, the burden of proof will be deemed satisfied. (p) 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. (q) 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. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. ``If after such consideration two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, January 16, 2013; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 3 p.m. on Friday, January 18, 2013; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, January 21, 2013.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I, too, want to add my congratulations and prideful acknowledgement of Ralph Hall's long service. You've heard the long list of his accomplishments and his service. Ralph represents the folks in northeast Texas ably and well, including my alma mater, Texas A&M at Commerce. He is a terrific individual. I'm in constant awe of his quick wit and his storytelling ability. Ralph is never at a loss for some remark or response to whatever is going on. It just makes you want to laugh out loud. That is a rare talent--one that I would love to have, but don't. I am in awe of his quick wit and his wisdom. I'm also in awe of his gentle spirit and kindness that he expresses to every single individual. It is deep-seated and it is heartfelt and it is genuine and real. And those of us that have the honor and the privilege of service with Ralph Hall understand it and bask in it on every single occasion. So I would simply like to add my congratulations and heartfelt admiration to serve with Ralph Hall and to be able to say that when I write about whatever I did in Congress, one of the lines in there will be that I had the honor and privilege of serving with Ralph Hall at a time when he was at his best. Ralph, congratulations.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a stalwart of our community, Evelyn Stroder, who is being recognized as this year's Crane Heritage Day honoree. When I think of what it takes to make a strong community, I think of someone like Evelyn. Communities can be united in many aspects, but one central component found in strong communities is service. And service to our community has been at the core of Evelyn's life. Evelyn's journey began in Corpus Christi where she graduated from high school and attended Del Mar Junior College before she went on to earn a B.A. in English and Journalism from Baylor University. Later she earned an M.A. in American Literature and Mass Communications from UTPB. In 1955, Evelyn and her husband, Charles, moved from Corpus Christi to Crane. Once in Crane, Evelyn would use her education to give back. She served others as an educator for 28 years and continues to serve on the Crane School Board. While Evelyn no longer teaches, she still remains active in the Permian Historical Society and the Crane County Historical Commission. Her journalistic accomplishments include her presented papers and published work in a variety of publications throughout Texas, and currently she serves as the assistant editor of the Permian Historical Society Annual. One would think that with such a busy schedule, Evelyn would not have time for much else in life. However, in between all these accomplishments, she has managed to raise three children, seven grandchildren, and six great-grandchildren--a notable accomplishment in itself! On behalf of the 11th District, it is an honor to recognize Evelyn because she is an example of those who have made our nation strong. Our nation did not become great from the top down, but from the bottom up-- from the people in our neighborhoods willing to serve and make their community a better place for others and their children. Evelyn is one of these individuals. Through this award, she is rightly recognized for the time and sacrifice she has dedicated to others and it is an honor to represent her in the Halls of Congress.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a stalwart of our community, Evelyn Stroder, who is being recognized as this year's Crane Heritage Day honoree. When I think of what it takes to make a strong community, I think of someone like Evelyn. Communities can be united in many aspects, but one central component found in strong communities is service. And service to our community has been at the core of Evelyn's life. Evelyn's journey began in Corpus Christi where she graduated from high school and attended Del Mar Junior College before she went on to earn a B.A. in English and Journalism from Baylor University. Later she earned an M.A. in American Literature and Mass Communications from UTPB. In 1955, Evelyn and her husband, Charles, moved from Corpus Christi to Crane. Once in Crane, Evelyn would use her education to give back. She served others as an educator for 28 years and continues to serve on the Crane School Board. While Evelyn no longer teaches, she still remains active in the Permian Historical Society and the Crane County Historical Commission. Her journalistic accomplishments include her presented papers and published work in a variety of publications throughout Texas, and currently she serves as the assistant editor of the Permian Historical Society Annual. One would think that with such a busy schedule, Evelyn would not have time for much else in life. However, in between all these accomplishments, she has managed to raise three children, seven grandchildren, and six great-grandchildren--a notable accomplishment in itself! On behalf of the 11th District, it is an honor to recognize Evelyn because she is an example of those who have made our nation strong. Our nation did not become great from the top down, but from the bottom up-- from the people in our neighborhoods willing to serve and make their community a better place for others and their children. Evelyn is one of these individuals. Through this award, she is rightly recognized for the time and sacrifice she has dedicated to others and it is an honor to represent her in the Halls of Congress.