Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the chairman of the subcommittee and the chief author of the welfare reform bill.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify the Record. The Deal bill sets aside $3.5 billion. The CBO baseline estimate is $4.8 billion, for a total of approximately $8.3 billion. With the Johnson amendment, our bill will provide $10.5 billion for day care. So there is absolutely nothing cut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], a chief sponsor of this bill and an esteemed freshman colleague.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Including the 5 minutes just yielded?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I agree.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, there are some real misunderstandings about this amendment, and, with all due respect, I would like to point out that it actually weakens the work requirements of current law. Current law requires you to work once your youngest child is 3 years old. This raises that threshold so you do not have to work until your youngest child is 5 years old. That weakens the work requirements in current law, and it weakens dramatically the work requirements in the bill before us. Sixty-three percent of all families on AFDC have children under 5. Sixty-three percent. However are States going to meet the work standards in the bill if 63 percent of the people on AFDC are exempted from the mandatory work requirements? Now, remember, as a society, we allow low income working people only 3 months leave after their baby is born. I have always felt it was a serious inequity that people on welfare got to stay home 3 years, when people working got to stay home 3 months. And now this bill is going to allow you to stay home 5 years. Now, that is one point. The other point is, and I feel this very strongly, what you are saying is to those young girls who have had a baby, stay home. Stay home. The studs are hanging around outside the door. Have a good time. Nothing could be more destructive. Nothing could be more contradictory to the fundamental message of this bill, which is take personal responsibility. We are saying you have that baby, you do not have to take responsibility. Frankly, this bill is about personal responsibility. Lastly, let me say the research does show very, very clearly that the programs that cream do not matter and those are the women whose children are already in school. The programs that really matter in terms of dependence are the programs that take those young girls who dropped out of high school, those young girls who had babies when they were very young and really make them go through the education, training and work performance that alone will enable them to change their lives. Finally, this amendment is going to add complexity. This is exactly what the spirit of the block grant opposes and what the governors have time and time again driven my amendments off the board about, because they do not want this kind of micro management.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to respond to the comments of my colleague from California whose impassioned attack on this bill's child services block grant is heartfelt but in my estimation misguided. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], and I have long disagreed in the area of foster care. It goes back fundamentally to his belief that the 19 pounds of regulations and the 50 programs currently in place could protect children. They cannot, and they are not. Listen to the testimony, read the papers, listen. Abuse is exploding, children are being beaten to death. Our programs are not working. Under this bill for the first time, for the very first time, we will know how many children in America are in foster care; with all of our 50 programs we have never known that. For the first time under this bill States will have to identify quantifiable goals to be achieved that year. That will be easy to oversee, easy to impact. The current program requires States to write a plan, and you know what happens? My colleague from Connecticut and I spend hours every year trying to get our State relieved of millions of dollars of penalties because the Federal Government and the State of Connecticut disagree on what an administrative expense is. Under current law, team suicide prevention dollars have to be accounted for separately from family preservation dollars. Let us get with it. We cannot do it that way. The administrative overhead is far too great, the ability to address the holistic needs of a family is far too compelling. One of my best child services agencies was in to see me only a couple of weeks ago, and I started talking to them about this section of the bill, its accountability, its governance, and I said, ``You know what we want you to do is to develop the kind of integrated networks that are based on the model of total quality management and deliver continuous improvement and service that is family-oriented.'' And she said, ``We are doing it, and you are right; one of the barricades and blockades is all of the Federal programs, each with its own bookkeeping, each with its own stream, each with its own interlock.'' So I know it is frightening to make change, I know there is risk involved. As chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee, I can tell Members we have put annual quantifiable achievable goals in there because annually they are going to be there defending why they did or did not achieve their goals. We have provisions in this bill that will look at best case, worst case, so we can help States see where they are going. The old system has failed. We must have the courage to try something new, and we must commit ourselves to something better than the old way we used to proceed, which was do something for 5 years and do not look around until the 5-year reauthorizations came up.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, one of my colleagues earlier in the afternoon said this ought to be a debate about fact, and that we should not let rhetoric obscure reality. I rise to say that what my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], just said about the funding in the child protection block grant is simply not accurate. That block grant goes up to guarantee that every single child predicted to come into the system will have dollars waiting for him for placement. We have guaranteed that airtight, and CBO figures have always been high. Furthermore, we have gone a step further. We have not kept that money segregated. We do not say ``You only get that money if you take that child out of the home.'' We say ``You get that money, and you can use it to preserve families, to prevent out-of-home placement, but if you need to place the child out of home, you will have the resources to do so.'' I just want to point out that over the years of this bill that account goes from $3.9 billion to over $5.5 billion, an increase of $1.6 billion over 5 years, or an increase of 25 percent. This is not mean-spirited. There are 22 states that are under court order because their programs are so lousy, so there is not anyone that testified before my subcommittee when we had the oversight hearing on the child protective services section, that maintained that this was a system that was working. The gentleman may differ with the solution of putting these funds in a block grant, but I can go through in line and detail why this section of the bill is far more tightly governed than any other section of the bill, and why I think it will work. But to say that it cuts funding for children for foster care is simply false.