Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 581 and H. Con. Res. 83.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the Substitute Amendment. Americans should be allowed to prepare for their own retirement and should be encouraged to do so. The national savings rate is at an all time low. We must improve our retirement plans so that Americans may take full advantage of the opportunities that they provide. H.R. 10 expands and strengthens our nation's private retirement savings system, making it easier for Americans to save. The Substitute only creates a costly new entitlement program. The Substitute Amendment adds three new tax credits to H.R. 10, which only complicate the Tax Code. A new refundable tax credit for savers, as proposed in the Substitute, would be difficult to monitor. Also, the Substitute includes new Small Business Tax Credits. Employers could only claim these credits for three years, reducing their value as incentives to start and maintain plans. H.R. 10 already helps small businesses by reducing administrative burdens. H.R. 10 simplifies the administrative rules that apply to retirement plans. The Substitute Amendment only complicates the rules. H.R. 10 encourages individual retirement savings by providing greater pension simplification and increased savings opportunities. For these reasons and more, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 10 and oppose this Amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 309, the Guam Foreign Investment Equity Act. This bill, introduced by the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), amends the Organic Act of Guam to provide the government of Guam with the authority to tax foreign investors at the same rate as states under the U.S. tax treaties with foreign nations. H.R. 309, which is supported by both the Republican Speaker and Democratic Governor of Guam, deals exclusively with a Guam territorial income tax that is collected and administered by their government. Because the territorial government of Guam does not have the authority to amend the Organic Act nor their tax rate, congressional action is necessary to conform their income tax rate on foreign investors to that of the 50 States. In conclusion, I would like to thank the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) and the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) for their hard work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 309) to provide for the determination of withholding tax rates under the Guam income tax.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to support this broadly- supported bill, a bipartisan bill, a good bill. I commend the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) for his hard work on it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for his tenacious approach to this piece of legislation. The gentleman has given me no peace until it gets to the floor and gets passage. I think that is an example where a freshman can come to this body and have an impact early on. We appreciate the gentleman's diligence and his effort in this. Mr. Speaker, this is a very worthwhile project. It has bipartisan support. I do not think there is any reason why we should not all support this piece of legislation and move it on down the road.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 182) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Eight Mile River in the State of Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 182, introduced by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the Eightmile River in Connecticut for the purpose of evaluating its eligibility for designation as a Wild and Scenic River. This study could ultimately result in adding a segment of the Eightmile River to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Eightmile River in Connecticut is host to a variety of natural, cultural and recreational resources and is currently listed on the National Park Service Nationwide Rivers Inventory, which lists river areas believed to be good candidates for Wild and Scenic River designation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 182 is a noncontroversial bill that has strong support from State and local officials and the residents of surrounding communities in Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the three bills just considered.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), to explain H.R. 601, which he introduced.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to emphasize one point that the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) made: H.R. 601 is supported by the administration, and it does have strong bipartisan support. I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 601, as amended.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks, and included extraneous material, on H.R. 601, the bill presently being considered.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 601) to ensure the continued access of hunters to those Federal lands included within the boundaries of the Craters of the Moon National Monument in the State of Idaho pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 7373 of November 9, 2000, and to continue the applicability of the Taylor Grazing Act to the disposition of grazing fees arising from the use of such lands, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on Wednesday, May 2, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in this Chamber former Members of Congress.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, children should not be trapped in a failing school where they cannot possibly reach their fullest educational potential. That is why H.R. 1 includes a school choice program that enables parents to send their children to another school, public or private, after 3 years of chronic failure. Public support for school choice is strong, especially among African Americans. A survey conducted in 1999 by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found that approximately 60 percent of African Americans favored school choice. According to a bipartisan poll for the National Education Association conducted in February, 63 percent of Americans say they support President Bush's approach to school choice. Moreover, school choice programs in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Florida have met with significant success. Howard University's Jay P. Greene found that since Florida's A-Plus school choice program began, student test scores have improved across the board. There is evidence that the A-Plus program has compelled failing schools in Florida, now under the threat of losing their students, to improve performance. It is our responsibility to empower parents to make the right decision for their children's future.