[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 6 (Tuesday, February 1, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that today,
following legislative business and any special orders heretofore
entered into, the following Members may be permitted to address the
House, revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous
material:
Mr. GONZALEZ, for 5 minutes;
Ms. McKINNEY, for 5 minutes;
Mr. GONZALEZ on February 2 and 3, for 5 minutes;
Mr. McCLOSKEY, on February 2, for 60 minutes;
Mr. KOPETSKI, on February 2, 9, 23, and March 2, 9, 16, and 23, for
60 minutes each day;
Mr. OWENS, on every legislative day of the second session of the 103d
Congress, 60 minutes each day.
Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Volkmer). Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. WALKER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I shall
not object, but I just wanted to ask the gentleman from Texas a
question regarding a matter of his committee. I am wondering why his
committee has not yet indicated that they are going to schedule
hearings into the Whitewater matter, which seems to a number of Members
on our side of the aisle as being a subject matter that is going to be
extremely important in understanding the savings and loan scandal. I
know the gentleman has been always very interested in looking into that
matter, has scheduled hearings on a number of aspects of that matter
over the years, and has looked at times as closely at members of the
President's family that were involved in this matter, and it strikes us
as somewhat puzzling that those kinds of hearings have not been held. I
wonder if the gentleman can tell us whether he is going to schedule
such things, and whether there will be meetings?
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, even though the gentleman is out of order,
plainly, I would respond this way: I would advise the gentleman that he
should contact the minority leader of the Banking Committee for an
extensive reply to that question.
Mr. WALKER. Further reserving the right to object, the fact is that I
have talked extensively with the gentleman and, of course, he cannot
schedule a hearing on the matter. That is up to the chairman. And it is
only once a hearing has been scheduled that subpoenas can be used and
the instruments of Congress can be used to look into these matters. And
I am just asking as a matter of courtesy when we might expect that we
are going to deal with this matter in the same kind of depth that we
have dealt with other savings and loan issues?
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, in due course, and as the mandate under
the rules, the committee sees and finds a legislative purpose, the
gentleman can be assured that despite any malconclusion on his part, it
will be fully discharged.
Mr. WALKER. Further reserving the right to object, I have not drawn
any conclusion. I am trying to relate this to the matters that have
been pursued by the committee with some vigor over the last several
years, and find it puzzling that on this matter there has not been the
same level of enthusiasm toward scheduling hearings that was so evident
in the past. And so I appreciate the gentleman's response that this is
going to happen in due course. I am wondering if he could be a little
more specific on that, and that of course could mean that it would be
years from now. Is this something that the gentleman intends to
schedule yet in this Congress?
Mr. GONZALEZ. As I said and repeat, the gentleman is not a member of
this committee and, therefore, I can understand his lack of knowledge
or understanding either as to the activities of the committee in the
past or present and, therefore, repeat my suggestion that the gentleman
check individually with his own minority leader in the committee who
will be informed immediately as to the pertinent and germane hour and
day and week whatever business the committee has in that respect.
{time} 1250
Mr. WALKER. Further reserving the right to object, I certainly
appreciate that. I have talked, as this gentleman has said, as I have
said, to the gentleman, and as I understand it, the majority staff at
the present time is involved in no investigation of this matter, that
all of the investigation under-way is being handled by the minority,
and, of course, has been denied subpoena power.
Mr. GONZALEZ. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman is
in gross ignorance. The majority staff was assigned initially to
review, together with the minority staff, the jurisdiction and proper
aspect under the investigatory powers of the committee, the
jurisdiction over the subject matter that the gentleman has reference
to.
Mr. WALKER. The majority staff is still actively involved in this
investigation?
Mr. GONZALEZ. It is an error to say the committee staff or chairman
has not and is not continuing to evaluate the situation from the
standpoint of the jurisdictional powers of the committee.
Mr. WALKER. Further reserving the right to object, so the gentleman
is telling me that the majority staff is presently involved in active
investigation of the Whitewater matter?
Mr. GONZALEZ. The committee continues to review, as I have explained
to your minority leader, and that is why I keep repeating.
Mr. WALKER. I am looking for an answer to my question. Is the
majority staff actively involved in an investigation of the Whitewater
matter? Has the chairman told the majority staff that subpoenas can be
used in order to obtain materials?
Mr. GONZALEZ. That is a different matter.
The gentleman is not a member of the committee. Again, I would think
the gentleman would not want to use this moment in order to obstruct
the ordinary procedures at this time of the House when he can have all
of his questions to his satisfaction answered by the minority leader of
the committee.
