[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 2, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--CALLING ON COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL 
  CONDUCT TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO ACTIVITY AT THE HOUSE POST 
                                 OFFICE

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 
375) and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 375

       Whereas the House is on notice pursuant to Rule IX that it 
     may soon consider a proposal to direct the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct to investigate the former 
     operations of the House Post Office;
       Whereas matters relating to the former operations of the 
     House Post Office are the subject of an ongoing criminal 
     investigation by the United States Attorney of the District 
     of Columbia;
       Whereas pursuant to its rules, the Committee on Standards 
     of Official Conduct traditionally defers inquiry with respect 
     to a matter that is the subject of an ongoing investigation 
     by an appropriate law enforcement or regulatory authority;
       Whereas the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has 
     on several occasions agreed to defer inquiry with respect to 
     the former operations of the House Post Office, and has 
     deferred inquiry in other matters regarding current Members 
     where investigations by other authorities are proceeding;
       Whereas by letters of November 25, 1992, September 9, 1993, 
     and October 26, 1993, then Assistant Attorney General Lee 
     Rawls, then United States Attorney J. Ramsey Johnson, and 
     current United States Attorney Eric Holder, respectively, 
     requested that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
     defer any inquiry into the former operations of the House 
     Post Office and related matters;
       Whereas on February 23, 1994, the United States Attorney of 
     the District of Columbia delivered the following letter to 
     the Speaker and the Republican Leader:

                                        Department of Justice,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
     Speaker, House of Representaties, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert H. Michel,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker and Congressman Michel: I am writing to 
     express my concern that certain actions reportedly being 
     considered by the House of Representatives could 
     significantly damage a criminal investigation being actively 
     pursued by this Office. Like my two immediate predecessors as 
     United States Attorney for this District, Jay B. Stephens and 
     J. Ramsey Johnson, I urge the House to refrain from such 
     actions, and to affirm the paramount public interest in 
     permitting the grand jury to determine fairly whether the 
     criminal laws have been violated, whether by Members of 
     Congress or others. My request is all the more urgent now, as 
     this important investigation is in its final stages and will 
     be concluded in the near future.
       As you know, the United States Attorney's Office, in 
     conjunction with a federal grand jury, has been conducting a 
     criminal investigation of matters that related originally to 
     the operation of the House Post Office. That original phase 
     of the investigation, which has resulted in the criminal 
     convictions of seven former employees of the House Post 
     Office and one former congressional aide, reached its most 
     significant point so far in July 1993, with the guilty plea 
     of former House Postmaster Robert V. Rota. With the 
     cooperation of Mr. Rota, the investigation turned to 
     allegations of criminal conduct by other individuals, 
     specifically Members of Congress who conducted certain 
     financial transactions through the House Post Office. This 
     aspect of the investigation is continuing.
       As you also are aware (because of disclosures mandated by 
     House Rule 50) in the last few months the grand jury's 
     investigation has expanded to include additional allegations 
     of criminal misconduct beyond those tied to the House Post 
     Office, including matters involving the House Finance 
     Office and the House Office Supply Service (known as the 
     House Stationery Store). These relatively recent 
     additional developments are now fully within the purview 
     of the grand jury's criminal investigation.
       It is my understanding, however, that despite the existence 
     of this active and important criminal investigation, the 
     House may soon be asked to vote on House Resolution 238. This 
     resolution would specifically direct the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct to investigate whether Members 
     of Congress received cash from the House Post Office.
       Inquiry into these matters by a committee of the House 
     would pose a severe risk to the integrity of the criminal 
     investigation. Inevitably, any such inquiry would overlap 
     substantially with the grand jury's activities. Among other 
     concerns, the House certainly would seek to interview the 
     same witnesses or subjects who are central to the criminal 
     investigation. Such interviews could jeopardize the criminal 
     probe in several respects, including the dangers of 
     congressional immunity, of Speech-or-Debate issues, and of 
     unwarranted public disclosure of matters at the core of the 
     criminal investigation. This inherent conflict would be 
     greatly magnified by the fact that the House would be 
     investigating matters that are criminal in nature, and would 
     be covering essentially the same ground as the grand jury. 
     This Office had occasion to voice similar concerns during the 
     operations-and-management review of the House Post Office 
     that was conducted by a task force of the Committee on House 
     Administration; yet that review as far more limited in scope, 
     and far easier to separate from the criminal probe, than the 
     investigation required by House Resolution 238.
       These threats to the grand jury investigation would not be 
     lessened by the portion of the resolution that would permit 
     the Committee to defer its inquiry as to any particular 
     Member, if the Department of Justice stated in writing that 
     that Member was being investigated. Wholly apart from the 
     legal issues involved in the Justice Department's identifying 
     individuals who are under criminal investigation, the idea of 
     excluding the conduct of one or more identified individuals 
     from the congressional inquiry does almost nothing to protect 
     the integrity of the overall criminal investigation. That 
     investigation encompasses the interrelated conduct of 
     numerous persons, and cannot be divided and compartmentalized 
     in such a manner.
       I and my predecessors have acknowledged the importance to 
     the House of its ability to review and police the internal 
     operations, management, and procedures of congressional 
     institutions. In particular, we are sensitive to the special 
     responsibility of the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct to examine possible violations of House ethical 
     standards. Nevertheless, it is unquestionably the province of 
     the grand jury to investigate, without interference, specific 
     criminal allegations against particular individuals, 
     regardless of who they may be or to what institution of 
     government they may belong. Moreover, the vital public 
     interest in fair and effective law enforcement requires that 
     any such investigation be shielded vigorously from actions 
     that might endanger its integrity.
       For these reasons, it has been the consistent position of 
     this Office, throughout the life of the investigation, that 
     the House should defer its own inquiries until the grand jury 
     investigation is completed. I make that request of you again 
     now, in the strongest possible terms. I ask the House of 
     Representatives to forbear from any proposed actions or 
     inquiries in the areas covered by the grand jury's ongoing 
     criminal investigation, both in order to avoid compromising 
     that investigation at this late stage, and in order to 
     further the public interest in preserving the fairness, 
     thoroughness, and confidentiality of the grand jury process.
       Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
                                              Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
                                                    U.S. Attorney.

