[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.

                          ____________________