[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 11 (Tuesday, February 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1940
 
                     THE HOUSE POST OFFICE SCANDAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas). Under a 
previous order of the House, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, it is never a pleasant task to have to 
address this Chamber, and those others that are listening in, on 
something of the gravest import that involves the integrity and the 
dignity of this body, however a situation has arisen that is very 
tempting for Members of Congress to attempt to sweep under the rug, to 
disregard and hope that it will go away. But unfortunately it will not.
  What I am speaking about is, of course, the scandal that has arisen 
through the House post office, something that for a long time had been 
rumored--a couple of years ago Members, many Members, thought that the 
rumors were untrue because of a task force investigation that seemed to 
issue a clean bill of health, and then there was a shock wave that came 
across this particular body last summer, 6 months ago, when the former 
Postmaster of the U.S. House of Representatives post office pleaded 
guilty in a sudden appearance in Federal court to three counts of 
conspiring with Members of Congress to embezzle tens of thousands of 
dollars of taxpayers' money from the House post office, and that guilty 
plea by Robert V. Rota is now over 6 months old, and there are all 
sorts of rumors, of course, which circulate about what is or is not 
being done by the U.S. Department of Justice in pursuing potential 
criminal action against Members of this House.
  But, Madam Speaker, the sad truth is we cannot pass the buck nor 
expect anyone else to handle our problems for us. The U.S. Constitution 
under article I, section 5, specifies that the House has the obligation 
to police the disorderly behavior of its Members, and certainly it is 
hard to get more disorderly than being engaged in a scheme to embezzle 
tens of thousands of dollars from the taxpayers through the use of the 
official offices of the House. That particular scheme, it turns out 
from what has been revealed in the court papers, was not something that 
happened just of one moment. It was something that evidently continued 
for a series of years and escalated to the point which it did, and I 
would like to cover in this presentation some of the facts that are 
important to people to know and also talk about what we need to do 
about this.
  My colleagues, we have an ethics committee. Technically it is called 
the Committee on Official Standards of Conduct. It is charged with the 
responsibility to enforce the rules and standards of behavior of this 
body. But, despite the revelations through official court documents, 
through testimony in open court and through filings here in the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia, the House ethics committee 
has not taken up the challenge, nor opened an official inquiry, into 
what happened in the post office. There was a privileged resolution, 
which is pending in this body, which I and over 30 other Members of 
this House intend to call up soon under the rules of this House which 
directs the ethics committee to pursue the independent investigation to 
cooperate, as necessary, of course, with the Justice Department and to 
enforce the rules of conduct of this House.