       Whereas, the House should exercise particular caution so as 
     not to impede, delay, or otherwise interfere with an ongoing 
     criminal investigation that may involve its own Members; 
     Therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House supports the decision of the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to defer inquiry 
     on matters relating to the former operation of the House Post 
     Office; and be it
       Further resolved, That the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall continue to consult with the United 
     States Attorney and continue to review its decision to defer 
     inquiry in this matter. At such time as the Committee 
     determines that a Committee inquiry would no longer interfere 
     with the criminal investigation, the Committee shall proceed, 
     pursuant to its rules, with such inquiry as it deems 
     appropriate.

                              {time}  1630

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). The Chair determines that the 
resolution offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] raises 
a question of privilege, and under rule IX, paragraph 2(a)(2), the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] will be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair will recognize the minority leader or his designee for 30 
minutes. Does the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Grandy] rise as the designee 
of the minority leader?
  Mr. GRANDY. I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Grandy] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this resolution is familiar to the 
House. It is, as we all know, the object of a criminal investigation 
within the office of the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. I 
would have preferred not to offer this resolution, however, under the 
rules, the House must consider today another privileged resolution 
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  The House addressed this topic in July of last year when we voted to 
make public the transcripts of the House post office task force of the 
House Administration Committee when the inquiry now ongoing in the U.S. 
attorney's office is concluded.
  The House wisely decided to defer publication until the U.S. attorney 
completed his inquiry because a move to immediately disclose those 
records would have undermined the U.S. attorney's investigation.
  As you know, last Wednesday, the U.S. attorney for the District of 
Columbia delivered a letter to the Speaker and the Republican leader in 
which he strongly urged the ethics committee to continue to defer 
action in this matter.
  Mr. Holder noted that his ``request was all the more urgent now, as 
this important investigation is in its final stages and will be 
concluded in the near future.'' He also stated that investigation of 
``these matters by a committee of the House would pose a severe risk to 
the integrity of the criminal investigation.''
  In its previous correspondence with the House, the Department of 
Justice, in both this administration and the last one, has made it 
clear that such activity would interfere with its official 
investigation.
  In a while, later today, we will consider House Resolution 238, the 
Istook resolution, which would require the ethics committee to give the 
Department of Justice a list of witnesses and specific evidence it 
would need to conduct its investigation, and to press the Department to 
explain, on a witness-by-witness, document-by-document basis, how 
important each is to the Department's ongoing criminal investigation of 
these matters. Then and only then, can a majority of the committee 
vote, on the same witness-by-witness, document-by-document basis, to 
defer investigation as to each such item.
  I have serious doubts that such an elaborate process is likely to 
yield much more information than the committee has already elicited 
through its ongoing dialogue with the Department, specifically with 
three successive U.S. attorneys.
  I oppose the Istook resolution because it would reverse the long 
preserved tradition of the ethics committee of deferring inquiry into 
the conduct of Members, Republicans and Democrats, in the face of an 
ongoing investigation by a law enforcement or regulatory authority.
  The committee has a primary responsibility to ensure that justice is 
served by its actions. Because of this principle, the committee has, 
pursuant to its rules, deferred such inquiry with respect to the former 
operations of the House Post Office on several occasions.
  I remain firmly convinced that the decision to pursue an ethics 
inquiry into the conduct of a sitting Member should remain within the 
carefully maintained bipartisan forum of the ethics committee.
  Accordingly, my resolution urges support for the ethics committee 
decision to defer inquiry at this time, particularly in light of the 
strong objection of the U.S. attorney. My resolution also directs the 
ethics committee to continue to consult with the U.S. attorney, to 
continue to review its decision to defer inquiry, and to take such 
action as it deems appropriate at such time as it determines that an 
inquiry would not interfere with the criminal investigation.
  Mr. Speaker, this policy of deferral is not new. It has been applied 
to Members of both parties under investigation, and without the 
necessity for privileged resolutions.
  I believe that there is only one course that can be taken here, only 
one course that conforms to the House's consistent policy, only one 
course that preserves the presumption of innocence, only one course 
that applies the same standard to all Members of the House. I urge an 
``aye'' vote on this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Grandy], the ranking member of the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct.
  Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GRANDY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  [Mr. GRANDY addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in 
the Extensions of Remarks.]
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution 
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and for the 
majority leader's resolution.
  It is very important that we respect the investigations of our 
investigating agencies. The Committee on the Judiciary, of course, had 
had jurisdiction over the FBI for many years, and there will never be 
and never has been inquiry with regard to ongoing investigations. We 
must respect the integrity of the investigating agencies of the 
executive department.
  In addition to that, we are asking for the tainting of any evidence 
that might be developed should an indictment come along. It could just 
result in the dismissal of any suit by the judge should any of the 
information developed by a committee of Congress be leaked to the 
press, which practically always happens.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the resolution offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and an ``aye'' vote on the 
resolution offered by the majority leader, the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Gephardt].
  Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kyl], a member of the committee.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue here is simple, but not easy. It is whether 
the legislative branch of our Government will proceed to obtain 
necessary information from the Department of Justice to independently 
determine whether the House Ethics Committee can conduct an 
investigation without jeopardizing the ongoing criminal inquiry.
  The problem with the Gephardt resolution is that it creates a de 
facto presumption against the ethics committee proceeding and fails to 
assert the legitimate and equal obligations of the House in the 
legislative branch vis-a-vis the Justice Department in the executive 
branch.
  The ethics committee needs to have the backing of the full House in 
asserting our right to know who the Justice Department is investigating 
and how our proceeding would jeopardize its investigation. We can then 
make a decision on our own whether or not to defer.
  To date, the committee has deferred simply on assurances by 
representatives of the Justice Department that they are proceeding and 
that any action by the committee would jeopardize the U.S. attorney's 
case. The committee as a whole has thus far accepted the conclusion of 
the U.S. attorney's office. Some members of the committee, however, 
believe the committee should make an independent judgment based on 