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a good and decent man, a loyal servant of Texas and my friend, Ricky Wright. Ricky Wright passed away Wednesday, August 1, after a tremendous battle with cancer. Words cannot adequately express the sorrow and disbelief that Susan and I feel, along with every member of our team, at these difficult times. I met Ricky when I first started running for Congress, and since that time, Ricky has been at my side as a mentor, confidant, and a close friend. While Ricky was employed as my district director, he served the people of District 11. This service to his neighbors was a task he lived every day. Ricky routinely logged hundreds of miles a week, drove to every corner of District 11. Through his work, he touched the lives of thousands of Texans. There was no problem in our district that was too small for his attention or too big for his talents. During these travels, Ricky never once met a stranger. With his easy smile and open demeanor, Ricky would make everyone feel like they'd been his friend for a lifetime. But during all these travels and meetings, too many to count, he never forgot that his home was Comanche, Texas. Comanche is ever much a part of Ricky as his fingers and his toes. It was the community he was raised in, the community that taught him the character and morals that would guide his life. Perhaps that is also where he inherited his stubborn streak. Ricky had a confidence in the possibilities that could be, in spite of the limited vision of those around him. You could see this in him every day as he quietly refused to yield to mediocrity or to compromise his principles. It was his stubbornness that set Ricky apart from the crowd, and that's where I believe he was most comfortable, just a little further up the path, showing the rest of us the way. Today, Ricky is still just a little further up the path showing us the way as he showed us how he carried himself in the face of those deep difficulties toward the end of his life. We'll remember Ricky as he would want to be remembered, a faithful friend, a tireless worker whose hopeful, idealistic, daring, and decent way of life inspired us all. To those of us who knew him and worked with him, he was like family, and his loss will be felt every time we gather together without him. He'll never be replaced or forgotten, and I ask you for your prayers for Ricky and his family and those of us who loved him. I miss my friend.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a local hero in the 11th District of Texas, Leonel Manzano. Leo won the Silver medal in the Men's 1500 Meter race in the 2012 Olympic games, sealing his place in Olympic history and becoming an iconic figure in our district. An Olympian is more than just an athlete--they are a representative of our nation. For the last four years, our athletes have invested blood, sweat, tears, and an extraordinary amount of time in the journey to become the best they can be. In a greater notion, this journey is what America is all about: the opportunity for all to achieve the highest echelons of success. And Leo, as a Silver Medalist, has proven an excellent representative of our District, state, and what our nation represents. Leo rose from humble beginnings and from an early age, he demonstrated his athletic prowess. This did not go unnoticed. Soon, he was winning track and field titles, nine in total, while attending Marble Falls High School. After building an unparalleled resume on the track at the University of Texas, Leo began to compete professionally where, again, he continued to receive awards and special recognition. In 2008, all of Leo's hard work paid off when he earned a spot on the U.S. Olympic team. While Leo did not win a medal in 2008, when the 2012 Games came around, Leo was ready to make history. He became the first U.S. man to win a medal in the men's middle distance in 44 years. We are proud of Leo. While we are excited about his medal and awards, we are proud of Leo because he is one of us and he represented the best of America. His story is an inspiration to our children and proves that even though you may be from a small town, no dream is too big. Again, I congratulate Leo on this amazing accomplishment, his dedication and hard work, and an outstanding career.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I rise today in strong support of this disaster relief bill. To fully appreciate the need for this legislation--and it's going to pass the House today, we hope, and be signed into law by the President this week--just turn on your television or look at the front page of any newspaper to see the details of the drought gripping our countryside today. As a west Texan from cattle country, I know a little bit about droughts. The record-breaking drought that we faced last year in Texas, that's still being felt this year, by the way, was heart breaking for all of us, especially those who make their living raising livestock and growing crops that feed and clothe our Nation. I'm sometimes called upon to explain how good can come out of a bad situation. Maybe this is one of those times. I hope my colleagues who doubt the need for farm policy might think a little bit about what our country's farmers and ranchers are going through right now, and then imagine what many of them are going through without crop insurance, which is the one and only reason why we are not in here today debating a multi-billion dollar disaster package. In other words, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Unfortunately, our livestock producers do not have crop insurance. They have to depend on disaster programs instead. Regrettably, the authority for this disaster relief has expired and must be renewed in order for livestock producers to receive relief, and that's what this bill does. But the need for farm policy goes beyond addressing droughts and whatever else Mother Nature might throw at us. It also is responding to high foreign tariffs and subsidies that are climbing higher and higher, breaking records, while funding for U.S. farm policy is at an all-time low. Agriculture matters to our economy, to our balance of trade, to U.S. jobs, and to our national security. Importantly, the bill before us is fully paid for so it doesn't increase the deficit. We offset the costs of using dollars from two conservation accounts that have never been spent on the conservation purposes that they were intended for. So there is zero