[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 INVESTIGATION INTO ACTIVITY AT HOUSE POST OFFICE
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of
the House, and I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 238)
and ask for its immediate consideration.
{time} 1810
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). The Clerk will report the
resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 238
Whereas, allegations reported in public and made in
official court documents that personnel of the House Post
Office provided illegal cash to certain members in three
ways: (1) cash instead of stamps for official vouchers, (2)
cash for postage stamps which, had earlier been purchased
with official vouchers, and (3) cash for campaign checks;
Whereas, these allegations directly affect the rights of
the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the
integrity of its proceedings, and the rights, reputation, and
conduct of its Members:
Whereas, Article, I, Section V of the Constitution gives
each House of the Congress responsibility over disorderly
behavior of its Members:
Whereas, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has
jurisdiction over the conduct and behavior of current House
Members, Officers, and employees, including investigatory
authority, and is the appropriate body of this House to
conduct any inquiry: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct is instructed to investigate immediately all possible
violations that are related, but not limited to, the
documents received by the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct from the Committee on House Administration, and the
allegations stated above.
Further resolved, The Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct shall coordinate its investigation with the related
efforts of the Department of Justice so as not to jeopardize
any ongoing criminal investigation.
Further resolved, That in pursuing its investigations, the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall determine
Members, Officers or employees who have violated House rules,
practices and procedures in connection with the House Post
Office.
Further resolved, The Committee shall inform the Department
of Justine regarding the procedures and aspects the Committee
intends to investigate. If the Department of Justice then
responds that a specific matter the Committee intends to
investigate is material to, or subject of an official
investigation, the Committee may defer that inquiry pending
the conclusion of the investigation by the Department of
Justice.
Further resolved, That the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct shall file a public status report within 60
days of the adoption of the resolution and periodically
thereafter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution constitutes a resolution
raising a question of the privileges of the House.
The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] will be recognized for 30
minutes, and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the majority
leader, will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, all time yielded during my debate is for
purposes of debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned previously in debate earlier
today, last July a former employee of the House of 20 years's standing
confessed in Federal court to three charges of assisting Members of
Congress to embezzle large sums from taxpayers. As unpleasant as the
task may be, Mr. Speaker, we have a constitutional obligation, article
I, section 5 gives it to us, to pursue incidents of misconduct by our
Members, to take any necessary steps that may include discipline or
even expulsion from this body. It is a duty that no one here wishes
that we had to have, but nevertheless, is ours.
Our Ethics Committee, Mr. Speaker, although aware of the
circumstances, evidently has yet to try to find the answer to some
simple questions that are necessary for the protection of this body:
Who are the Members who allegedly were involved in the embezzlement,
what are the amounts taken, and how many are there?
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that only if we can satisfy some threshold
questions can we understand the scope of these very serious allegations
and determine how we should proceed, whether we can indeed, as many of
us believe we can, cooperate and coordinate an internal investigation
with the current probe by the Justice Department, rather than giving an
automatic response of deferral.
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that although the Justice Department has
certainly put in writing a desire to defer, the arguments they present
us are superficial and have not been questioned or studied by the
Ethics Committee of this body; that we have been all too willing to
pass the buck to someone else to mess with our dirty linens in this
matter. Therefore, this resolution calls upon the Ethics Committee to
open the inquiry. The resolution simply requires the Ethics Committee
to open the inquiry, to go as far as they can without constitution
interference with the Justice Department, and to work with the Justice
Department to satisfy the needs of this body to uphold its own
integrity and dignity, as well as the needs of the Justice Department
in the criminal justice system.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many people a concern, would our
Ethics Committee grant immunity to a witness that somehow interferes
with the Justice Department. Many people have overlooked a very simple
fact, and it is in the Federal court records in the plea agreement of
Mr. Robert Rota, the former Postmaster.
Paragraph eight of the agreement states that he has already been
granted immunity by the Justice Department from any additional charges
that might stem from his service as Postmaster of this body, so long as
he will cooperate with all investigators of the United States. Mr.
Speaker, that language would include us. It is in the court records, it
is in the plea agreement.
This resolution is simple and straightforward, Mr. Speaker. It states
that we do not have enough information yet to make an informed
decision, and the Ethics Committee is the proper group to pursue that
on our behalf.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
(Mr. STOKES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, the debate which we have just heard on the floor a few
minutes ago brings back a lot of memories to me. On two occasions
during my tenure here in the House I have been called on by Speakers of
the House to chair the House Ethics Committee. It is probably the most
painful experience that I have ever encountered during my tenure in the
House.
{time} 1820
It is the toughest job and the worst job that any person in the House
could be asked to do. So is service on that committee. I do not know of
any Members who ever have sought to be on the ethics committee. But I
do know that all of them, once assigned that responsibility on behalf
of the House, have tried to carry out an institutional responsibility
with great integrity.
During the two times that I chaired the committee, I had the good
fortune of having two of the finest men in the House serve as the
ranking minority members. In one case it was the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence], and in the other case it was Jim Hansen. Both of
these men worked with me in order to do the difficult jobs we had been
given without any partisanship whatsoever, and it is to their credit
and the credit of the other Members that we were able to keep any
partisanship out of any type of assignment ever given us. We never
brought a political matter to the floor.
We had some tough cases. We had the ABSCAM cases, the infamous ABSCAM
cases. We had the sex-and-drug investigations involving Members of
Congress and pages. We even investigated a former Member of the House
then running for the Vice Presidency of the United States, and we
investigated numerous Members of the House charged with various types
of offenses. All of those cases were tough.
We had cries at that time for us to investigate many times at the
same time that the Justice Department was conducting investigations. As
a matter of tradition and history, the ethics committee has never
conducted an investigation simultaneously with the Justice Department,
the reason being that this would be political influence of an ongoing
criminal investigation.
The action just taken by the House was the proper action. What we did
in the resolution just passed was we said that 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. It said further 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 Post Office. This is
important to realize that this was the right action for us to take. We
ought not to be interfering in any way with an ongoing criminal
investigation.