information--facts--not just conclusions by who are concerned 
prosecutors primarily with their responsibilities, not ours. We need 
the backing of the House to deal effectively with the Department of 
Justice to learn enough to make an informed and independent judgment.
  The committee has already shown it will be sensitive to do nothing to 
jeopardize criminal investigations. We have deferred action now for a 
year and a half. We will not abuse your trust. But, we need the 
authority of the House to learn what we need to know. That is why the 
Istook resolution would be helpful, and the Gephardt resolution would 
add unnecessary confusion.
  The American people are now beginning to ask: Why the delay? How do 
you in the House know you should take no action? How much longer are 
you willing simply to take the U.S. attorney's word for it?
  I have no doubt about the total integrity of the U.S. Department of 
Justice. The Department should have no doubt of the integrity of the 
committee. We have already demonstrated our good faith.
  As a member of the committee, I ask the House for support by voting 
``no'' on the Gephardt resolution and ``aye'' on the Istook resolution.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
chairman of the committee, the distinguished gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. McDermott].
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the majority 
leader's resolution. It affirms the efforts of the ethics committee to 
carry out its responsibilities to the American people, the House, and 
to Members as it always has--evenhandedly as to all Members, without 
partisan motivation, and with a proper regard for the legitimate 
concerns of the criminal justice system.
  Whatever the vote today, the committee will continue its 
consultations with the U.S. attorney, and will continue to review his 
requests to defer to insure that they are based on an accurate factual 
predicate and sound legal reasoning.
  I believe it fair to say, however, that I, and most committee 
members, believe it entirely reasonable and prudent to permit the 
Department of Justice to conclude a lengthy, complicated and sensitive 
criminal investigation without interference from the House of 
Representatives--the course the committee, with bipartisan unanimity 
has always taken in these cases, and which it has taken recently in 
other cases. Never has the House directed its ethics committee to 
proceed with an ethics inquiry in the face of a committee determination 
that it should defer to the Justice Department. And never before has 
the ethics committee undertaken an investigation--that is, subpoenaed, 
deposed, and examined witnesses, made grants of immunity, demanded the 
production of documents, conducted hearings--when a Federal grand jury 
was actively investigating the same case and pursuing the same 
witnesses and documents.
  I would also point out for the record that, contrary to recent 
assertions by some Members, the committee and the Department of Justice 
did not simultaneously investigate the House Bank. And, although the 
committee did some preliminary work on the Abscam matter, it acceded to 
the then Attorney General's request to delay a full investigation until 
the Department of Justice had concluded its inquiry.
  Indeed, during the course of the Department's investigation of that 
case and before indictments were handed down, the House defeated, 404-
4, a resolution of inquiry that would have directed the Department of 
Justice to turn over its Abscam records to the ethics committee.
  And, ironically, although the independent counsel inquiry in the 
Iran/Contra affair did coincide with the Iran-Contra Committee's 
investigation, that very investigation lead to the reversal of two of 
the convictions.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the ethics committee has not delayed an 
investigation for partisan purposes or because a respected and senior 
Member of the House may be involved. Rather, the ethics committee has 
deliberated fully and honestly on this issue and has consistently 
concluded on a bipartisan basis that the proper course was to defer 
action until the completion of the criminal investigation.
  Mr. Speaker, it was my initial intention to stay out of this debate 
since it usually is the better practice for ethics committee members to 
avoid public comment on whether it should proceed in particular 
matters. However, I simply cannot remain silent while some, with little 
regard for the institutions of the House, for the efficacy of its 
ethics procedures, or for the facts, impugn the motivation, judgment, 
and essential honesty of the ethics committee.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no hidden agenda lurking behind the familiar 
facts of this case.
  Members know that the Department of Justice will not and should not 
divulge grand jury information to the ethics committee while the grand 
jury is investigating; but such information would be essential to any 
committee inquiry.
  Members know the havoc the committee would wreak on the Department of 
Justice's activities if the former Postmaster were granted immunity; 
but that is what would be needed to secure his testimony.
  Members know that the ethics committee, under two different chairmen 
and two different ranking minority members, has concluded that it would 
be unwise to duplicate Department of Justice efforts in this case; but 
we are urged to investigate.
  Members understand that a House inquiry would lead to endless legal 
battles with the Department over access to documents and witnesses and 
could result in defense challenges based on the Jencks Act and other 
statutes and rules of criminal procedure; but we are urged to 
investigate.
  Most Members know of the character and reputation of the U.S. 
attorney for the District of Columbia, former Judge Eric Holder, but 
some persist in implying coverup.
  Most of my colleagues are aware of the complexities of this case and 
of the fact that three professional assistant U.S. attorneys have been 
working on it full time and continue to pursue new leads; but some 
continue to accuse the Department of unreasonable delay.
  I can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, that something other than a thirst 
for justice informs the thought processes of some of our colleagues. 
And I can not for the life of me, considering all the circumstances of 
this case, understand why anyone would want to risk impeding the 
criminal investigation. Indeed, I can well imagine the outcry if I, and 
not Members on the other side, were urging the committee to act. Would 
my actions be perceived as a principled attempt to protect the 
integrity of the House? I think not.
  Mr. Speaker, let me briefly summarize the history of this matter as 
it relates to the ethics committee.
  In February 1992, following news accounts of thefts, drug use, and 
other improprieties on the part of mid- to lower-level employees of the 
post office, the House enacted House Resolution 340, directing the 
Committee on House Administration--not the ethics committee--to 
investigate the operation and management of the Office of the 
Postmaster. Late in July 1992, that committee's post office task force 
completed its work and filed its report with the House.
  On July 22, 1992, the House enacted House Resolution 518, directing 
the Committee on House Administration to transmit to the Department of 
Justice and the ethics committee all records it had obtained during its 
investigation. Those records were provided to the committee on August 
17.
  In the meantime, the then chairman and ranking Republican member, Lou 
Stokes and Jim Hansen, appointed a six Member bipartisan task force to 
examine the records and make recommendations on how the committee 
should proceed. Contending with the summer recess, the task force was 
still able to meet three times to review the work of the committee's 
attorneys.
  On September 17, 1992, the task force presented its recommendations 
to the full committee. Those recommendations, with which the full 
committee agreed, were to consult with the Department of Justice and, 
if a reasonable and supportable request was made, to defer committee 
inquiry, as it usually does in such cases, pending completion of the 
preexisting criminal investigation. The same day Chairman Stokes and 
Ranking Member Hansen wrote to Attorney General Barr seeking his 
opinion on these issues. The 102d Congress adjourned sine die before a 
response to the letter was received.