                              {time}  1950

  Let me share with you what occurred. And this is not just me talking, 
this is from the testimony, a factual offer made on behalf of the U.S. 
Government, filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia, in the case of United States of America versus Robert V. 
Rota. These are public records available to the public from the 
courthouse.
  The scheme that Mr. Rota confessed to was enabling Members of 
Congress to embezzle taxpayers' money through the post office, through 
a series of maneuvers that included accumulating cash within the post 
office, rather than making daily deposits or frequent deposits of cash 
that came into the post office as part of its official business. That 
money was set aside and kept in special places. Then when a Member 
would come in, and he would have a voucher, or he would send somebody 
with a voucher, a voucher drawn against his official House account, 
drawn against public moneys of the U.S. Government, and supposedly for 
the purchase of stamps for his official duties, instead of getting 
stamps, he would get cash. And he would pocket the cash.
  Vouchers in thousands of dollars. At other times, stamps themselves, 
having previously been purchased with public moneys, would be brought 
back to the post office, and they would be exchanged for cash and 
Members of Congress could then pocket that cash.
  And then the third way that money was diverted from the public was 
that they would bring in a campaign check. Now, this campaign check was 
supposedly for just campaign purposes. Certainly many campaigns have to 
buy postage. But instead of bringing in the campaign check, purchasing 
postage and then using those stamps to further the conduct of a 
campaign and mailing to constituents, it would be cashed and the Member 
would get back cash, and thus would divert money not only from the 
taxpayers, but from his own or her own contributors.
  This conduct evidently continued for a series of years, as laid out 
in the court papers as part of Mr. Rota's confession.
  That was 6 months ago, Madam Speaker. And since that time, everybody 
has been waiting. Is the Justice Department going to pursue things? is 
the Justice Department going to pursue things? Is the House concerned 
about the integrity of this body? Is the House concerned about the 
shadows cast upon each and every one of us. Because the court papers 
don't say which Members were involved. They don't say how many Members 
were involved. They say there were several Members. They mention a 
congressman A, and a congressman B. But we don't know if it rises up to 
a congressman C, D, E, F, G, how far does it go? And we will never 
know, Madam Speaker, unless we pursue these allegations as we are 
charged by the U.S. Constitution to do.
  Let the Justice Department pursue criminal investigations as they 
will. We have an obligation to pursue these matters, to ferret out 
wrongdoing within our own midst. And our ethics committee, which itself 
spends millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to enforce standards of 
official conduct, needs to be actively involved in the pursuit of this 
mismanagement and outright embezzlement of taxpayers' money.
  That is the purpose of the pending resolution that has been filed in 
the form of Resolution 238. It may be refiled under a different number. 
But in the very near future, we intend to call that resolution up in 
this House for consideration by this body.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. I appreciate your having this special order tonight. I 
think it is extremely important. I had some thoughts here that when you 
mentioned you have got this privileged resolution, you are trying to 
press this forward, and I have heard other Members and rumblings of 
others saying, but there is a criminal investigation, let's let the 
Department of Justice take care of things and not start some ethics 
investigation.
  Well, there is a big difference between the criminal process, the 
criminal code, and ethics. I think that is extremely important.
  We have got the United States Code here on crimes and criminal 
procedure, title 18, section 1 through section 6002. It is the Federal 
Code. So we have the Department of Justice and all those prosecutors 
out there. I have prosecuted under the Federal code for 3 years. I 
understand criminal process and criminal procedure.
  This is the House Ethics Manual. It is different. It sets the code of 
conduct of Members.
  Now, there are two different sets here. Ethics manuals are supposed 
to be more stringent than the criminal standard and try to hold to the 
highest code possible.
  James Madison said, in the framing of this country, in the beginning 
of our ethics manual here, ``If men were angels, no government would be 
necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal 
controls on government would be necessary.''
  You see, they struggled with this issue of ethics in a government 
where you have people governing other people. So they struggled with 
that issue and came with the firm belief that a public office is in 
fact the public trust. And right now, all across America, we talk about 
the budget deficit, there is a trust deficit between the American 
people and this Congress.
  I come here as a new Member and say why? Why is there such a trust 
deficit?
  Mr. Istook, all you have to do is look at this particular case as 
example of why there is a trust deficit between the American people and 
this body.
  I am not here to make allegations of anyone. I know that there are 
tremendous impressions of improperity. I also know that in order to 
have someone convicted of a conspiracy, he cannot conspire in and of 
himself. The conspiracy must be with others. That is very, very 
important.
  So there is a huge difference between the ethics and criminal 
procedure. I disagree with those that say let's let the Department of 
Justice take care of things, because I am learning about this town. 
When you have one party in control, the Democratic Party controls the 
House, the Senate, and the executive branch, the checks and balances on 
the system are lacking right now. There truly isn't the independence of 
the Judiciary.
  I could cite case after case, and I am very, very concerned. So 
having a simple code of ethics, and sure, this is a big thick book, but 
it can be very simple. For the 4 years as a cadet at the Citadel, the 
code was very simple. A cadet does not lie, he does not cheat, he does 
not tolerate those who do. Now, that was a code when I was a cadet as a 
young man. But you know, it is part of my character. The code is very 
simple.
  Now I am faced with the toleration aspect. And I have to come 
forward, Mr. Istook, and I join you with this. I think it is extremely 
important. Today, right now, America is almost giving in to 
situational ethics. They say is character really important? Character 
really doesn't matter. Don't let the character of man or woman matter. 
See what they do. Is he working on the agenda? Let's not look into 
character. Is he making things happen? Let's not worry about character.

  Excuse me. When it is the public office, it matters. From the 
township trustee advisory board to the President of the United States, 
public office matters, and trust matters, and character matters. It is 
extremely important.
  So I get upset, Mr. Istook, when I hear people talking about the 
character doesn't matter. I think that we need to move forward on the 
House Ethics Committee. I join you as original cosponsor of your House 
resolution. I think you are on the right track. I salute your courage. 
It is very bold to take on this institution. But it takes men of 
character such as yourself to step forward and do what you are doing. 
Especially in the face of whatever retributions the system of this 
House, of which we are both well aware of, can kind of boomerang and 
come back.
  But I salute you, and I think other Members will come and join what 
you are doing.
  Let me close. When I think about character, Mr. Istook, if I can 
relate a story with you. I can think about the character of this 
country, the American character and why it is so unique and why the 
American character has made us such a unique society among the world. I 
think back of an incident that occurred during the gulf war.
  I came out of an interrogation tent at the enemy prisoner of war tent 
to see a brigadier general of the Iraqi Army sitting on the desert 
floor with his legs crossed, his elbows on his knees, his face in his 
hand. He was weeping and crying. He was dejected and defeated.
  You see, his character is that under a tribal system and a 
totalitarian government where loyalty to the totalitarian regime is 
ultimate. That is his character. You see, when he became defeated and 
dejected, his system failed him and he failed himself, for he lacked 
the character.
  Nobody, nobody, has to tell anyone, from an American private to an 
American general, how to act. It amazed me when I walked out there to 
see that.