Mr. WALKER. Further reserving the right to object, the gentleman is
not obstructing any business of the House. The fact is that the House
has no business today, and the House is proceeding to special orders.
The gentleman made a unanimous-consent request, and the gentleman
objects to find out where we stand on a matter which I believe is of
some importance to the House and the Nation at the present time.
The gentleman tells me that because I am not a member of the
committee it is not legitimate for me to ask these questions. I believe
it is legitimate for any Member of this House to ask these kinds of
questions of people who are the leaders of the House on matters of this
type.
The gentleman from Texas has been elected as leader of that
committee, as the chairman of that committee. He has an obligation not
only to the Democrats but to the whole House. The gentleman is simply
asking a matter of scheduling. I am simply asking when we can expect
this matter of major significance to the country to be investigated by
the House Banking Committee and to be the subject of hearings before
the House Banking Committee, and the gentleman, I must say, so far in
my view has been evasive to those questions, instead trying to turn it
on the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
I think my question is fairly basic, fairly fundamental, and if the
gentleman would simply give me some idea as to when this was going to
take place, the work of the House of moving to special orders could go
on immediately. So if the gentleman could simply tell me when this year
we can expect those hearings, this colloquy can end.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I think the gentleman understands that I cannot tell
him at this precise moment when and if or under what circumstances the
committee is going to set hearings other than those that have already
been scheduled and announced in the regular order of the committee.
Now, I do not see how I can answer questions that I have not already
done so to the gentleman, of my ability to do so, other than as based
by the gentleman's statements revealing a lack of understanding of the
workings of the committee, and that is why I repeat, the gentleman's
proper questions, and in order to get his proper response, should be in
close contact with the minority leader, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Leach], and I am sure you will have your questions very satisfactorily
answered, and even though you are not a member of the committee, will
be given equal notice when and if any setting is set.
Mr. WALKER. Further reserving the right to object, I would tell the
gentleman that the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has been very, very
responsive in answering questions with regard to the minority's
position on this. However, the gentleman from Iowa does not have the
same position in terms of scheduling that the chairman does. Only the
chairman can schedule matters. The gentleman from Iowa cannot.
That is the reason why I am asking the gentleman from Texas a
scheduling question to which, thus far, I have not been able to get an
answer.
Under my reservation, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.
The chairman of the Banking Committee knows that I served 4 years
under his chairmanship and how much I respect him.
I would just point out to him, and I agree with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the gentleman will remember when the BCCI
scandal started, or any type of scandal in the newspapers, in very
short order you would say to the committee that we will posthaste have
hearings on this, and in fact, you would say oftentimes that they will
be this year. All I am saying is I think, and as I think the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is saying, that we have not only had an
expose in the newspaper but we have also had a special prosecutor, and
we are well down the road here. Yet the minority at this point has no
idea when the Banking Committee is going to do something.
From your past experience that I have seen, you have been right on
top of these situations, and I think, Mr. Chairman, it would help if
you could say today on the House floor that there will be hearings this
year.
Mr. WALKER. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from Texas for a response.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I have answered the best I can. The gentleman is asking
me for a time fixed, and I cannot do that.
Mr. STEARNS. Can you say it will occur before November 1?
Mr. GONZALEZ. The first of what?
Mr. STEARNS. November 1. Will there be hearings on this matter?
Mr. GONZALEZ. Oh, listen, the duties that are incumbent on this
chairman are diligently complied with in accordance with the sworn
oath, the rules of the House, and the rules of the committee.
Let me say this, since the gentleman makes an allusion to his having
been a member of the committee, there is no relationship between such a
thing as BCCI or BNL, if the gentleman will recall, and if the
gentleman will also recall further, I first set hearings on BCCI and no
Member showed up for the first hearings in 1990 and 1991, at which time
the gentleman was a member of that committee. It was not until both
cases, for whatever reason, and I do not print the newspapers, decided
that it made news that you had such a furor, but by then, the committee
had exercised its jurisdiction, and, in fact, produced legislation.
We do not have unlimited, and no congressional committee has
unlimited right to investigate other than that which will form the
basis for legislation. You have to have a legislative purpose, and that
is what we did.
Just a minute; just a minute. The gentleman is mixing oranges,
apples, and bananas when he makes allusion to these other cases.
I think, if the gentleman would yield; would the gentleman continue
to yield to me?