impact on conservation programs, but it'll be helping farmers and ranchers. I know many of my colleagues say we should be passing a 5-year farm bill instead of disaster relief. No one is more committed to enacting long-term farm policy than I am. I will continue to work that way. We passed a good one in the House Agriculture Committee under the leadership of Chairman Lucas, but I think everyone appreciates the time it will take to pass this House and get to conference. That is extensive, and something our producers don't have the time. I'm disappointed in some of our farm groups that they've objected to the various ways the House is working and attempting to advance our Nation's farm policy. A number of these groups are the very same groups that insisted on dragging out this debate by trying to advance farm policy that only works, if at all, for one region of the country, or only for a couple of crops. Our livestock producers need help now, and that's what the House is about to do, I hope, and that is always respond in times of natural disaster. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the unspeakable acts that were carried out in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, 2012. I offer condolences on behalf of myself and the people of Texas District 11 to the innocent men, women, and children and their families who were victims of this cowardly act. While the pain and anguish continues, the people of Aurora should know they are not alone in this time of suffering. The hearts, thoughts, and prayers of the people of Texas are with them. The Lord's words can provide comfort in times of tragedy. I am reminded of Psalms 34, which says, ``The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.'' It is my fervent prayer that the Lord will be a constant comfort to the victims and families and that he will hold them close to him as he begins to heal their wounds in body and spirit. May the Lord bless them with comfort in the face of senseless tragedy and peace in the face of unanswerable questions.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act. I applaud the work of my colleagues to combat the growing stranglehold that needless government regulation is having on job creation and on economic growth. Today's bill will put an end to the ``regulate first'' attitude that pervades the Obama administration. Contrary to popular belief, this legislation does not prohibit regulators from moving forward with new regulations, but it does require a Presidential or congressional waiver to do so. This simple, prudent check on the power of bureaucrats will ensure that regulations must be justified before they are enacted and that less burdensome alternatives are considered first. Beyond just slowing the pace of regulations, H.R. 4078 also contains language that will substantially reform the way two of our independent agencies develop rules for financial institutions. I am pleased that the Red Tape Reduction and Regulatory Reform Act would finally require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to perform a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis for each rule that they propose. One of the most important steps in any regulatory process must be an effort to accurately quantify the costs and the benefits of a proposed action. This is the foundation of good rulemaking. Despite this, the CFTC has consistently stated that their obligation under the law is to only ``consider'' the cost and benefits of proposals. I believe that we can do better, and they must do better. Today's legislation is simple and straightforward. It would extend the same requirements for cost- benefit analysis to the CFTC that the President has already asked every other executive branch agency to fall under. During the Dodd-Frank rulemaking process, the CFTC has rarely tried to estimate the cost of compliance. At times, ``consideration'' included vague statements like ``the costs could be significant.'' At other times, costs were dramatically underestimated. In one particular instance, industry groups calculated that the cost of compliance with a proposed rule was 63 times greater than the CFTC's guess. Accurately assessing compliance costs is one-half of the equation. The other half, of equal importance, is capturing the benefits of a new rule. Regulators must quantify what good the rule does. It is not simply good enough to regulate because the authority exists. There must also be tangible benefits for market participants that outweigh the costs of the imposed rules. Requiring cost-benefit analysis is a bipartisan step toward better governance. Exact language now contained in H.R. 4078 passed out of the Agriculture Committee unanimously in January. Last year, President Obama was right to demand that the executive agencies be held to a higher standard of analysis. Today, there's no reason why we should not require the same from the CFTC. H.R. 4078 will strengthen the rulemaking process at CFTC and it will result in better rules and a safer marketplace. This small mandate on the economists and lawyers at the CFTC will ensure that the burdens placed on large businesses and small are justified in the real world, not just in the pages of the Federal Register. It's also important to note that the bill is prospective--it will not hinder or delay the current proposed rules already making their way through the process. As well, title VII of H.R. 4078 is consistent and complementary to previously House-passed cost-benefit analysis. I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 4078.