                             {time}   2000

  And I walked up to that gentleman. I kicked the bottom of his boot 
and, through an interpreter, I asked him to stand at attention. And 
then I asked him if he were a general. And he said, ``Yes, I am.''
  So, I said, ``Then act like one and be a man.''
  You see, his character is so much different. We have Sam Johnson 
here. We have others. We have Sam Johnson. I almost weep when I shake 
the hand of Sam Johnson, with his cripple hands and what he went 
through in Vietnam for 7 years. Sam Johnson's character is completely 
different from the character of someone from another system, another 
type of government under a totalitarian system. So, character matters. 
Character matters today.
  So, when we want to talk about, let us bridge the trust deficit, let 
us unite the American people and give them faith that Members of 
Congress, that Members of the Senate, whether it is the President, 
whether it is the county commissioner, exercise trust, that they will 
make decisions that are in the best interest of the American people. 
And we have to police ourselves and prove to them that we mean it, and 
that is the first step at restoring the trust and confidence.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks 
about character and the necessity for pursuing this matter.
  And you asked the question, why is it not being pursued. We have an 
obligation. It does not matter if anyone else is doing something, the 
buck stops with us to enforce the rules of this House, to enforce the 
highest standards of ethical behavior by Members of this House. And I 
think the burden is upon those who do not wish to pursue it to come 
forth and present their arguments.
  I think we should probably discuss what those arguments are, because 
we have heard them. We know what they are. We know what fallacies are 
in those particular arguments.
  The American people look at what is happening over in the other body, 
the Senate. We are not supposed to say ``the Senate'' on the floor.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
we changed the rule on that now.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Over in the Senate, they are making front-page headlines, 
because of what? An ethics investigation into a Senator. And what is it 
that the Senator is supposed to have done that makes front-page 
headlines? It is a question of where has he been putting his hands. Has 
he been putting them on ladies in unwelcomed fashion?
  And here in the House, we have Members who have been putting their 
hands in the till. We have embezzlement. They are concerned with sexual 
harassment. That is fine. That is well and good. But we should be 
concerned about embezzlement, the charges that have been raised against 
Members of this House. And if somebody is putting their hands in the 
public till, are we or are we not concerned about doing something about 
it?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas). The 
Chair would advise the gentleman, it is not in order to cast 
reflections on the Senate or its Members, individually or collectively.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I am not. I am speaking of the allegations 
rather than the proven conduct. I am speaking merely of the 
allegations, which are being probed by the Senate in their official 
body.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman should not refer to an ongoing 
investigation in the Senate.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I do not know of any rule that prohibits me from 
mentioning an ongoing investigation in the Senate. If there is one, I 
hope the Chair will cite it to me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Rule XIV.
  Mr. ISTOOK. And it reads?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It reads:

       Debate may include references to actions taken by the 
     Senate or by committees thereof which are a matter of public 
     record, references to the pendency or sponsorship in the 
     Senate of bills, resolutions, and amendments, factual 
     descriptions relating to Senate action or inaction concerning 
     a measure then under debate in the House, and quotations from 
     Senate proceedings on a measure then under debate in the 
     House and which are relevant to the making of legislative 
     history establishing the meaning of that measure, but may not 
     include characterizations of Senate action or inaction, other 
     references to individual Members of the Senate, or other 
     quotations from Senate proceedings.