Mr. WALKER. Further reserving the right to object, absolutely. I
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Do not worry about either this chairman setting the
agenda so as to comply with the rules that will call forth its proper
jurisdiction over the subject matter that the gentleman has reference
to. I assure you that I cannot give you a fixed date any more than I
can tell you at this moment what exact date we are going to have the
markup on two or three measures that have been passed up by the
respective subcommittees. This is a matter that depends on the
scheduling not only of the House but also of the matters pending for
full committee hearings.
So if the gentleman is insinuating that for whatever reason I have
not scheduled hearings on the so-called S&L, the Madison S&L because of
some purpose deviating from that which has anteceded this case, the
1988 S&L so-called scandal, let me say the gentleman is in gross error
and is being unjust.
Mr. WALKER. Just to reclaim my time, and I will be happy to yield
back to the gentleman, I made no allusion to that at all. I simply
asked for a schedule. It simply seems to me that is as important as
Silverado was, that it is in the same league as the Silverado scandal.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I answered that the only thing I could not do in the
request of the gentleman, when you wanted a time certain and a date, I
cannot give you that.
Mr. WALKER. I did not ask for a time certain and a date. I asked for
something general: Will hearings be held this year?
Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, they will.
Mr. WALKER. Yes, they will be held?
Mr. GONZALEZ. Very simply, yes----
Mr. WALKER. Hearings will be held this year prior to the
congressional adjournment, is that correct, on the matter of Madison
Savings & Loan?
Mr. GONZALEZ. I would hope so.
Mr. WALKER. You are the one who schedules it. I have the assurance of
the gentleman from Texas that this matter will be investigated by the
House Banking Committee prior to adjournment of this Congress?
Mr. GONZALEZ. To the extent that the jurisdiction of the committee is
properly exercised, yes, of course. The answer is yes.
Mr. WALKER. And this matter, like the Silverado scandal and so on,
does involve an S&L which is under the jurisdiction of the committee?
Mr. GONZALEZ. Once again, the gentleman is injecting a case that is
not in point, just like BCCI and BNL, entirely different.
{time} 1300
But we will not go into that now. I understand the gentleman. I think
I have answered his question.
Mr. WALKER. As I understand the gentleman's answer, the Banking
Committee will hold hearings on the Madison Savings & Loan scandal
sometime before the adjournment of Congress this year?
Mr. GONZALEZ. Oh, long before that.
Mr. WALKER. Good.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. ROTH. To my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] ``You should
live so long'' to see hearings in the Banking Committee on the Madison
Savings & Loan.
The reason I can tell you this----
Mr. WALKER. I just heard from the chairman he is going to hold them.
I am holding him at his word.
Mr. ROTH. I am giving you an interpretation here. I do not question
the chairman of the Banking Committee, Mr. Gonzalez. He is an honorable
man. I like him personally. He is a personal friend.
But you are asking the question, and I want to give you a frank
answer. The answer, I can tell you, is, because you know Madison
Savings & Loan cost the American taxpayers over $60 million, I mean we
have a right to know not only as a Congress but as the American people
why this savings and loan was kept open for 3 years after everyone knew
that it was totally insolvent.
Now, this morning we had a hearing in the Banking Committee.
Congress, you know, has an obligation to exercise oversight on
regulatory agencies. This morning we had Mr. Fiechter, head of the
Office of Thrift Supervision, before our committee. I proceeded to ask
him about the December letter that the minority members--your friends--
wrote, and asked, requesting copies of dozens of documents relating to
the failed Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan.
You know what he said? This is going to surprise you. He is not going
to give those documents to the minority committee.
Mr. WALKER. Did he explain why?
Mr. ROTH. Or the majority. You know, you are gong to be surprised
because I asked him, ``Did you give those documents to----'', and the
chairman of our subcommittee interrupted and said, ``Mr. Fiechter, you
don't have to answer those questions. That question can only be asked--
that question can only be asked before the committee when we have that
hearing.''
Mr. WALKER. Now, if the gentleman will yield for just a moment?
Mr. ROTH. Yes.
Mr. WALKER. It is my understanding the way we could get those records
would be to subpoena them. Is that right? In typical fashion, typical
of what we have done before in this area, we have subpoenaed those
kinds of documents.
Mr. ROTH. If the chairman of the Banking Committee and the committee
members acquiesce to that.
Mr. WALKER. That is understood.
Mr. ROTH. Yes. But other than that, they are not going to give those
documents. How is Congress ever gong to exercise sufficient oversight?
How are the American people ever going to know? I do not want to----
Mr. WALKER. Let me yield to the gentleman from Texas, who wants to
reply here, and I will then be happy to yield later to the gentleman
from Wisconsin.
Mr. ROTH. It is the gentleman's time?