What the Istook resolution does, and it says this, and I think it is
important for us to understand what it says, that in pursuing its
investigation, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall
determine Members, officers, or employees who have violated House
rules, practices, and procedures in connection with the House Post
Office. You cannot do this here in the House while they are conducting
a criminal investigation through a grand jury.
While I served my last tenure as chairman of this committee, we had
the same problem that had been referred to us by a vote of 414 to
nothing for us to investigate this matter, and pursuant to the past
history and tradition of the House, I wrote a letter, signed by Jim
Hansen, our ranking member, to the Department of Justice and posed this
question. I said:
It is our understanding that the Department of Justice,
through a grand jury empaneled by the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, is conducting a criminal
investigation relating to the House Post Office. This
Committee would not want to interfere with or impede that
investigation in any way. Moreover, pursuant to past
practice, as reflected in Committee Rule 14(g), the Committee
may defer action on any matter being actively pursued by the
Department until such time as the Department has concluded in
its investigation.
This was on September 17, 1992. On November 25, 1992, I received a
reply back from W. Lee Rawls, the Assistant Attorney General. Let me
refer to that part of it which I think is pertinent, relative to the
Istook resolution. They said to us.
The Department of Justice shares your concern 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 of the criminal problem 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.
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, all of us want to do what is
right and proper in terms of what is right for this House. We do not
want, however, to do what we have done on other occasions, and that is
interfere with something to the detriment of the House and bring
further shame upon the House in some way.
This is a matter that we ought to leave to the Department of Justice.
Let our ethics committee remain in touch with them, continue to monitor
it, and at the proper time they will be able to bring us the kind of
action we ought to take. Until then we should defeat this resolution.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to follow the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
Mr. Stokes, I believe that you are an honorable man, and I have great
respect for you in having served in the chairmanship of that position
for over 10 years, and I agree with you when you say it is a difficult
job. I have not served in that kind of position.
I served as an honor court justice in law school for 2 years and had
to rule over some of my own classmates. It is not easy. I have served
also as a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office, so I have an
understanding of the United States Code and the criminal process.
I agree with you when you say that matters such as this, that we want
to take politics out of it. Ethics should not be a partisan issue.
I was bothered when I walked in and cast one of the last votes to see
that the last vote appeared to be a partisan, and you can pick up the
paper tomorrow and they will put a partisan spin on how this was voted.
I agree with you, sir, that it should not be a partisan issue.
I am in disagreement with you, though, when you say that we should
just turn it over to the Department of Justice, because our inaction in
this body does create the cloud of politics. Inaction creates that
cloud. And that is very bothersome.
How well you know, Mr. Stokes, and I guess I am talking directly to
you.
Mr. Speaker, we are constitutionally charged, so often charged, to
take care of our own Members, and so often we hear that we should not,
Mr. Speaker. So often we say that we should not pass rules that apply
to us because we will police our own. There was an argument that the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] gave during the family leave
that I listened attentively to: Here we have the opportunity to police
our own, but we say, ``No, let us punt that issue to the Department of
Justice and let Justice take care of it.''
Folks, we have a tremendous responsibility to take care to police our
own, and we should not punt the issue to the Department of Justice.
This, the United States Code, takes care of the criminal process and
criminal procedure. That is what the U.S. attorney's office is, that is
what the Department of Justice is. Let us just not throw the book away
and let them do it. Our responsibility comes under this, the House
ethics code. We are constitutionally charged to move forward.
{time} 1830
And I will say that James Madison said it very well, the Federalist
No. 51, page 3. I hope you read it.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller].
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, we
know that the members of the Ethics Committee, none of them has asked
for this assignment and none of us hopes we ever are chosen to carry it
out. We know that the leadership has exercised its judgment on both
sides of the aisle, to pick people for this committee whom they trust,
they respect, and they expect to discharge their duties to the House
and to the country. This is done so that we can assure the public and
our colleagues that justice will be carried out and that the public
interest and the public trust will be protected. This process should
not be subject to political pressure. As difficult as that political
pressure might be for Members of the House, we should in fact recognize
that the process must work to the end of achieving justice and
protecting the public interest.
The members of this Ethics Committee were picked by the Speaker and
the minority leader of the House. They have discharged their duty
throughout history in a rather admirable fashion, based upon the
principles that each case would be taken care of and protected so that
justice would be carried out. And yet, if you listen to the people who
have come to this aisle from the Republican side, you would have to
believe that they are leaning to an indictment of the Ethics Committee.
You would have to believe, as Mr. Bunning said, that this committee is
committed to stonewalling, that somehow the committee of which he is a
member is committed to stonewalling or, as Mr. Istook said earlier,
that they are all too willing to simply go along with the status quo;
or, as the speaker who was just in the well said, that they are
committed to inaction. That is not the fact. That is not the history of
this committee.
The history of this committee is that they have been working, they
have been discussing on a bipartisan basis with the Department of
Justice to see whether or not there is an opening, whether or not there
is something they should be doing. At each and every turn, they have
been told, ``No, stay out of this so that we can conclude this to bring
about justice, to bring it to a successful conclusion.'' But the
members of this committee somehow suggest that if we do not have the
Istook resolution, that the members of this committee are lying down on
the job, that they are not discharging their obligations to you or to
the country.
That simply cannot be true. We know the members of this committee,
these are honorable people, these are people who have discharged their
obligations in very, very difficult circumstances. What they have
chosen not to do in the discharge of that obligation is to obstruct
justice, is to trample on justice, and to deny a person the fairness of
that hearing.
But in the end, what have they done? They have ferreted out, whether
it was the bank scandal or any other scandal which was presented to
this House, they have ferreted out those facts, delivered those facts
to this House, and this House has voted from time to time to censure,
to condemn Members, to expel Members, and people have been brought
before the bar of justice.
Now, what has happened? Apparently, Mr. Istook is impatient with the
pace of the investigation. I am sorry about that. Maybe he is impatient
of the investigation with Mr. McDade. That has been 2 years. But people
felt that he was entitled to his appeals, to not have that case
obstructed in one fashion or another by their involvement.
Now, this committee has voted not to proceed, on a bipartisan basis;
in some cases, perhaps on a unanimous basis. Is the judgment of this
House that this committee is engaged in a process of covering up or
stonewalling? I do not think so. I do not think so.