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Anyone with a child, once a child reaches 3, you must be in a managed work program.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that last evening I was not recorded on rollcall vote No. 226. I voted in the affirmative. I was on the House floor. I put my card in the machine; I saw the light go on. I did not remember to check whether it had recorded on the board, and I regret the fact that it did not record, but I am absolutely certain I voted. I have been a long-time advocate of malpractice reform. I support the cap, and I regret that my vote was not recorded in rollcall 226 but I would have voted ``aye.''

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting to the House the interim rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the 104th Congress. These rules were adopted by the committee at our organizational meeting on February 9, 1995. The committee adopted these rules on an interim basis so that we could undertake the work before the committee according to the rules by which the committee was operating at the time of the initial filing of pending business. The committee intends to review these rules during the 104th Congress and make additional recommendations. Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 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) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 103d 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) ``Adjudicatory Subcommittee'' means a subcommittee of the Committee, comprised of those Committee members not on the investigative subcommittee, that holds a disciplinary hearing and determines whether the counts in a Statement of Alleged Violation are proved by clear and convincing evidence. (b) ``Committee'' means the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. (c) ``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 a Preliminary Inquiry. (d) ``Disciplinary Hearing'' means an adjudicatory subcommittee hearing held for the purposes of receiving evidence regarding conduct alleged in a Statement of Alleged Violation and determining whether the counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation have been proved by clear and convincing evidence. (e) ``Investigative Subcommittee'' means a subcommittee designated pursuant to Rule 6 to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry to determine if a Statement of Alleged Violation should be issued. (f) ``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. (g) ``Preliminary Inquiry'' means an investigation by an investigative subcommittee into allegations against a Member, officer, or employee of 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 a Preliminary Inquiry or a Statement of Alleged Violation. hearing to determine what sanction, if any, to recommend to the House of Representatives. (j) ``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. Rule 3. Advisory Opinions and Waivers (a) There is established within the Committee an Office of Advice and Education. The Office 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, or any other person specifically authorized by law, may request a written opinion with respect to the propriety of any current or proposed conduct of such Member, officer, employee, or person. (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. (e) Unless specifically authorized by law or resolution of the House of Representatives, written opinions may be provided only to Members, officers, and employees of the House of Representatives. Other individuals may be provided with general information regarding rules or laws, such as citations to relevant texts of publicly available documents. (f) 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. (g) A written opinion shall address the conduct only of the inquiring individual, or of persons for whom the inquiring individual is responsible as employing authority. (h) The Office of Advice and Education shall prepare for the Committee a response to each written request for an opinion. Each response shall discuss all applicable laws, rules, regulations, or other standards. (i) Where a request is unclear or incomplete, the Office of Advice and Education may seek additional information from the requester. (j) 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(n), 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. (k) The Committee shall keep confidential any request for advice, as well as any response thereto. (l) 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. (m) 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 4(e)(1)(B) of Rule X 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. (n) A written request for a waiver of House Rule XLIII, clause 4 (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. (o) A written request for a waiver of House Rule XLIII, clause 4 (the House gift rule), shall specify the nature of the waiver being sought and the specific circumstances justifying the waiver. (p) An employee seeking a waiver of time limits applicable to fact-finding or substantial participation travel 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, Office of Records and Registration, 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 Office of Records and Registration 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)(D) 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 Office of Records and Registration 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 made public, shall be forwarded to the Office of Records and Registration 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 needs 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 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 not business to be considered. (b) A subcommittee shall meet at the discretion of its chairman. (c) 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. Subcommittees--General Policy and Structure (a) If the Committee determines by majority vote of its members that allegations of improper conduct (brought to its attention by a complaint or otherwise) by a Member, officer, or employee merit further inquiry, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee shall designate four or six members (with equal representation from the majority and minority parties) to serve as an investigative subcommittee to undertake a Preliminary Inquiry. The senior majority and minority members of an investigative subcommittee shall serve as the chairman and ranking minority member of the subcommittee. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee may serve only as nonvoting, ex officio members of any investigative subcommittee. (b) If an investigative subcommittee, by a majority vote of its members, adopts a Statement of Alleged Violation, the remaining members of the Committee shall comprise an adjudicatory subcommittee to hold a Disciplinary Hearing under Committee Rule 19 on the violations alleged in the Statement. (c) 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. (d) 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. (e) 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 7. 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, and 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 that relates to the member's own conduct. (e) A member of the Committee may disqualify himself or herself 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 15(h) or Rule 19(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 8. Vote Requirements (a) The following actions shall be taken only upon affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate. (1) Adoption of a resolution to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry; (2) Adoption of a Statement of Alleged Violation; (3) Finding that a count in a Statement of Alleged Violation has been proved by clear and convincing evidence; (4) Sending of a letter of reproval; (5) Adoption of a recommendation to the House of Representatives that a sanction be imposed; (6) Adoption of a report relating to the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee; (7) 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 9. 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, nor shall any evidence in the possession of an investigative subcommittee to disclosed to Committee members who are not members of the subcommittee prior to the filing of a Statement of Alleged Violation with the Committee. Rule 10. 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 Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives until it has transmitted a statement of Alleged Violation under Rule 17 of the Committee rules, to such Member, officer, or employee and the Member, officer, or employee has been given full opportunity to respond pursuant to Rule 18. 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 and any written response thereto shall be included in the Committee's final report 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 XXXVI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Rule 11. Broadcasts of Committee and Subcommittee Proceedings Whenever any hearing or meeting by the Committee or a subcommittee is open to the public, the Committee or subcommittee may, by a majority vote, permit coverage, in whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and still photography, or by any such methods of coverage, under the following rules: (a) If television or radio present live coverage of the hearing or meeting to the public, it 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 that 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 other media. Part II--Investigative Authority Rule 12. House Resolution Whenever the House of Representatives, by resolution, authorizes 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 13. Committee Authority to Investigate--General Policy Pursuant to clause 4(e)(2)(B) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee may exercise its investigative authority when-- (a) a complaint by a Member of the House of Representatives is transmitted directly to the Committee; (b) a complaint by an individual not a Member of the House of Representatives is transmitted through a Member who agrees, in writing, to submit it for the purpose of requesting an investigation; (c) a complaint by an individual not a Member of the House of Representatives is submitted to the Committee after three Members of the House of Representatives have refused, in writing, to transmit the complaint to the Committee for the purpose of requesting an investigation; (d) the Committee, on its own initiative, determines that a matter warrants inquiry; (e) a Member, officer, or employee is convicted in a Federal, State, or local court of a criminal offense for which a sentence of one or more years' imprisonment may be imposed; or (f) the House of Representatives, by resolution, authorizes the Committee to undertake an investigation. Rule 14. Complaints (a) A complaint submitted to the Committee shall be in writing, under oath and dated, 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) A complaint by a Member of the House of Representatives may be transmitted directly to the Committee. (d) A complaint by an individual not a Member of the House of Representatives may be transmitted through a Member who states, in writing, that it is submitted for the purpose of initiating a Preliminary Inquiry. A copy of the exact complaint submitted to and transmitted by the Member must be attached to the Member's letter to the Committee. (e) If a complaint by an individual who is not a Member of the House of Representatives is submitted to three Members of the House of Representatives who refuse, in writing, to transmit the complaint to the Committee for the purpose of requesting an investigation, the complainant may transmit the complaint to the Committee. Legible copies of each refusal letter must accompany the complaint. Each letter must clearly state the Member's refusal to transmit the complaint and must contain the Member's acknowledgment that such refusal may cause the Committee to consider initiating a Preliminary Inquiry. A legible copy of the exact complaint submitted to and considered by the Member must be attached to that Member's refusal letter. (f) A complaint must be accompanied by a certification that the complainant has provided an exact copy of the filed complaint and all attachments to the respondent. (g) The Committee may defer action on a complaint against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives when the Committee has reason to believe such conduct is being reviewed by appropriate law enforcement or regulatory authorities. (h) 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. (i) 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. (j) 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 15. Processing of Complaints (a) Upon receipt of a complaint, the Committee shall determine if it complies with clause 4(e)(2)(B) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives and Rule 14 of the Committee rules. (b) If the complaint does not comply with such House and Committee Rules, it shall be returned to the complainant with copy of such Rules and a statement specifying why the complaint is not in compliance. The respondent shall be notified when a complaint is returned and provided the reasons therefor. (c) 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 with notice that the complaint conforms to the applicable rules and will be placed on the Committee's agenda. (d) The respondent may provide to the Committee any information relevant to a complaint filed with the Committee. The Committee staff may request information from the respondent prior to the consideration of a Resolution of Preliminary Inquiry only when so directed by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. (e) At the first meeting of the Committee following the procedures or actions specified in clauses (c) and (d), the Committee shall consider the complaint. (f) If the Committee, by a majority vote, determines that the complaint is within the Committee's jurisdiction and merits further inquiry, it shall adopt a Resolution of Preliminary Inquiry. After such resolution is adopted, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member shall designate four or six members to serve as an investigative subcommittee to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry in accordance with Rule 17. (g) The respondent shall be notified, in writing, regarding the Committee's decision either to dismiss the complaint or to initiate a Preliminary Inquiry. (h) Respondent shall be notified of the membership of the investigative subcommittee and shall have ten days after such notice is transmitted to object to the participation of any subcommittee member. Such objection shall be in writing and shall be on the grounds that the member cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision. The member against whom the objection is made shall be the sole judge of his or her disqualification. Rule 16. Committee Initiated Preliminary Inquiry (a) Notwithstanding the absence of a filed complaint, the Committee may consider any information in its possession indicating that a Member, officer, or employee may have committed a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member, officer, or employee in the performance of his or her duties or the discharge of his or her responsibilities. (b) If the Committee determines that the information merits further inquiry, the Committee shall proceed in accordance with Rule 17. (c) Any written request by a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives that the Committee conduct an inquiry into such person's own conduct shall be processed in accordance with subsection (a) of this Rule. (d) An investigative or disciplinary hearing 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) Conviction of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives in a Federal, state, or local court of a criminal offense for which a sentence of one or more years' imprisonment may be imposed shall be a matter that merits further inquiry pursuant to Rule 15 and, after sentencing, a preliminary inquiry shall be undertaken. Notwithstanding this provision, the Committee may exercise its investigative authority at any time prior to conviction or sentencing. Rule 17. Preliminary Inquiry (a) In a Preliminary 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 Chairman of the investigative subcommittee shall ask respondent and all witnesses whether they intend to be represented by counsel. if so, 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 Preliminary 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, necessary to the conduct of the inquiry. Unless the Committee otherwise provides, the subpoena power shall rest in the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee and a subpoena shall be issued upon the request of the chairman and ranking minority member of the investigative subcommittee. A motion to quash a subpoena shall be decided by the Chairman of the Committee. (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 chairman or subcommittee member designated by him to administer oaths. (b) During the Preliminary 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 chairman of the subcommittee or other presiding member at any investigative subcommittee proceeding shall rule upon any question of admissibility or pertinency of evidence, motion, procedure or any other matter, and may direct any witness to answer any question under penalty of contempt. A witness, witness's counsel, or a member of the subcommittee may appeal any evidentiary rulings to the members present at that proceeding. The 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 deemed by a chairman or 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 respondent and/or respondent's counsel as to facts that are not in dispute. (c) Upon completion of the investigation, the staff shall draft for the investigative subcommittee a report that shall contain a comprehensive summary of the information received and may include any recommendations for action by the subcommittee regarding the alleged violations. (d) Upon completion of the Preliminary Inquiry, an investigative subcommittee, by majority vote of its members, may adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation if it determines that there is reason to believe that a violation has occurred. If more than one count is alleged, such Statement shall be divided into counts. Each count shall relate to a separate violation, shall contain a plan 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 Statement of Alleged Violation may include offenses beyond those referenced in the Resolution of Preliminary Inquiry. A copy of such Statement shall be transmitted to the respondent and respondent's counsel. (e) 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 therefor, and any appropriate recommendation. The Committee shall transmit such report to the House of Representatives. Rule 18. 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 15 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 15 days after the subcommittee has replied to such motion. (c)(1) The respondent may file a Motion to Dismiss within 15 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 15 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 15 days after the subcommittee has replied to the Motion to Dismiss. (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 chairman 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 chairman 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 chairman of the investigative subcommittee to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. Rule 19. Disciplinary Hearings (a) If a Statement of Alleged Violation is transmitted to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member pursuant to Rule 18, and no waiver pursuant to Rule 22(b) has occurred, the Chairman shall designate the members of the Committee who did not serve on the investigative subcommittee to serve on an adjudicatory subcommittee. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee shall be the chairman and ranking minority member of the adjudicary subcommittee. The respondent shall be notified of the designation of the adjudicatory subcommittee and shall have ten days after such notice is transmitted to object to the participation of any subcommittee member. Such objection shall be in writing and shall be on the grounds that the member cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision. The member against whom the objection is made shall be the sole judge of his or her disqualification. (b) A majority of the adjudicatory subcommittee membership plus one must be present at all times for the conduct of any business pursuant to this rule. (c) The adjudiciary subcommittee shall hold a Disciplinary Hearing to determine whether any counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation have been proved by clear and convincing evidence and shall make findings of fact, except where such violations have been admitted by respondent. (d) At a Disciplinary Hearing the adjudicatory subcommittee may require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and other items as it deems necessary. Depositions, interrogatories, and sworn statements taken under any investigative subcommittee direction may be accepted into the hearing record. (e) The procedures set forth in clause 2(k) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply to Disciplinary 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 respondent and his or her counsel have the right to inspect, review, copy, or photograph books, papers, documents, photographs, or other tangible objects that the adjudicatory subcommittee counsel intends to use as evidence against the respondent in a Disciplinary Hearing. Respondent shall be given access to such evidence, and shall be provided the names of witnesses the subcommittee counsel intends to call, and a summary of their expected testimony, no less than 15 calendar days prior to any such hearing. Except in extraordinary circumstances, no evidence may be introduced or witness called in a Disciplinary Hearing unless respondent has been afforded a prior opportunity to review such evidence or has been provided the name of the witness. (2) After a witness called by subcommittee counsel has testified on direct examination at a Disciplinary 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 five days prior to the Disciplinary Hearing, 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 testimony or evidence would be merely cumulative. (i) During the Disciplinary Hearing, the procedures regarding the admissibility of evidence and rulings shall be as follows: (1) Any relevant evidence shall be admissible unless the evidence is privileged under the precedents of the House of Representatives. (2) The chairman of the subcommittee or other presiding member at an adjudicatory subcommittee hearing shall rule upon any question of admissibility or pertinency of evidence, motion, procedure, or any other matter, and may direct any witness to answer any question under penalty of contempt. A witness, witness's counsel, or a member of the subcommittee may appeal any evidentiary ruling to the members present at that proceeding. The 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 chairman 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 respondent and/or respondent's counsel as to facts that are not in dispute. (j) Unless otherwise provided, the order of a Disciplinary Hearing shall be as follows: (1) The chairman of the subcommittee shall open the hearing by stating the adjudicatory subcommittee's authority to conduct the hearing and the purpose of the hearing. (2) The chairman shall then recognize Committee counsel and respondent's counsel, in turn, for the purpose of giving opening statements. (3) Testimony from witnesses and other pertinent evidence shall be received in the following order whenever possible: (i) Witnesses (deposition transcripts and affidavits obtained during the Preliminary 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 chairman. (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 may be permitted at the chairman's discretion. Subcommittee members may then question witnesses. Unless otherwise directed by the chairman, such questions shall be conducted under the five-minute rule. (k) A subpoena to a witness to appear at a hearing shall be served sufficiently in advance of that witness' scheduled appearance to allow the witness a reasonable period of time, as determined by the chairman of the adjudicatory subcommittee, to prepare for the hearing and to employ counsel. (l) Each witness appearing before the subcommittee shall be furnished a printed copy of the Committee rules, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of the House of Representatives applicable to the rights of witnesses, and a copy of the Statement of Alleged Violation. (m) Testimony of all witnesses shall be taken under oath or affirmation. The form of the oath or affirmation shall be: ``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony you will give before this subcommittee in the matter now under consideration will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so help you God)?'' The oath or affirmation shall be administered by the Chairman or Committee member designated by the Chairman to administer oaths. (n) At a Disciplinary Hearing the burden of proof rests on Committee counsel to establish the facts alleged in the Statement of Alleged Violation by clear and convincing evidence. However, Committee counsel need not present any evidence regarding any count that is admitted by the respondent or any fact stipulated. (o) As soon as practicable after all testimony and evidence have been presented, the subcommittee shall consider each count contained in the Statement of Alleged Violation and shall determine by majority vote of its members whether each count has been proved. If a majority of the subcommittee does not vote that the count has been proved, a motion to reconsider that vote may be made only by a member who voted that the count was not proved. A count that is not proved shall be considered as dismissed by the subcommittee. (p) The findings of the adjudicatory subcommittee shall be reported to the Committee. Rule 20. 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 a Disciplinary Hearing pursuant to Rule 19 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 limiation. (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) Dimissal 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 explusion 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 21. 