Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI(2) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask that the Rules of Procedure of the Select Committee on Ethics, which were adopted February 23, 1978, and revised May 1993, be printed in the Congressional Record for the 105th Congress. The rules follow: Select Committee on Ethics--Rules of Procedure rule 1. general procedures (a) Officers: The Committee shall select a Chairman and a Vice Chairman from among its Members. In the absence of the Chairman, the duties of the Chair shall be filled by the Vice Chairman or, in the Vice Chairman's absence, a Committee Member designated by the Chairman. (b) Procedural Rules: The basic procedural rules of the Committee are stated as a part of the Standing Orders of the Senate in Senate Resolution 338, 88th Congress, as amended, as well as other resolutions and laws. Supplementary Procedural Rules are stated herein and are hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The Rules shall be published in the Congressional Record not later than thirty days after adoption, and copies shall be made available by the Committee office upon request. (c) Meetings: (1) The regular meeting of the Committee shall be the first Thursday of each month while Congress is in session. (2) Special meetings may be held at the call of the Chairman or Vice Chairman if at least forty-eight hours notice is furnished to all Members. If all Members agree, a special meeting may be held on less than forty-eight hours notice. (3)(A) If any Member of the Committee desires that a special meeting of the Committee be called, the Member may file in the office of the Committee a written request to the Chairman or Vice Chairman for that special meeting. (B) Immediately upon the filing of the request the Clerk of the Committee shall notify the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the filing of the request. If, within three calendar days after the filing of the request, the Chairman or the Vice Chairman does not call the requested meeting, to be held within seven calendar days after the filing of the request, any three of the Members of the Committee may file their written notice in the office of the Committee that a special meeting of the Committee will be held at a specified date and hour; such special meeting may not occur until forty-eight hours after the notice is filed. The Clerk shall immediately notify all Members of the Committee of the date and hour of the special meeting. The Committee shall meet at the specified date and hour. (d) Quorum: (1) A majority of the Members of the Select Committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business involving complaints and allegations of misconduct, including the consideration of matters involving sworn complaints, unsworn allegations or information, resultant preliminary inquiries, initial reviews, investigations, hearings, recommendations or reports and matters relating to Senate Resolution 400, agreed to May 19, 1976. (2) Three Members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of the routine business of the Select Committee not covered by the first subparagraph of this paragraph, including requests for opinions and interpretations concerning the Code of Official Conduct or any other statute or regulation under the jurisdiction of the Select Committee, if one Member of the quorum is a Member of the majority Party and one Member of the quorum is a Member of the minority Party. During the transaction of routine business any Member of the Select Committee constituting the quorum shall have the right to postpone further discussion of a pending matter until such time as a majority of the Members of the Select Committee are present. (3) Except for an adjudicatory hearing under Rule 6 and any deposition taken outside the presence of a Member under Rule 7, one Member shall constitute a quorum for hearing testimony, provided that all Members have been given notice of the hearing and the Chairman has designated a Member of the majority Party and the Vice Chairman has designated a Member of the minority Party to be in attendance, either of whom in the absence of the other may constitute the quorum. (e) Order of Business: Questions as to the order of business and the procedure of the Committee shall in the first instance be decided by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, subject to reversal by a vote by a majority of the Committee. (f) Hearing Announcements: The Committee shall make public announcement of the date, place and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by it at least one week before the commencement of that hearing, and shall publish such announcement in the Congressional Record. If the Committee determines that there is good cause to commence a hearing at an earlier date, such notice will be given at the earliest possible time. (g) Open and Closed Committee Meetings: Meetings of the Committee shall be open to the public or closed to the public (executive session), as determined under the provisions of paragraphs 5 (b) to (d) of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Executive session meetings of the Committee shall be closed except to the Members and the staff of the Committee. On the motion of any Member, and with the approval of a majority of the Committee Members present, other individuals may be admitted to an executive session meeting for a specified period or purpose. (h) Record of Testimony and Committee Action: An accurate stenographic or transcribed electronic record shall be kept of all Committee proceedings, whether in executive or public session. Such record shall include Senators' votes on any question on which a recorded vote is held. The record of a witness' testimony, whether in public or executive session, shall be made available for inspection to the witness or his counsel under Committee supervision; a copy of any testimony given by that witness in public session, or that part of the testimony given by the witness in executive session and subsequently quoted or made part of the record in a public session shall be made available to any witness if he so requests. (See Rule 6 on Procedures for Conducting Hearings.) (i) Secrecy of Executive Testimony and Action and of Complaint Proceedings: (1) All testimony and action taken in executive session shall be kept secret and shall not be released outside the Committee to any individual or group, whether governmental or private, without the approval of a majority of the Committee. (2) All testimony and action relating to a sworn complaint shall be kept secret and shall not be released by the Committee to any individual or group, whether governmental or private, except the respondent, without the approval of a majority of the Committee, until such time as a report to the Senate is required under Senate Resolution 338, 88th Congress, as amended, or unless otherwise permitted under these Rules. (See Rule 9 on Procedures for Handling Committee Sensitive and Classified Materials.) (j) Release of Reports to Public: No information pertaining to, or copies of any Committee report, study, or other document which purports to express the view, findings, conclusions or recommendations of the Committee in connection with any of its activities or proceedings may be released to any individual or group whether governmental or private, without the authorization of the Committee. Whenever the Chairman or Vice Chairman is authorized to make any determination, then the determination may be released at his or her discretion. Each Member of the Committee shall be given a reasonable opportunity to have separate views included as part of any Committee report. (See Rule 9 on Procedures for Handling Committee Sensitive and Classified Materials.) (k) Ineligibility or Disqualification of Members and Staff: (1) A Member of the Committee shall be ineligible to participate in any Committee proceeding that relates specifically to any of the following: (A) The Member's own conduct; (B) The conduct of any employee or officer that the Member supervises, as defined in paragraph [12] of Rule XXXVII of the Standing Rules of the Senate; (C) The conduct of any employee or any officer that the Member supervises; or (D) A complaint, sworn or unsworn, that was filed by a Member, or by any employee or officer that the Member supervises. (2) If any Committee proceeding appears to relate to a Member of the Committee in a manner described in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, the staff shall prepare a report to the Chairman and Vice Chairman. If either the Chairman or the Vice Chairman concludes from the report that it appears that the Member may be ineligible, the Member shall be notified in writing of the nature of the particular proceeding and the reason that it appears that the Member may be ineligible to participate in it. If the Member agrees that he or she is ineligible, the Member shall so notify the Chairman or Vice Chairman. If the Member believes that he or she is not ineligible, he or she may explain the reasons to the Chairman and Vice Chairman, and if they both agree that the Member is not ineligible, the Member shall continue to serve. But if either the Chairman or Vice Chairman continues to believe that the Member is ineligible, while the Member believes that he or she is not ineligible, the matter shall be promptly referred to the Committee. The Member shall present his or her arguments to the Committee in executive session. Any contested questions concerning a Member's eligibility shall be decided by a majority vote of the Committee, meeting in executive session, with the Member in question not participating. (3) A Member may also disqualify himself from participating in a Committee proceeding in other circumstances not listed in subparagraph (k)(1). (4) The President of the Senate shall be given written notice of the ineligibility or disqualification of any Member from any initial review, investigation, or other proceeding requiring the appointment of another Member in accordance with subparagraph (k)(5). (5) Whenever a Member of the Committee is ineligible to participate in or disqualifies himself from participating in any initial review, investigation, or other substantial Committee proceeding, another Member of the Senate who is of the same party shall be appointed by the Senate in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Rule XXIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, to serve as a Member of the Committee solely for the purposes of that proceeding. (6) A Member of the Committee staff shall be ineligible to participate in any Committee proceeding that the staff director or outside counsel determines relates specifically to any of the following: (A) the staff Member's own conduct; (B) the conduct of any employee that the staff Member supervises; (C) the conduct of any Member, officer or employee for whom the staff Member has worked for any substantial period; or (D) a complaint, sworn or unsworn, that was filed by the staff Member. At the direction or with the consent of the staff director or outside counsel, a staff Member may also be disqualified from participating in a Committee proceeding in other circumstances not listed above. (l) Recorded Votes: Any Member may require a recorded vote on any matter. (m) Proxies; Recording Votes of Absent Members: (1) Proxy voting shall not be allowed when the question before the Committee is the initiation or continuation of an initial review or an investigation, or the issuance of a report or recommendation related thereto concerning a Member or officer of the Senate. In any such case an absent Member's vote may be announced solely for the purpose of recording the Member's position and such announced votes shall not be counted for or against the motion. (2) On matters other than matters listed in paragraph (m)(1) above, the Committee may order that the record be held open for the vote of absentees or recorded proxy votes if the absent Committee Member has been informed of the matter on which the vote occurs and has affirmatively requested the Chairman or Vice Chairman in writing that he be so recorded. (3) All proxies shall be in writing, and shall be delivered to the Chairman or Vice Chairman to be recorded. (4) Proxies shall not be considered for the purpose of establishing a quorum. (n) Approval of Blind Trusts and Foreign Travel Requests Between Sessions and During Extended Recesses: During any period in which the Senate stands in adjournment between sessions of the Congress or stands in a recess scheduled to extend beyond fourteen days, the Chairman and Vice Chairman, or their designees, acting jointly, are authorized to approve or disapprove blind trusts under the provision of Rule XXXIV, and to approve or disapprove foreign travel requests which require immediate resolution. (o) Committee Use of Services or Employees of Other Agencies and Departments: With the prior consent of the department or agency involved, the Committee may (1) utilize the services, information, or facilities of any such department or agency of the Government, and (2) employ on a reimbursable basis or otherwise the services of such personnel of any such department or agency as it deems advisable. With the consent of any other committee of the Senate, or any subcommittee, the Committee may utilize the facilities and the services of the staff of such other committee or subcommittee whenever the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee, acting jointly, determine that such action is necessary and appropriate. Rule 2: Procedures for Sworn Complaints (a) Sworn Complaints: Any person may file a sworn complaint with the Committee, alleging that any Senator, or officer, or employee of the Senate has violated a law, the Senate Code of Official Conduct, or any rule or regulation of the Senate relating to the conduct of any individual in the performance of his or her duty as a Member, officer, or employee of the Senate, or has engaged in improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate. (b) Form and content of Complaints: A complaint filed under paragraph (a) shall be in writing and under oath, and shall set forth in simple, concise and direct statements: (1) The name and legal address of the party filing the complaint (hereinafter, the complainant); (2) The name and position or title of each Member, officer, or employee of the Senate who is specifically alleged to have engaged in the improper conduct or committed the violation (hereinafter, the respondent); (3) The nature of the alleged improper conduct or violation, including, if possible, the specific provision of the Senate Code of Official Conduct or other law, rule, or regulation alleged to have been violated. (4)(A) A statement of the facts within the personal knowledge of the complainant that are alleged to constitute the improper conduct or violation. (B) The term ``personal knowledge'' is not intended to and does not limit the complainant's statement to situations that he or she personally witnessed or to activities in which the complainant was a participant. (C) Where allegations in the sworn complaint are made upon the information and belief of the complainant, the complaint shall so state, and shall set forth the basis for such information and belief. (5) The complainant must swear that all of the information contained in the complaint either (a) is true, or (b) was obtained under circumstances such that the complainant has sufficient personal knowledge of the source of the information reasonably to believe that it is true. The complainant may so swear either by oath or by solemn affirmation before a notary public or other authorized official. (6) All documents in the possession of the complainant relevant to or in support of his or her allegations may be appended to the complaint. (c) Processing of Sworn Complaints: (1) When the Committee receives a sworn complaint against a Member, officer or employee of the Senate, it shall determine by majority vote whether the complaint is in substantial compliance with paragraph (b) of this rule. (2) If it is determined by the Committee that a sworn complaint does not substantially comply with the requirements of paragraph (b), the complaint shall be returned promptly to the complainant, with a statement explaining how the complaint fails to comply and a copy of the rules for filing sworn complaints. The complainant may resubmit the complaint in the proper form. If the complaint is not revised so that it substantially complies with the stated requirements, the Committee may in its discretion process the complaint in accordance with Rule 3. (3) A sworn complaint against any Member, officer, or employee of the Senate that is determined by the Committee to be in substantial compliance shall be transmitted to the respondent within five days of that determination. The transmittal notice shall include the date upon which the complaint was received, a statement that the complaint conforms to the applicable rules, a statement that the Committee will immediately begin an initial review of the complaint, and a statement inviting the respondent to provide any information relevant to the complaint to the Committee. A copy of the Rules of the Committee shall be supplied with the notice. Rule 3: Procedures on Receipt of Allegations Other Than a Sworn Complaint; Preliminary Inquiry (a) Unsworn Allegations or Information: Any Member or staff Member of the