  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I believe that is perfectly in accord with 
what I did. The Senate has public records, for example, the issuance of 
subpoenas, of records to enforce a Senate investigation.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the gentleman is absolutely correct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. To characterize the Senate or its Members is 
not in accordance with the rules.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I would have to challenge the ruling of 
the Chair, if the Chair thinks I have improperly characterized the 
Senate. I have merely mentioned the fact that in the U.S. Senate there 
is an investigation which is front-page news and certainly should not 
be suppressed in this body, which is front-page news, looking into 
allegations of alleged sexual harassment by a Member of the Senate. Yet 
we have, in this House, allegations of embezzlement of tens of 
thousands of dollars. And certainly, this is an extremely serious 
charge that needs to be pursued in this House.
  I would not want to think that anyone in this House would want to 
suppress the mere mention of the fact that the Senate investigates 
sexual allegation charges.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Ethics in general is acceptable. Specific 
allegations and specific references to the conduct of a Senator are not 
acceptable.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I believe I am speaking in context with 
the rule and in accordance with the rule. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania asked me to yield for a question.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman, I think, referred to the proceedings of 
the Senate. In the rule just cited by the gentlewoman in the Chair, she 
said that it was entirely appropriate for the House to refer to 
proceedings of the Senate. The gentleman, as I listened to him, was 
referring to proceedings of the Senate.
  The matter under discussion by the gentleman was, in fact, the 
subject of Senate debate. It is a part of the Congressional Record. 
There was extensive debate in the Senate recently. So it seems to me 
that this is a matter which involves the proceedings of the Senate.
  The gentleman would be out of order, if he characterized those 
proceedings in a particular way.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Debate was not being repeated in accordance 
with the rule. Senate action and a Senator's conduct were being 
characterized.
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman referred only, as I understood him, to a 
general reference to the fact that these proceedings did, in fact, take 
place in the U.S. Senate. He did not mention a particular Senator. He 
mentioned what was done under the proceedings of the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reference was to a specific allegation.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Which has been, Madam Speaker, which has been the subject 
of a vote by the full Senate, which has been the subject of submitting 
a request for further information through a subpoena to a United States 
district court. That is totally in accord with the rules.
  Madam Speaker, I think we are digressing here from the main issue. If 
the Chair wishes to make a point of order of some fashion, I would 
certainly contest it. Otherwise, I would like to continue with our 
proceeding.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
this is an indication of exactly what we run into all the time, when we 
try to bring up these issues and discuss them in context.
  The rules of the House are immediately applied whenever you want to 
discuss some of these issues on the floor. We get very, very narrow 
interpretations of the rules in an effort to discuss these matters.
  However, when it comes to the rules of the House with regard to 
ethics violations, all of a sudden the Democratic leadership of the 
House is willing to set aside the rules or at least try to ignore them 
insofar as the membership will allow them to ignore them, and then line 
up a majority of votes on the Democratic side of the aisle to knock 
down any attempt to enforce the rules of the House.
  The gentleman, with his resolution, is attempting to enforce the 
ethics rules of the House of Representatives. He is attempting to get 
an entirely appropriate investigation done by the Ethics Committee on a 
matter where Members of the House have been accused of embezzlement and 
where there has actually been a charge of conspiracy and embezzlement 
that has resulted in a guilty plea by an officer of the House.
  Thus far, the officer of the House has not been investigated by the 
Ethics Committee, nor have any of the charges that the officer of the 
House made against Members of the House been investigated. That is 
regarded as entirely proper in this body, that we would ignore that 
matter, but we have got to be real technical when it comes to whether 
or not the gentleman was referring to proceedings or characterizing 
proceedings. We have got to get real technical, when it comes to those 
kinds of things.
  I would suggest that this is the madness under which we now operate 
in the House of Representatives, that we simply will not take our 
duties seriously enough, if those duties in any way appear to impact 
adversely on the majority party in the House of Representatives.

                              {time}  2010

  I would suggest that this is a perfect example of why the gentleman, 
in his dogged pursuing of this matter, has been absolutely correct. The 
gentleman has been patient beyond belief. It must be months now since 
he introduced this resolution. He has talked all the time about what is 
needed here. He has been assured that at the proper time all of these 
things will be taken care of.
  Meantime, we have had an investigation in this matter done by the 
Committee on House Administration that has been buried, and a 
resolution trying to make public those records on the floor was turned 
down, guess what, by the majority party voting almost unanimously as a 
party. I think there were a few Democratic votes who voted to make 
those records public, but very few. Then when we have attempted to move 
to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, that is something 
that the gentleman has been told, ``Well, not now.''
  Well, it appears as though now has come. I want to congratulate the 
gentleman for being courageous enough to bring this matter before the 
House and to give us an opportunity, hopefully in the near future, to 
find out whether or not the House is going to get concerned about its 
rules when it involves real ethical questions.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I think it is important to note 
when people say we should not do it because the Justice Department is 
investigating it, certainly we have had many contemporaneous 
investigations where the House was pursuing allegations of ethical 
misconduct simultaneously with something going on in the Justice 
Department. A good example, a recent example, was certainly the House 
bank scandal.
  We had the investigations regarding the Keating Five. We had an 
inquiry into allegations of improper use of book proceeds by a Member 
of this House. We have had a number of occasions when we have 
understood that we and the Justice Department each have separate 
duties. We can cooperate with one another without interfering with one 
another. We certainly should seek to do so, because we cannot evade our 
constitutional responsibility.
  There is also, Madam Speaker, a lingering question with many people 
as to whether the Justice Department actually will pursue things, 
presuming that the evidence is indeed there in their hands, to the 
point of an indictment.
  Certainly, Madam Speaker, those who have followed what the Justice 
Department has done on this are aware that the original grand jury 
pursuing those matters was dissolved. It ran out of time. It had a 
statutory time limit and it came to a point where it could not be 
extended further.
  A second grand jury had to be empaneled last fall, which means a new 
learning curve and certain delays. The investigation is also on its 
third U.S. attorney because of the change of administrations and 
replacement of U.S. attorneys under that. It is now a different U.S. 
attorney that is charged with that responsibility. Certainly people who 
are familiar with different investigations, whether at a State level or 
a Federal level, know that it is very easy to give the appearance of 
activity and yet nothing results from it.
  We also know that in an investigation with as many political 
ramifications as this one, that no indictment would be issued without 
the approval at the very highest levels of the Justice Department. So 
no matter what might be the desire of an individual U.S. attorney or 
his staff or investigators to pursue a matter, unless that receives 
clearance from those at the highest level of the Justice Department, 
nothing happens.