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J.Res. 41, the tax limitation amendment. I spent Easter with my daughter and her family out in San Francisco. While we were there, her husband was filling out his tax return. This, remember, is a young family. They have two children. They cannot afford to buy a home. They are renting a home. They have a good job but they are starting out as a young family. When he finished filling out his tax return, he said, you know, we spent almost half of what we earned last year in taxes. That is what the average American worker does, spends about half. Taxes are the highest they have ever been. In January of 2000, the Census Bureau reported that the average family paid more than $9,000 in Federal income tax, twice what it paid 15 years ago. Americans pay more in taxes than they spend on food, clothing and housing combined. Americans work more than 4 months, almost 5 months, just to pay their tax bill. A continuation of higher taxes should be better controlled. Congress needs to protect the taxpayer from higher taxes. The trend of big government and higher taxes to maintain it must cease. The government does not have the right to take more than it needs just because it has the power to do so. The requirement of a clear consensus to ensure limited increases in taxes is needed. We need to prohibit irresponsible tax hikes. It should not be easy to take freedom away from people. When you tax too much, you are taking freedom from people, freedom to earn money and spend it as they want to and to educate their children and to save it and do the things they want to with it. It should not be easy to do that. Fifteen States currently require some type of supermajority vote for the legislature to raise taxes. In those States, citizens are protected from higher State tax burdens. It is time for the government to follow their example to benefit all taxpayers. The amendment would not prevent raising taxes. Rather, it encourages Congress to look at alternatives before implementing tax hikes. A consensus will force Congress to consider genuine need. For these reasons and more, I encourage my colleagues to support this constitutional amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, enclosed, please find a copy of the Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the U.S. House of Representatives for the 107th Congress. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct adopted these rules pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2(a)(1) on March 14, 2001. We are submitting these rules to the Congressional Record for publication in compliance with House Rule XI, clause 2(a)(2). Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct Adopted March 14, 2001 foreword The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is unique in the House of Representatives. Consistent with the duty to carry out its advisory and enforcement responsibilities in an impartial manner, the Committee is the only standing committee of the House of Representatives the membership of which is divided evenly by party. These rules are intended to provide a fair procedural framework for the conduct of the Committee's activities and to help insure 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, 107th 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. Rule 2. Definitions (a) ``Committee'' means the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. (b) ``Complaint'' means a written allegation of improper conduct against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives filed with the Committee with the intent to initiate an inquiry. (c) ``Inquiry'' means an investigation by an investigative subcommittee into allegations against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives. (d) ``Investigative Subcommittee'' means a subcommittee designated pursuant to Rule 8 to conduct an inquiry to determine if a Statement of Alleged Violation should be issued. (e) ``Statement of Alleged Violation'' means a formal charging document filed by an investigative subcommittee with the Committee containing specific allegations against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives of a violation of the Code of Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the performance of official duties or the discharge of official responsibilities. (f) ``Adjudicatory Subcommittee'' means a subcommittee of the Committee comprised of those Committee members not on the investigative subcommittee, that holds an adjudicatory hearing and determines whether the counts in a Statement of Alleged Violation are proved by clear and convincing evidence. (g) ``Sanction Hearing'' means a Committee hearing to determine what sanction, if any, to adopt or to recommend to the House of Representatives. (h) ``Respondent'' means a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives who is the subject of a complaint filed with the Committee or who is the subject of an inquiry or a Statement of Alleged Violation. (i) ``Office of Advice and Education'' refers to the Office established by section 803(i) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. The Office handles inquiries; prepares written opinions in response to specific requests; develops general guidance; and organizes seminars, workshops, and briefings for the benefit of the House of Representatives. Rule 3. Advisory Opinions and Waivers (a) The Office of Advice and Education shall handle inquiries; prepare written opinions providing specific advice; develop general guidance; and organize seminars, workshops, and briefings for the benefit of the House of Representatives. (b) Any Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives, may request a written opinion with respect to the propriety of any current or proposed conduct of such Member, officer, or employee. (c) The Office of Advice and Education may provide information and guidance regarding laws, rules, regulations, and other standards of conduct applicable to Members, officers, and employees in the performance of their duties or the discharge of their responsibilities. (d) In general, the Committee shall provide a written opinion to an individual only in response to a written request, and the written opinion shall address the conduct only of the inquiring