Committee shall report to the Committee, and any other person may report to the Committee, any credible information available to him or her that indicates that any named or unnamed Member, officer or employee of the Senate may have-- (1) violated the Senate Code of Official Conduct; (2) violated a law; (3) violated any rule or regulation of the Senate relating to the conduct of individuals in the performance of their duties as Members, officers, or employees of the Senate; or (4) engaged in improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate. Such allegations or information may be reported to the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, a Committee Member, or a Committee staff Member. (b) Sources of Unsworn Allegations or Information: The information to be reported to the Committee under paragraph (a), may be obtained from a variety of sources, including but not limited to the following: (1) sworn complaints that do not satisfy all of the requirements of Rule 2; (2) anonymous or informal complaints, whether or not satisfying the requirements of Rule 2; (3) information developed during a study or inquiry by the Committee or other committees or subcommittees of the Senate, including information obtained in connection with legislative or general oversight hearings; (4) information reported by the news media; or (5) information obtained from any individual, agency or department of the executive branch of the Federal Government. (c) Preliminary Inquiry: (1) When information is presented to the Committee pursuant to paragraph (a), it shall immediately be transmitted to the Chairman and the Vice Chairman, for one of the following actions: (A) The Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, may conduct or may direct the Committee staff to conduct, a preliminary inquiry. (B) The Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, may present the allegations or information received directly to the Committee for it to determine whether an initial review should be undertaken. (See paragraph (d).) (2) A preliminary inquiry may include any inquiries, interviews, sworn statements, depositions, and subpoenas that the Chairman and Vice Chairman deem appropriate to obtain information upon which to make any determination provided for by this Rule. (3) At the conclusion of a preliminary inquiry, the Chairman and Vice Chairman shall receive a full report of its findings. The Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, shall then determine what further action, if any, is appropriate in the particular case, including any of the following: (A) No further action is appropriate, because the alleged improper conduct or violation is clearly not within the jurisdiction of the Committee; (B) No further action is appropriate, because there is no reason to believe that the alleged improper conduct or violation may have occurred; or (C) The unsworn allegations or information, and a report on the preliminary inquiry, should be referred to the Committee, to determine whether an initial review should be undertaken. (See paragraph (d).) (4) If the Chairman and the Vice Chairman are unable to agree on a determination at the conclusion of a preliminary inquiry, then they shall refer the allegations or information to the Committee, with a report on the preliminary inquiry, for the Committee to determine whether an initial review should be undertaken. (See paragraph (d).) (5) A preliminary inquiry shall be completed within sixty days after the unsworn allegations or information were received by the Chairman and Vice Chairman. The sixty day period may be extended for a specified period by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly. A preliminary inquiry is completed when the Chairman and the Vice Chairman have made the determination required by subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this paragraph. (d) Determination Whether to Conduct an Initial Review: When information or allegations are presented to the Committee by the Chairman and the Vice Chairman, the Committee shall determine whether an initial review should be undertaken. (1) An initial review shall be undertaken when-- (A) there is reason to believe on the basis of the information before the Committee that the possible improper conduct or violation may be within the jurisdiction of the Committee; and (B) there is reason to believe on the basis of the information before the Committee that the improper conduct or violation may have occurred. (2) The determination whether to undertake an initial review shall be made by recorded vote within thirty days following the Committee's receipt of the unsworn allegations or information from the Chairman or Vice Chairman, or at the first meeting of the Committee thereafter if none occurs within thirty days, unless this time is extended for a specified period by the Committee. (3) The Committee may determine that an initial review is not warranted because (a) there is no reason to believe on the basis of the information before the Committee that the improper conduct or violation may have occurred, or (b) the improper conduct or violation, even if proven, is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee. (A) If the Committee determines that an initial review is not warranted, it shall promptly notify the complainant, if any, and any known respondent. (B) If there is a complainant, he or she may also be invited to submit additional information, and notified of the procedures for filing a sworn complaint. If the complainant later provides additional information, not in the form of a sworn complaint, it shall be handled as a new allegation in accordance with the procedures of Rule 3. If he or she submits a sworn complaint, it shall be handled in accordance with Rule 2. (4)(A) The Committee may determine that there is reason to believe on the basis of the information before it that the improper conduct or violation may have occurred and may be within the jurisdiction of the Committee, and that an initial review must therefore be conducted. (B) If the Committee determines that an initial review will be conducted, it shall promptly notify the complainant, if any, and the respondent, if any. (C) The notice required under subparagraph (B) shall include a general statement of the information or allegations before the Committee and a statement that the Committee will immediately begin an initial review of the complaint. A copy of the rules of the Committee shall be supplied with the notice. (5) If a Member of the Committee believes that the preliminary inquiry has provided sufficient information for the Committee to determine whether there is substantial credible evidence which provides substantial cause for the Committee to conclude that a violation within the jurisdiction of the Committee has occurred, the Member may move that the Committee dispense with the initial review and move directly to the determinations described in Rule 4(f). The Committee may adopt such a motion by majority vote of the full Committee. rule 4: procedures for conducting an initial review (a) Basis for Initial Review: The Committee shall promptly commence an initial review whenever it has received either (1) a sworn complaint that the Committee has determined is in substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 2, or (2) unsworn allegations or information that have caused the Committee to determine in accordance with Rule 3 that an initial review must be conducted. (b) Scope of Initial Review: (1) The initial review shall be of such duration and scope as may be necessary to determine whether there is substantial credible evidence which provides substantial cause for the Committee to conclude that a violation within the jurisdiction of the Committee has occurred. (2) An initial review may include any inquiries, interviews, sworn statements, depositions, and subpoenas that the Committee deems appropriate to obtain information upon which to make any determination provided for by this rule. (c) Opportunity for Response: An initial review may include an opportunity for any known respondent or his designated representative, to present either a written or oral statement, or to respond orally to questions from the Committee. Such an oral statement or answers shall be transcribed and signed by the person providing the statement or answers. (d) Status Reports: The Committee staff or outside counsel shall periodically report to the Committee in the form and according to the schedule prescribed by the Committee. The reports shall be confidential. (e) Final Report: When the initial review is completed, the staff or outside counsel shall make a confidential report to the Committee on findings and recommendations. (f) Committee Action: As soon as practicable following submission of the report on the initial review, the Committee shall determine by a recorded vote whether there is substantial credible evidence which provides substantial cause for the Committee to conclude that a violation within the jurisdiction of the Committee has occurred. The Committee may make any of the following determinations: (1) The Committee may determine that there is not such substantial credible evidence. In this case, the Committee shall report its determination to the complainant, if any, and to the respondent, together with an explanation of the basis for the determination. The explanation may be as detailed as the Committee desires, but it is not required to include a complete discussion of the evidence collected in the initial review. (2) The Committee may determine that there is such substantial credible evidence, but that the alleged violation is inadvertent, technical, or otherwise of a de minimis nature. In this case, the Committee may attempt to correct or to prevent such violation by informal methods. The Committee's final determination in this matter shall be reported to the complainant, if any, and to the respondent, if any. (3) The Committee may determine that there is such substantial credible evidence, but that the alleged violation, if proven, although not of a de minimis nature, would not be sufficiently serious to justify the severe disciplinary actions specified in Senate Resolution 338, 88th Congress, as amended (i.e., for a Member, censure, expulsion, or recommendation to the appropriate party conference regarding the Member's seniority or positions of responsibility; of for an officer or employee, suspension or dismissal). In this case, the Committee, by the recorded affirmative vote of at least four Members, may propose a remedy that it deems appropriate. If the respondent agrees to the proposed remedy, a summary of the Committee's conclusions and the remedy proposed and agreed to shall be filed as a public record with the Secretary of the Senate and a notice of the filing shall be printed in the Congressional Record. (4) The Committee may determine, by recorded affirmative vote of at least four Members, that there is such substantial credible evidence, and also either: (A) that the violation, if proved, would be sufficiently serious to warrant imposition of one of the severe disciplinary actions listed in paragraph (3); of (B) that the violation, if proven, is less serious, but was not resolved pursuant to the procedure in paragraph (3). In either case, the Committee shall order that an investigation promptly be conducted in accordance with Rule 5. rule 5: procedures for conducting an investigation (a) Definition of Investigation: An ``investigation'' is a proceeding undertaken by the Committee, by recorded affirmative vote of at least four Members, after a finding on the basis of an initial review that there is substantial credible evidence which provides substantial cause for the Committee to conclude that a violation within its jurisdiction has occurred. (b) Scope of Investigation: When the Committee decides to conduct an investigation, it shall be of such duration and scope as is necessary for the Committee to determine whether a violation within its jurisdiction has occurred. In the course of the investigation, designated outside counsel, or if the Committee determines not to use outside counsel, the Committee or its staff, may conduct inquiries or interviews, take sworn statements, use compulsory process as described in Rule 7, or take any other actions that the Committee deems appropriate to secure the evidence necessary to make this determination. (c) Notice to Respondent: The Committee shall give written notice to any known respondent who is the subject of an investigation. The notice shall be sent to the respondent no later than five working days after the Committee has voted to conduct an investigation. The notice shall include a statement of the nature of the possible violation, and a description of the evidence indicating that a possible violation occurred. The Committee shall offer the respondent an opportunity to present a statement or to respond to questions from Members of the Committee, the Committee staff, or outside counsel. (d) Right to a Hearing: The Committee shall accord a respondent an opportunity for a hearing before it recommends disciplinary action against that respondent to the Senate. (e) Progress Reports to Committee: The Committee staff or outside counsel shall periodically report to the Committee concerning the progress of the investigation. Such reports shall be delivered to the Committee in the form and according to the schedule prescribed by the Committee, and shall be confidential. (f) Report of Investigation: (1) Upon completion of an investigation, including any hearings held pursuant to Rule 6, the outside counsel or the staff shall submit a confidential written report to the Committee, which shall detail the factual findings of the investigation and which may recommend disciplinary action, if appropriate. Findings of fact of the investigation shall be detailed in this report whether or not disciplinary action is recommended. (2) The Committee shall consider the report of the staff or outside counsel promptly following its submission. The Committee shall prepare and submit a report to the Senate, including a recommendation to the Senate concerning disciplinary action, if appropriate. A report shall be issued, stating in detail the Committee's findings of fact, whether or not disciplinary action is recommended. The report shall also explain fully the reasons underlying the Committee's recommendation concerning disciplinary action, if any. No recommendation or resolution of the Committee concerning the investigation of a Member, officer or employee of the Senate may be approved except by the affirmative recorded vote of not less than four Members of the Committee. (3) Promptly, after the conclusion of the investigation, the Committee's report and recommendation shall be forwarded to the Secretary of the Senate, and a copy shall be provided to the complainant and the respondent. The full report and recommendation shall be printed and made public, unless the Committee determines by majority vote that it should remain confidential. rule 6: procedures for hearings (a) Right to Hearing: The Committee may hold a public or executive hearing in any inquiry, initial review, investigation, or other proceeding. The Committee shall accord a respondent an opportunity for a hearing before it recommends disciplinary action against that respondent to the Senate. (See Rule 5(d).) (b) Non-Public Hearings: The Committee may at any time during a hearing determine in accordance with paragraph 5(b) of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate whether to receive the testimony of specific witnesses in executive session. If a witness desires to express a preference for testifying in public or in executive session, he or she shall so notify the Committee at least five days before he or she is scheduled to testify. (c) Adjudicatory Hearings: The Committee may, by majority vote, designate any public or executive hearing as an adjudicatory hearing; and, any hearing which is concerned with possible disciplinary action against a respondent or respondents designated by the Committee shall be an adjudicatory hearing. In any adjudicatory hearing, the procedures described in paragraph (j) shall apply. (d) Subpoena Power: The Committee may require, but subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books, papers, documents or other articles as it deems advisable. (See Rule 7.) (e) Notice of Hearings: The Committee shall make public an announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by it, in accordance with Rule 1(f). (f) Presiding Officer: The Chairman shall preside over the hearings, or in his absence the Vice Chairman. If the Vice Chairman is also absent, a Committee Member designated by the Chairman shall preside. If an oath or affirmation is required, it shall be administered to a witness by the Presiding Officer, or in his absence, by any Committee Member. (g) Witnesses: (1) A subpoena or other request to testify shall be served on a witness sufficiently in advance of his or her scheduled appearance to allow the witness a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Committee, to prepare for the hearing and to employ counsel if desired. (2) The Committee may, by a majority vote, rule that no Member of the Committee or staff or outside counsel shall make public the name of any witness subpoenaed by the Committee before the date of that witness' scheduled appearance, except as specifically authorized