  This is the same Justice Department which, within the last couple of 
weeks, declines to prosecute, despite an extremely strong and sharp 
recommendation from the inspector general within the Department of 
Justice, saying that two State Department employees who had the 
political pull, if you will, of having been involved with the Clinton 
and Gore campaign, that they should not be prosecuted, despite what 
seems to be the indisputable evidence that they made an effort to go 
in, go through closed files from Bush administration personnel, take 
information about that out of those files that they thought would be 
damaging, and give that information to members of the press. For the 
sole purpose of trying to embarrass members of the prior 
administration, they would break the law which made those records 
confidential.
  However, the Justice Department, realizing the political problems of 
that, declines to prosecute. Now, if we have a sensitive investigation 
regarding a Member of Congress, would the Members not think that a 
Member of Congress would have more political pull and thus less chance 
of actually being prosecuted because that decision would have to come 
down from the highest levels of the Justice Department?
  We cannot rely on the Justice Department of anyone else to do our job 
for us. It is our constitutional responsibility. We cannot pass the 
buck.
  It is very telling, too, Madam Speaker, that when we did have a House 
task force a couple of years ago which did not pursue these allegations 
at the time, because frankly, the information was concealed from them 
at the time by Mr. Rota, but when they issued a report about what had 
happened, they were not satisfied with allegations that they should not 
be interfering with the Justice Department in looking into the House 
post office.
  In fact, and this was the majority report from that task force, they 
wrote that the task force was hampered by the Department of Justice's 
intermeddling and interference with their legislative 
mandate, and they said there was heavy-handed legal maneuvering and 
thinly veiled threats by the Department of Justice to thwart the House 
inquiry.
  They knew that the House had the obligation to pursue these matters 
whether the Justice Department was pursuing them or not, and the 
Justice Department should not be used to thwart the House in the 
exercise of its constitutional duty to inquire into the conduct of its 
own Members.

  Now we hear, ``Oh, we mustn't interfere.'' Then it was the Justice 
Department interfering, when they thought Members of Congress would not 
be implicated. But when Members of Congress became implicated, suddenly 
the attitude is, ``Oh, hands off. Let's let the Justice Department do 
it, and maybe if we are lucky they will bury it and it won't come to 
light.''
  Mr. BUYER. Will the gentleman yield, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. Part of the frustration that we are dealing with here is 
trying to deal with the Department of Justice. I understand that your 
resolution is not telling the Department of Justice to do your job. 
That is a frustration that we deal with in this body in scandal after 
scandal that has occurred, even with the Presidency and members of his 
Cabinet.
  I know the gentleman's resolution does not address that. What his 
resolution is addressing is the responsibilities of this body with the 
ethics. So if we cannot get Justice to do their job with criminal 
procedure, and they just throw the book aside, then it is our ultimate 
responsibility to step forward and say, ``This is the House ethics 
manual. It is a code. Honor is more than a word, it is a way of life, 
and it is important for this body to hold that close.''
  It is a scandal. It is a scandal. Let us not call it something that 
it is not. It is a scandal. It is a scandal of that side of the House. 
Members of the post office were appointed by the Democrat Party under a 
system of patronage. Why has that not been investigated? Where is it?
  I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], I 
remember he introduced a privileged resolution for sunshine, to bring 
public disclosure, and this body pounced on him: ``What are you doing, 
Mr. Walker? We don't want the public to know. We don't want anybody to 
know about the scandals of this House.'' It was defeated 200 to 207.
  Six months have gone by since the gentleman brought his resolution 
up. I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], are there 
any plans that he has to resurrect his privileged resolution?
  Mr. WALKER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield briefly to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, one of the things that concerns me is, we 
have a problem that goes far beyond sunshine at this point, because the 
corrective surgery that was performed in the House to take care of the 
bank scandal and the post office scandal and some of these things was, 
we put a professional House administrator in place that was given 
certain powers to take over a lot of the institutions of the Congress, 
in order to get rid of the patronage system, and guess what, the House 
administrator up and quit the other day.
  As nearly as we can determine, one of the reasons he quit is because 
some of the things that the House said were to be assigned to him in 
order to end patronage were not granted to him. They were kept in the 
bowels of the power brokers of the Congress.