But let us remember something: This committee has all of the
authority that it needs to proceed. They have chosen, under Mr.
Grandy's leadership and under Mr. McDermott's leadership, with the
support of the Republican side and the Democratic side, not to proceed,
because after discussions with the U.S. attorney they were told that to
proceed is to jeopardize that case and that investigation.
But somehow, Mr. Istook wants to supplant his judgment for what in
some cases is the unanimous bipartisan judgment of the members of this
committee. So, Mr. Istook must tell us which of the members of this
committee he believes is engaged in that coverup or all to willing to
go along with the status quo or stonewalling, as Mr. Bunning suggested.
I suspect it is none of the members of this committee. They have
proceeded as they properly should.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the actions and the votes of the members of
the committee will speak for themselves in this process. I would also
bring out to the attention of those who are not certain that, as Mr.
Roberts pointed out, who was the cochair of an earlier task force that
looked into the operations of the House post office, that Mr. Michel
and Mr. Foley, as respective leaders of the parties, both wrote to the
Justice Department when there was no implication that Members of
Congress would have a finger of guilt pointed to them, that we needed
to work with the Justice Department and investigate jointly.
But now, since Rota's confession and allegation, when a finger of
suspicion points at Members of Congress, suddenly all that we seem to
hear from too many people is defer, defer, rather than cooperate and
work jointly to get to the bottom of it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms.
Pryce].
(Ms. PRYCE of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, it is with no joy that I rise in support of the Istook
resolution. There is nothing more painful than drawing attention to,
putting the spotlight on, or casting a bad light on this honorable
House--nothing more painful except perhaps allowing our wounds to
fester in the minds of the public to the point that this body begins to
decay. And that is what is happening.
This venerable institution has been reduced by scandal after scandal
like a body being consumed by disease. As a former judge, I often noted
that our laws were only as strong as the respect we had for them--that
when that element of respect for law was gone, we would be reduced to
anarchy--because when there is no respect, there is no law--only print
on paper.
And so we must stop the decay and begin the healing process. We have
been armed with the public trust and have betrayed that trust--not
because of allegations that so-and-so did such and such, but because we
have stood idly by and done nothing when these allegations are being
made. Nothing to keep the respect that, as the lawmakers, only we can
be the stewards of. The administration can't make the public trust and
respect us. The judiciary can't make the public trust and respect us.
Only we can do that; and I respectfully suggest that we have fallen
woefully short of that important calling.
Very candidly--we have a PR problem--one that filters down and
affects the very fiber of society. It is not only hurting us, but
hurting every citizen in this great country--every child growing up
with no respect for the law because he has no respect for the
lawmakers, every kid in school bombarded by one political scandal after
another after another.
Now we have an opportunity to begin to recapture what has been lost.
The ethics committee should do its job. This is a problem in the U.S.
House of Representatives--but this House has turned a blind eye for
over 2 years. The public has not. Let is seize the moment, make up for
lost time and get on with doing what's right.
I urge support of the Istook resolution.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
(Mr. WISE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WISE. I thank the majority leader for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise perhaps to offer the experiences of one who has
not been on the ethics committee but who has chaired a subcommittee
which has had jurisdiction for 4 years, all during a Republican
administration, that of President Bush, on sensitive matters and
sensitive criminal investigations.
Mr. Speaker, a previous speaker spoke of not wanting the ethics
committee to punt, he said you should not punt. Well, Mr. Speaker, this
is not punting. The job is being done. It is the issue of whether or
not one fumbles the ball, and what the U.S. attorney is asking is that
the ball not be fumbled.
{time} 1840
But in my experience, Mr. Speaker, I chaired the Subcommittee on
Information, Justice, Transportation, and Agriculture of the full
Committee on Government Operations for 4 years all during the tenure of
President Bush, and in that time we had a number of investigations
ongoing involving criminal matters, involving handling of criminal
matters by the Department of Justice, involving fairly sensitive areas.
Repeatedly we were confronted with the U.S. attorney, or his
representative, or the Attorney General, in some cases asking us not to
hold a hearing, not to continue an investigation, certainly not in
public session, because of an ongoing criminal investigation, an
ongoing criminal investigation.
Mr. Speaker, this was true in the PanAm bombing over Lockerbie,
Scotland, on a specific matter we were looking into. It was true for
several drug related matters that our subcommittee was looking into.
Yes, it was frustrating to be confronted with this, but when faced with
this, Mr. Speaker, every time we withdrew and said because of an
ongoing and criminal investigation we will not endanger that.
A previous speaker also asked, ``Well, what will Americans think?''
Well, my question is:
What will Americans think to find out that the Congress disregarded a
request from the U.S. attorney who was handling an ongoing criminal
investigation, not only a request from the present U.S. attorney who is
handling it and appointed by a Democrat administration, but a request
that was initiated by a Republican appointee and then was continued by
the interim appointee and now by the present holder of that position?
And so I would ask what will Americans think if the Congress disregards
this language in this letter of February 23, 1994, from U.S. Attorney
Eric Holder to the Speaker and to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Michel] when he writes:
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 then in his concluding remarks when he writes:
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.
Nothing in the resolution that has passed or in the actions that are
taken suggests that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is
going to avoid its responsibility, but it is just saying the process is
in motion. The key is not to fumble the ball, and since there is an
ongoing criminal investigation, Mr. Speaker, we should honor that
request as we have always done in this body.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Members of this body that
every act which we are seeking to have investigated in this matter
occurred within the walls of this House of Representatives, not in
Scotland or anyplace else. We are seeking to have an investigation of
what happened internally within this body.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Blute].
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, how very far over the years the reputation of
the Congress of the United States has fallen in the eyes of the
American people. How sad that an institution that once the people
trusted to do the right thing has allowed itself, through its own
actions and inactions, to fall so far in the esteem of the people.
Tonight we have an opportunity to take a little tiny baby step towards
clearing the cloud which has been hanging over the Congress since the
post office scandal came to light. We have an opportunity to prove to
the American people that the Congress can police its own and can take a
principled stand for its own institutional integrity. We have the
opportunity to demonstrate that Congress does have some selfrespect
left.