by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly. (3) Any witness desiring to read a prepared or written statement in executive or public hearings shall file a copy of such statement with the Committee at least two working days in advance of the hearing at which the statement is to be presented. The Chairman and Vice Chairman shall determine whether such statements may be read or placed in the record of the hearing. (4) Insofar as practicable, each witness shall be permitted to present a brief oral opening statement, if he or she desires to do so. (h) Right To Testify: Any person whose name is mentioned or who is specifically identified or otherwise referred to in testimony or in statements made by a Committee Member, staff Member or outside counsel, or any witness, and who reasonably believes that the statement tends to adversely affect his or her reputation may-- (1) Request to appear personally before the Committee to testify in his or her own behalf; or (2) File a sworn statement of facts relevant to the testimony or other evidence or statement of which he or she complained. Such request and such statement shall be submitted to the Committee for its consideration and action. (i) Conduct of Witnesses and Other Attendees: The Presiding Officer may punish any breaches of order and decorum by censure and exclusion from the hearings. The Committee, by majority vote, may recommend to the Senate that the offender be cited for contempt of Congress. (j) Adjudicator Hearing Procedures: (1) Notice of hearings: A copy of the public announcement of an adjudicatory hearing, required by paragraph (e), shall be furnished together with a copy of these Rules to all witnesses at the time that they are subpoenaed or otherwise summoned to testify. (2) Preparation for adjudicatory hearings: (A) At least five working days prior to the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing the Committee shall provide the following information and documents to the respondent, if any: (i) a list of proposed witnesses to be called at the hearing; (ii) copies of all documents expected to be introduced as exhibits at the hearing; and (iii) a brief statement as to the nature of the testimony expected to be given by each witness to be called at the hearing. (B) At least two working days prior to the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing, the respondent, if any, shall provide the information and documents described in divisions (i), (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (A) to the Committee. (C) At the discretion of the Committee, the information and documents to be exchanged under this paragraph shall be subject to an appropriate agreement limiting access and disclosure. (D) If a respondent refuses to provide the information and documents to the Committee (see (A) and (B) of this subparagraph), or if a respondent or other individual violates an agreement limiting access and disclosure, the Committee, by majority vote, may recommend to the Senate that the offender be cited for contempt of Congress. (3) Swearing of witnesses: All witnesses who testify at adjudicatory hearings shall be sworn unless the Presiding Officer, for good cause, decides that witness does not have to be sworn. (4) Right to counsel: Any witness at an adjudicatory hearing may be accompanied by counsel of his or her own choosing, who shall be permitted to advise the witness of his or her legal rights during the testimony. (5) Right to cross-examine and call witnesses: (A) In adjudicatory hearings, any respondent who is the subject of an investigation, and any other person who obtains the permission of the Committee, may personally or through counsel cross-examine witnesses called by the Committee and may call witnesses in his or her own behalf. (B) A respondent may apply to the Committee for the issuance of subpoenas for the appearance of witnesses or the production of documents on his or her behalf. An application shall be approved upon a concise showing by the respondent that the proposed testimony or evidence is relevant and appropriate, as determined by the Chairman and Vice Chairman. (C) With respect to witnesses called by a respondent, or other individual given permission by the Committee, each such witness shall first be examined by the party who called the witness or by that party's counsel. (D) At least one working day before a witness' scheduled appearance, a witness or a witness' counsel may submit to the Committee written questions proposed to be asked of that witness. If the Committee determines that it is necessary, such questions may be asked by any Member of the Committee, or by any Committee staff member if directed by a Committee Member. The witness or witness' counsel may also submit additional sworn testimony for the record within twenty-four hours after the last day that the witness has testified. The insertion of such testimony in that day's record is subject to the approval of the Chairman and Vice Chairman acting jointly within five days after the testimony is received. (6) Admissibility of evidence: (A) The object of the hearing shall be to ascertain the truth. Any evidence that may be relevant and probative shall be admissible unless privileged under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rules of evidence shall not be applied strictly, but the Presiding Officer shall exclude irrelevant or unduly repetitious testimony. Objections going only to the weight that should be given evidence will not justify its exclusion. (B) The Presiding Officer shall rule upon any question of the admissibility of testimony or other evidence presented to the Committee. Such rulings shall be final unless reversed or modified by a majority vote of the Committee before the recess of that day's hearings. (C) Notwithstanding paragraphs (A) and (B), in any matter before the committee involving allegations of sexual discrimination, including sexual harassment, or sexual misconduct, by a Member, officer, or employee within the jurisdiction of the Committee, the Committee shall be guided by the standards and procedures of Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, except that the Committee may admit evidence subject to the provisions of this paragraph only upon a determination of a majority of the Members of the full Committee that the interests of justice require that such evidence be admitted. (7) Supplementary hearing procedures: The Committee may adopt any additional special hearing procedures that it deems necessary or appropriate to a particular adjudicatory hearing. Copies of such supplementary procedures shall be furnished to witnesses and respondents, and shall be made available upon request to any Member of the public. (k) Transcripts: (l) An accurate stenographic or recorded transcript shall be made of all public and executive hearings. Any Member of the Committee, Committee staff Member, outside counsel retained by the Committee, or witness may examine a copy of the transcript retained by the Committee of his or her own remarks and may suggest to the official reporter any typographical or transcription errors. If the reporter declines to make the requested corrections, the Member, staff Member, outside counsel or witness may request a ruling by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly. Any Member or witness shall return the transcript with suggested corrections to the Committee offices within five working days after receipt of the transcript, or as soon thereafter as is practicable. If the testimony was given in executive session, the Member or witness may only inspect the transcript at a location determined by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly. Any questions arising with respect to the processing and correction of transcripts shall be decided by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly. (2) Except for the record of a hearing which is closed to the public, each transcript shall be printed as soon as is practicable after receipt of the corrected version. The Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, may order the transcript of a hearing to be printed without the corrections of a Member or witness if they determine that such Member or witness has been afforded a reasonable time to correct such transcript and such transcript has not been returned within such time. (3) The Committee shall furnish each witness, at no cost, one transcript copy of that witness' testimony given at a public hearing. If the testimony was given in executive session, then a transcript copy shall be provided upon request, subject to appropriate conditions and restrictions prescribed by the Chairman and Vice Chairman. If any individual violates such conditions and restrictions, the Committee may recommend by majority vote that he or she be cited for contempt of Congress. rule 7: subpoenas and depositions (a) Subpoenas: (1) Authorization for Issuance: Subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses at depositions or hearings, and subpoenas for the production of documents and tangible things at depositions, hearings, or other times and places designated therein, may be authorized for issuance by either (A) a majority vote of the Committee, or (B) the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, at any time before a preliminary inquiry, for the purpose of obtaining information to evaluate unsworn allegations or information, or at any time during a preliminary inquiry, initial review, investigation, or other proceeding. (2) Signature and Service: All subpoenas shall be signed by the Chairman or the Vice Chairman and may be served by any person eighteen years of age or older, who is designated by the Chairman or Vice Chairman. Each subpoena shall be served with a copy of the Rules of the Committee and a brief statement of the purpose of the Committee's proceeding. (3) Withdrawal of Subpoena: The Committee, by majority vote, may withdraw any subpoena authorized for issuance by it or authorized for issuance by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly. The Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, may withdraw any subpoena authorized for issuance by them. (b) Depositions: (1) Persons Authorized To Take Depositions: Depositions may be taken by any Member of the Committee, designated by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, or by any other person designated by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, including outside counsel, Committee staff, other employees of the Senate, or government employees detailed to the Committee. (2) Deposition Notices: Notices for the taking of depositions shall be authorized by the Committee, or the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, and issued by the Chairman, Vice Chairman, or a Committee staff Member or outside counsel designated by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly. Depositions may be taken at any time before a preliminary inquiry, for the purpose of obtaining information to evaluate unsworn allegations or information, or at any time during a preliminary inquiry, initial review, investigation, or other proceeding. Deposition notices shall specify a time and place for examination. Unless otherwise specified, the deposition shall be in private, and the testimony taken and documents produced shall be deemed for the purpose of these rules to have been received in a closed or executive session of the Committee. The Committee shall not initiate procedures leading to criminal or civil enforcement proceedings for a witness's failure to appear, or to testify, or to produce documents, unless the deposition notice was accompanied by a subpoena authorized for issuance by the Committee, or the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly. (3) Counsel at Depositions: Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel to advise them of their rights. (4) Deposition Procedure: Witnesses at depositions shall be examined upon oath administered by an individual authorized by law to administer oaths, or administered by any Member of the Committee if one is present. Questions may be propounded by any person or persons who are authorized to take depositions for the Committee. If a witness objects to a question and refuses to testify, or refuses to produce a document, any Member of the Committee who is present may rule on the objection and, if the objection is overruled, direct the witness to answer the question or produce the document. If no Member of the Committee is present, the individual who has been designated by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, to take the deposition may proceed with the deposition, or may, at that time or at a subsequent time, seek a ruling by telephone or otherwise on the objection from the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Committee, who may refer the matter to the Committee or rule on the objection. If the Chairman or Vice Chairman, or the Committee upon referral, overrules the objection, the Chairman, Vice Chairman, or the Committee as the case may be, may direct the witness to answer the question or produce the document. The Committee shall not initiate procedures leading to civil or criminal enforcement unless the witness refuses to testify or produce documents after having been directed to do so. (5) Filing of Depositions: Deposition testimony shall be transcribed or electronically recorded. If the deposition is transcribed, the individual administering the oath shall certify on the transcript that the witness was duly sworn in his or her presence and the transcriber shall certify that the transcript is a true record of the testimony. The transcript with these certifications shall be filed with the chief clerk of the Committee, and the witness shall be furnished with access to a copy at the Committee's offices for review. Upon inspecting the transcript, within a time limit set by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, a witness may request in writing changes in the transcript to correct errors in transcription. The witness may also bring to the attention of the Committee errors of fact in the witness's testimony by submitting a sworn statement about those facts with a request that it be attached to the transcript. The Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, may rule on the witness's request, and the changes or attachments allowed shall be certified by the Committee's chief clerk. If the witness fails to make any request under this paragraph within the time limit set, this fact shall be noted by the Committee's chief clerk. Any person authorized by the Committee may stipulate with the witness to changes in this procedure. rule 8: violations of law; perjury; legislative recommendations; and applicable rules and standards of conduct (a) Violations of Law: Whenever the Committee determines by majority vote that there is reason to believe that a violation of law may have occurred, it shall report such possible violation to the proper state and federal authorities. (b) Perjury: Any person who knowingly and willfully swears falsely to a sworn complaint or any other sworn statement to the Committee does so under penalty of perjury. The Committee may refer any such case to the Attorney General for prosecution. (c) Legislative Recommendations: The Committee shall recommend to the Senate by report or resolution such additional rules, regulations, or other legislative measures as it determines to be necessary or desirable to ensure proper standards of conduct by Members, officers, or employees of the Senate. The Committee may conduct such inquiries as it deems necessary to prepare such a report or resolution, including the holding of hearings in public or executive session and the use of subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of materials. The Committee may make legislative recommendations as a result of its findings in an initial review, investigation, or other proceeding. (d) Applicable Rules and Standards of Conduct: (1) No initial review or investigation shall be made of an alleged violation of any law, rule, regulation, or provision of the Senate Code of Official Conduct which was not in effect at the time the alleged violation occurred. No provision of the Senate Code of Official Conduct shall apply to, or require disclosure of any act, relationship, or transaction which occurred prior to the effective date of the applicable provision of the Code. (2) The Committee may conduct an initial review or investigation of an alleged violation of a rule or law which was in effect prior to the enactment of the Senate Code of Official Conduct if the alleged violation occurred while such rule or law was in effect and the violation was not a matter resolved on the merits by the predecessor Committee. rule 9: procedures for handling committee sensitive and classified materials (a) Procedures for Handling Committee Sensitive Materials: (1) Committee Sensitive information or material is information or material in the possession of the Select Committee on Ethics which pertains to illegal or improper conduct by a present or former Member, officer, or employee of the Senate; to allegations or accusation of such conduct; to any resulting preliminary inquiry, initial review, or investigation by the Select Committee on Ethics into such allegations or conduct; to the investigative techniques and procedures of the Select Committee on Ethics; or to other information or material designated by the staff director, or