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 immediately known and available to the Member, officer, or employee. Rule 22. Rights of Respondents and Witnesses (a) A respondent shall be informed of the right to be represented by counsel, to be provided at his or her 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 respondent seeks to waive. Any such request shall be subject to the acceptance of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate. (c) Witnesses shall be afforded a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Committee or subcommittee, to prepare for the hearing and to obtain counsel. (d) 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. (e) Prior to their testimony, witness 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. (f) Witnesses may be accompanied by their own counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights. The Chairman 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. (g) Each witness subpoenaed to provide testimony of other evidence shall be provided such travel expenses as the Chairman considers appropriate. No compensation shall be authorized for attorney's fees or for a witness' lost earnings. (h) With the approval of the Committee, a witness, upon request, may be provided with a transcript of his or her deposition or other testimony taken in executive session, or, 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 witness, and counsel, agree to maintain the confidentiality of all executive session proceedings covered by such transcript. Adopted February 9, 1995.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join my Ways and Means Committee colleagues, Representatives Robert Matsui, Phil Crane, and Barbara Kennelly, as well as Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, in introducing the Semiconductor Investment Act of 1995. This legislation will enhance the international competitiveness of the U.S. semiconductor industry by changing the statutory life of semiconductor manufacturing equipment to more accurately reflect the industry's rapid pace of technological change. This change in the tax depreciable life of semiconductor manufacturing equipment from 5 years to 3 years will enable U.S. semiconductor manufacturers to recover capital costs incurred in maintaining state-of-the-art facilities over a period that more closely approximates economic life. Semiconductors are at the core of all aspects of the information highway. They drive technological advances in computers, telecommunications and consumer electronics, and change our society in ways ranging from telecommuting to electronic banking to promoting citizen access to legislation through the Internet. Semiconductors are at the heart of the $500 billion U.S. electronics industry that employs more than 2 million Americans. The U.S. semiconductor industry alone provides over 200,000 high-skilled American jobs and has recently regained its position as the world's leading producer of chips. It is a highly capital intensive industry that demands continuing changes to manufacturing infrastructure. This dynamic industry is based on ever-evolving technology. The rapid pace of technological change makes semiconductor manufacturing equipment obsolete, technologically and economically, soon after being placed into service. Recent economic studies and normal business practices indicate that such equipment should qualify for a 3-year depreciable life under tax depreciation rules because two-thirds of the equipment's economic usefulness is exhausted in the first 2 years and the equipment's full economic life is less than 4 years. However, current U.S. tax rules depreciate semiconductor manufacturing equipment over 5 years, a period significantly longer than the equipment's true economic life. As a result, the U.S. semiconductor industry is at a competitive disadvantage with foreign firms whose cost recovery rules more accurately reflect economic reality. Japanese semiconductor producers, for example, may depreciate up to 88 percent of their manufacturing equipment in the first year. U.S. producers, on the other hand, may depreciate only 20 percent in the first year. Thus, existing U.S. cost recovery rules are a key factor in determining whether firms build new plants in the United States or overseas. In view of the fact that the global semiconductor industry is expected to invest $120 billion in capital expenditures during the remainder of this decade, we need more accurate cost recovery rules to ensure that much of that investment is made here--not overseas. To compete in today's global market, our domestic manufacturers must be able to recover the cost of their capital investments in a timely manner. Reducing the depreciable life of semiconductor manufacturing equipment to 3 years will enable U.S. semiconductor manufacturers to invest the capital needed to keep pace with rapid technological changes and strengthen their international competitiveness. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that, as the Committee on Ways and Means reviews the operation of the existing cost recovery rules in the context of the Contract With America, we may have the opportunity to update this narrow, but economically significant, aspect of our cost recovery rules. I urge my colleagues to join us as sponsors of this initiative to keep the United States the home of cutting-edge semiconductor technology.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 831, a bill that permanently extends the 25-percent deduction for health insurance costs to the self-employed. Mr. Chairman, for too long, millions of self-employed workers have lived with the uncertainty of not knowing whether they could deduct some portion of their health insurance costs from year to year. Enacted on a temporary basis in 1986, the deduction was extended several times, expired at the end of 1993 and was not renewed throughout 1994. Today, we finally have an opportunity to provide the certainty of a permanent deduction to the millions of small business men and women who form the backbone of our economy, driving its inventiveness and job growth. I also want to emphasize that the cost of making the 25-percent deduction permanent is fully funded by tax changes that make our Tax Code fairer and simpler. The major change is repeal of code section 1071, which allows the Federal Communications Commission to grant tax benefits with respect to sales of radio, television, and other properties. Enacted in 1943 to address problems with respect to the involuntary sales of radio stations arising from wartime restrictions on the availability of new radio property, this provision has been significantly expanded by FCC action to cover television stations, cable TV systems, personal communications services, and in 1978 to