                              {time}  2020

  They did not want to give up that power. They did not want the 
patronage system to be eliminated.
  The Speaker, when he talked about this grand new reform package that 
we were having in the House, indicated we were going to end patronage 
and go to professional employees. If we had only done that. But the 
fact is the Democrat patronage operation continues to operate. As we 
stand here they are still filtering people into the House system, and 
so the Democrats have abandoned all pretense of reform. And the real 
resolution that we need now, in addition to some sunshine, is some 
corrective work on the reform that was passed supposedly to take care 
of these matters. And we ought to force the House Administration 
Committee and others to give up the power that they have refused to 
give up at the present time.
  Do my colleagues know what the official word is as to why the House 
information systems were not turned over to the administrator as 
required by the resolution? The official explanation for that was it 
was a resolution passed in the last Congress and is not binding on this 
Congress. Well, if that is the case, the new Postmaster, the new 
administrator, the new inspector general, none of those things is 
binding on us because they are all a part of the same resolution. And 
this appalling. We are seeing the disintegration of proper behavior in 
the House of Representatives, and yet the Democrats hope that it will 
all be ignored.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, we have another Member here who has been 
very patiently awaiting an opportunity to share some of his thoughts on 
this very important and significant matter. That is the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra]. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I think it is time to bring some focus 
back to the issue. Reflecting back on this now I am saying we have 
heard that the time has come to now deal with this issue. I think we 
are long past the time to deal with this issue. We should have dealt 
with it 6 months ago. The gentleman and I talked about bringing it and 
pushing it forward 6 months ago. We talked to many of our colleagues. 
They encouraged us to wait until the Justice Department finished their 
probe, and in reality we should have moved forward then, because what 
has happened over the last 6 months has hurt the reputation of a number 
of Members of Congress, and has hurt the reputation of the House 
itself.
  If we go back and we take a look at the resolution which the 
gentleman authored, it is very simple. And I would quote from it that 
all we are doing is ``calling on the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct to conduct an investigation into activities at the House post 
office to determine whether House rules were broken or whether public 
funds were embezzled by Members.'' We are asking for an investigation 
to clear up a very specific charge.
  Reading on again, why did we think that this was necessary 6 months 
ago and why do we think it is even more important that we focus on this 
issue now? ``Whereas former House Postmaster Robert V. Rota has pleaded 
guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia 
to charges of conspiracy to embezzle funds of the United States in 
violation of section 371 of title 18 United States Code * * *''
  Going on, ``Whereas court documents in this case contained 
allegations that several Members, officers or employees of the House 
were co-conspirators with Mr. Rota * * *''
  Going on again, ``Whereas complete and accurate testimony by Mr. Rota 
were not provided to any previous inquiry by this House.''
  There are very specific charges that have been made, that have been 
proven in court that this House has not dealt with. The end result 
again is what the gentleman has stated: ``Whereas the safety, dignity 
and the integrity of the House and of public confidence in the House 
require that these allegations receive full inquiry by the House 
itself.''
  I came from the private sector. I worked for a company that was one 
of the 100 most admired companies in this country. We valued our 
reputation. If there were allegations of doing something wrong, 
improper behavior, we needed to improve our customer service, we went 
after those issues, and we went after them immediately, and we dealt 
with them. That is how we maintained and enhanced the reputation of 
that company.