outside counsel designated by the Chairman and Vice Chairman. (2) The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee shall establish such procedures as may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of Committee Sensitive information in the possession of the Committee or its staff. Procedures for protecting Committee Sensitive materials shall be in writing and shall be given to each Committee staff Member. (b) Procedures for Handling Classified Materials: (1) Classified information or material is information or material which is specifically designated as classified under the authority of Executive Order 11652 requiring protection of such information or material from unauthorized disclosure in order to prevent damage to the United States. (2) The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee shall establish such procedures as may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of classified information in the possession of the Committee or its staff. Procedures for handling such information shall be in writing and a copy of the procedures shall be given to each staff Member cleared for access to classified information. (3) Each Member of the Committee shall have access to classified material in the Committee's possession. Only Committee staff Members with appropriate security clearances and a need-to-know, as approved by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, shall have access to classified information in the Committee's possession. (c) Procedures for Handling Committee Sensitive and Classified Documents: (1) Committee Sensitive and classified documents and materials shall be segregated in secure filing safes. Removal from the Committee offices of such documents or materials is prohibited except as necessary for use in, or preparation for, interviews or Committee meetings, including the taking of testimony, or as otherwise specifically approved by the staff director or by outside counsel designated by the Chairman and Vice Chairman. (2) Each Member of the Committee shall have access to all materials in the Committee's possession. The staffs of Members shall not have access to Committee Sensitive or classified documents and materials without the specific approval in each instance of the Chairman, and Vice Chairman, acting jointly. Members may examine such materials in the Committee's offices. If necessary, requested materials may be taken by a Member of the Committee staff to the office of a Member of the Committee for his or her examination, but the Committee staff Member shall remain with the Committee Sensitive or classified documents or materials at all times except as specifically authorized by the Chairman or Vice Chairman. (3) Any Member of the Senate who is not a Member of the Committee and who seeks access to any Committee Sensitive or classified documents or materials, other than documents or materials which are matters of public record, shall request access in writing. The Committee shall decide by majority vote whether to make documents or materials available. If access is granted, the Member shall not disclose the information except as authorized by the Committee. (4) Whenever the Committee makes Committee Sensitive or classified documents or materials available to any Member of the Senate who is not a Member of the Committee, or to a staff person of a Committee Member in response to a specific request to the Chairman and Vice Chairman, a written record shall be made identifying the Member of the Senate requesting such documents or materials and describing what was made available and to whom. (d) Non-Disclosure Policy and Agreement: (1) Except as provided in the last sentence of this paragraph, no Member of the Select Committee on Ethics, its staff or any person engaged by contract or otherwise to perform services for the Select Committee on Ethics shall release, divulge, publish, reveal by writing, word, conduct, or disclose in any way, in whole, or in part, or by way of summary, during tenure with the Select Committee on Ethics or anytime thereafter, any testimony given before the Select Committee on Ethics in executive session (including the name of any witness who appeared or was called to appear in executive session), any classified or Committee Sensitive information, document or material, received or generated by the Select Committee on Ethics or any classified or Committee Sensitive information which may come into the possession of such person during tenure with the Select Committee on Ethics or its staff. Such information, documents, or material may be released to an official of the executive branch properly cleared for access with a need-to-know, for any purpose or in connection with any proceeding, judicial or otherwise, as authorized by the Select Committee on Ethics, or in the event of termination of the Select Committee on Ethics, in such a manner as may be determined by its successor or by the Senate. (2) No Member of the Select Committee on Ethics staff or any person engaged by contract or otherwise to perform services for the Select Committee on Ethics, shall be granted access to classified or Committee Sensitive information or material in the possession of the Select Committee on Ethics unless and until such person agrees in writing, as a condition of employment, to the non-disclosure policy. The agreement shall become effective when signed by the Chairman and Vice Chairman on behalf of the Committee. rule 10: broadcasting and news coverage of committee proceedings (a) Whenever any hearing or meeting of the Committee is open to the public, the Committee shall permit that hearing or meeting to be covered in whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, still photography, or by any other methods of coverage, unless the Committee decides by majority vote that such coverage is not appropriate at a particular hearing or meeting. (b) Any witness served with a subpoena by the Committee may request not to be photographed at any hearing or to give evidence or testimony while the broadcasting, reproduction, or coverage of that hearing, by radio, television, still photography, or other methods is occurring. At the request of any such witness who does not wish to be subjected to radio, television, still photography, or other methods of coverage, and subject to the approval of the Committee, all lenses shall be covered and all microphones used for coverage turned off. (c) If coverage is permitted, it shall be in accordance with the following requirements: (1) Photographers and reporters using mechanical recording, filming, or broadcasting apparatus shall position their equipment so as not to interfere with the seating, vision, and hearing of the Committee Members and staff, or with the orderly process of the meeting or hearing. (2) If the television or radio coverage of the hearing or meeting is to be presented to the public as live coverage, the coverage shall be conducted and presented without commercial sponsorship. (3) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries. (4) Personnel providing coverage by still photography shall be currently accredited to the Press Photographers' Gallery Committee of Press Photographers. (5) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media and by still photography shall conduct themselves and the coverage activities in an orderly and unobtrusive manner. rule 11: procedures for advisory opinions (a) When Advisory Opinions Are Rendered: (1) The Committee shall render an advisory opinion, in writing within a reasonable time, in response to a written request by a Member or officer of the Senate or a candidate for nomination for election, or election to the Senate, concerning the application of any law, the Senate Code of Official Conduct, or any rule or regulation of the Senate within the Committee's jurisdiction, to a specific factual situation pertinent to the conduct or proposed conduct of the person seeking the advisory opinion. (2) The Committee may issue an advisory opinion in writing within a reasonable time in response to a written request by any employee of the Senate concerning the application of any law, the Senate Code of Official Conduct, or any rule or regulation of the Senate within the Committee's jurisdiction, to a specific factual situation pertinent to the conduct or proposed conduct of the person seeking the advisory opinion. (b) Form of Request: A request for an advisory opinion shall be directed in writing to the Chairman of the Committee and shall include a complete and accurate statement of the specific factual situation with respect to which the request is made as well as the specific question or questions which the requestor wishes the Committee to address. (c) Opportunity for Comment: (1) The Committee will provide an opportunity for any interested party to comment on a request for an advisory opinion-- (A) which requires an interpretation on a significant question of first impression that will affect more than a few individuals; or (B) when the Committee determines that comments from interested parties would be of assistance. (2) Notice of any such request for an advisory opinion shall be published in the Congressional Record, with appropriate deletions to insure confidentiality, and interested parties will be asked to submit their comments in writing to the Committee within ten days. (3) All relevant comments received on a timely basis will be considered. (d) Issuance of an Advisory Opinion: (1) The Committee staff shall prepare a proposed advisory opinion in draft form which will first be reviewed and approved by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, and will be presented to the Committee for final action. If (A) the Chairman and Vice Chairman cannot agree, or (B) either the Chairman or Vice Chairman requests that it be taken directly to the Committee, then the proposed advisory opinion shall be referred to the Committee for its decision. (2) An advisory opinion shall be issued only by the affirmative recorded vote of a majority of the Members voting. (3) Each advisory opinion issued by the Committee shall be promptly transmitted for publication in the Congressional Record after appropriate deletions are made to insure confidentiality. The Committee may at any time revise, withdraw, or elaborate on any advisory opinion. (e) Reliance on Advisory Opinions: (1) Any advisory opinion issued by the Committee under Senate Resolution 338, 88th Congress, as amended, and the rules may be relied upon by-- (A) Any person involved in the specific transaction or activity with respect to which such advisory opinion is rendered if the request for such advisory opinion included a complete and accurate statement of the specific factual situation; and (B) any person involved in any specific transaction or activity which is indistinguishable in all its material aspects from the transaction or activity with respect to which such advisory opinion is rendered. (2) Any person who relies upon any provision or finding of an advisory opinion in accordance with the provisions of Senate Resolution 338, 88th Congress, as amended, and of the rules, and who acts in good faith in accordance with the provisions and findings of such advisory opinion shall not, as a result of any such act, be subject to any sanction by the Senate. Rule 12: Procedures for Interpretative Rulings (a) Basis for Interpretative Rulings: Senate Resolution 338, 88th Congress, as amended, authorizes the Committee to issue interpretative rulings explaining and clarifying the application of any law, the Code of Official Conduct, or any rule or regulation of the Senate within its jurisdiction. The Committee also may issue such rulings clarifying or explaining and rule or regulation of the Select Committee on Ethics. (b) Request for Ruling: A request for such a ruling must be directed in writing to the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Committee. (c) Adoption of Ruling: (1) The Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, shall issue a written interpretative ruling in response to any such request, unless-- (A) they cannot agree, (B) it requires an interpretation of a significant question of first impression, or (C) either requests that it be taken to the Committee, in which event the request shall be directed to the Committee for a ruling. (2) A ruling on any request taken to the Committee under subparagraph (1) shall be adopted by a majority of the Members voting and the ruling shall then be issued by the Chairman and Vice Chairman. (d) Publication of Rulings: The Committee will publish in the Congressional Record, after making appropriate deletions to ensure confidentiality, any interpretative rulings issued under this Rule which the Committee determines may be of assistance or guidance to other Members, officers or employees. The Committee may at any time revise, withdraw, or elaborate on interpretative rulings. (e) Reliance on Rulings: Whenever an individual can demonstrate to the Committee's satisfaction that his or her conduct was in good faith reliance on an interpretative ruling issued in accordance with this Rule, the Committee will not recommend sanctions to the Senate as a result of such conduct. (f) Rulings by Committee Staff: The Committee staff is not authorized to make rulings or give advice, orally or in writing, which binds the Committee in any way. Rule 13: Procedures for Complaints Involving Improper Use of the Mailing Frank (a) Authority To Receive Complaints: The Committee is directed by section 6(b) of Public Law 9309191 to receive and dispose of complaints that a violation of the use of the mailing frank has occurred or is about to occur by a Member or officer of the Senate or by a surviving spouse of a Member. All such complaints will be processed in accordance with the provisions of these Rules, except as provided in paragraph (b). (b) Disposition of Complaints: (1) The Committee may dispose of any such complaint by requiring restitution of the cost of the mailing if it finds that the franking violation was the result of a mistake. (2) Any complaint disposed of by restitution that is made after the Committee has formally commenced an initial review or investigation, must be summarized, together with the disposition, in a notice promptly transmitted for publication in the Congressional Record. (3) If a complaint is disposed of by restitution, the complainant, if any, shall be notified of the disposition in writing. (c) Advisory Opinions and Interpretative Rulings: Requests for advisory opinions or interpretative rulings involving franking questions shall be processed in accordance with Rules 11 and 12. Rule 14: Procedures for Waivers (a) Authority for Waivers: The Committee is authorized to grant a waiver under the following provisions of the Standing Rules of the Senate: (1) Section 101(h) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended (Rule XXXIV), relating to the filing of financial disclosure reports by individuals who are expected to perform or who have performed the duties of their offices or positions for less than one hundred and thirty days in a calendar year; (2) Section 102(a)(2)(D) of the Ethics in Government Act, as amended (Rule XXXIV), relating to the reporting of gifts; (3) Paragraph 1 of Rule XXXV relating to acceptance of gifts; or (4) Paragraph 5 of Rule XLI relating to applicability of any of the provisions of the Code of Official Conduct to an employee of the Senate hired on a per diem basis. (b) Requests for Waivers: A request for a waiver under paragraph (a) must be directed to the Chairman or Vice Chairman in writing and must specify the nature of the waiver being sought and explain in detail the facts alleged to justify a waiver. In the case of a request submitted by an employee, the views of his or her supervisor (as determined under paragraph 12 of Rule XXXVII of the Standing Rules of the Senate) should be included with the waiver request. (c) Ruling: The Committee shall rule on a waiver request by recorded vote, with a majority of those voting affirming the decision. (d) Availability of Waiver Determinations: A brief description of any waiver granted by the Committee, with appropriate deletions to ensure confidentiality, shall be made available for review upon request in the Committee office. Waivers granted by the Committee pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, may only be granted pursuant to a publicly available request as required by the Act. Rule 15: Definition of ``Officer or Employee'' (a) As used in the applicable resolutions and in these rules and procedures, the term ``officer or employee of the Senate'' means: (1) An elected officer of the Senate who is not a Member of the Senate; (2) An employee of the Senate, any committee or subcommittee of the Senate, or any Member of the Senate; (3) The Legislative Counsel of the Senate or any employee of his office; (4) An Official Reporter of Debates of the Senate and any person employed by the Official Reporters of Debates of the Senate in connection with the performance of their official duties; (5) A Member of the Capitol Police force whose compensation is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate; (6) An employee of the Vice President, if such employee's compensation is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate; (7) An employee of a joint committee of the Congress whose compensation is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate; (8) An officer or