[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.
____________________