Mr. WALKER. It is my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I thank the gentleman because I think the gentleman
from Wisconsin must have forgotten that an integral part of the
legislation we passed in 1989, which incidentally was called President
Bush's bill, included a section or a title that I insisted on and had
to fight for it in the conference. Nobody seemed to want it. And that
mandates a full, in-person report to the committees in the Senate and
the House Banking Committee every 6 months when the House is in
session, giving a full accounting of the Oversight Board.
Now, that is the forum. And of course, what the gentleman has
reference to--his attending a meeting today--was a subcommittee, not
the full committee.
So I think that, in all fairness----
Mr. WALKER. But is the gentleman--was the subcommittee chairman's
ruling right that when that bar comes in, that the minority has no
right to ask for documents relating to the Madison S&L? Was that a
proper ruling by the subcommittee chairman?
Mr. GONZALEZ. I am not privy because I do not belong to that
subcommittee and did not attend the meeting. So I am not privy to the
particular ruling of that subcommittee chairman. But I dare say----
Mr. WALKER. But you believe the minority would be entitled to those
documents?
Mr. GONZALEZ. Let me say, suffice it for the moment that the review I
mandated in that amendment, because all through the years I had seen
where Congress wanted to get reports after it organized a group like
the RTC and the like, and I said, ``No, this is going to have to be
different. You are going to have to come up to us and give us every 6
months a full accounting.'' And it would not be restricted to minority
or majority as to what they would demand, what questions they would
ask. So that is what I have reference to.
Of course, we are going to have a hearing, but that is to be under
the proper forum.
Mr. WALKER. I think we have now figured out the great wisdom of the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] in demanding that kind of hearing.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much.
Mr. WALKER. And my question is: Does the gentleman from Texas believe
that the minority is entitled to the documents that they requested
based upon what the gentleman just told us, that this is an opportunity
for the committee to review the realities of that legislation, that now
we are demanding certain documents that relate to regulations that
evidently somehow got us into a $60 million problem? And as I
understand the gentleman from Wisconsin, those documents were denied to
the minority today.
Now, is the gentleman from Texas suggesting that that denial was
proper, or is the minority in fact entitled to such documents?
Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, first let me advise, if the gentleman would
yield.
Mr. WALKER. Of course, I would be happy to yield.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I do not know specifically what documents were being
requested, and I do not want to know. But let me put it this way: If it
were documents that I have seen listed as wanting, they have been
accessible to the press, they have been accessible to the Justice
Department. The Justice Department has been working on its angle of
enforcing the laws, incidentally, the laws that we passed in 1989,
1990, and 1991.
So that the issue is not what new laws do we need; the issue is
proper for that 6-months' accountability by the Oversight Board. And
that is what we intend to do.
Now, if the documents--remember, this is a decision that the agencies
make for themselves, we are not telling them, ``Do this or don't,'' as
a majority. But ordinarily, the request is made under the jurisdiction
and the aegis of the committee, the full committee, which involves the
minority.
So, what I am saying is everything should be available at a time when
we have the oversight hearing that is due. In fact, it is overdue.
Mr. WALKER. As I understand it--let me yield to the gentleman from
Wisconsin because he has a better understanding of this than I do.
Mr. ROTH. I thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman for yielding
this time.
In December we in the minority asked for certain copies of documents
relating to the failures of the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan because
we felt that we had to exercise oversight to tell the American people
why the savings and loan failed and cost the American taxpayers some
$60 million. To this day the Office of Thrift Supervision has not
responded. So this morning I asked, ``Are you going to respond?'' They
said, ``No,'' they are not.
Mr. WALKER. They said that they were refusing to respond to the
request for documents?
Mr. ROTH. That is right.
Mr. WALKER. Let me ask the gentleman from Texas: Does the gentleman
think it is an appropriate position for that office to take?
Mr. GONZALEZ. Again, I repeat, I am not privy to the specific request
that was made. But there is no reason why. The proper time to
interrogate with questions and make fully accountable the OTS or the
review board is when we have their mandatory appearance before the
committee.
Mr. WALKER. And that will come very quickly.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Absolutely.
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Let me put it this way: as soon as it is reasonable to
get everybody together. Remember that the Oversight Board consists of
some of the main--the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and some of
the main Cabinet members. The Secretary of the Treasury, who is the
chairman. Getting them together is our job.
Mr. WALKER. Certainly by the end of the month.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, of course. It is mandated. We mandated it in the
law.
Mr. WALKER. And at that time a request for documents would certainly
be in order at that point.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Why not?