employee of any department or agency of the Federal Government whose services are being utilized on a full-time and continuing basis by a Member, officer, employee, or committee of the Senate in accordance with Rule XLI(3) of the Standing Rules of the Senate; and (9) Any other individual whose full-time services are utilized for more than ninety days in a calendar year by a Member, officer, employee, or committee of the Senate in the conduct of official duties in accordance with Rule XLI(4) of the Standing Rules of the Senate. rule 16: committee staff (a) Committee Policy: (1) The staff is to be assembled and retained as a permanent, professional, nonpartisan staff. (2) Each Member of the staff shall be professional and demonstrably qualified for the position for which he or she is hired. (3) The staff as a whole and each Member of the staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner. (4) No Member of the staff shall engage in any partisan political activity directly affecting any congressional or presidential election. (5) 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 advance permission from the Chairman and Vice Chairman. (6) No Member of the staff may make public, without Committee approval, any Committee Sensitive or classified information, documents, or other material obtained during the course of his or her employment with the Committee. (b) Appointment of Staff: (1) The appointment of all staff Members shall be approved by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly. (2) The Committee may determine by majority vote that it is necessary to retain staff Members, including a staff recommended by a special counsel, for the purpose of a particular initial review, investigation, or other proceeding. Such staff shall be retained only for the duration of that particular undertaking. (3) The Committee is authorized to retain and compensate counsel not employed by the Senate (or by any department or agency of the Executive Branch of the Government) whenever the Committee determines that the retention of outside counsel if necessary or appropriate for any action regarding any complaint or allegation, initial review, investigation, or other proceeding, which in the determination of the Committee, is more appropriately conducted by counsel not employed by the Government of the United States as a regular employee. The Committee shall retain and compensate outside counsel to conduct any investigation undertaken after an initial review of a sworn complaint, unless the Committee determines that the use of outside counsel is not appropriate in the particular case. (c) Dismissal of Staff: A staff Member may not be removed for partisan, political reasons, or merely as a consequence of the rotation of the Committee Membership. The Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly, shall approve the dismissal of any staff Member. (d) Staff Works for Committee as Whole: All staff employed by the committee or housed in Committee offices shall work for the Committee as a whole, under the general direction of the Chairman and Vice Chairman, and the immediate direction of the staff director or outside counsel. (e) Notice of Summons To Testify: Each Member of the Committee staff shall immediately notify the Committee in the event that he or she is called upon by a properly constituted authority to testify or provide confidential information obtained as a result of and during his or her employment with the Committee. rule 17: changes in supplementary procedural rules (a) Adoption of Changes in Supplementary Rules: The Rules of the Committee, other than rules established by statute, or by the Standing Rules and Standing Orders of the Senate, may be modified, amended, or suspended at any time, pursuant to a majority vote of the entire Membership taken at a meeting called with due notice when prior written notice of the proposed change has been provided each Member of the Committee. (b) Publication: Any amendments adopted to the Rules of this Committee shall be published in the Congressional Record in accordance with Rule XXVI(2) of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, consistent with the provisions of Senate Resolution 321, adopted October 3, 1996, I ask that the ``Regulations Regarding Disclosure of Certain Pro Bono Legal Services,'' adopted by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics on February 13, 1997, be printed in the Congressional Record of the 105th Congress. The regulations follow: Senate Select Committee on Ethics Regulations On October 3, 1996, the Senate agreed to S. Res. 321, which provides: Resolved, That (a) notwithstanding the provisions of the Standing Rules of the Senate or Senate Resolution 508, adopted by the Senate on September 4, 1980, pro bono legal services provided to a Member of the Senate with respect to a civil action challenging the validity of a Federal statute that expressly authorizes a Member to file an action: (1) Shall not be deemed a gift to the Member; (2) shall not be deemed to be a contribution to the office account of the Member; and (3) shall not require the establishment of a legal expense trust fund. (b) The Select Committee on Ethics shall establish regulations providing for the public disclosure of information relating to pro bono legal services performed as authorized by this resolution. The following regulations, adopted on and effective as of February 13, 1997, are promulgated by the Select Committee on Ethics pursuant to S. Res. 321, and are applicable to Members to the United States Senate during the time of their service in or to the Senate. regulations regarding disclosure of certain pro bono legal services A Member who accepts pro bono legal services with respect to a civil action challenging the validity of a Federal statute as authorized by S. Res. 321 shall submit a report to the Office of Public Records of the Secretary of the Senate and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics within 30 days of the date on which an attorney or law firm begins performance of the pro bono services for the Member (or, for such services provided to a Member prior to the publication of these regulations, within 30 days of the publication of these regulations in the Congressional Record). All reports filed pursuant to these Regulations shall include the following information: (1) A description of the nature of the civil action, including the Federal statute to be challenged; (2) the caption of the case and the cause number, as well as the court in which the action is pending, if the civil action has been filed in court; and (3) the name and address of each attorney who performed pro bono services for the Member with respect to the civil action, as well as the name and the address of the firm, if any, with which the attorney is affiliated. All documents filed pursuant to these regulations shall be available at the Office of Public Records of the Secretary of the Senate for public inspection and copying within two business days following receipt of the documents by that office. Any person requesting a copy of such documents shall be required to pay a reasonable fee to cover the cost of reproduction. reminder regarding amicus curiae The disclosure requirements for accepting certain pro bono legal services pursuant to S. Res. 321 do not affect the ability of a Member to accept pro bono legal services to appear in a legal proceeding by amicus curiae brief without necessity of a Legal Expense Trust Fund and without disclosure or reporting. See, Committee Interpretative Ruling 442 (4/15/92), and Committee Regulations Governing Trust Funds (9/30/80, amended 8/10/88).

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Colin Rizzio for his outstanding math expertise, which led him to uncover an error on the SAT exams. His quick insight has gained much national recognition in the last few weeks including an appearance on ``Good Morning America'' and on the ``Today'' show. Colin is a 17- year-old senior at Contoocook Valley Regional High School in New Hampshire. He is an above-average student who kept a cool head under testing conditions. Colin discovered an error which had been overlooked by internal and external math specialists while he was taking the SAT last Columbus Day. He took the time to consider different possibilities the math question offered and revealed the error. Thanks to Colin, the test will now be rescored and students' scores will go up nationwide as the flawed math question has been tossed out. As a former teacher, I am always heartened by stories of students who go the extra mile for educational integrity. Colin is the type of student who asks ``What if?'' In this case, his inquisitive nature gained him much notoriety. It is students like Colin that contribute to the future of the Granite State and I am proud to be his Senator. I congratulate Colin on his outstanding achievement and I wish this exemplary student all the best for his future educational endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Dan LaCroix, honorary member of Gonic PTA, on being named the 1997 Rochester ``Citizen of the Year'' by the Rochester Chamber of Commerce. I commend his outstanding community commitment and congratulate him on this well-deserved honor. Dan's community involvements are numerous. He participated in the juvenile diversion program, the substance abuse prevention task force, and he is a current member of the red ribbon program. Dan is a coach of the Rochester Youth Soccer Association, vice-president of the Rochester girls softball, and chairperson of the community relations girls softball. Dan is known to many as always willing to take responsibility, whether to chair a committee, organize fairs, trips, and dances, or to help people in need. Whatever activity he commits to, he always gets the job done. Dan has dedicated his time, talent and energy to serving the residents of Rochester in an exemplary way. I am proud to honor Dan LaCroix's outstanding community commitment, which is so important to the future and prosperity of Rochester. We are indeed indebted to him for his efforts. Congratulations to Dan for this distinguished recognition. I am honored to represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act, which was adopted unanimously by the Senate. This legislation contains numerous provisions affecting 41 States to preserve and protect our Nation's scenic rivers and historic land areas. I am pleased that, after many days of negotiations, we have reached agreement on this important environmental legislation. Included in this comprehensive package is legislation that Senator Gregg and I introduced on August 10, 1995, to designate the Lamprey River in New Hampshire as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Lamprey Wild and Scenic River Act, S. 1174, will designate an 11.5-mile segment of the Lamprey River as wild and scenic. Following introduction, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the Lamprey bill, which was later approved unanimously by the committee. The history of this legislation goes back almost 5 years when Senator Rudman and I introduced the Lamprey River study bill in February 1991, which was signed into law by President Bush later that year. Once the National Park Service determined the Lamprey River's eligibility for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, a local advisory committee was formed to work with local communities, landowners, the National Park Service, and New Hampshire's Environment Department in preparing a comprehensive management plan. This management plan was completed in January 1995. The Lamprey River management plan was subsequently endorsed by the advisory committee as well as the local governments affected by this designation. The primary criteria for my sponsorship of this legislation was the support of the local communities. After the towns of Lee, Durham, and Newmarket all voted in favor of this designation, it received my enthusiastic support. The Lamprey River is well deserving of this designation for a number of reasons. Not only is the river listed on the 1982 National Park Service's inventory of outstanding rivers, but it has almost been recognized by the State of New Hampshire as the ``most important coastal river for anadromous fish in the State.'' Herring, shad, and salmon are among the anadromous species found in the river. In fact, New Hampshire fishing maps describe the Lamprey as ``a truly exceptional river offering a vast variety of fishing. It contains every type of stream and river fish you could expect to find in New England.'' The Lamprey is approximately 60 miles in length and serves as the major tributary for the Great Bay, which is part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. The Great Bay Refuge is also nearby, which was established several years ago following the closure of Pease Air Force Base. The preservation of the Lamprey is a significant component to protecting this entire ecosystem. The 11.5-mile segment, as proposed by our legislation, has been the focus of local protection efforts for many years. The towns of Lee, Durham, and Newmarket, local conservationists, the State government, as well as the congressional delegation have all come together in support of this legislation. I believe the management philosophy adopted by the advisory committee best articulates our goals for this legislation: ``* * * management of the river must strike a balance among desires to protect the river as an ecosystem, maintain the river for legitimate community use, and protect the interests and property rights of those who own its shorelands.'' In conclusion, Mr. President, I congratulate Senate majority leader Lott, Senator Murkowski and others in negotiating an agreement on this comprehensive legislation. In addition, I commend all of the members of the Lamprey River Advisory Committee, especially Sharon Meeker of Lee, who served as committee chair, Judith Spang of Durham, and Richard Wellington of Lee. All have worked very hard on the Lamprey River legislation and have traveled to Washington to testify on its behalf. I am extremely pleased that, at last, the fruits of their labor will be rewarded with the adoption of the omnibus parks bill--one of the most significant environmental accomplishments of the 104th Congress.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I today pay tribute to the Alliance for the Mentally Ill of New Hampshire on the occasion of their 17th Annual Conference and Membership Meeting. This educational conference is being held on October 26 at Rundlett School in Concord, NH. Those participating will have an excellent opportunity to attend workshops, view informative displays, and talk to alliance members. I congratulate all the alliance volunteers for hosting this important conference and extend a special welcome to those who will be in attendance. The New Hampshire Alliance for the Mentally Ill strives to better the lives of those with mental illnesses or serious emotional disorders, promote the rights of the mentally ill, and educate the public about mental illness. Their goals are to highlight numerous services available to the mentally ill, especially focusing on youngsters and seniors. I commend the New Hampshire Alliance for the Mentally Ill for their hard work and dedication to increasing the level of awareness of mental illness. Their conference will provide an excellent opportunity for those attending to learn more about the alliance and their objectives. Again, I would like to welcome all the participants who are attending this educational conference and congratulate those who have worked so hard to organize the conference.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I today pay tribute to New Hampshire's Nature Conservancy for receiving the National Program Progress Award. The New Hampshire chapter was presented with this award, one of the Nature Conservancy's highest honors, at the Nature Conservancy's National Annual Trustees Meeting on September 30. The New Hampshire chapter has earned this award for their outstanding work in protecting Sheldrick Forest, a 227-acre old-growth forest located in Wilton, NH. The conservancy launched a multifaceted grassroots campaign to save the forest from development. Through its campaign the conservancy raised the property's purchasing price to $550,000. The New Hampshire chapter also purchased Sheldrick Forest, making it the conservancy's 17th preserve in the State. This was an outstanding accomplishment. In addition to the conservancy's dedicated actions to save Sheldrick Forest its members were recognized for their efforts to protect the Great Bay estuary system, for supporting the Maquipucuna Cloud Forest Reserve in Ecuador, and for creating the Mount Teneriffe preserve in Milton, which is home to a federally listed endangered orchid species. The New Hampshire Nature Conservancy chapter has worked hard to preserve New Hampshire's beautiful environment. The conservancy's members should be proud of this distinguished award and their great success in preservation that it celebrates. A national awards committee, drawn from among the Nature Conservancy's 50 State chapters, its 21 programs in Latin America, and its offices on the Pacific Rim and in Indonesia, selected the New Hampshire Chapter for the National Program Progress Award. The award recognizes a conservancy chapter that has made the greatest progress during the past year in building its overall program, and achieving the conservancy's mission of protecting land that harbors rare and endangered plants, animals, and ecosystems. At the Nature Conservancy's National Annual Trustees Meeting last month, the group's president and CEO, John Sawhill, spoke about the dedication and inspiration of the New Hampshire chapter by saying, ``I was amazed that so many people from all walks of life were involved in raising the money for this project and how the local community embraced our effort to save the forest * * * I believe Sheldrick Forest can serve as an inspiration to us all.'' The New Hampshire chapter sets an excellent example for environmental preservation in New Hampshire and for other parts of our country. The New Hampshire chapter has certainly made our State very proud of their efforts. Congratulations to the New Hampshire Nature Conservancy on this distinguished award. May they continue to protect and preserve our beautiful New Hampshire's forests.