[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.

                          ____________________