I say to my colleagues, do not throw away this opportunity, for if we
do by opposing the Istook resolution, we will further damage this great
institution bequeathed to us by our Founders. The gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] makes an honest effort to do the right thing by
directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate
this public blight on our institution, and now he has to contend with a
last minute resolution from the leadership designed to give political
cover via a hastily drafted letter from the U.S. attorney.
I urge my colleagues, especially my fellow freshman Members of this
House, not to be part of this shell game. Do not let the leadership
succeed in this sleight of hand. There have been plenty of concurrent
investigations in the past, but now, all of a sudden, it is taboo for
the House to investigate its own. Many of my fellow freshmen ran for
Congress in the midst of the House banking scandal and won in part
because of it. Well, if we run the reel back a few years and had this
same debate, it is very likely the bank scandal would never have been
exposed to the public.
I say to my colleagues, don't protect the status quo. Vote to pass
the Istook resolution. You'll feel better looking in the mirror
tomorrow morning.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
(Mr. FAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Congress should not obstruct justice. On July
22, 1993, we joined in this very debate. When, at the request of a
gentleman named Ramsey Johnson who was appointed as chief prosecutor by
a Republican Virginia gentleman named Jay Stephens who was the U.S.
attorney for the previous administration, the House decided to honor
the Justice Department's request and not interfere in the House Post
Office investigation. I stood before this house that day and said, ``*
* * we ought not interfere.'' Today, and I say again, we ought to honor
the U.S. attorney's request and, ``* * * we ought not interfere.''
Nothing has changed.
I would like to take a moment to remind my colleagues about a famous
example of what happens when Congress interferes with a Justice
Department investigation.
When Oliver North was subpoenaed to appear before Congress, he used
the fifth amendment to claim that he could not testify on the grounds
that anything he said may be used to incriminate him in a court of law.
Congress then granted him use immunity.
Many observed that Ollie North in his testimony before Congress
admitted to obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. section 1505), illegal
gratuities under a section of the bribery laws (18 U.S.C. 201), and
destruction and mutilation of government documents (18 U.S.C. 2071); in
other words, he admitted to three felonies during the course of his
congressional testimony.
When the case finally came up before the U.S. Court of Appeals, one
of the charges was thrown out immediately and the other two felonies
were thrown out on what amounted to a technicality under the fifth
amendment. Because Congress, with the exception of Messrs. Stokes,
Hyde, Brooks, and Rodino, had granted Ollie North use immunity, and
because the hearings were televised, the result was as the National
Law Journal headline from December 2, 1991, stated, ``Use Imunity'' now
means ``Total Immunity.'' And, Ollie North, a man who was indicted on
21 accounts and convicted of three felonies, went free.
Prosecutor Walsh was then asked by the Court to prove that the
witnesses were not influenced by the televised testimony before the
congressional committee, a task that proved to be impossible.
Now, Members of Congress may think that our testimony before a
congressional committee would be protected by speech and debate
privileges.
But, I want to point out that there are currently cases pending
decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals that could very well end the
protection of speech and debate privileges for this kind of testimony.
What does that mean?
It means that a Member of Congress might have to claim the fifth
amendment to protect him or herself from self-incrimination and, that
means that Congress might find it necessary to grant ``use immunity''
to encourage testimony. And, that Means we could set ourselves up for
another Ollie North type situation where justice is obstructed and the
convicted goes free.
Mr. Speaker, the public has a right to demand answers and the public
has a right to demand justice.
The Congress does not have a right to stand in the American public's
way and obstruct justice. If we do not honor the Justice Department's
request to let it conduct this investigation, which I remind my
colleagues is in its final stages, we as a Congress will be obstructing
the justice that Americans are demanding, and that is not why we were
elected to the House, to say the least.
Please defeat this inappropriate resolution and let the process of
obtaining justice proceed to a conclusion. The House will clearly act
once the prosecutor has concluded his or her work.
I might add that the situation that applies to our Republican
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], is exactly the
same that applies to those on this side of the aisle. We ought to
reserve judgment despite our frustration and any impatience we may
individually feel. Let the process of justice in the judicial branch
run to completion, and then we will judge our colleagues, as we are
required to, to the degree that we believe a report, let alone any
indictment, requires us to act.
{time} 1850
This is not an attempt to obfuscate or avoid our responsibility. But
I think what we have on the floor today is to take partisan advantage,
when in fact the problem we face is bipartisan in nature.
It is a sad day that the House must debate an issue that is, I think
in the Ollie North instance, so clearly it is to our advantage to put
aside until the judicial branch handles the problem, as inevitably they
will complete their task.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think the majority leader's resolution
appropriately speaks to the issues of concern to the Members. I regret
Mr. Istook takes an unfair political opportunity. It ought to be
defeated.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman from California will
be relieved to know that the principal witness in this matter, Mr.
Rota, has already been granted immunity by the Justice Department from
any further prosecution for any other acts that he may have committed
during his 20 years as Postmaster. It is in paragraph 8 of his plea
agreement on file at the Federal courthouse.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Ridge].
(Mr. RIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 238. I
remind my colleagues that an independent autonomous congressional
inspector general would have completed his investigation by now, would
have helped us live up to our constitutional responsibiility to
discipline our own Members, and would have removed the political cloud
surrounding this scandal from this House for 2 years.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 238. I
would think that every Member of this body has learned that the
American people want representatives in the U.S. Congress that will act
responsibly and with accountability. The responsible action today will
be to support this resolution.
For over 2 years, I have advocated the creation of an independent
office of congressional inspector general. Such offices exist in the
executive branch. An independent IG could have helped this institution
avoid the tragic embarrassment of the post office scandal and even the
need for this debate today. Had an independent IG existed, a prompt
investigation would have been completed, appropriate action taken,
years of delay and political maneuvering avoided. This lingering cloud
of uncertainty can't be removed by the IG that exists within the House
today, because he is virtually powerless in these situations.