  The response came on November 25, 1992, from Assistant Attorney 
General Lee Rawls. He stated:

       We recognize the responsibility of the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct to examine possible violations 
     of House ethical standards. Nevertheless, such inquiry, at 
     this point in the criminal investigation, would likely 
     involve testimonial and documentary evidence that are 
     integral parts of that investigation, and so could compromise 
     the vital public interest in fairly determining whether 
     criminal laws have been violated. Accordingly, we ask that 
     your committee, pursuant to Rule 14(g), defer its 
     consideration of this matter until the completion of the 
     criminal investigation.

  Again, that letter was received after the Congress had adjourned.
  The 103d Congress convened in early January 1993, but the ethics 
committee was not elected until February 4 and the committee's 
organizational meeting, under a new chairman and a new ranking 
Republican member, did not occur until February 18.
  At that meeting I and Fred Grandy reviewed the history of the post 
office task force, noted the exchange of letters with the Department of 
Justice, and reminded members that the committee was acceding to the 
Department's request to defer.
  Three meetings of the full committee were held in the next few months 
on other matters, and members were reminded informally of the ongoing 
criminal investigation and the decision to defer. In the meantime, in 
July 1993, as debate approached on a privileged motion to publicly 
disclose the Committee on House Administration's transcripts of its 
post office related interviews, the U.S. Attorney wrote the Speaker and 
the Republican Leader stating that such disclosure would have a 
``significant adverse impact on the ongoing criminal investigation.'' 
The House then adopted House Resolution 223, committing the House to 
consider disclosure of the transcripts at such time as the U.S. 
Attorney indicated he no longer objected.
  On August 4, 1993, Mr. Istook introduced his resolution. The staff of 
the ethics committee again reviewed the matter. On September 3, 1993, 
Mr. Grandy and I sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney asking for his 
comments on the resolution. On September 9, 1993, U.S. Attorney J. 
Ramsey Johnson replied. He stated the following:

       We are very concerned that any parallel inquiry by your 
     Committee at this stage could significantly interfere with 
     this important ongoing criminal investigation. Among other 
     concerns, individuals whom you may wish to interview may 
     include many of the same persons who are critical witnesses 
     or subjects of the criminal investigation. Interviews of 
     those individuals about the subject matter still under active 
     investigation by the grand jury could lead to the disclosure 
     of matters still under active investigation by the grand 
     jury, and could otherwise jeopardize the integrity of the 
     criminal investigative process.

  In October 1993 newspaper accounts and a public hearing of the 
Committee on House Administration revealed that the grand jury had 
subpoenaed finance office records of certain Members and that some 
irregularities in that office's maintenance and handling of particular 
records had been discovered. The matter was discussed at an ethics 
committee meeting on October 20.
  On that same date Chairman Rose and ranking member Thomas of the 
Committee on House Administration asked the ethics committee to inquire 
into possible ethical violations in the finance office matter.
  On October 26, 1993, Mr. Grandy and I sent another letter to the U.S. 
attorney, asking for his comments on the effect a committee inquiry 
into the finance office would have on the criminal investigation. On 
November 18, 1993, the new U.S. attorney, former Judge Eric Holder, 
wrote to the committee as follows:

       I ask you now to continue our cooperation, under the terms 
     of Rule 14(g), by deferring any action on matters related to 
     the House Finance Office. As I understand the issues that 
     were reported to have raised the concerns of the House 
     Administration Committee, the requested inquiry by your 
     Committee would overlap substantially with matters under 
     active investigation by the grand jury * * * We will continue 
     to conduct the criminal investigation as expeditiously as can 
     prudently be done, in order to bring it to an appropriate 
     conclusion.

  On that date a meeting of the ethics committee was held to consider 
these matters. The committee directed the staff to meet with the 
prosecutors to fully discuss the soundness of their requests to defer 
and the progress of the investigation. On that same date I also had a 
telephone conversation with Judge Holder. He urged us to continue to 
defer, assured me that he was under no political pressure to proceed in 
any particular manner, stated that the investigation had not been 
delayed because of the change in administrations, and noted that the 
investigation was proceeding as fast as prudently possible considering 
its scope. I understand that Judge Holder has provided the same 
assurances to Mr. Schiff.
  On November 22, 1993, three attorneys from the ethics committee staff 
met with the section chief and two of the three other assistant U.S. 
attorneys assigned full time to the case.
  On November 24, the committee staff discussed the Finance Office 
problems with General Wishart.
  On November 26, 1993, the first session of the 103d Congress 
adjourned.
  On January 11, 1994, committee staff again met with General Wishart. 
On January 14, the committee staff met with the Chief of the Finance 
Office. On January 24 the committee staff met again with the assistant 
U.S. attorney in charge of the investigation. On January 31, the 
committee staff met with the clerk of the House to discuss finance 
office matters.
  Finally, on February 23, 1994, came Mr. Holder's letter the Speaker 
and Republican leader. It is the letter reprinted in the majority 
leader's resolution. It is as clear and focussed a statement of the 
grounds for the ethics committee's actions in this matter as I have 
seen.
  Mr. Speaker, the chronology I have just recited, I trust, suggests 
that the committee has not delayed unnecessarily, sought to bury the 
matter, or acted for partisan reasons, as some have suggested. Rather, 
the record reflects a committee that has done its duty responsibly and 
fairly.
  Nor does the record suggest that the prosecutors are motivated by 
anything else that a desire to perform their duties in a professional 
manner.
  The prosecutors do contend, and most legal experts with whom I have 
consulted agree, that the single most damaging action to the 
prosecution's efforts that could occur right now is for the ethics 
committee to begin interviewing government witnesses, making grants of 
immunity, and otherwise taking those actions essential to a thorough 
inquiry.
  So, make no mistake about it. The ethics committee understands its 
responsibilities to the public, to the House, and to Members. The 
committee will take all reasonable steps to make the determinations 
required by the resolution and to carry out the will of the House. The 
committee will strive to secure these ends without delaying, impeding, 
or jeopardizing the criminal investigation. And the committee will 
continue to resist all attempts to use the ethics process for personal 
or partisan advantage.
  In short, the committee, with your support, will continue on the 
reasonable and prudent course it has been following in this case.

