[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 22 (Thursday, March 3, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

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

                                 ______


                               speech of

                            HON. FRED GRANDY

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 2, 1994

  Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct, I will rise today in opposition to the 
majority leader's resolution. I do that reluctantly, because this 
committee, as he has pointed out, has a long history of being able to 
resolve matters brought before it in a nonpartisan fashion, and I, too, 
am disturbed that the resolution before us will almost certainly force 
members of this committee to vote along party lines. I hope we are not 
establishing a precedent today because I would consider that precedent 
very dangerous to the future viability of the committee.
  But it is important to oppose what the majority leader is doing today 
because there is a disagreement in the committee. There is a 
disagreement in the committee as to whether the committee may defer 
while a Justice Department investigation is going on or whether the 
committee shall defer, and that is essentially the choice for Members 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, the Istook resolution says the committee may defer. That 
implies that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct should 
perhaps test the fire walls that exist between the Department 
of Justice, and their investigation and the proceedings conducted under 
House rules in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It is 
uncharted territory, Mr. Speaker. We are not sure exactly how far we 
can proceed.

  The only precedent we really have, Mr. Speaker, is the House Bank, 
which was, unfortunately, a judgment we made up as we went along, and I 
very much hope that, even though the bank precedent which obliged this 
House, and then the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, to 
investigate an institution of the House rather than an individual, was 
the precedent that is set today. I am afraid that unfortunately we must 
comply with that standard, and this, too, will be a gray area.
  Under normal circumstances I would heartily concur that the committee 
should not be subject to the political pressures of the House, but this 
is not a normal circumstance. The Post Office case is different from 
those normally before the committee wherein a written complaint is 
filed with the committee stating the allegations and the name of the 
alleged wrongdoer. Then the normal committee rules regarding the 
investigation of complaints of alleged violations of the House rules 
are drafted in terms of allegations that involve a Member, an officer, 
or an employee of the House. In the case of the Post Office we are 
dealing again with an institution, not just one person, and 
unfortunately, with the bank as our precedent, we know very often that 
the more we investigate the institution, the more individuals, Members, 
and employees and others become part of that investigation.

  So, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately today this committee must divide, and 
unfortunately it is important for Members on the Republican side to 
insist that we move forward with a flexible standard for the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct to possibly defer, and I would daresay 
right now, if the vote were taken in the committee, we would defer if 
the U.S. attorney wrote another letter. But let me just read one 
provision of the Istook resolution because I think it provides more 
flexibility for the committee that perhaps the majority leader 
indicated in his remarks:

       Further resolved that the Committee shall inform the 
     Department of Justice 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 . . . .

  Mr. Speaker, that is what we have done time and time again and will 
probably continue to do. We have no interest in impeaching witnesses, 
destroying immunity for witnesses or otherwise compromising a criminal 
investigation. But it is also important for us to keep a certain dialog 
and perhaps even a pressure going with the Department of Justice to 
complete this investigation which is now well over 2 years old.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why when we compare what the Istook resolution 
does, which allows the committee at least some flexibility to go back 
to Justice and say, ``Please give us some more information, please tell 
us how far we can proceed.'' and the Gephardt resolution, we ask for 
the opportunity to proceed to the Gephardt resolution, which says that 
we shall continue to consult with the U.S. attorney and continue to 
review its decision and to defer inquiry on this matter.
  It may seem like a trivial difference, but it is enough to divide the 
Republicans and the Democrats on this committee so we cannot resolve 
our differences either in the leader's office or in our own council, 
and so we bring it to the floor today.

                          ____________________