individual, or of persons for whom the inquiring individual is responsible as employing authority. (e) A written request for an opinion shall be addressed to the Chairman of the Committee and shall include a complete and accurate statement of the relevant facts. A request shall be signed by the requester or the requester's authorized representative or employing authority. A representative shall disclose to the Committee the identity of the principal on whose behalf advice is being sought. (f) The Office of Advice and Education shall prepare for the Committee a response to each written request for an opinion from a Member, officer or employee. Each response shall discuss all applicable laws, rules, regulations, or other standards. (g) Where a request is unclear or incomplete, the Office of Advice and Education may seek additional information from the requester. (h) The Chairman 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 Chairman or Ranking Minority Member requests a written opinion, or seeks a waiver, extension, or approval pursuant to Rules 3(l), 4(c), 4(e), or 4(h), the next ranking member of the requester's party is authorized to act in lieu of the requester. (i) The Committee shall keep confidential any request for advice from a Member, officer, or employee, as well as any response thereto. (j) The Committee may take no adverse action in regard to any conduct that has been undertaken in reliance on a written opinion if the conduct conforms to the specific facts addressed in the opinion. (k) Information provided to the Committee by a Member, officer, or employee seeking advice regarding prospective conduct may not be used as the basis for initiating an investigation under clause 3(a)(2) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, if such Member, officer, or employee acts in good faith in accordance with the written advice of the Committee. (l) A written request for a waiver of clause 5 of House Rule XXV (the House gift rule), or for any other waiver or approval, shall be treated in all respects like any other request for a written opinion. (m) A written request for a waiver of clause 5 of House Rule XXV (the House gift rule) shall specify the nature of the waiver being sought and the specific circumstances justifying the waiver. (n) An employee seeking a waiver of time limits applicable to travel paid for by a private source shall include with the request evidence that the employing authority is aware of the request. In any other instance where proposed employee conduct may reflect on the performance of official duties, the Committee may require that the requester submit evidence that the employing authority knows of the conduct. Rule 4. Financial Disclosure (a) In matters relating to Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the Committee shall coordinate with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Legislative Resource Center, to assure that appropriate individuals are notified of their obligation to file Financial Disclosure Statements and that such individuals are provided in a timely fashion with filing instructions and forms developed by the Committee. (b) The Committee shall coordinate with the Legislative Resource Center to assure that information that the Ethics in Government Act requires to be placed on the public record is made public. (c) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to grant on behalf of the Committee requests for reasonable extensions of time for the filing of Financial Disclosure Statements. Any such request must be received by the Committee no later than the date on which the statement in question is due. A request received after such date may be granted by the Committee only in extraordinary circumstances. Such extensions for one individual in a calendar year shall not exceed a total of 90 days. No extension shall be granted authorizing a nonincumbent candidate to file a statement later than 30 days prior to a primary or general election in which the candidate is participating. (d) An individual who takes legally sufficient action to withdraw as a candidate before the date on which that individual's Financial Disclosure Statement is due under the Ethics in Government Act shall not be required to file a Statement. An individual shall not be excused from filing a Financial Disclosure Statement when withdrawal as a candidate occurs after the date on which such Statement was due. (e) Any individual who files a report required to be filed under title I of the Ethics in Government Act more than 30 days after the later of-- (1) the date such report is required to be filed, or (2) if a filing extension is granted to such individual, the last day of the filing extension period, is required by such Act to pay a late filing fee of $200. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to approve requests that the fee be waived based on extraordinary circumstances. (f) Any late report that is submitted without a required filing fee shall be deemed procedurally deficient and not properly filed. (g) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to approve requests for waivers of the aggregation and reporting of gifts as provided by section 102(a)(2)(C) of the Ethics in Government Act. If such a request is approved, both the incoming request and the Committee response shall be forwarded to the Legislative Resource Center for placement on the public record. (h) The Chairman 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. (i) The Committee shall designate staff counsel who shall review Financial Disclosure Statements and, based upon information contained therein, indicate in a form and manner prescribed by the Committee whether the Statement appears substantially accurate and complete and the filer appears to be in compliance with applicable laws and rules. (j) Each Financial Disclosure Statement shall be reviewed within 60 days after the date of filing. (k) If the reviewing counsel believes that additional information is required because (1) the Statement appears not substantially accurate or complete, or (2) the filer may not be in compliance with applicable laws or rules, then the reporting individual shall be notified in writing of the additional information believed to be required, or of the law or rule with which the reporting individual does not appear to be in compliance. Such notice shall also state the time within which a response is to be submitted. Any such notice shall remain confidential. (l) Within the time specified, including any extension granted