                              {time}  1710

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt], the Majority Leader, has 7 minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Grandy] has 23 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts], a member of the Committee on House 
Administration.
  (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Once again, I have the very unenviable task of recalling for the 
membership the findings, the actions, and the weaknesses of the House 
post office investigation. I was the cochairman of that investigation.
  When I came to the House floor, on July 22, 1992, some 20 months ago, 
with my colleagues who served on the task force and with our report, I 
told the House, ``This review found disarray, no oversight, no 
accountability, not to mention the use of drugs and embezzlement and 
the misuse of House funds.''
  Our report was filled then with mismanagement and allegations of 
wrongdoing. It was then and it is now the job of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct to pursue any question that would concern 
the possible violation of House rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I told the House then that this report ``is in no way,'' 
and when I refer to the report, I have same in my hand, ``This report 
in no way is complete as to what happened in the House post office.''
  It was our best effort under very, very difficult circumstances. And 
I said, ``The investigation should continue.''
  Now, over the course of the last 2 years, some will argue, have 
argued already that the investigation has continued under the direction 
of the Department of Justice. But other than the press reports and the 
recent letter here, we have no knowledge of what, if anything, the 
Department of Justice is doing or accomplishing. But today we speak of 
the House's responsibility and our ability to investigate and to 
discipline our own Members according to House rules, not to enforce or 
to meddle with or to interpret any Federal laws.
  Throughout the course of the House investigation, we took the 
position that the House was capable, without interfering with the 
Department of Justice activities, to conduct an investigation of our 
own affairs. Time and time again the Department of Justice insisted 
that the House administration investigation end and that no action be 
taken until a criminal probe could be complete. The same arguments made 
in the well of the House were made then.
  Every time that challenge was made by the Department of Justice, the 
House leadership and our task force, reinforced by the will of the 
House, persisted. And we moved ahead.
  Now today the situation is no different. We have to choose to move 
ahead or continue to languish and leave a cloud of doubt and suspicion.
  I want to remind my colleagues that we exchanged 12 letters, here 
they are, in the House post office investigation report, all contained 
within the appendices, starting on page 266, in regards to the House 
and the Department of Justice during the 8-month course of our 
investigation, exerting our ability to conduct an investigation without 
impeding the Department of Justice. Six times we were asked to halt our 
investigation and six times we proceeded.
  This letter says, ``With all due respect to the Acting Assistant 
Attorney General, April 2, 1992. We do not want to impair or infringe 
on an ongoing criminal investigation by the Department of Justice.''
  ``We are confident, however, that the task force investigation will 
not interfere with your criminal investigation. The task force will 
continue to maintain our communications with the Department in an 
effort to avoid unnecessary conflict. Signed Bob Michel, Republican 
Leader; Speaker Thomas S. Foley; William M. Thomas, ranking member, 
Committee on House Administration; Charlie Rose, chairman, Committee on 
House Administration.''
  Now, the Democrat leadership signed that letter previously and 
supported that position, but argues today we are unable to do the same 
thing.
  Let the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct move ahead. Please 
support the Istook resolution. Let us put this matter behind us.
  Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct.
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Istook resolution 
to initiate an inquiry into the activity at the House post office and 
urge my colleagues to oppose Mr. Gephardt's resolution which would 
basically maintain the status quo of inaction and irresponsibility.
  Stonewalling doesn't solve anything. And stonewalling is exactly what 
this body has been doing for the past 2 years on the House post office 
scandal.
  The post office scandal started over 2 years ago.
  The scandal was serious enough to result in the conviction of eight 
former House employees--over 6 months ago. Eight convictions is a 
pretty good sign that something fairly significant has happened.
  Yet, this body has done absolutely nothing. We have done nothing to 
determine how many Members of the House of Representatives might be 
involved in any kind of illegal or improper activity.
  We have done nothing to determine who those Members might be.
  We have definitely done nothing to discipline them.
  Every time we have considered initiating an investigation, we get a 
letter from the Justice Department telling us that they really would 
rather we wouldn't get involved.
  They say we might jeopardize the criminal investigation. They say 
that they are getting close to some kind of conclusion.
  And each time, we have deferred to the wishes of the Justice 
Department.
  Two years have gone by and we still don't know the size or the scope 
or the extent of improper activity. Nobody knows.
  The only thing that anybody knows for sure, is that the U.S. House of 
Representatives has a 2-year-old scandal in its midst, and it has not 
even made a token effort to fulfill its constitutional responsibility 
to police its own house--to clean it's own house.

  It is our constitutional responsibility. The Constitution gives the 
House the authority--and by implication, the responsibility to 
discipline its own Members. The Constitution doesn't say we have to 
defer to the Justice Department.
  It says we have the authority. We need to exercise that authority.
  In fact, in the past, House leaders have protected that right and 
that responsibility--the separation of powers. That is why this 
institution has exempted itself from so many of the laws that we impose 
on others.
  And now the House leadership is asking us to step aside and defer 
once again to the executive branch. That is the height of hypocrisy.
  We cannot afford to give a foot-dragging Justice Department the right 
to veto our constitutional rights and responsibilities.
  We cannot afford to hide any longer behind inaction like the majority 
leader has proposed. His resolution would have us continue to do 
absolutely nothing. Status quo--self imposed ignorance.
  Inaction does nothing to stop the erosion of public respect for this 
body. Inaction does nothing to slow the tarnishing of our public 
reputations as Members of this body.
  We cannot afford inaction any longer. And I think it is time to do 
something about it.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the majority leader's 
resolution and moving ahead.
  There is absolutely no reason that we cannot conduct a concurrent 
investigation of our own without interfering with the efforts of the 
Justice Department.
  We do have a permanent Ethics Committee that has been created 
specifically for this purpose. Let it do its job. That's why it was 
created--to investigate wrongdoing or improper conduct by House 
Members.
  And the House Ethics Committee can surely coordinate its 
investigation to make sure it does not interfere with or jeopardize the 
criminal investigation of the Justice Department in any way.
  We cannot keep deferring our responsibilities. A 3-year-old scandal 
is lying rotting in the heart of this House and we need to clean it up.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the Gephardt amendment.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Synar].
  (Mr. SYNAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Speaker, let me share with my colleagues, the letter 
of February 23, 1994, from U.S. Attorney Eric Holder, who I think 
points out why we should not take the course that the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] suggests today.
  He says, ``Like my two immediate predecessors as U.S. Attorney for 
this district, Jay B. Stephens,'' and I might point out, a Republican 
appointee, ``and J. Ramsey Johnson,'' a court-appointed appointee, ``I 
urge the House to refrain from such actions.''
  He goes on to say, ``My request is all the more urgent now, as this 
important investigation is in its final stages and will be concluded in 
the near future.''
  On the second page he says,

       Inquiry into these matters by a committee of the House 
     would pose a severe risk to the integrity of the criminal 
     investigation. * * * Such interviews could jeopardize the 
     criminal probe in several respects, including the dangers of 
     congressional immunity, of Speech-or-Debate issues, and of 
     unwarranted public disclosure of matters at the core of the 
     criminal investigation.