We have a continuing responsibility to run the people's House in a
manner that is not only efficient and effective, but also above ethical
approach. After 2 years, I believe that it is time that the House of
Representatives determine if there is any truth to the allegations of
criminal activity and other wrongdoings at the House post office.
Similar allegation in the executive branch would have dealt with
openly, completely and independently a long time ago.
And, today, instead of consuming valuable time on debating this
resolution, we could be concentrating on those issues that are
important to Americans outside the beltway--crime, education, welfare,
and health care. But the House Leadership has failed to empower the
existing IG to work independently, has failed to give him proper
authority to conduct investigations into matters such as this, and
regrettably has failed to take politics out of the investigation and
our handling of this matter.
Since the power of the House IG is limited, we must find other ways
to ensure that all members of this body are held to the moral and
ethical standards that have been set. The House of Representatives
constitutionally has the authority to discipline its members. And I
think that we should use this authority and not defer to the Department
of Justice. It is our job, not theirs. Justice has had ample time to
act on the criminal allegations and has not. It's time we did.
It should also be emphasized that concurrent investigations by
Justice and the House have occurred in the past with regard to the
House bank, Silverado Savings & Loan, the Packwood diaries, the Keating
affair, and other matters. Last, the measure that we are debating today
provides for the Ethics Committee to defer its investigation if is
found that their investigation would jeopardize the one being conducted
by Justice.
It is my hope that the ethics committee investigation will finally
allow us to end this ongoing debate regarding the House post office
scandal. At the same time, we need to also solve the problem that
caused the scandal in the first place--lack of proper oversight. We
must amend the rules of the House and create a position of inspector
general that would be autonomous and independent in nature.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the
Istook resolution regarding the investigation into the House Post
Office scandal. And I commend my colleague from Oklahoma for his
perservance in this matter.
For too long, this House has ignored its constitutional
responsibility to investigate allegations of conduct by its Members. In
the case of the House Post Office, evidence of inappropriate conduct is
far greater than any reasonable threshold for investigation. We all
remember, with great regret, that the former House Postmaster has
already pled guilty to Federal criminal charges as a result of this
scandal.
Nonetheless, the House seems content to turn a blind eye to this
scandal. It reminds me of the line from George Orwell's ``Animal
Farm'': all Members of this House are supposed to be equal, but some
are more equal than others, and Members of the House are more equal
than the average American.
Congress does a disservice to itself and the American people when it
abdicates its responsibilities in this way. While it is always painful
to have to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by a Member of this
House, that pain is small compared to the damage that is done when our
relationship with the people we are elected to represent is weakened.
There is a critical democratic principle that has to be reaffirmed--
that no man or woman in this country is ever above the law, ever able
to avoid the day of reckoning for his or her actions simply because of
the position he or she holds.
If you believe we should abide by the Constitution, do the will of
the people, and do what is right, vote for the Istook amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
(Mr. PENNY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENNY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Istook resolution.
In September of 1992, by unanimous vote, this Congress expressed a
desire to investigate the possible wrongdoing by Members of this
institution in relation to the so-called post office scandal. In the
months since that initial action, the Committee on Ethics of the House
of Representatives has deferred to the Justice Department on this
matter. But it is distressing to me that in the 1\1/2\ years since the
disclosure of this scandal, only House post office employees have been
brought to justice to their misdeeds.
Former House Postmaster Bob Rota has lost his job and has recently
plea bargained before a court of law. Eight other post office employees
have lost their jobs and been dealt with harshly by the court system.
It just does not make sense that the only individuals who have not
yet been brought to account in this sad episode are the several Members
of Congress who both precipitated and benefited from this inappropriate
and illegal activity.
Obviously, simple justice is not so simple when it comes to the
powerful in our society. It has been 1\1/2\ years. Congress has, by
tradition, been silent on this issue. It is time for this institution
to break the code of silence by calling for an internal investigation
of this matter.
The Istook resolution instructs the Committee on Ethics to cooperate
with the Justice Department on this matter and to assure the successful
completion of that Justice Department investigation.
I believe that by voting for the Istook resolution, we are simply
saying let justice be done.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 14 minutes
remaining, and the majority leader has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Boehner].
Mr. BOEHNER. I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding, and want to congratulate the gentleman for his persistence in
bringing this issue to the floor. For 6 months now this issue has been
under discussion. The gentleman from Oklahoma has worked with a number
of Members trying to bring this to a successful conclusion in a
bipartisan way. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
Many of us think that this post office problem is a problem that is a
year old, 2 years old. Well, it is not. The problems in the House post
office go back to 1979, when a former employee in the post office went
to law enforcement officials and admitted there was a cash for stamps
scheme underway. At that time it was covered up and it went away.
But the Democrat leadership of the House that ran the post office
knew about it. Yet the problems persisted in the post office. Again, in
the mid-seventies, this problem came up once again, and law enforcement
officials began to do an investigation. Nothing came of it. It went
away because it was hushed up and covered up again.
This problem has been going on long before 20 months. It goes back
about 3 years ago when the leadership of this House understood the
problems, the serious problems, that were underway in the House post
office.
Should it surprise any of us that we sit here tonight, not willing to
take a look at it, not willing to pursue this? No, it should not. And I
say to all of you, there is another point that should be made. We as
Members of Congress are charged under the Constitution with holding
ourselves to a higher standard, a higher standard than criminal
conduct. We are charged with holding ourselves to a standard that is
anything that would be unbecoming of a Member of Congress. It is our
sacred responsibility under the Constitution for us to hold ourselves
and our colleagues to that standard to benefit this institution. And
once again, it saddens me that tonight we are about to abdicate that
responsibility.
{time} 1900
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I take this time to talk about one of the points raised
by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook]. I tried to get him to
yield, and he would not. The gentleman from Oklahoma is indicating
since Mr. Rota has been given use immunity, that we could at least
start to pursue an inquiry of Mr. Rota.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the plea agreement entered into by Mr.
Rota indicates that he will provide such information whenever and in
whatever form the U.S. attorney's office shall reasonably request. The
U.S. attorney's office is not going to let Mr. Rota testify with
immunity before the Ethics Committee. We will have to grant immunity if
we want him to testify.
Twenty-six times during the Irangate Congress granted use immunity.