in accordance with clause (c), a reporting individual who concurs with the Committee's notification that the Statement is not complete, or that other action is required, shall submit the necessary information or take appropriate action. Any amendment may be in the form of a revised Financial Disclosure Statement or an explanatory letter addressed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. (m) Any amendment shall be placed on the public record in the same manner as other Statements. The individual designated by the Committee to review the original Statement shall review any amendment thereto. (n) Within the time specified, including any extension granted in accordance with clause (c), a reporting individual who does not agree with the Committee that the Statement is deficient or that other action is required, shall be provided an opportunity to respond orally or in writing. If the explanation is accepted, a copy of the response, if written, or a note summarizing an oral response, shall be retained in Committee files with the original report. (o) The Committee shall be the final arbiter of whether any Statement requires clarification or amendment. (p) If the Committee determines, by vote of a majority of its members, that there is reason to believe that an individual has willfully failed to file a Statement or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported, then the Committee shall refer the name of the individual, together with the evidence supporting its finding, to the Attorney General pursuant to section 104(b) of the Ethics in Government Act. Such referral shall not preclude the Committee from initiating such other action as may be authorized by other provisions of law or the Rules of the House of Representatives. Rule 5. Meetings (a) The regular meeting day of the Committee shall be the second Wednesday of each month, except when the House of Representatives is not meeting on that day. When the Committee Chairman determines that there is sufficient reason, a meeting may be called on additional days. A regularly scheduled meeting need not be held when the Chairman determines there is no business to be considered. (b) The Chairman shall establish the agenda for meetings of the Committee and the Ranking Minority Member may place additional items on the agenda. (c) All meetings of the Committee or any subcommittee shall occur in executive session unless the Committee or subcommittee, by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, opens the meeting or hearing to the public. (d) Any hearing held by an adjudicatory subcommittee or any sanction hearing held by the Committee shall be open to the public unless the Committee or subcommittee, by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, closes the hearing to the public. (e) A subcommittee shall meet at the discretion of its Chairman. (f) Insofar as practicable, notice for any Committee or subcommittee meeting shall be provided at least seven days in advance of the meeting. The Chairman 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 he 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 his or her employment or duties with the Committee without specific prior approval from the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. (f) 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. (g) 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. (h) 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. (i) 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. (j) 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. (k) In addition to any other staff provided for by law, rule, or other authority, with respect to the Committee, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member each may appoint one individual as a shared staff member from his or her personal staff to perform service for the Committee. Such shared staff may assist the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member on any subcommittee on which he serves. Only paragraphs (c), (e), and (f) shall apply to shared staff. Rule 7. Confidentiality Oaths Before any Member or employee of the Committee may have access to information that is confidential under the rules of the Committee, the following oath (or affirmation) shall be executed in writing: ``I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose, to any person or entity outside the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, any information received in the course of my service with the Committee, except as authorized by the Committee or in accordance with its rules.'' Copies of the executed oath shall be provided to the Clerk of the House as part of the records of the House. Breaches of confidentiality shall be investigated by the Committee and appropriate action shall be taken. Rule 8. Subcommittees--General Policy and Structure (a) Upon an affirmative vote of a majority of its members to initiate an inquiry, the Chairman 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. At the time of appointment, the Chairman shall designate one member of the subcommittee to serve as the chairman and the Ranking Minority Member shall designate one member of the subcommittee to serve as the ranking minority member of the investigative subcommittee or adjudicatory subcommittee. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee may serve as members of an investigative subcommittee, but may not serve as non-voting, ex-officio members. (b) If an investigative subcommittee, by a majority vote of its members, adopts a Statement of Alleged Violation, members who did not serve on the investigative subcommittee are eligible for appointment to the adjudicatory subcommittee to hold an Adjudicatory Hearing under Committee Rule 24 on the violations alleged in the Statement. (c) Notwithstanding any provision of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this Rule, or any other provision of these Rules, the Chairman 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 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. (d) 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. (e) The Chairman 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. (f) Any member of the Committee may sit with any noninvestigative or nonadjudicatory subcommittee, but only regular members of such subcommittee may vote on any matter before that subcommittee. Rule 9. Quorums and Member Disqualification (a) The quorum for an investigative subcommittee to take testimony and to receive evidence shall be two members, unless otherwise