promote minority ownership of broadcast facilities by offering tax certificates to those who voluntarily sell stations to minority individuals or minority- controlled entities. Not only has the FCC changed the purpose of tax certificates, but also increased the size of the transactions they are allowed to cover. The size of transactions receiving tax benefits under section 1071 has also expanded. The total Federal and State tax benefits for one transaction, Viacom's sale of its cable TV systems recently in the news, may be in excess of half a billion dollars. The Subcommittee on Oversight, which I chair, found in hearings that section 1071 gives the FCC unfettered authority to hand out tax breaks to promote whatever policies it deems appropriate. No other Federal agency has such authority and no Federal agency should have such authority. In fact, when the FCC sought to review the worthiness of its tax certificate program, Congress stepped in and literally forbade the FCC from any oversight work at all. In sum, 1071 provides big bucks for a few with no demonstrative effect on minority ownership or program diversity. The other major financing provision in this bill is a variation on a proposal in President Clinton's fiscal year 1996 budget to deny the EITC to individuals who have more than $2,500 in taxable interest and dividend income. The Ways and Means Committee believed it was more appropriate to phase out the credit, rather than have it end abruptly when dividend and interest income hits $2,500. H.R. 831 phases out the credit for taxpayers who receive between $2,500 and $3,150 of dividend and interest income. To achieve this level of dividend and interest income, a taxpayer would need to have over $50,000 in savings assets. The administration believes--and I strongly agree--that the benefits of the EITC should go to low-income workers. It should not go to taxpayers with significant assets who otherwise have low earned income. Mr. Chairman, making the 25-percent deduction permanent is extremely important. In addition, the funding provisions in H.R. 831 are changes that will H.R. 832 deserves your strong support.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, there are many examples of very rich, affluent minority members who are benefiting from this program and others who are being made rich because they have the inside track on how to be part of these big deals. It is not your ordinary folk out there who on the whole are benefiting from these deals. Let me address the issue of restructure and reform. restructure it in form? First of all, there is no evidence that this approach works. Over the almost 20 years of this approach, minority ownership has gone from 0.5 percent to under 3 percent. Over about 20 years, that growth is far more rationally attributable to the growth in wealth in the minority community than to this program. Second, because the substitute continues the practice of a Federal agency handing out tax breaks, it perpetuates a loophole that will continue to benefit primarily the affluent doing big deals in America. We heard over and over again how this program functions. We heard over and over again that there is very little evidence of any of its benefits, in part because the Congress would not allow the oversight work to proceed because it seemed to be demonstrating that the program was ineffective. Restructuring cannot help a program that in fact does not work. Furthermore, restructuring a program that gives a Federal agency the right to, on its own hook, hand out millions of dollars of subsidies is bad in principle. I for one do not believe the day has come when we can eliminate affirmative action policies. But I also agree with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that, ``Because racial classifications themselves are inherently divisive, they must always be narrowly tailored to remedy the effects of past racial discrimination.'' As Johnathan Rauch, the author of an article on FCC programs, which recently appeared in the New Republic put it best: The policy, however admirable the intentions, makes a mockery of Justice Lewis Powell's pronouncement in Bakke: ``Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. This the Constitution forbids.'' I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from New York briefly.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, repeal of section 1071 is not a retreat from our commitment to equal opportunity for minorities in America. In fact, the case for repeal is clear and convincing. No one can defend the deals that have been made under section 1071. Clarence McGee got a 29-percent stake in a station for the investment of $290 plus $106 million in borrowed money collateralized by the station's assets and cash flow. Washington Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke purportedly has received tens of millions of dollars of tax breaks from the FCC, using minority tax certificates four times in recent years. In 1993, the Times Mirror sold four TV stations for $335 million to a ``minority partnership,'' in which the minority partner invested $153,000 in borrowed money. The Times Mirror, on the other hand, reportedly received a tax break of somewhere between $35 million and $80 million in the transaction. Now, remember, folks, we had testimony in hearings over and over again that these deals are done at the market rate. The tax benefit goes to the seller, to the Times Mirror. That is who got the tax break. It is not the disadvantaged poor, it is the affluent rich, no matter what color their skin, that are getting the tax breaks from these deals.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, the legislation I introduce today, along with Representatives Richard Neal and William Jefferson, restores to 80 percent the business meal deduction for long-haul truck drivers, bus drivers, airline flight crews, railroad conductors, and other federally regulated transportation workers who fall under the Department of Transportation hours-of-service regulations. They symbolize the hard-working, middle-class American who struggles for his or her family, abides by the rules, and deserves fair treatment. As part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, the business meal deduction was reduced from 80 percent to 50 percent. Though Congress was correct in addressing this provision in the Tax Code, it erroneously assumed that it was going to affect only the so- called three martini lunches. In fact, the diminution of this deduction has hurt many hard-working, middle-income Americans, especially in the transportation industry, who find themselves away from their homes and families for extended periods of time. For example, long-haul truck drivers spend over 200 days per year away from home. They eat at roadside diners and truckstops and sleep in their trucks or modest motels. In