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I today recognize the New Hampshire Special Olympics participants and volunteers as they hold their fifth annual fall games, their second largest event of the year. On October 26, more than 550 athletes, 200 coaches, and 300 New Hampshire volunteers will gather in Concord, NH to participate in the Special Olympics fall games. The games, which will be held on the beautiful campus of St. Paul's School, are certain to be met with enthusiasm and excitement by participants and volunteers alike. I would like to extend a special New Hampshire welcome to everyone who will partake in this special day. Above all else, I would like to recognize the participants. All 550 athletes devoted countless hours and a tremendous amount of hard work and perseverance in preparation for this event. I truly admire their dedication and courage as they come forward to compete in these seven difficult sporting events. All of them are top-notch athletes and should be very proud of their efforts. May all the Olympians enjoy their day. The New Hampshire Special Olympics fall games would not be possible without the help of so many volunteers who work behind the scenes. Volunteers are truly essential to the success of the fall Special Olympic games. I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to all the New Hampshire volunteers who make this wonderful day possible. I would also like to commend New Hampshire Special Olympic's executive director, Mike Quinn, and his capable staff. They have dedicated countless hours of their time to make the Special Olympics a success, and have allowed the residents of New Hampshire to come out and show their Granite State spirit. Without the support and contributions of a number of sponsors, the New Hampshire Special Olympics would not be able to hold their fall games. Among these supporters are St. Paul's School, the National Guard, Derryfield School, Merrimack County Savings Bank, AMR/Chaulk, Ambulance Services, and many more. Once again, I extend my thanks to those who made a contribution to this phenomenal program. May the fifth annual fall games be a success and continue to flourish in the future. I wish all the Olympians the very best as they compete in the New Hampshire fall games. We are all very proud of you.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the omnibus parks and public lands legislation which is expected to pass the Senate today, clearing the way for the President's signature. This legislation contains numerous important provisions to preserve and protect our Nation's scenic rivers and historic land areas. I am pleased that, after many days of negotiations, we have reached agreement on this important environmental legislation. Included in this comprehensive package is a bill to designate the Lamprey River in New Hampshire as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Recognizing the window of opportunity was closing, I recently fought to bring the Lamprey bill to a vote in the Senate, but unfortunately, I was blocked by the Democratic leader on two separate occasions. I continue to express my disappointment with the Clinton administration and Senate Democrats for holding up legislation that is so important to New Hampshire and many other States around the country. Even though the Lamprey River bill received unanimous support out of committee in the Senate, and it has passed the House of Representatives unanimously, the Democratic Party had objected to its passing in the Senate simply on the basis of partisan politics. I think the people of New Hampshire deserve better than that. They deserve to have partisan politics put aside for the sake of our environment. On August 10, 1995, Senator Gregg and I introduced S. 1174, the Lamprey Wild and Scenic River Act, to designate a segment of the Lamprey River in New Hampshire as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Since introduction, a hearing was held on the legislation in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and soon thereafter, the bill was reported unanimously out of the committee. The history of this legislation goes back almost 5 years when Senator Rudman and I introduced the Lamprey River study bill in February 1991, which was subsequently signed into law by President Bush later that year. Once the National Park Service determined the Lamprey River's eligibility for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, a local advisory committee was formed to work with local communities, landowners, the National Park Service and New Hampshire's environment department in preparing a comprehensive management plan. This management plan was completed in January 1995. The Lamprey River Management Plan was subsequently endorsed by the advisory committee as well as the local governments affected by this designation. The primary criteria for my sponsorship of this legislation was the support of the local communities. If the affected towns did not vote in favor of designation, it would not have received my enthusiastic support. In fact, the town of Epping had expressed some reservation about designating the segment of the Lamprey which runs through the town and, out of respect for their concerns, the bill excludes that segment of the river. However, that segment was studied and found to be eligible, so we have included a section in our bill that would allow the town of Epping to be involved in the implementation of the management plan and, upon the town's request, be considered for future designation. The Lamprey River is well deserving of this designation for a number of reasons. Not only is the river listed on the 1982 National Park Service's inventory of outstanding rivers, but it has also been recognized by the State of New Hampshire as the ``most important coastal river for anadromous fish in the State.'' Herring, shad and salmon are among the anadromous species found in the river. In fact, New Hampshire fishing maps describe the Lamprey as ``a truly exeptional river offering a vast variety of fishing. It contains every type of stream and river fish you could expect to find in New England.'' The Lamprey is approximately 60 miles in length and serves as the major tributary for the great Bay, which is part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. The Great Bay Refuge is also nearby, which was established several years ago following the closure of Pease Air Force Base. The preservation of the Lamprey is a significant component to protecting this entire ecosystem. The 11.5-mile segment, as proposed by our legislation, has been the focus of local protection efforts for many years. The towns of Lee, Durham, and Newmarket, local conservationists, the State government, as well as the congressional delegation have all come together in support of this legislation. I believe the management philosophy adopted by the advisory committee best articulates our goals for this legislation: ``* * * management of the river must strike a balance among desires to protect the river as an ecosystem, maintain the river for legitimate community use, and protect the interests and property rights of those who own its shorelands.'' In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Senate majority leader Lott, Senator Murkowski, and others in negotiating an agreement on this comprehensive legislation. In addition, I want to especially commend two members of the Lamprey River Advisory Committee--Judith Spang of Durham, NH, and Richard Wellington of Lee, NH--who have worked very hard on the Lamprey River legislation and have traveled to Washington to testify on its behalf. I am very pleased that, at last, the fruits of their labor will be rewarded with the adoption of the omnibus parks bill. I urge the President to sign this important environmental legislation as the 104th Congress adjourns.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would also like to pose a question to the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee to clarify the intent of the Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 1996 with respect to EPA'S authority to issue rules defining the scope of Superfund liability.

Mr. SMITH. It is my understanding that in granting EPA the authority to issue rules on these two narrow issues, title V does not in any way disturb the central holding in the Kelley case, namely that absent a specific delegation, that CERCLA, today, or as amended by this act, does not authorize EPA to issue rules defining the scope of CERCLA liability. I would like to confirm that my interpretation is the correct one, in order to avoid possible confusion and uncertainty in the future.

Mr. SMITH. As you know, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rules that CERCLA does not authorize EPA to issue binding rules that define the scope of liability under Superfund. Kelley v. EPA, 15 F.3d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1994), 25 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Title V of this bill gives EPA limited and specific rulemaking authority on two narrow issues. The first one is the recognition of additional fiduciary capacities under new section 107(n)(5)(a)(i)(XI) of CERCLA. The second one is the involuntary acquisition of property by the United States Government under 40 CFR section 300.1105.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH. Finally, it is also my understanding that title V does not seek to confer upon EPA the authority to issue rules on any Superfund liability issues other than those actually specified in this bill. I would like to confirm this important point so that the actions of the Congress in adopting this legislation are not misinterpreted in the future.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss language that has been included in the continuing resolution regarding clarifications to the liability of lending institutions under Superfund. During the past year, I have been working closely with Senator John Chafee, the chairman of the Environment Committee, to enact comprehensive legislation to reform the Superfund program. The bill we introduced, S. 1285, the Accelerated Cleanup and Environmental Restoration Act of 1996, includes language to address the issue of lender liability. A version of our lender liability language is contained in the continuing resolution that we will be voting on today. Unfortunately, S. 1285 will not make it into law before we adjourn. Despite months of daily negotiations with Senator Max Baucus, the ranking member of the Environment Committee, Senator Frank Lautenberg, the ranking member of the Superfund Subcommittee, as well as representatives of the Clinton administration, we were unable to obtain bipartisan agreement on this legislation. This is unfortunate, because I fervently believe that the Superfund program is badly in need of reform. During the 104th Congress, Senator Chafee and I actively opposed efforts to carve out various liability concerns, deciding instead that issues such as lender liability should be included in a comprehensive reform package. Nonetheless, after discussing this issue personally with Senator Alphonse D'Amato, the chairman of the Banking Committee, both Senator Chafee and I agreed that we would have our respective staff work together to include the provision contained in the continuing resolution. So, while I am saddened that we could not enact comprehensive Superfund reform legislation, I am pleased that we are able to address the problem of lender liability this year. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss why this language is so important. As many of my colleagues may know, liability under Superfund is strict, retroactive, joint and severe. As Superfund has been interpreted by the courts, banks that merely take possession of Superfund contaminated property by foreclosure, risk the possibility that they themselves could be held liable for any cleanup that may be required. Thus, a lender who had no direct involvement at the site could be on the hook for cleanup costs far exceeding the original value of the underlying property. Because of the specter of potential Superfund liability, financial credit that is needed for redevelopment or cleanup is not extended. The results of the current liability provisions are all too evident. Homeowners cannot refinance homes, brownfields sit uselessly in our cities, and companies do not take part in voluntary cleanups for want of funds. The language that Senator D'Amato and I have included in the continuing resolution moves to correct this situation by clarifying when a lender is liable for environmental contamination. Lenders will not be liable unless they take an active role in management of the site. This change will significantly reduce lender concerns about making loans at these sites and will significantly increase the amount of redevelopment funding available in our Nation's inner-city brownfield areas. This development is vitally important to restore the large number of brownfields to productive use, to allow homeowners access to funds to refinance their homes, and companies to continue voluntary cleanups. The liability provisions in this bill will go a long way toward making these things possible. I do want to clarify one issue; the language we are adopting today is not a liability carve out. Indeed, Superfund as originally passed, did not intend to hold lending institutions liable for this type of business activity. Unfortunately, a series of conflicting court decisions over the authority of the EPA to issue rules clarifying lender liability has left this issue unsettled. Thus, the language we are adopting today merely clarifies a liability outcome that was already intended by Congress. The issue of brownfield redevelopment is a matter that has been long spearheaded by Republicans, most notably John Chafee, and by making this one very logical change, we will be able to spur reinvestment by private financial markets in the blighted parts of our country. As I alluded to earlier, although this issue is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee of Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment, I was pleased to work with Senator D'Amato to include this enlightened provision in the continuing resolution. I believe this is a positive change to Superfund, and I thank Senator D'Amato for working with me on this issue of mutual concern. paying-up at the united nations