authorized by the House of Representatives. (b) The quorum for an adjudicatory subcommittee to take testimony, receive evidence, or conduct business shall consist of a majority plus one of the members of the adjudicatory subcommittee. (c) Except as stated in clauses (a) and (b) of this rule, a quorum for the purpose of conducting business consists of a majority of the members of the Committee or subcommittee. (d) A member of the Committee shall be ineligible to participate in any Committee or subcommittee proceeding in which he is the respondent. (e) A member of the Committee may disqualify himself from participating in any investigation of the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives upon the submission in writing and under oath of an affidavit of disqualification stating that the member cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision. If the Committee approves and accepts such affidavit of disqualification, or if a member is disqualified pursuant to Rule 18(g) or Rule 24(a), the Chairman 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) Adoption 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) Adoption of a recommendation to the House of Representatives that a sanction be imposed. (7) Adoption of a report relating to the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee. (8) Issuance of 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. Communications by Committee Members and Staff 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. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member shall have access to such information that they request as necessary to conduct Committee business. Evidence in the possession of an investigative subcommittee shall not be disclosed to other Committee members except by a vote of the subcommittee. Rule 12. Committee Records (a) The Committee may establish procedures necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of any testimony or other information received by the Committee or its staff. (b) 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 of 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. (c) 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 23. 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. (d) If no public hearing or meeting 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. (e) 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. (f) 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 13. Broadcasts of Committee and Subcommittee Proceedings (a) Television or radio coverage of a Committee or subcommittee hearing or meeting shall be without commercial sponsorship. (b) No witness shall be required against his or her will to be photographed or otherwise to have a graphic reproduction of his or her image made at any hearing or to give evidence or testimony while the broadcasting of that hearing, by radio or television, is being conducted. At the request of any witness, all media microphones shall be turned off, all television and camera lenses shall be covered, and the making of a graphic reproduction at the hearing shall not be permitted. This paragraph supplements clause 2(k)(5) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives relating to the protection of the rights of witnesses. (c) Not more than four television cameras, operating from fixed positions, shall be permitted in a hearing or meeting room. The Committee may allocate the positions of permitted television cameras among the television media in consultation with the Executive Committee of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries. (d) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to obstruct in any way the space between any witness giving evidence or testimony and any member of the Committee, or the visibility of that witness and that member to each other. (e) Television cameras shall not be placed in positions that unnecessarily obstruct the coverage of the hearing or meeting by the other media.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, The Federal Deposit Insurance Adjustment Act indexes deposit insurance coverage to inflation every three years, as well as retroactively indexing back to 1980, thus raising the deposit insurance ceiling to approximately $200,000. Since 1980, FDIC deposit insurance has lost almost half of its value on an inflation-indexed basis. Today, deposit insurance is less than it was in 1974 when FDIC coverage was doubled to $40,000. The Federal Deposit Insurance Adjustment Act provides depositors with increased security while strengthening the safety and soundness of the banking system. It will help local communities by enabling depositors to keep more of their money in local banks, where it can be reinvested for community projects and local lending. Lastly, it will help small depositors, especially those on fixed incomes and small businesses, who need liquidity, or who are not in a position to take advantage of our stock market or to bear the risks inherent in the stock market.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), I do not want to prolong this. I think we have said what needs to be said. The gentleman repeated several times that this is his district, his district, his district, as if it is in his district, we ought to do it. When I got on the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands several years ago, I discovered that a lot of Members were bringing parks home to their district, whether they had any merit or not. Steamtown, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) may remember Steamtown is one of them. Our good friend Joe McDade brought that one home. I guess this has a whole lot more merit than that did, by the way. So there is interest by people when that is not in their district. There is interest in that park, or whether it is a park or not. I do not know if the gentleman heard me, because I think the gentleman was talking to one of his staff at the time, but when the gentleman starts talking about draining water out from under the Dunes, I have no intention, and the gentleman knows that, of draining water out from under the Dunes. The gentleman is absolutely right; you take that water, and the Dunes go away. The water has to stay there. I want the water to stay there, not just for the Dunes, but I want the water in the San Luis Valley to stay in the San Luis Valley. I do not want it coming to the Eastern Slope or the big cities. I want it to stay there, because if it does not stay there, I think that valley, which is already economically depressed in many ways, becomes a real problem. So I want the water to stay there, and I do not want there to be any mistake about that. I guess I would just close by saying again, yes, this is part of the process; but it is a subversion of the process. There was a national park put in the Interior bill. I voted against that. I think that was wrong. I do not think that this should be part of the process. I think the process should be both Houses go through their committee structure, ask the questions, have the hearings, let everybody who wants to have input into it, and then make a logical decision.