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. I rise today to oppose the gentleman's amendment. This amendment, which exempts any regulation aimed at limiting oil speculation from the provisions of this bill, is no doubt well- intentioned. No one in this body should be willing to settle for any market manipulation or illegal trading activities. Indeed, the Federal Government already has a robust and effective enforcement effort. In an April 2011 letter to Senator Maria Cantwell, the Federal Trade Commission wrote: The Commission established a number of processes to identify, investigate, and, if warranted, prosecute illegal behavior in the energy industry using our full array of enforcement tools. After review, Bureau of Competition staff determined that none of the complaints involved conduct that violated the market manipulation rules. In fact, CFTC Chairman Mike Dunn summarized it in a January 13, 2011, statement during the open meeting on the proposed rule. He said: To date, CFTC staff has been unable to find any reliable economic analysis to support either the conclusion that excessive speculation is affecting the markets we regulate or that position limits will prevent excessive speculation. Indeed, study after study has shown that excessive speculation has not been the problem that my colleague would argue. Instead, almost every instance of high prices can be traced back to market fundamentals and an imbalance in supply and demand. But today's amendment, though, isn't really about excessive speculation. If it were, we would also be talking about the speculators who have brought the natural gas markets to an all-time low, betting that our newfound abundance of natural gas cannot all be used. Instead, today's amendment is about finding fault. It's about finding a scapegoat for the problem of high gas prices that have been plaguing all of our constituents. While I can sympathize with the gentleman's desire to know who is responsible, the truth is the high price of oil is a problem of our own making. Policy decisions that were made years ago--failing to open new areas of production, boutique fuel mandates, and slow-walking new infrastructure--all contribute to today's pain at the pump. Compounding these regulatory burdens is a growing long-term supply problem. While we have experienced recent production gains, that may not be enough to offset the demands of an expanding global economy. As China, India, and others continue to industrialize, and as the United States shakes off its economic downturn, we will again see pressure on production to keep pace with demand. Over the past 3 years, oil producers in America have invested in new drilling technology and set off a production boom in places like North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and in my home State, my hometown in the Permian Basin area. This investment has led to 3 straight years of increasing domestic production on private lands, adding an additional 120,000 barrels of oil a day in production last year alone. If prices are too high, we should not castigate producers and/or investors; we should open access to more supplies. If it is worth it, Americans will produce more oil and bring down prices. Efforts to blunt market signals by introducing regulations that make it harder to trade commodities may provide a temporary reprieve from high prices, but it will come at a cost. In the long term, artificially lowered prices like this may lead to less investment and ultimate supply shortages. The better way to fight high prices is to increase supply. Just as the natural gas markets have plummeted to 10-year lows, oil prices will respond to increasing production. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and not to waste any more taxpayer dollars on finding blame for Congress' failure to act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman, Mr. Young, in a colloquy if he will so engage. Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your committee for your hard work putting together this bill. The efforts by your committee and your staff to provide our warfighters with the tools they need to keep our Nation secure are our first priority, and I thank you for your service doing just that. I applaud your work also to mitigate risk associated with shrinking budgets. I believe this bill shows your leadership to make the tough decisions to fund our Department of Defense at the appropriate levels even during this time of fiscal austerity.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank you specifically for your work addressing the wasteful pursuit by the Department--specifically the Navy--to stand up an alternative energy industry. These efforts go against the primary mission of the Department and are a colossal waste of taxpayer money, especially as we are scrubbing every penny inside the Pentagon. The Navy claims that its pursuit of a green fuel source that is produced in the United States would help protect it from price shocks and volatility within the oil markets. I have yet to hear an argument that supports how spending, on average, $26 a gallon for biofuels would protect our fuel budgets when we could be paying $3.60 a gallon. This argument simply doesn't add up. Prices, Mr. Chairman, would have to rise eightfold for this equation to work. The Navy claims that development of biofuels will limit the number of deaths associated with fuel convoys in theater. Yet, this is a specious argument. Convoys will still be needed to haul biofuels across dangerous areas to supply our needs, just like conventional fuels. And if they're less efficient, more convoys would in all likelihood be needed. The Navy also claims that buying biofuels and sailing their Green Fleet will end up saving American taxpayer dollars and ultimately lead our military to energy independence. Throughout hearings in the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee, witnesses failed to offer any verifiable analysis that shows the costs of achieving this goal or when these goals can be achieved. Mr. Chairman, time and time again, with this current administration we've seen instances of shortsighted, unrealistic expectations like this and its sister project, Solyndra, at the Department of Energy where venture capitalists are making a fortune off frivolous spending of taxpayer dollars on projects that belong in the private sector. The Department of Defense should be in the business of prosecuting wars and keeping this country safe, not wasting dollars on the pursuit of green fuel. I would argue that Department leaders should focus on buying the cheapest most readily available fueling which keeps our ships steaming and our planes flying.

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

Mr. CONAWAY. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. CONAWAY. I yield to the gentleman.