If we grant use immunity, then the prosecutor, the U.S. attorney, must
prove that any information that was obtained through the testimony of
Mr. Rota was not used in bringing the criminal charges. It is an
impossible burden.
One thing we know about the Istook resolution, it requests the Ethics
Commission to do something that the U.S. attorney's office says will
severely risk the integrity of the criminal investigation.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Hughes].
(Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the majority leader for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, let me, if I might, give a perspective from somebody who
worked for 10 years in the vineyards handling grand juries and criminal
cases, some rather complex criminal cases. Mr. Speaker, I really do not
understand a lot of things. I do understand the frustration, because it
does seem like an inordinate amount of time has been taken with this
investigation, but we have had three U.S. attorneys, one appointed by a
Republican, one appointed by a judge, and now a Democratic U.S.
attorney who has all the credentials that would ensure that we are
going to have a complete investigation, so nobody could suggest that it
is being dragged out because of political reasons. That is ridiculous.
It is nonsense. The Members know that.
One of the reasons why the U.S. attorney, three U.S. attorneys,
believe that we should defer to them is because we could mess up, we
could mess up, once again, an ongoing criminal investigation. I do not
care how we couch it, that is exactly what the U.S. attorney has done.
One of the things that I am sure the U.S. attorney does not want to
do at this point is, he does not want to identify targets of the
investigation, because they are now interviewing witnesses, they have
granted immunity at this point beyond what has already been testified,
to Rota. He has already pleaded guilty, and they are going to have to
grant other immunity, I would assume, to complete the investigation.
We have to assume that one of the reasons why they have not completed
the investigation is because they have not identified, because of the
complexity of the investigation, all the targets. There are subjects of
the investigation that may move over to targets of the investigation.
The U.S. attorney, as my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, has
just indicated, is not going to permit the use of use immunity, and we
know that, for the simple reason he does not want to compromise this
investigation.
Are the Members going to assume the responsibility for those that
walk because of what we do at this point in interfering with an ongoing
criminal investigation? I do not think so. I think our constituents
back home are going to hold us accountable if anybody walks out of this
ongoing investigation.
That is the problem. The Members do not want to assume that
responsibility, but they want to move ahead at this point, and when the
U.S. attorney says he is in the final stages of his investigation, I
can think of probably half a dozen reasons why he would not want to
identify certain subjects or targets at this point.
I say to my colleagues, come on. Let us use some common sense. Put
the politics aside. I understand that is has some sex appeal, but
Members are politicizing the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, No. 1, and No. 2, we are jeopardizing a possible criminal
investigation. Do not do it. Reject the Istook resolution.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I must confess I am at a loss to understand how an
investigation that is supposedly in the final stages is one which still
has failed to identify all the targets of the investigation. I think
part of the problem is that we assume, rather than trying to find out,
rather than trying to create a mechanism of cooperation, which is what
we expect in all other aspects. I would not wish to assume that the
Ethics Committee nor this body is so incompetent that it would somehow
mess things up, rather than cooperate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Hoekstra].
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the American people no
longer trust the work that goes on in this House. It is the
responsibility of this House to monitor the actions of its Members, to
monitor the actions of its different functions. I am personally
saddened that many here do not see a problem or do not perceive a need
to enhance our reputation, no, not to enhance our reputation but to
enhance our performance as perceived by the American people.
The American people are demanding more. Today we have an opportunity
to deal with substance, to strive for excellence. I hope that that is
the course we choose, to aggressively pursue excellence in our conduct.
Mr. Speaker, I hear that we have never done it this way before. Maybe
it is about time that we do something differently, because what we have
been doing has not been good enough. Mr. Speaker, I hear charges that
we are on a partisan crusade. We asked for a generic investigation. Our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are the only ones that have
mentioned Members names by name.
I am sorry that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is
impatient, that he believes that it is taking too long, but I am
delighted that it appears that the gentleman from Oklahoma is the only
one that had the courage to recognize that that is what the American
people are demanding, that the American people are impatient, that they
want us to deal with this issue and they want action now.
Tonight we have the opportunity to demonstrate that we will address
the questions of conduct in this House, that we will move forward and
will resolve the issue.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio said it was
the job of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct not to punt
the ball. Another gentleman gave a retort that said the issue is not to
fumble the ball. What we are trying to say, Mr. Speaker, it does not
matter if you fumble the ball when there is only one team that is
carrying the ball, and that is the majority party.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a look at the public trust. In the
102d Congress our freshman class speaker pursued, with the Gang of 7,
the House Bank scandal. Why? Because the Majority, just like it is
doing now, is attempting to prevent disclosure.
The next battle they took up is with the House Post Office. Why?
Because by name, we had an alleged violator who was taking stamps or
campaign funds, turning them in for stamps, and then at a later date
had a sweetheart deal and was cashing those stamps in and putting the
money in his pocket. We did not know that the House Post Office was
dealing cocaine at the time.
Why not the will of the people? The Attorney General fired the D.A.
that was investigating this case. Then we take a look and they
appointed their own, an administration D.A. That D.A. says, ``Don't get
involved. We want to do it.'' That was done by a letter last July. A
partisan vote prevented disclosure last July, just like it has a minute
ago with the Gephardt resolution.
Two and one-half years, we have known some of the perpetrators, at
least the alleged perpetrators, but they have not come forward. We have
been very careful on this side not to mention any names, to keep this
in a partisan manner, but that was violated, so let us take a look.
This weekend the President put his arm around the prime suspect in
the investigation and endorsed him in a primary. What message does that
send to the District Attorney? What message does that send, when the
prime suspect in the Post Office investigation meets with the President
discussing a crime bill?
The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] says there is no
partisanship in this. Is there any doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the
gentleman from California brought up a senatorial candidate's name as a
target?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I love this institution, and I am very
grateful to serve here, but I am ashamed it has taken so long to
address the post office scandal. This scandal has festered for nearly 3
years, and we have allowed it to happen.
We're told the U.S. attorney does not want the House to conduct an
investigation. What prosecutor wants to encourage another
investigation? I have never met one who does.