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I must object to the bill before us, Senate bill 2547, the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Act. This bill has never been the subject of hearings in the House of Representatives before the Committee on Resources. National parks should not be designated without going through the process. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and I have worked long and hard in that committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) is chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, to see that there is a logical process for naming national parks. One of the reasons for that is that we love national parks. We are proud of our national parks, and we do not have the resources, it seems, to take care of the national parks we have like they should be taken care of. We have in Yellowstone, one of the jewels of the system, in Yosemite, we have roads that have potholes in them; we have guardrails that are falling down, all kinds of maintenance things that we simply do not have the resources to take care of evidently because we are not doing a very good job of it. So when we add national parks, that draws on all the other national parks, and the pie is divided up that much more. The main thing is it ought to go through a logical process. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and I several years ago put in legislation in place to see that that would happen. What ought to happen with this bill is that next year we ought to have hearings on it. We ought to take it through the process and we ought to answer all the questions. Now there are a number of questions to be answered. First, most National Park Service regulations say that a park comprises a variety of resources. Now I know the proponents of this would say that there are a variety of resources. There are mountains, there are streams and so forth, but the basic thing is there is a pile of sand, a beautiful pile of sand. But that is the basic resource for this park. If the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) has been, and he has, in a lot of national parks, I would start with Rocky Mountain National Park, for instance, in our own State, I would ask the gentleman to compare that in his own mind to the Sand Dunes National Park, and it does not compare. I do not honestly feel this rises to the level of a national park. I think it is a great national monument, but I do not think it rises to the level of a national park. Second, the land acquisition provisions of this bill are open to discussion. This gives the Secretary the right to acquire land, and it takes it out of the hands of Congress. Usually we are the ones that do the acquiring of land. This gives the Secretary the right to do that. The Baca Ranch, which is adjacent to the existing monument, I would have no objection to us buying and adding to the monument, except there is a problem with whether it is for sale or not; some of the owners want to sell it, some do not, and the price that has been quoted to me is far above the appraised value on it. I do not think we want to get into that kind of a situation. Third, the act would create as many as four inholders, none of which have been contacted, as far as I can tell, as to their feelings in this matter. Lastly, there is a question of water beneath the dunes. One of the main reasons for this bill is to stop the speculation on water in that valley. Now, I do not want water in that valley to come to the front range of Colorado. I do not want it to come to Colorado Springs, Aurora, or anywhere else. I want that water to stay in the valley. So this is a good part of the bill. If you actually bought the ranch and tied up the water and kept it in the valley, that is a good part of it. I think that can be done as a monument. It does not have to be a national park. In fact, every bit of this, except the Baca Ranch, is protected in one way or another. It is either wilderness, national forest, or monument. So this is not an environmental vote. The environment is being protected, whether it is a national park or not. There are many public officials in Colorado who would like to have input into this and have contacted me, not the least of which are the three county commissioners from the county where this is, who are opposed to this. By circumventing the process, we lose the opportunity for the public to have input in it, which I think that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) would champion, that the public should have input into anything like this. We have been contacted by numerous public officials who say, we would like to testify on this. We would like to testify on this. Therefore, I urge that S. 2547 be rejected and that next year we have full hearings on it. It may be this is the right thing to do. We may decide it is the right thing to do. But is not the right thing to do this way. I do not know very many times in the history of this House where you have designated a national park without it going through the full procedure of both the House and the Senate. The arguments I get for it are twofold. The water we have already talked about. That is a good argument. Second, economic development. Well, you should not name national parks as an economic development process. That is not why they should be named. All I am asking is we go through the normal process; we have the hearings, and we make a decision based upon the merit, not based upon who can put the most pressure on the Speaker. This did not come out of the committee; this came out of the Speaker's office. He put it on the calendar. I do not know why he put it on the calendar and circumvented the whole process. I do not think he should have, but this should not be based on that. It should be based upon merit. I ask us to reject this and have the hearings, go through the process, and then we may well decide it is a good idea.