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the bill be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I introduce lead-acid battery recycling legislation. This legislation, entitled the ``Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Act,'' is intended to strengthen and make uniform the existing lead-acid battery recycling infrastructure by establishing a mandatory recycling program for lead-acid batteries. This legislation would prohibit the incineration and landfill disposal of used lead-acid batteries and require that these batteries be managed through a reverse distribution system. Under this legislation, used lead-acid batteries would have to be delivered in reverse order to battery retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, recycling facilities or automotive dismantlers and ultimately to secondary smelters for recycling. There is little doubt that lead-acid batteries are an extremely useful product. They are used in a variety of applications ranging from lighting and ignition systems for automobiles, power sources for electric vehicles, emergency lighting, and standby telecommunication systems. The lead contained in these batteries is, however, a cause for concern. Furthermore, given the fact that lead-acid batteries account for approximately 80 percent of all the lead consumed in the United States, they merit special attention. This special attention has resulted in implementation of aggressive lead-acid battery recycling programs by many State and local governments as well as the battery industry. Lead-acid batteries have now become the Nation's most successfully recycled commodity. According to the most recent statistics, over the last 5 years the lead-acid battery recycling rate in the United States has been at least 95 percent. This rate is unparalleled among any other recyclable commodity. Forty-two States have adopted lead battery recycling legislation similar to this legislation. These 42 States account for over 85 percent of the Nation's population. However, there are variations among the State programs that create problems for the free flow of batteries in interstate commerce. My bill would reenforce the existing lead-acid battery recycling infrastructure now in place throughout the United States while making it more uniform nationwide. This legislation is self-implementing, and does not require further development through regulation. Rather, this legislation builds upon the existing lead-acid battery collection and recycling system now in place in many States. Upon enactment, the incineration and landfill disposal of used lead- acid batteries will be expressly prohibited. However, owners and operators of a municipal solid waste landfills, incinerators or collection programs that inadvertently receive used lead-acid batteries that are not readily removable from municipal solid waste would not be liable for violating the recycling provisions of this bill. In general, this legislation would require used lead-acid batteries to be delivered to battery retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, automotive dismantlers, secondary lead smelters, or recycling facilities regulated by a State or subject to regulation by the Administrator under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). Used lead-acid batteries could continue to be lawfully collected through community collection and recycling programs set up by States and localities. Although recycling is becoming an every day fact of life in the minds of the public, to ensure further consumer participation in the program, retailers are required to accept used lead acid batteries from consumers without requiring the purchase of a new lead-acid battery. In addition, battery manufacturers or their authorized representatives-- such as shippers delivering new batteries--will be required to accept used lead-acid batteries from their customers. I have included provisions for labeling and notification that are intended to ensure that consumers are aware of the recycling requirements under law. These provisions are not intended to affect or limit in any way the battery industry's efforts to display recycling symbols intended to encourage recycling. Mr. President, as I discussed above, my legislation is substantially similar to battery recycling legislation adopted in 42 States. The bill is strongly supported by the Battery Council International. I believe this legislation provides a substantial improvement in our ability to remove these batteries from our Nation's solid waste stream and I would encourage all of my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. Mr. President, I realize that, in the twilight of this legislative session, there is virtually no chance of this bill will become law before this Congress adjourns. Yet, I am introducing it today with the desire that the States, the Environmental Protection Agency, environmental groups, and the regulated entities will have a chance to review it, judge its merits, and provide me with comments on how this legislation could be improved. It is my desire, that upon our return in January, to hold hearings on this legislation and to move it to the full Senate for passage early in 1997. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I introduce lead-acid battery recycling legislation. This legislation, entitled the ``Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Act,'' is intended to strengthen and make uniform the existing lead-acid battery recycling infrastructure by establishing a mandatory recycling program for lead-acid batteries. This legislation would prohibit the incineration and landfill disposal of used lead-acid batteries and require that these batteries be managed through a reverse distribution system. Under this legislation, used lead-acid batteries would have to be delivered in reverse order to battery retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, recycling facilities or automotive dismantlers and ultimately to secondary smelters for recycling. There is little doubt that lead-acid batteries are an extremely useful product. They are used in a variety of applications ranging from lighting and ignition systems for automobiles, power sources for electric vehicles, emergency lighting, and standby telecommunication systems. The lead contained in these batteries is, however, a cause for concern. Furthermore, given the fact that lead-acid batteries account for approximately 80 percent of all the lead consumed in the United States, they merit special attention. This special attention has resulted in implementation of aggressive lead-acid battery recycling programs by many State and local governments as well as the battery industry. Lead-acid batteries have now become the Nation's most successfully recycled commodity. According to the most recent statistics, over the last 5 years the lead-acid battery recycling rate in the United States has been at least 95 percent. This rate is unparalleled among any other recyclable commodity. Forty-two States have adopted lead battery recycling legislation similar to this legislation. These 42 States account for over 85 percent of the Nation's population. However, there are variations among the State programs that create problems for the free flow of batteries in interstate commerce. My bill would reenforce the existing lead-acid battery recycling infrastructure now in place throughout the United States while making it more uniform nationwide. This legislation is self-implementing, and does not require further development through regulation. Rather, this legislation builds upon the existing lead-acid battery collection and recycling system now in place in many States. Upon enactment, the incineration and landfill disposal of used lead- acid batteries will be expressly prohibited. However, owners and operators of a municipal solid waste landfills, incinerators or collection programs that inadvertently receive used lead-acid batteries that are not readily removable from municipal solid waste would not be liable for violating the recycling provisions of this bill. In general, this legislation would require used lead-acid batteries to be delivered to battery retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, automotive dismantlers, secondary lead smelters, or recycling facilities regulated by a State or subject to regulation by the Administrator under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). Used lead-acid batteries could continue to be lawfully collected through community collection and recycling programs set up by States and localities. Although recycling is becoming an every day fact of life in the minds of the public, to ensure further consumer participation in the program, retailers are required to accept used lead acid batteries from consumers without requiring the purchase of a new lead-acid battery. In addition, battery manufacturers or their authorized representatives-- such as shippers delivering new batteries--will be required to accept used lead-acid batteries from their customers. I have included provisions for labeling and notification that are intended to ensure that consumers are aware of the recycling requirements under law. These provisions are not intended to affect or limit in any way the battery industry's efforts to display recycling symbols intended to encourage recycling. Mr. President, as I discussed above, my legislation is substantially similar to battery recycling legislation adopted in 42 States. The bill is strongly supported by the Battery Council International. I believe this legislation provides a substantial improvement in our ability to remove these batteries from our Nation's solid waste stream and I would encourage all of my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. Mr. President, I realize that, in the twilight of this legislative session, there is virtually no chance of this bill will become law before this Congress adjourns. Yet, I am introducing it today with the desire that the States, the Environmental Protection Agency, environmental groups, and the regulated entities will have a chance to review it, judge its merits, and provide me with comments on how this legislation could be improved. It is my desire, that upon our return in January, to hold hearings on this legislation and to move it to the full Senate for passage early in 1997. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, earlier this week, the House passed H.R. 3391, a bill to amend the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program. Given the press of time, the Senate will not be able to address and resolve several potential problems in the legislation before the end of this session. I am sorry this is the case. However, I wanted to call this bill to the attention of my colleagues and point out that the issues raised by H.R. 3391 are serious and deserve the attention of the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment, that I chair. Leaking underground storage tanks have been a major source of groundwater contamination over a number of decades. Frequently, underground tanks that held petroleum products or highly toxic chemicals have eroded with time. These tanks have leaked their contents into the soil, which then washed into aquifers supplying drinking water. This problem is particularly acute in rural areas where a large proportion of the population is dependent on groundwater as their drinking water source. To curtail the impact of leaking underground storage tanks on the environment and the health of those dependent on groundwater, Congress established the Underground Tank Program in 1986. Significant elements of this program included the establishment of national underground storage tank standards which come into full force in 1998; the establishment of State underground storage tank programs for compliance with and enforcement of the national standards; and the establishment of an underground storage tank trust fund to assist the State programs. In many ways, the underground tank program provides us a model for cooperative federalism in an environmental cleanup program. There are many lessons to be learned and applied from this cleanup program to other programs like Superfund. Similar to the Superfund Program, however, the underground storage tank program is a discretionary spending program. Therefore, in spite of a dedicated trust fund, it has a significant problem. The problem, Mr. President, is that after a decade of collecting \1/ 10\th of a cent tax on every gallon of gas sold, nearly $1 billion just sits in the trust fund. I believe that this money should be at work in the States helping to clean up leaking underground storage tanks, and I intend to have my subcommittee staff look further into this issue when the Senate reconvenes next year.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Coast Guard Authorization Act which includes a number of provisions related to preventing oil spills in the future. Two of these provisions were added to the bill at my request, and arise out of an oil spill that occurred in Portsmouth, NH on July 1, 1996. For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to take the chance to briefly explain the series of events that led to this oil spill. At approximately 10:30 p.m. on Monday, July 1st, the tanker ``Provence'' was off-loading fuel at the Schiller Station powerplant in Portsmouth when, during a flood tide, the ship parted its mooring lines and began to drift into the middle of the Piscataqua River. One of the workers who was involved in off-loading the ship, quickly acted to shut off the pumps, but unfortunately, approximately 1000 gallons of number 6 fuel oil, which was contained in the hoses of the ship, spilled into the river. The ship then drifted over to the Maine side of the river and ran aground. Given the fact that the ship contained 250,000 barrels of oil, it is fortunate that a much more serious accident did not occur. Less than 15 minutes after the grounding occurred, the Portsmouth Response Co-op, a local entity created to respond to these types of spills, had already begun stationing oil containment booms around the tanker, and a little more than one-half hour after that, the Coast Guard was at the site responding to the spill. Although there was a quick response to this incident, the number 6 oil that was spilled at this site is a type of oil that is heavier than water, and thus, sank to the bottom of the Piscataqua River. The result was that thousands of lobsters were soiled or killed in an area that is a prime fishing spot for the lobstermen of my State. Notwithstanding the fact that they were limited in their ability to respond to the spill, I believe that the local fishermen, the Portsmouth Co-op, the State of New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game and the United States Coast Guard should all be commended for their expeditious and highly professional response to this spill. Soon after the spill, I was able to take a tour of the Piscataqua on the boat of Mr. Ed Heaphy, a lobsterman in my State, in order to understand, first hand, what occurred with this spill. While it is too soon to fully grasp the long term effects from this incident, it appears that the oil has dissipated and the lobstermen are again able to fish in this area. During my tour, and the subsequent conversations I have had with the Coast Guard, it has become readily apparent to me that there are two problems that occurred related to this spill that deserve additional attention by the Coast Guard. The first issue involves the oil itself. The number 6 oil that spilled in the Piscataqua is classified as ``group 5'' oil by the Coast Guard because it is heavier than water and sinks to the bottom when it is spilled. In Portsmouth, little could be done to clean up this oil except to attempt to ``fish'' it off the bottom of the river utilizing oil sorbent pads tied to anchors dangled from boats. I think this is a primitive way of addressing an important oil cleanup issue. The second issue at this site involved the oil pumping operations on the ship. Although we were fortunate that quick action resulted in the pumps being shut off, if this action had not occurred, hundreds, if not thousands of gallons per minute could have been pumped into the river. It appears obvious that we should not have to count on luck in such an incident. Given these two circumstances, I felt that it was urgent that we take a closer look at these issues to determine if further action needs to be taken to prevent a reoccurrence of these types of spills in the future. For this reason, I drafted an amendment to attach to the Coast Guard Authorization Act. This amendment addresses the two problems highlighted during the spill in Portsmouth. The first provision would require a study of cleanup methods for group 5 oils and a report to be submitted to Congress within 18 months of the passage of this legislation. The second provision would require a study of the need for automatic fuel shutoff equipment and a report to be submitted to Congress within 18 months. In addition, this amendment gives the Secretary of Transportation the authority to adopt a rulemaking to take action on these two issues if he finds, as a result of the studies, that action is necessary to abate a threat to public health and the environment. I would like to thank the Republican Leader Senator Lott, the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Chafee, Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, and Senator Pressler, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, for their willingness to work with me to have this amendment adopted. I believe that this study will lead to solutions that will avoid these problems in the future, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to six heroic residents of North Sutton, NH, who saved the life of my good friend and neighbor, Rosa Weinstein. Brian Thompson, Bob Gagnon, ``Chipper'' Rowe, Sandy Robinson, Murray Smith and Albert Dauphinais all acted without hesitation to rescue Rosa from her burning car in order to get her to the hospital. I am very proud of these six individuals from North Sutton who did not waste 1 second in coming to Rosa's rescue. I would like to extend a personal word of thanks to each one of them for saving my friend's life. On September 1, Rosa Weinstein was driving through North Sutton, NH, when her car went out of control, flipped over on its side and caught on fire. By what many have described as a miracle, the accident occurred within a few yards of the North Sutton Volunteer Fire Station and in front of the home of Brian Thompson. Immediately after Brian saw the car from his kitchen window, he used a fire extinguisher to contain the flames coming from the car. As Brian was doing this, two firemen, Bob Gagnon and ``Chipper'' Rowe, ran to the nearby firehouse for the equipment to put out the flames. Three additional heroes, Murray Smith, Albert Dauphinais, and Sandy Robinson, a emergency management technician, helped put out the flames, rescued Rosa from inside the car and kept her alive long enough to be taken to the hospital. Rosa suffered considerably from the accident, but she is very grateful for the actions of the North Sutton residents who so quickly came to her aid. There is no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind that Rosa owes her life to these six heroes. It is my hope that Rosa will regain her strength soon and will make a speedy recovery over the next few weeks. Both Rosa and her husband, Harris, are wonderful, thoughtful friends. Indeed, I was very sad to hear about the accident, but am also very proud of the way the six North Sutton residents reacted. Harris expressed the deep gratitude of Rosa's family by saying, ``The uncommon heroism demonstrated by Brian Thompson, Bob Gagnon, ``Chipper'' Rowe, Sandy Robinson, Murray Smith, and Albert Dauphinais is an extraordinary example of America at its best. We will forever be thankful for their selfless, quick-thinking action.'' Mr. President, the actions of these six individuals on that day in early September are truly remarkable. Their efforts are appreciated not only by Rosa's family but by myself and many other New Hampshire residents. And, for Rosa, I wish the very best for her as she recovers from her injuries. Our thoughts and prayers are with her.