  He concludes with these words, ``I make that request of you again 
now, in the strongest possible terms * * * in order to aviod 
compromising that investigation at this late stage''.
  My colleagues, all of us who chose to serve and run for these 
positions in this great institution come here for the purpose of 
serving our country and our constituents. In that process, the American 
public expects that politics is going to be involved in those 
decisions. But, parties and individuals who posture have never gone 
over the line of jeopardizing the constitutional responsibilities of an 
equal branch of government.
  Not once, not twice, but three times the Ethics Committee, which is 
equally divided between the two parties, has chosen not to interfere 
with the judicial branch of government in its present investigation. It 
has been unanimous by the Republicans on the Ethics Committee. For 
Republicans to suggest now that the Ethics Committee has been 
stonewalling this investigation is to suggest that their own Republican 
Members on the Ethics Committee have been part of that stonewalling.
  Let us not jeopardize this very serious investigation. Let us not go 
over that line at this time. Let us complete this process, and then let 
the Ethics Committee do the job that it is entitled to do in that 
timely fashion.
  I include for the Record the entire letter by Mr. Eric H. Holder, 
Jr., to the Honorable Thomas S. Foley, Speaker, U.S. House of 
Representatives:

                                            Department of Justice,


                          U.S. Attorney, District of Columbia,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert H. Michel,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker and Congressman Michel: I am writing to 
     express my concern that certain actions reportedly being 
     considered by the House of Representatives could 
     significantly damage a criminal investigation being actively 
     pursued by this Office. Like my two immediate predecessors as 
     United States Attorney for this District, Jay B. Stephens and 
     J. Ramsey Johnson, I urge the House to refrain from such 
     actions, and to affirm the paramount public interest in 
     permitting the grand jury to determine fairly whether the 
     criminal laws have been violated, whether by Members of 
     Congress or others. My request is all the more urgent now, as 
     this important investigation is in its final stages and will 
     be concluded in the near future.
       As you know, the United States Attorney's Office, in 
     conjunction with a federal grand jury, has been conducting a 
     criminal investigation of matters that related originally to 
     the operation of the House Post Office. That original phase 
     of the investigation, which has resulted in the criminal 
     convictions of seven former employees of the House Post 
     Office and one former congressional aide, reached its most 
     significant point so far in July 1993, with the guilty plea 
     of former House Postmaster Robert V. Rota. With the 
     cooperation of Mr. Rota, the investigation turned to 
     allegations of criminal conduct by other individuals, 
     specifically Members of Congress who conducted certain 
     financial transactions through the House Post Office. This 
     aspect of the investigation is continuing.
       As you also are aware (because of disclosures mandated by 
     House Rule 50) in the last few months the grand jury's 
     investigation has expanded to include additional allegations 
     of criminal misconduct beyond those tied to the House Post 
     Office, including matters involving the House Finance 
     Office and the House Office Supply Service (known as the 
     House Stationery Store). These relatively recent 
     additional developments are now fully within the purview 
     of the grand jury's criminal investigation.
       It is my understanding, however, that despite the existence 
     of this active and important criminal investigation, the 
     House may soon be asked to vote on House Resolution 238. This 
     resolution would specifically direct the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct to investigate whether Members 
     of Congress received cash from the House Post Office.
       Inquiry into these matters by a committee of the House 
     would pose a severe risk to the integrity of the criminal 
     investigation. Inevitably, any such inquiry would overlap 
     substantially with the grand jury's activities. Among other 
     concerns, the House certainly would seek to interview the 
     same witnesses or subjects who are central to the criminal 
     investigation. Such interviews could jeopardize the criminal 
     probe in several respects, including the dangers of 
     congressional immunity, of Speech-or-Debate issues, and of 
     unwarranted public disclosure of matters at the core of the 
     criminal investigation. This inherent conflict would be 
     greatly magnified by the fact that the House would be 
     investigating matters that are criminal in nature, and would 
     be covering essentially the same ground as the grand jury. 
     This Office had occasion to voice similar concerns during the 
     operations-and-management review of the House Post Office 
     that was conducted by a task force of the Committee on House 
     Administration; yet that review was far more limited in 
     scope, and far easier to separate from the criminal probe, 
     than the investigation required by House Resolution 238.
       These threats to the grand jury investigation would not be 
     lessened by the portion of the resolution that would permit 
     the Committee to defer its inquiry as to any particular 
     Member, if the Department of Justice stated in writing that 
     that Member was being investigated. Wholly apart from the 
     legal issues involved in the Justice Department's identifying 
     individuals who are under criminal investigation, the idea of 
     excluding the conduct of one or more identified individuals 
     from the congressional inquiry does almost nothing to protect 
     the integrity of the overall criminal investigation. That 
     investigation encompasses the interrelated conduct of 
     numerous persons, and cannot be divided and compartmentalized 
     in such a manner.
       I and my predecessors have acknowledged the importance to 
     the House of its ability to review and police the internal 
     operations, management, and procedures of congressional 
     institutions. In particular, we are sensitive to the special 
     responsibility of the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct to examine possible violations of House ethical 
     standards. Nevertheless, it is unquestionably the province of 
     the grand jury to investigate, without interference, specific 
     criminal allegations against particular individuals, 
     regardless of who they may be or to what institution of 
     government they may belong. Moreover, the vital public 
     interest in fair and effective law enforcement requires that 
     any such investigation be shielded vigorously from actions 
     that might endanger its integrity.
       For these reasons, it has been the consistent position of 
     this Office, throughout the life of the investigation, that 
     the House should defer its own inquiries until the grand jury 
     investigation is completed. I make that request of you again 
     now, in the strongest possible terms. I ask the House of 
     Representatives to forbear from any proposed actions or 
     inquiries in the areas covered by the grand jury's ongoing 
     criminal investigation, both in order to avoid compromising 
     that investigation at this late stage, and in order to 
     further the public interest in preserving the fairness, 
     thoroughness, and confidentiality of the grand jury process.
       Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Eric H. Holder Jr.
                                           United States Attorney,

  Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the ethics committee and I am very 
proud of the work we have done so far. I have been here for 5 years. I 
have been on the ethics committee 3 years. I do not know what that 
means in terms of who I offended when I came here, but I will tell the 
Members that I am proud of the work we have done.
  I believe that the ethics committee can function well on behalf of 
the House, the whole House, every Member. I think it can make sure that 
there is no special privilege for certain more senior people. I think 
every person is guaranteed equal treatment under our rules, so we can 
take our job and we can do our job, as we have proven when we can 
operate in a nonpartisan way, without any partisan pressures on either 
side, and when we can operate unilaterally from the leadership, either 
minority or majority leadership, when we operate for the whole body.
  I think we all know that we have a problem with the institution 
itself, with our credibility rating. An awful lot of Americans do not 
have a high opinion of the way we go about our business. Certainly when 
we get a bad headline, as we are having in this case, it causes us a 
problem.
  Recently we refused to allow a mandated congressional coverage under 
the independent counsel statute. We were told in our debate that we can 
police ourselves. That is really what these two resolutions are about, 
will we have the opportunity to police ourselves.
  At the core of this dispute is whether we can go about our business 
while the executive branch goes about its business without interfering 
with each other. Probably we can do that to a point, but inevitably we 
are going to have a place where those roads come together, and we are 
going to have to make some good decisions.
  I think the ethics committee is going to get its marching orders 
today. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] wants this 
investigation done sequentially, first DOJ, then our ethics committee. 
The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] suggested it could be done 
concurrently, that we can go about our business without tripping over 
each other.
  Does the ethics committee have the wisdom to make a judgment whether 
to defer, or do we leave it to the executive branch to make that 
decision in case of a conflict? I have some observations on that. We 
have worked in the House bank situation with Judge Wilkie and some 
others, and I think we cooperated very well.

  As the chairman, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] has 
said, we have got a situation now with the long chronology of 2 years 
where the Ethics Committee has handled very well and responsibly so far 
what we have been asked to do. Perhaps some of us are frustrated we 
cannot do more, but we understand the value of the DOJ situation.
  We have preserved our prerogative to do our own investigation. We 
have certainly not interfered in any DOJ criminal or civil 
investigation at this time, and I think we have believed the assurances 
from DOJ that they are doing something appropriate and taking action.
  I think that is all a very responsible situation.
  Chairman McDermott also said, ``Why are we doing this now?'' And I 
suggest part of the answer may be that some feel in America that we are 
not policing ourselves well enough in light of recent headlines, in 
light of the fact that 2 years has gone by. I think that it is not 
Republicans who are raising the issue. I think it is Americans that are 
raising the issue.
  I am getting these questions not from just Republican constituents. I 
am getting it, as we all are, from all Americans, and the issue is: Are 
you going to do something about what we are reading about? Many do not 
realize that we are doing something about it right now.
  I believe that where we are today at the crux of the issue is whether 
we in ethics can start an activity without interfering with the DOJ 
ongoing investigation. Can we get to some accountability after the 
process we have gone through over 2 years? Are there certain things we 
can do in spite of the new irregularities to House rules that we have 
read about on the front page of the press lately? Is there something 
else we should be doing in that area? These are fair and obvious 
questions.
  The other side of this issue is do not yield to the executive branch 
our ability to police ourselves, and that is why I oppose the Gephardt 
resolution and support Istook, because we preserve our right to police 
ourselves.
  Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains in the debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Grandy] has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRANDY. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the majority 
has the right to close, so we will now use the 9\1/2\ minutes in its 
entirety. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct. It was the Chair's 
intention to recognize the gentleman from Iowa as long as he wants to 
use the 9\1/2\ minutes and then to recognize the majority leader for 
closing.
  Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, to use the old tired Yogi Berra saying, it is 
deja vu all over again. That is right, here we go again.
  Was it not during the House banking scandal when the Democratic 
leadership worked the phones to deny a full-disclosure vote a few years 
ago?
  Here we go again.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] has a very good resolution 
requiring the ethics committee to investigate as long as it does not 
interfere with the Justice Department. What is wrong with that?
  Once again, the Democratic leadership is opposed and wants to give 
its Members cover with the Gephardt resolution which really does 
nothing. That is right, nothing. It allows the ethics committee to keep 
on doing what it has been doing the last 2 years: nothing.
  Please, my colleagues, vote ``no'' on the Gephardt resolution and 
give us a vote, a real vote, with teeth in it on the Istook resolution.
  Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], the author of the resolution in opposition to 
the Gephardt resolution.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I think sometimes people are missing the 
point, and that is that last July 19 a smoking gun was laid down 
regarding the House post office through the guilty plea and the 
conviction of Robert V. Rota, who served for about 20 years as the 
Postmaster. He went to Federal court that day and pleaded guilty to 
three charges of helping Members of Congress to embezzle tens of 
thousands of dollars from the taxpayers. It is in the court records. It 
is there for everyone to see. It is not whispering anymore. It is not 
rumors.
  The U.S. Government told the court on that day that they were 
prepared to prove that Mr. Rota helped these Members to embezzle the 
money, three counts of embezzlement laid right at the feet of Members 
of Congress.
  What has happened since that time? Nothing. The ethics committee does 
not know which Members. They do not know how many Members. They do not 
known how much money.
  Any company that had internal embezzlement would have an internal 
investigation in addition to what is being done by a prosecutor. That 
is all that we are seeking to do. If you were shareholders in a 
company, you would insist that be done by your management. We are no 
different.
  The U.S. Government said in the papers that several Members of 
Congress were involved. We do not know how many. But how can you decide 
to defer if you do not know the basic facts?
  We in this body often brag, it seems, about being able to bring 
competing positions together, to find a way for people to work 
together, to cooperate. In this case, we are so eager, it seems, to 
accept a blanket superficial assertion by the U.S. attorney, ``Somehow 
you are interfering,'' instead of saying, ``Let us sit down together, 
let us find a way to cooperate, we have a constitutional duty, we and 
the taxpayers have been cheated from, embezzled from, according to what 
you told the court.'' It is a smoking gun. It cannot be ignored. It is 
different from any other allegation before.
  I urge you to vote against the Gephardt resolution and for the Istook 
resolution.
  Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I just am saddened by these kinds of issues. 
I believe very deeply in this institution, and I would hope that others 
do, too, and understand that, No. 1, the Justice Department is another 
branch of our Government, that we are empowered and mandated to clean 
our own house. Yet some in this body do not seem to understand that and 
would rather see mud thrown at this institution than to get to the 
bottom of problems in this institution.
  The gentleman from Michigan mentioned the bank scandal. This is 
almost the same thing that happened during the bank scandal. Rather 
than walk out to the American people and tell them the bank was not a 
bank and explain what was going on, we dragged not only this 
institution but many good Members through the mud, because we did not 
believe in the institution first and individuals second. That is what 
is happening.
  And then the majority leader's resolution: It is cleverly written to 
just say we are going to stick with the status quo; we are going to 
rely on the Justice Department to do a criminal investigation, and then 
maybe if something comes out of that, we will do an investigation of 
our own to clean our own house. There is nothing in our House rules 
that precludes us from doing both at the same time.
  We are about to meet the third-year anniversary of this scandal. It 
started on April 26, 1991, and yet this House has not investigated 
anything to clean up the problem and the American people are seeing 
what is happening. In fact, they just saw the President of the United 
States go out and campaign for one of the principals that is being 
investigated in this issue. And yet what do we do? We pass, or try to 
pass, this unfortunate resolution that says we are just going to 
continue the process as usual.
  We need to clean our own house for the sake of the institution. 
Defeat the Gephardt resolution and pass the Istook resolution.
  Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kyl], a member of the committee.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by praising the majority leader 
for his efforts and the minority whip for his efforts to try to bring 
about a bipartisan agreement on this so we could have proceeded in a 
bipartisan way.
  I think the operative difference between the two resolutions that 
resulted from the failure of that agreement is this: Gephardt, in 
effect, says to the committee, ``Defer action unless something happens 
to change your mind.'' Istook says, ``Go as far as you can until you 
conclude the criminal case would be jeopardized.'' Istook is a vote of 
confidence in the ethics committee to continue to exercise its 
judgment. Gephardt says, ``Inquire no further, at least for now.'' 
Istook says, ``Try to determine what problems would occur if you 
proceeded. You owe it to the House to do more than just accede to the 
wishes of the U.S. attorney. Verify his concerns are legitimate. If 
they are, defer. But exercise your own judgment in policing your 
Members.''
  Mr. Speaker, the question, therefore, is whether this House trusts 
the ethics committee. Judge Holder's letter suggests that is too great 
a risk, that we either might foolishly grant immunity to a witness in a 
way that could hurt his case, or that a sensitive matter might leak 
from the committee.
  I ask this question of my colleagues: Under the leadership of 
Chairman McDermott and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Grandy] and Members 
like the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], who will close this 
debate, do you really believe the ethics committee would be so foolish 
as to jeopardize a legitimate criminal prosecution? Has the committee 
done anything to date to suggest that we would not act responsibly?
  If anything, I would suggest the committee has been too cautious. I 
wish we could have proceeded on a bipartisan basis. I think we can in 
the committee. But we must be empowered to proceed as far as we can 
responsibly go. That is why, regrettably, I oppose the Gephardt 
resolution and urge my colleagues to support the Istook resolution.
  Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Grandy] has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  [Mr. GRANDY addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in 
the Extensions of Remarks.]
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). All time on the minority side 
has expired.
  The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to a 
distinguished member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Ethics Committee, I rise 
here disappointed and troubled by the resolutions that are before us, 
for I fear that they could jeopardize two longstanding traditions of 
this House that have served this House well and have served the 
American people well.
  The first principle is that the Ethics Committee must work in a 
bipartisan fashion. As the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Grandy] has pointed 
out, we have worked in a bipartisan manner. There has been no 
disagreements within the Ethics Committee as to the actions of the 
Ethics Committee. We have reviewed this matter in September 1992, 
September 1993, October 1993, and unanimously deferred action at the 
request of the U.S. attorney.
  The second tradition that I am afraid that we jeopardize is that this 
House should not compromise a criminal investigation under any 
circumstances. Our constituents want us to be held accountable 
criminally, as any other citizen should be held accountable, if we 
violate the criminal statues. And yet we are perhaps today willing to 
jeopardize that because we think we are an independent branch of 
Government and should do something more.
  The Istook resolution assumes that the Ethics Committee has not done 
what it should. As Mr. Grandy has pointed out in his comments, we on 
the Ethics Committee acted upon the best information that we had.
  The Gerphardt resolution, despite the characterizations, gives the 
Ethics Committee the discretion to act or not. It says, ``At such time 
as the committee determines that a committee inquiry would no longer 
interfere with criminal investigation, the committee shall proceed 
pursuant to its rules with such inquiry as it deems appropriate.'' It 
does not take away the discretion of the Ethics Committee and does not 
change the burden of proof, as some of my colleagues would have you 
believe.
  Let me point out the language difference that I think is in the two 
resolutions: The Istook resolution says, and this is important, that 
the Ethics Committee ``shall immediately investigate all possible 
violations'', et cetera. The U.S. attorney has said an inquiry into 
these matters by the committee would pose a serious risk to the 
integrity of the criminal investigation.
  Should we substitute our judgment for the U.S. attorney's? We are 
Members of Congress, not U.S. attorneys.
  We should rely upon his best judgment as to whether a criminal case 
will be jeopardized. He says it will; we should take his word.
  Should we make a mistake? Should we substitute our judgment and mess 
up a criminal investigation? No Member wants that.
  The majority leader's resolution makes it clear that every Member 
should be held accountable for violations of our roles, but we should 
not jeopardize the criminal investigation. That is not germane, it is 
not up to the House of Representatives to bring criminal charges. That 
is up to the U.S. attorney.