doing so, they incur the legitimate and necessary business expenses required in their work and do not enjoy the expense-account lifestyles of the individuals originally targeted in the 1993 legislation. My bill restores some fairness to the Tax Code by reinstating the 80- percent business meal deduction for certain transportation workers, and I urge my colleagues to lend their support for its enactment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today legislation to give small businesses greater incentive through the Internal Revenue Code to purchase equipment and machinery. Under current law, section 179 of the Tax Code allows a deduction of up to $17,500 for certain depreciable assets used in a trade of business. In view of the enormous costs encountered by businesses in these competitive times, this deduction is far too low. I have pressed for increases in section 179 expensing for the last several years and believe that, as the cost of productivity-improving devices like machine tools and sophisticated testing equipment grows, the ability to deduct those costs should be enhanced. My bill is very straightforward in increasing section 179 deductibility to $50,000. Though it probably should be much higher to reflect its job-creating possibilities, its impact on tax revenues is not insignificant and must be dealt with in the Ways and Means Committee. I look forward to prompt action in the committee and trust that my colleagues will consider this measure during the upcoming debate.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to restore the home office deduction for taxpayers who work out of their homes. I am pleased to note that this measure is included in the Republican Contract With America and, additionally, has been introduced in the other body of Senator Orrin Hatch--S. 327. This legislation is made necessary by a 1993 Supreme Court decision, Commissioner v. Soliman (113 S.Ct. 701), that greatly reduced the availability of the deduction. Previously, home office expenses were deductible if the space in the home was devoted to the ``sole and exclusive use'' of the office; the taxpayer used no other office of business; and, the business generated enough income to cover the deduction. The Court, in effect, added two additional conditions: the customers of the home-based business must physically visit the home office, and the business revenue must be produced within the home office itself. Clearly, these requirements are excessive and prior law must be reinstated and clarified. forward to prompt approval of this measure in the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing revenue neutral legislation to reinstate the exclusion from gross income of Contributions In Aid of Construction--known as CIAC--to a water or wastewater utility. Joining me as original cosponsors are Representatives Robert Matsui, Richard Neal, Andy Jacobs, and William Jefferson. Historically, they have received the capital for the construction of a utility extension directly from new customers--typically through the developer or small municipality. The customer contributes this property, or a cash equivalent, equaling the cost of the extension to the utility. In this manner, existing customers will not face rate increases every time the utility gains new customers. Prior to enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, CIAC were not included in the gross income of an investor-owned utility and therefore were not subject to Federal income tax. On the other hand, utilities could not take tax depreciation or investment tax credits on CIAC. The 1986 act repealed Internal Revenue Code section 118(b) and thus forced utilities to include CIAC in gross income and pay Federal income tax on them. Removing the exclusion from gross income of CIAC was intended as a tax on utilities. In practice and by regulation in most States, the CIAC tax is not a tax on utilities, but a tax on utility customers, primarily developers, home buyers, small municipalities, and even the Federal Government. State utility regulatory bodies, referred to as PUC's, generally require utilities to pass tax costs onto their customers. This is done in one of two ways. The most common approach is to require the new customer to pay the cost of the tax, plus the tax on the tax known as the gross-up. Depending on the State, a gross-up can add as much as 70 percent to a customer's cost of the contribution. Alternatively, the PUC's may allow the utility to recover the tax cost over a period of time from the new rate base. Whichever method is chosen, utilities do not pay the tax, they pass it on. But passing the tax on has detrimental effects, not only on the utility's ability to bring in new business, but on the environment and--most significantly--on the price of new housing. A developer ultimately will pass the cost of the CIAC and the gross- up on to the new home buyer. The National Association of Home Builders has estimated that the CIAC tax can increase the cost of new housing by as much as $2,000 per unit. This additional cost is enough to end the dream of homeownership for a young couple. The CIAC tax also has some important environmental effects. New customers can avoid paying the CIAC tax by building their own independent water systems. This leads to a proliferation of systems that may not have the financial, technical, or managerial ability to comply with the rigorous requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Such systems are referred to as nonviable. According to the EPA, in fiscal year 1990, over 90 percent of the violations of Safe Drinking Water Act were made by systems serving fewer than 3,300 individuals. By encouraging the proliferation of nonviable systems, the CIAC tax frustrates the environmental policy goal of consolidating these systems into exiting, professionally managed systems. Mr. Speaker, repeal of the tax on CIAC for water and wastewater utilities will have a noticeable effect on both housing prices and environmental policy. It is supported by the National Association of Water Companies, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, and the National Association of Home Builders. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. In view of the tremendous progress toward establishing democratic political institutions and market economies made by the Baltic States and their keen interests in NATO memberships, I want to clarify my understanding that this bill in no way compromises their opportunity for future NATO membership. It is my understanding that today's bill includes language recognizing the transformation toward economic, political, and military reform in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. These states have taken the necessary steps toward democratic reforms and I support the recognition of their efforts and continued U.S. assistance.