The Justice Department is looking at a criminal investigation, but we
are talking about alleged serious violations of House rules. We are
talking about House ethics. This is our jurisdiction and we must act.
Mr. Speaker, we're told the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct has not acted because no one has brought forth a complaint. If
the Committee continues to take no action and no one else brings a
complaint, I will.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1910
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Hughes].
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I want to say to my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, if I can
get his attention, the gentleman from Oklahoma, I do not know how many
matters you presented over the years to a grand jury, but I did it for
10 years. I can tell the gentleman there are lots of reasons why I
would not want to identify as a prosecutor the subjects or targets of
the investigation for a lot of reasons. When you have not completed the
investigations, sometimes subjects automatically become targets as you
get more information, and you would not want that disclosed, because
you are trying to force others to turn state's evidence, as Mr. Rota
has done, after he pleaded guilty.
I want to say to my colleague, if you want to talk about partisan
politics, if I were interested in protecting a Democrat, do you know
what I would do? If I were interested in protecting a Democrat who is a
target of an investigation, I would do precisely what you are trying to
do, because that would be the way to compromise a criminal
investigation and have him walk. I cannot believe you want to do that.
I want to say to my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr.
Shays], for whom I have a lot of regard, that I want to tell you I am
proud of the House of Representatives. I am proud in this instance,
because they are doing the right thing, and I think doing the right
thing is good politics in the long pull, and frankly, I think you are
going to find that out, too.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate always advice to do the right thing, which
is why we have brought this resolution to the floor today.
Having myself been in charge of conducting investigations previously,
I know the sensitivity, as do people on both sides of the aisle, which
is why we have always emphasized the need for the executive and
legislative branches to cooperate rather than one telling the other
just to butt out of an investigation.
We have mutual obligations. They should be mutually pursued.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend him for the courage he has shown in
coming to the House floor with this resolution. He has had lined up
against him committee chairmen, majority leaders, all kinds of folks
who do not want him to proceed ahead. I think this debate has been
healthy for the House because it has focused on an issue that I think
the American people want us to bring to a head in the Congress.
It has surprised me as I have listened to the debate here this
evening how weak a foundation the opposition to the resolution offered
by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] builds their case upon. Let
me just read from the Istook resolution, because evidently most people
have not read it. Anyone who suggests that somehow the Istook
resolution will result in interference with a criminal investigation
has not read the Istook resolution. The Istook resolution makes it very
clear, and let me quote directly from it:
Further resolved the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct shall coordinate its investigation with the related
efforts of the Department of Justice so as not to jeopardize
ongoing criminal investigations.
Specific to the Istook resolution is an understanding that the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct would do absolutely nothing,
nothing to interfere with the criminal investigation, that all this
resolution asks that committee to do is to make certain that those
matters internal to the House are properly investigated.
There is a difference between our obligations and those obligations
of the Justice Department. The Justice Department is concerned with
criminal violations. The Justice Department is rightfully pursuing a
case on criminal violations.
We have another duty. We have a duty to the House of Representatives
and our own rules and code of conduct.
It would appear as though corrupt activities took place in an
institution of this body. They were corrupt activities that had been
testified to by an officer of this House. They are matters that can be
pursued whether or not we interview principals in the case. Even that
officer may not be necessary to interview to find out what has gone
wrong in one of the institutions of this body.
It seems to me that we have an obligation to do those things, and not
to do those things would be wrong.
Support the Istook resolution. Do the right thing.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I heard the previous
speaker, and it seems to me he is following the same reasoning of an
old story. He says this will not interfere with the criminal
investigation that is ongoing, initiated under the Bush administration
by Bush appointees, continued in that same spirit by the current
appointees. He says it will not interfere because it says it will not
interfere.
But sometimes saying something does not accomplish it. There is a
story about the old man who walked into a candy store and said, ``Make
me a malted.'' And the man behind the counter said, ```Poof,' you are a
malted.'' But he was not a malted. And saying this does not interfere
with the investigation will not make it not interfere with the
investigation.
What this says here is here is how we will do an investigation, that
we will say to Justice we want to investigate this. ``Can we
investigate this?'' ``No. You cannot investigate that. Investigate this
instead. We will make it public what we are or are not investigating.''
They say you can do it without asking some of the serious witnesses.
This is a recipe for the most inconsistent, poorly conducted,
hodgepodge of a semi-investigation I have ever seen.
It is true that this is the procedure which brought freedom to Oliver
North and John Poindexter. It was precisely because Congress followed
this model that Oliver North's conviction and John Poindexter's
conviction were overturned, and I can understand that since this led to
their convictions being overturned, some people on the other side like
the model. But I would have hoped that we would have learned that this
is in fact a poor way to conduct an investigation.
The majority leader's resolution said we will defer until the
criminal process has completed their investigation, and then we will
investigate. There is nothing about that that implies covering up or
holding back. It says you will allow a criminal investigation to go
forward, and this suggestion here that the committee shall inform the
Department of Justice regarding what it wants to investigate, if
Justice then responds that a specific matter is material to or subject
of an official investigation, the committee may defer.
Justice will be too busy dealing with the committee to go on with its
investigation. It is not a serious effort to advance finding out what
happened. It is a purely political gesture.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the
Members of this Chamber that it can no longer be business as usual.
This afternoon we discussed H.R. 6. We discussed about the growing
amount of crime in this country. We discussed about how we are going to
instill ethical values in the students of this country.
It cannot be business as usual. We cannot simply continue to have the
casualness of possible ethical violations of this Chamber.
We, as individuals and collectively, have lost the respect of the
American people. I think it is important that we be aggressive, that we
pass the Istook resolution as an effort to look out after our own, to
start policing ourselves. We do not have control of the President and
his influence over what happens in the judicial system. I think it is
important, if we are going to be leaders in this country, that we be
very cognizant and aggressive in pursuing possible ethical violations
of our Members.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Swift].
(Mr. SWIFT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, this is a target so rich with opportunity for
partisanship and for posturing that it is something that simply cannot
be resisted by some. To hear them, you would think that the House is
trying to cover up.