  It was amazing to me, and I am disappointed we did not push harder 6 
months ago because, you know, the House in different polls has an 
approval rating of integrity. Now on a good day of 29 percent of the 
American people believing we are doing a good job, and on a bad day we 
are in the high teens. And this is one of the reasons. They have read 
these allegations. They have seen employees of the House indicted, 
pleading guilty. That has been a part of the public record. In town 
meetings they consistently ask me, ``Well, what are you doing to help 
clear up these final allegations to restore confidence in the House, to 
clear the names of those people that have perhaps been implicated or to 
get to the bottom of the issue?'' And it is kind of like well, we have 
a resolution and it is ready, but we are waiting for an approval to go 
ahead, which we have now found out has not come, probably never would. 
And the only way that we are going to do it is to push it forward 
ourselves.
  That is why it is a very straightforward question we are going to be 
asking this House: Are we going to participate in the process, take 
ownership for our reputation, our integrity, or are we going to 
abdicate that responsibility and give it to somebody else? And as soon 
as we abdicate it and give it to somebody else, we are going to lose 
it. We need to be tackling this issue from inside the House. We should 
have done it the first time any allegations were made. If we had done 
that, this issue would have been settled a long time ago. People would 
have had a greater degree of confidence in what we do here. And most 
importantly, they would have had a higher degree of respect not only 
for how we deal with ethical issues, but how we deal with the tough 
issues that are facing this country today.
  They feel that we are out of touch. They feel that we are not capable 
of making the tough choices, the tough decisions as regards ethics. If 
we cannot deal with ethical issues within the House, how can they 
expect us to deal with the other issues that we are facing within this 
country?
  Common sense. They look at it and they say well, with these 
allegations, how can you just be sitting on your hands and not doing 
anything? They do not see us as having common sense. They do not see us 
listening to our constituents who are constantly bringing up these 
ethical issues that we are not doing anything about. And they ask their 
own question: ``I wonder now if I did something like that with a 
government program, I wonder what would happen to me? You know, do I 
think it would kind of just go away in 6 or 8 months later?'' No, they 
know that it would not, that the Justice Department, that the long 
reach of the Federal Government and the judicial system would reach out 
and grab them. And they are wondering why does it not happen in the 
House itself.
  I think the bottom line is they are asking for results and not 
excuses.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, I think the 
gentleman is exactly correct.
  This is a question of privilege among other things. It is a question 
of privilege. Are we to be treated differently and to have some sort of 
immunity from prosecution for an act such as embezzlement because we 
are elected officials, because we are in Washington, DC, because we are 
the focus of power in this country and somehow we have acquired an 
immunity? Of course we have not. And that is what the public is so mad 
about, that we are not treated like regular people. We do not try to be 
treated like regular people. We do not act like regular people.
  The gentleman mentioned his corporation and the company he worked for 
and the reputation he had attained. Is there any company, any company 
anywhere in the United States of America that if there were allegations 
like this of embezzlement by a company official so they would say, 
``Well, we can't do anything about it, we will turn it over to the 
prosecutors and maybe they will do something''? But meantime, the guy 
is still on our payroll, he can still pilfer from the till if he is so 
inclined to do so, and nothing has changed. That would be totally 
unacceptable in any business in this country, and it is totally 
unacceptable for this House to bury its head in the sand rather than 
get to the bottom of this.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman will yield further, yes, I think the 
real statement here, I think, is we are talking about, I think, what 
the problem we are facing is that we are stating almost as a fact the 
allegations are true; and all we are seeking for is that the House be 
given the opportunity, not the opportunity, that the House do their 
responsibility and get to the bottom of the allegations so that we can 
either prove that the allegations are true or discover that they are 
false.
  I think that the American people, by watching us and seeing that over 
a period of 6 months we have not done anything, they are assuming that 
we as an institution have something that we do not want to take a look 
at and that we hope will go away and something that will be 
embarrassing to the House; and that we need to get to the bottom of it, 
and we need to get to the bottom of it now.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman correctly states that 
the resolution does not pass judgment upon any Member. It does not say 
allegations are true.
  Certainly each of us are going to have varying degrees of personal 
opinion, and let us take this scenario that we have, if someone is 
going to go into Federal court and accuse a Member of the U.S. Congress 
of being part of a conspiracy with him for embezzlement, if his hands 
were clean and this had not occurred, then you anticipate what would 
have happened is he would have tried to plea bargain where he does not 
have to plead guilty to something, and he gets immunity from 
prosecution. In this case, the gentleman pleaded guilty, he was found 
guilty on three counts of conspiracy of embezzlement. I am not asking 
any Member to join me in my opinion of the truth of the allegations. I 
am asking Members to join me in getting to the bottom of it.
  The ethics committee has not prejudged what has occurred or not 
occurred and they should not prejudge.
  But, by golly, they had better get to the bottom of it.
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will yield, I think the gentleman from 
Michigan has performed a real service here by going back and 
reiterating what is in this resolution, and if I understand it, if we 
can simplify it, I mean, the bottom line is here the resolution 
requires the ethics committee to investigate the House post office to 
determine whether House rules were broken and whether public funds were 
embezzled by Members of Congress. I mean, that is the bottom line.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time if I can add a very important point, I 
say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], it also says that 
the report from the ethics committee on this matter should be issued 
and should be issued to the public and, of course, we know that the 
ethics committee has the authority in a proper case to recommend to 
this body that a Member be censured or even expelled, and that is also, 
of course, an important thing to know about the significance of this 
resolution.
  Mr. WALKER. I think that is useful.
  But, you know, really what we are doing with this resolution if it 
would pass would be to ask as a House for our ethics committee to 
investigate these charges.
  Now, that being the case, then I assume that you are intending at 
this point to bring this to the floor for a vote. Is that correct?
  Mr. ISTOOK. That is correct, I say to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, and I might specify, of course, the House rule under 
which this is intended to be brought up states a privileged resolution 
can be offered by any Member upon the grant of 2 days' prior notice to 
this House and under the rule, and I believe the rule number is rule 
LI, the Speaker is then to schedule that for a vote, and I believe that 
the time is imminent that that needs to be done and will be done. I 
certainly hope that Members of this body when they are in their 
districts, for example, for town hall meetings, and there will be 
hundreds, maybe even thousands of those conducted in the next week and 
a half, and I certainly hope they will hear from their constituencies, 
their constituents, sharing with them the strength and depth of their 
feelings that we need to restore integrity and get to the bottom of 
these allegations.
  Mr. WALKER. If I could just follow up for a moment, I just want to 
clarify a point: If this resolution is brought to a vote, those who 
vote ``yes'' will be voting to investigate and to report. I suspect 
that there are going to be a lot of ``no'' votes on the resolution. I 
wonder if the gentleman would care to speculate what a ``no'' vote on 
such a resolution might mean.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I think it is obvious that a ``no'' vote means ``Do not 
investigate, do not report, do not do anything.''