Mr. WALKER. We would expect if the request is made by the committee,
those document would be turned over, is that correct?
Mr. GONZALEZ. I would think so. Now, there have been some subpoenaed
by the grand jury. To what extent those overlap, I do not know. We can
find out when we have the oversight hearing.
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. ROTH. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding some more
time.
Let me just say that I am not trying to put a lot of pressure on the
chairman of the committee, Mr. Gonzalez.
{time} 1310
I realize he is under a heck of a lot of pressure. I mean, when I see
that the Speaker of the House is saying, no, he will not have hearings,
I say to my friend from Pennsylvania--I mean I think it is the Speaker
of the House that we have to talk to. He is the one that said, ``Under
no conditions will we have hearings; this is not going to be brought up
in Congress.''
And I know the White House has some interest in this, so I know there
is a lot of pressure here. But, quite frankly, I also feel, if I may be
so bold as to say I think there is a real coverup going on, too--I mean
how long are these documents going to be held?
Mr. GONZALEZ. If the gentleman would yield here----
Mr. ROTH. I just want to finish my statement.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. Let me yield to the chairman for just a second.
Mr. ROTH. OK.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Let me say this.
Mr. ROTH. OK.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I vigorously decry the gentleman's implication that
there is a coverup. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I did not know
what the Speaker did or did not do. He has not contacted me. Nobody in
the administration has contacted me, either the President himself, or
any of his subalterns. Nobody has; nobody will. And any effort made
will not subtract one hair's breadth from my prescribed duty, which I
think I know full well.
Mr. WALKER. Well, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] for
that explanation, but I mean what puzzles us, I say to the chairman,
and I will come back to the gentleman from Wisconsin in a minute, but,
for instance, as I understand it right now, you are seeking details
with regard to some vulture funds from the fourth largest Spanish bank
in that you have already asked the Federal Reserve, and the J.P. Morgan
and Co., and others, to cooperate with the committee in that
investigation. We just think that the same level of effort that is
going into the vulture fund question at a Spanish bank might be devoted
to Whitewater, and we have not seen that level of activity out of the
committee.
I think that is the concern that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Roth] may be expressing.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, if the gentleman would yield, would it suffice
for me to say that the gentleman should not be deceived by premature
conclusions as to promptness or activity in that respect?
Mr. WALKER. I must say that is comforting, and I appreciate it.
If I have understood the gentleman correctly, the gentleman has
committed to us that we are going to have hearings on Whitewater before
the end of this congressional session, that the matter of bringing
people in for a review of the oversight committee is going to take
place before the end of the month.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this has been helpful. It has been
helpful to me in terms of beginning to understand that schedule whereby
we can begin to get some of these questions answered.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I appreciate that.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. BONIOR. Well, I do not think the debate is helped at all by the
gentleman, if I might say so with due respect, from Wisconsin, who
suggests there is a coverup here. There has been completed cooperation
by the White House in this. They have agreed and have turned over
documents. They have agreed to have a special prosecutor. That special
prosecutor that has been appointed is a Republican of stature who was a
former DA from the State of New York, and to come onto the floor and to
suggest that there is a coverup is absolutely wrong. It is erroneous,
it is scurrilous, and it has no part in the debate that is taking place
on this issue.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I control the time, and I am happy to yield to the
gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I respond to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Bonior] by saying the White House has agreed to a special prosecutor,
yes, but they were dragged in kicking and screaming, and, as far as the
House not having hearings, why every newspaper in the country carried
Speaker Foley's comments that we are not going to have hearings on this
issue in the House. So, it is a matter of public record.
Mr. WALKER. But, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Gonzalez] has made very clear that he does not plan to follow the
Speaker's directive on this, that the committee is, in fact, going to
hold hearings on this matter.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Once again will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I do not know, and I am not privy to, exactly what was
attributed to the Speaker. What I read down in my hometown in San
Antonio was a cryptic motive saying that the Speaker did not think it
was necessary to form a bicameral committee.
Mr. WALKER. I do not think so either.
Mr. GONZALEZ. That is right, and that is all I know.
Mr. WALKER. And the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] has never
hesitated to hold hearings despite the fact that his leadership did not
particularly agree with him.
So, I mean I can take him at his word that, if he says there are
going to be hearings held on this matter before the end of this
congressional session, I think it is clear that the gentleman from
Texas will probably hold those hearings.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the gentleman
having the trust and confidence that the hearings will be in accordance
with the prescribed rules, the power and limitations on every one of
our committees, and, in consonance with that, of course we are.
Naturally.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________