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, let me emphasis that H.R. 1833 includes the life-of-the-mother exception. I know because I put it in there. I wrote it. Senator Dole and I offered it as an amendment, and the Senate approved it by a vote of 98 to 0. Given his consistent portrayal of himself as someone who is a moderate on the abortion issue--Mr. Clinton said in 1992 that he wants abortion to be safe, legal, and rare--then one would think President Clinton would have signed this bill. I thought that the President might well sign it. In fact, after the Senate passed the bill, I twice--on two separate occasions--sent President Clinton personal notes, personal messages. And in those personal messages, Mr. President, I asked the President of the United States for 15 minutes, 15 minutes of his time, 15 minutes of his time to sit down with me anywhere he wished--the Oval Office, library, wherever, in his car, on the way to the airport, anything--he does not usually go to the airport--on the way to the helicopter or whatever, face to face, one on one, no staff, no advisers, no press, and no comment afterward. My pledge: I say nothing about the meeting. You say nothing about the meeting, if you wish. All I want to do is sit down and say to you listen to the facts as I would like to present them to you, not screened by staff, one on one. No response, not even the courtesy of a response from the President of the United States. Even after he vetoed it, no response. Your learned and respected colleague, for those of you who think it might be partisan, Senator Moynihan, has already indicated he is going to vote to override. If you are concerned about medical aspects, then listen to Dr. Koop. Listen to him the way you would listen to him when he speaks about the dangers of smoking. I have heard so many people in the Chamber quote Dr. Koop, especially on smoking and other medical issues. He opposes these partial-birth abortions. He denies that they are ever medically necessary. Dr. Koop supports the bill. I urge my colleagues to consider the words of one of their House colleagues shortly after he voted in favor of H.R. 1833 last year, liberal Democrat, pro-choice, Virginia Congressman James Moran. He said he knew his vote would anger some pro-choice supporters but he could not put his conscience on the shelf. That is a man of courage right there, to say that and do something like that. Mr. President, I want to close by making a couple of points on the individual women who participated in the press conference with President Clinton. These women went through terrible ordeals. I admire them. I respect them. My heart goes out to them for what they went through. We have three children, my wife and I. We were lucky; our children were born with no problems. This is not about the problems that these five women had. This is not about that. None of those five women had a partial-birth abortion. The Senator from Ohio has made that point. And it is interesting. At the April 10 veto ceremony concerning this bill President Clinton displayed, if you will, or had stand by his side these five women whom he initially said had the kind of abortion procedure that would be banned. Later in the ceremony--and this is very interesting about Bill Clinton and pretty consistent--later in the ceremony Mr. Clinton said that the H.R. 1833 description of the procedure did not cover the procedure that these women had. Let me repeat that. The President of the United States in the press conference on the veto with five women standing there that he indicated had such procedure said the description of the procedure did not cover the procedure that these women had. None of the five women had a partial-birth abortion. I know that there are tremendous differences between the two sides on the issue of abortion. We have debated it, as I said before. Whatever I feel personally about abortion is not the issue here. Under H.R. 1833, a partial-birth abortion is defined as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery. Coreen Costello, a wonderful, brave woman who went through a horrible ordeal, who was shown in the photograph with another child in this Chamber by the Senator from California, conceded during her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she did not have a partial- birth abortion. Her baby was able to pass away peacefully. We do not stop the doctor in this legislation from stopping Ms. Costello from having the procedure that she had. That is not a partial- birth abortion. I could go through the cases of the other four women because it is the same situation. Let me just close, Mr. President, by saying reach into your hearts, my colleagues. Ask yourself, no matter how you feel on abortion, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, whether or not a baby held in the hands of a physician, all but the head being allowed to enter this world and killed for whatever reason, is that really what we are about in America? That does not have a thing to do with interfering with the medical procedure or interfering with a doctor and a patient, not a thing. That is a child. That is not an abortion. That is a child. That is a child in the hands of a doctor. As the Senator from Ohio said, that child has rights under the Constitution, civil rights. So reach into your hearts. Think carefully about this vote because, as I say, 6 or 7 votes are going to determine hundreds of lives. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Exhibit 1 [American Medical News, Aug. 19, 1996] The View From Mount Koop Q: Clinton just vetoed a bill to ban ``partial birth'' abortions, a late-term abortion technique that practitioners refer to as ``intact dilation and evacuation'' or ``dilation and extraction.'' In so doing, he cited several cases in which women were told these procedures were necessary to preserve their health and their ability to have future pregnancies. How would you characterize the claims being made in favor of the medical need for this procedure? A: I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisers on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to late-term abortions. Because in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described--you know, partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can't be a necessity for the baby. So I am opposed to . . . partial birth abortions. Q: In your practice as a pediatric surgeon, have you ever treated children with any of the disabilities cited in this debate? For example, have you operated on children born with organs outside of their bodies? A: Oh, yes indeed. I've done that many times. The prognosis is usually good. There are two common ways that children are born with organs outside of their body. One is an omphalocele, where the organs are out but still contained in the sac composed of the tissues of the umbilical cord. I have been repairing those since 1946. The other is when the sac has ruptured. That makes it a little more difficult. I don't know what the national mortality would be, but certainly more than half of those babies survive after surgery. Now every once in a while, you have other peculiar things, such as the chest being wide open and the heart being outside the body. And I have even replaced hearts back in the body and had children grow to adulthood. Q: And live normal lives? A: Serving normal lives. In fact, the first child I ever did, with a huge omphalocele much bigger than her head, went on to develop well and become the head nurse in my intensive care unit many years later. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President. While the Senator from Pennsylvania is still on the floor, I would like to compliment the Senator for his compassion, interest, and involvement in this issue. I know that during the previous debate, he was, by his own admission, not very much involved in it but came down to listen and was so overwhelmed by what he heard and what the details of this procedure were that he became involved, and he has now become the leader in his own right on this issue. We certainly welcome his support, his compassion, and his commitment. I just want to say it is an honor to serve with Senator Santorum. Mr. President, there has been a lot said about this issue. I do not know what else could be said. But I want to, in as quiet and as compassionate a way as I can, urge my colleagues to vote to override President Clinton's veto of H.R. 1833--not necessarily to listen to my words, or to listen to anyone's words in particular, but to look into your own consciences as deeply as you can and examine the facts. This vote that we will face this afternoon, Mr. President, has presented this Congress with an issue that transcends abortion. I want to repeat that. It transcends abortion. We have had our differences here on the floor on abortion, and I respect those who differ with me, and I hope they respect me for differing with them. It is an issue that we debate over and over again--both here and sometimes in our personal lives, as well as our political lives. That is not the issue today. It transcends abortion. The reason we know that is that there is a long list of very distinguished Members of the House and the Senate and the medical profession who identify themselves as pro-choice who have courageously stepped forward and supported the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Last week, the House of Representatives voted 285 to 137 to override President Clinton's veto. That is the people's House. I served in it. The distinguished occupant of the chair served in the House of Representatives. That is the people's House. They are elected every 2 years. They are very close to their constituents. They heard from their constituents, and they listened. That bipartisan, overwhelming two- thirds supermajority included the two Democratic leaders of the House, Richard Gephardt, David Bonior, as well as some of the leading pro- choice Representatives, such as Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, James Moran of Virginia, and Susan Molinari of New York--Democrats, Republicans, liberals, moderates, and conservatives. To be perfectly frank with my colleagues, I know we face an uphill struggle in this Senate. I know that. I know what the numbers are. We all do. But every time we come down on a vote that is this close, we come down with hope and optimism. I might say that 6 or 7 votes on the floor of this Senate today will determine as many as 900--perhaps 1,000, 1,500--lives a year; 6 votes, 7 votes, hundreds of lives. That is what it really comes down to. When the Senate passed this ban last year, last December, it did so by a vote of 54 to 44. We know the numbers. You all know the numbers. To override the President of the United States, you need two-thirds. That is 67, if we have 100 Senators, and two-thirds of whoever is here to vote. So it is an uphill struggle to win. I know that. We all do. But I am optimistic, Mr. President, I am optimistic that people are going to listen to the facts here who can be available. There has been some very emotional testimony here. But it is not emotion that should guide us in our decision. It is the facts. Let me say again. This issue transcends abortion. It is not about a pro-choice and pro-life. It is not about the abortion debate. One of the most distinguished and respected Members of this Senate on either side of the aisle is a man that I have the utmost respect for and immense admiration for--an honest man, a man of integrity--Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Senator from New York. He didn't vote when the Senate considered this last December, but subsequently, and after a lot of soul-searching, the distinguished Senator from New York announced that he would vote to override the President's veto. Voting against the President of your own party--I have had to do it. That is not easy. But this isn't partisan politics. This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans--nothing at all. If you want to write ``a profile in courage,'' you can write it about Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who had the courage to look at the facts and not get into the debate about pro-choice and pro-life. Senator Moynihan is pro-choice. He and I differ. But he looked at the facts. Another Democrat, President Clinton's own Ambassador to the Vatican, the former Democratic mayor of Boston, Ray Flynn, was courageous enough to criticize the President who appointed him to one of the world's most coveted ambassadorial posts, was quoted in April 1996 in the Washington Post, saying, ``I think that the Catholic Church and the Holy Father are absolutely right in condemning President Clinton's veto of the partial-birth abortion ban.'' I also urge my colleagues who are rethinking--hopefully some are-- their position to consider the words of another very, very respected individual, I think one of the most respected individuals in all of the United States, perhaps second only to Billy Graham, is the U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop. Here is what Surgeon General Koop told the American Medical Association's American Medical News in an interview published on August 19, 1996: I believe that Mr. Clinton was mislead by his medical advisers on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to late-term abortions. Because in no way can I twist my mind to see that late-term abortion as described--you know, partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can't be a necessity for the baby. So I am opposed to. . . partial-birth abortions. C. Everett Koop.'' Mr. President, if there is any physician who would be known as America's doctor or the conscience of America's doctors, it is C. Everett Koop. He is widely admired. He is revered all across the Nation. He is not a partisan man. I do not even know what his position is on abortion; I have no idea. He is not an ideological man. He is a doctor. He is a doctor first. He is an honest, plain-speaking doctor in whom Americans have learned to have a great deal of trust. So consider again what Dr. Koop said: . . . in no way can I twist my mind to see that late-term abortion . . . partial-birth . . . is a medical necessity for the mother. Those are not my words. Those are not my words. They are the words of a doctor, Dr. Koop. I wish President Clinton had listened to Dr. Koop before he vetoed this bill. Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent that an excerpt from the American Medical News interview with Dr. Koop be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the New Hampshire Boy Scouts of America Troop No. 55 as they celebrate their 75th anniversary. Troop 55 has diligently served the New Hampshire town of Meredith and the New England region for 75 years. The troops members and their family and friends will celebrate this impressive milestone on September 28th in Hesky Park, Meredith, with a special presentation and a cookout. I am proud to congratulate Troop 55 for 75 years of dedication to New Hampshire and New England. Boy Scout Troop 55 was founded in January 1921 by the Whittier Men of the First Congregational Church of Meredith. Today, Troop 55 is sponsored by the Meredith Kiwanis Club. For 75 years, Troop 55 has accomplished a long history of achievement and service to their community. While the Troop has a number of accomplishments, their area of specialty is the preservation of elm trees throughout New England. To preserve the elm trees, Troop 55 uses Dutch Elm trees, which are especially resistant to disease. The members of Boy Scout Troop 55 participate in the planting of these special Dutch Elm trees throughout New England. To further the use of Dutch Elm trees, Boy Scout Troop 55 has their own nursery of trees. Troop 55 of Meredith is also very proud of 10 of their members who have attained the Eagle Scout status. To become an Eagle Scout, a young man must earn badges for citizenship in the community, citizenship in the Nation, and citizenship in the world. The Eagle Scout designation is the highest attainable rank for a young man. Those who achieve it have every reason to be proud. The Boy Scouts of America promote citizenship, character-building, and community service among the boys of our country. This organization also provides respectable, solid role models for the youth of our Nation and teaches them about commitment, dedication, and hard work. Members of the Boy Scout Troops of America learn valuable skills that serve them for a lifetime. I am proud to honor such an outstanding Boy Scout troop in New Hampshire. Congratulations to all the members of Troop 55 on reaching this remarkable milestone.