  Mr. WALKER. And so this is a matter that a ``no'' vote really means 
that you are willing to allow this matter to be buried, never to come 
before the House, and that you are willing to accept the fact that a 
guilty plea with regard to embezzlement and potential involvement of 
Members of Congress is something that the House is willing to ignore. I 
mean, to say that you vote ``no'' is to ignore the public pleading and 
suggest that the House has no further action to take.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Unfortunately, I would have to agree.
  I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Walker, I think what a ``no'' vote means is that 
those Members are unwilling to take the accountability and 
responsibility for the integrity and the honor of the House and that 
they are willing to let some outside agency bear that responsibility. 
Again, an abdication of their role as a Member of this House is how I 
would interpret a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. WALKER. That is pretty good.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. I think you are right. If a ``yes'' vote, I say to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], on your resolution is for dignity 
and the integrity of this body, if that is what a ``yes'' vote means, 
then if a Republican or a Democrat votes ``no,'' it is the opposite, 
and if that is what a ``no'' vote is going to mean, then it is going to 
mean, ``Let us just cover it up, let us make it go away, let us not 
talk about ethics, because, you know, we have got some other big issues 
we want to talk about; let us not let any scandals sideline health 
care, welfare reform, crime,'' whether it is the President or whether 
it is this body, the kind of let-it-go-away situational ethics stuff. I 
think that a ``no'' vote or anybody that votes ``no'' on this 
resolution has a lot of explaining to do when that Congressman or 
Congresswoman goes back to their district and has to tell their 
constituents, ``I voted to cover up the scandals in Washington.''
  Holy smokes, how are you going to explain that one? That is pretty 
tough.
  I think that is what you are referring to when the American people 
put the heat on this body, that is what is important, and maybe what is 
occurring right now is we have the Democrat Party has been in control 
of this body for 40 years. I am 35 years old. They have been in control 
of this body for 40 years, longer than any other democratic nation in 
this world.
  This body has become an undemocratic institution. We need to reign 
in, reign in character and integrity and dignity. That is a ``yes'' 
vote. A ``no'' vote is for more of the same in politics in Washington. 
It is wrong.
  I am hopeful the American people turn on the heat, put on the 
pressure on any Republican or Democrat that votes for business as usual 
here in this body. It is wrong.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, gentlemen, I think that we are about 
out of our allotted time on this.
  I certainly hope, as you mentioned I say to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer], that the American people will let their Member of 
Congress know of their feeling on this. I certainly hope the vote that 
is taken in this body will not fall along partisan lines, because 
integrity is not a partisan issue, character is not a partisan issue, 
honesty is not a partisan issue, and I would certainly hope that the 
good men and the good women on both sides of the aisle will join 
together and see the importance and significance of the resolution.

  But I would like to close though by reading an important quote from a 
former President of this Nation, one that is not heard from frequently, 
and that is President James Garfield. And President Garfield wrote, 
and, of course, that was several decades ago:

       Now more than ever before the people are responsible for 
     the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, 
     reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate 
     ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be 
     intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand 
     these high qualities to represent them in the national 
     legislature. If the next centennial does not find us a great 
     nation, it will be because those who represent the 
     enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do 
     not aid in controlling the political forces.

  I would certainly agree with the statement of President Garfield, and 
I believe that the American people are committed not to tolerate 
ignorance, not to tolerate recklessness, not to tolerate corruption, 
and certainly not to tolerate the kind of behavior that has been 
alleged against Members of this body. I believe the American people 
want us to pursue it internally.
  Let the Justice Department do what it will, but we need to pursue it. 
We need to pass the resolution instructing the ethics committee to take 
this action, to make this investigation and let the chips fall where 
they may.
  I thank you gentlemen for assisting this evening. Madam Speaker, I 
thank you for your patience with us.

                          ____________________