Some coverup. It was a Republican Justice Department that first asked
the House to refrain from interfering in this matter, and one does not
cover up a problem by allowing the Justice Department, controlled by
the other party, to work its will and investigate.
So why would anyone oppose this proposition that we are opposing?
Because we believe the prosecutor.
I hear no charge that this prosecutor is not doing his job, and it is
his job to investigate, and it is his job to prosecute.
{time} 1920
He says the House can goof up his ability to get a conviction and
carry out his responsibility. The resolution says ``Coordinate with the
ethics committee.'' What does that mean? And how do you coordinate with
a prosecutor who does not want to coordinate and who is fact has made
it explicitly clear that an effort to do so he believes will ruin the
potential success of his effort? I think we should, in fact, listen
carefully to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and maybe we
should call this the malted milk perspective.
The gentleman from Massachusetts told the old story about the man who
walked into a shop and he said ``Make me a malted.'' And he said
``Poof, you are a malted.'' But the man did not become a malted. Very
frankly, saying that this will not interfere will not make that so
either. I suggest what we have here is the malted milk proposition and
it should in fact be treated for the attractive, frothy serving of
empty calories that, in truth, it is.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone acknowledges that just
saying you are a malted does not make you one; an assertion by a U.S.
Attorney that somehow you would interfere does not mean that you would.
That is why we need the ethics committee to attempt to coordinate
rather than say ``Oh, you don't want us to do it? Fine, we won't.''
Boy, that is giving up very easily.
I would inquire about the remaining time, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). The gentleman from Oklahoma has
3\1/4\ minutes, and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
Mr. DICKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time.
I think one thing missing in this discussion is what the American
people want. I am here to say, at least from my standpoint, what I
think they might be saying to us. First, that these Members of Congress
are sitting up there and distinguishing between this and that and the
Attorney General and the prosecutor and legal matters and criminal
matters, when all they are trying to do is to have special treatment
for special people.
I think we have a problem with the American people in that we have a
very powerful Member or Members who might be involved in this. That
divides us from them, in their minds, and I think the only thing that
we have to do is say ``What do the people at the ground level want?''
And discuss that. All of these other arguments are filled with
persuasion and they make sense when you look at it from up here and we
sit and we talk back and forth, and we can talk about malted milk and
other things and jurisdiction and so forth, but the American people
need to be heard, and we need to let them be heard with this vote so
that we can have this investigation and show them that they are a part
of this process.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the
chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott].
Mr. McDERMOTT. I thank the majority leader for yielding this time to
me.
As I alluded to in the earlier discussion, I am very troubled to find
the ethics committee in the midst of a partisan debate, especially when
the debate centers on how the committee should conduct its daily
business.
I trust those who are bringing us here this afternoon have a sensible
reason for doing so. I have searched in vain for the argument that will
illuminate the question of why this matter should be considered apart
from others like it that, unfortunately, come before the committee.
I wonder if many still understand the tradition and precedent that
must guide our actions, not just because they are old, but because they
are proven guides to sound government and wise decision.
As far as I can determine this House has never before provided
detailed guidance on the specifics of a committee inquiry nor directed
it to consult with particular individuals. The House has wisely not
seen fit to run the ethics committee from the floor by way of
privileged resolutions.
I want to say one thing out here: I cannot imagine the next meeting
of the ethics committee after this debate--and I want to say something
on behalf of Mr. Goss, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Grandy,
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, and Mr. Kyl: They are fine Members of this
House. They have discharged their responsibility to this House. And for
anybody on this side of the aisle to imply for 1 minute that they have
stonewalled, covered up or anything else is absolutely untrue.
Now when we go beyond this point you are going to have one resolution
after another saying ``Well, did they subpoena the right person? Let us
bring up a privileged resolution out and we will subpoena the person.''
Or ``Did they get the right document? Well, we will have a resolution
on the floor about should the committee investigate this document?
Should they look at this document?''
That is why you are precipitating by this kind of action.
The committee has acted; 7 members of the Republican side have been
absolutely forthright in following their oath in this office. For
anybody to imply otherwise is absolutely unfair.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body took the same
oath, every one of us, not just those who are on the ethics committee,
regarding upholding the Constitution of the United States, which
includes in article I, section 5, the obligation that we police the
behavior of our Members, discipline if necessary, expel if necessary,
but every single one of us has the obligation.
And although we have an ethics committee assist us in discharging
those obligations, it belongs to each one of us to act and take
seriously that responsibility, not to pass the buck to the ethics
committee, not to pass the buck to the U.S. attorney, but to stand up
for the standards that the American people have every right to expect
of us.
And they have a right to expect that Members of Congress will not
embezzle from the taxpayers, that Members of Congress will not be the
only ones to escape indictment no matter how smoking the gun may have
been laid down as has been done almost 8 months ago. They have every
right to expect that since we believe in reasoning, that that extends
to cooperation with all aspects of the executive branch, including the
Justice Department, including finding a way to work together to
cooperate on an internal probe for embezzlement that happened within
the walls of this Congress by Members, according to the testimony and
the proffer of proof by Mr. Rota. We are not investigating something
that happened elsewhere.
We have an obligation to look at what happened internally. And the
U.S. attorney would cooperate with any private business that had to
clean up a problem of internal embezzlement and they should cooperate
with us as well.
Do not give a veto to a prosecutor just to sign a letter saying,
``Let me do my job by myself.'' Let us uphold our job under the U.S.
Constitution, uphold the oath that each one of us took, saying to the
ethics committee, ``You are doing a job for us. We expect you to find a
way to cooperate rather than caving in and giving up.''
I thank the Speaker, and I urge adoption of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). The question is on the
resolution offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
motion to table offered by mr. gephardt
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
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 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 238,
nays 186, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 37]
YEAS--238
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
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
Houghton
Hoyer
Hughes
Inslee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
King
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
NAYS--186
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
Byrne
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
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
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--9
Andrews (TX)
Collins (IL)
de la Garza
Gallo
Hastings
McDade
Schiff
Washington
Yates
{time} 1956
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Gallo against.
Mr. Yates for, with Mr. Schiff against.
Mr. WALSH and Mr. McINNIS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BERMAN and Mr. COYNE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________