  We cannot investigate criminal charges. Our rules specifically 
require us to refer out matters that involve criminal matters to the 
U.S. attorneys. Our rules specifically provide for us to defer action, 
which we have always done, in order not to violate criminal matters. 
There has been inference here that this matter has not proceeded in the 
normal course. I take exception to that.
  Both the Democrats and Republicans on the Ethics Committee have 
conferred with the U.S. attorney. This has been an active 
investigation. Eight indictments have been brought. To infer that the 
U.S. attorney is dragging his feet, the inquiry has been expanded; it 
started with the U.S. post office, and now it has been expanded to 
other aspects.
  We are satisfied that the U.S. attorney is proceeding with due haste. 
We do not want to jeopardize a criminal investigation. This House, the 
committee has acted responsibly. Let the committee do its work. That is 
what it should do. It will do its work, it will investigate violations 
of our rules. But do not put us in the position where you could cause a 
partisan split for the Ethics Committee to take action which could 
violate a criminal investigation.
  I urge support of the majority leader's resolution, and not the 
Istook resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution offered by 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 184, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 36]

                               YEAS--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--184

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Andrews (TX)
     Collins (IL)
     de la Garza
     Gallo
     Hastings
     McDade
     Schiff
     Washington

                              {time}  1808

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On the vote:

       Mr. Andrews of Texas for, with Mr. Gallo against.
       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Schiff against.

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota and Mr. STENHOLM changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________