[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, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just point out to the Members, if they had listened to the 
debate on our side, they have heard perhaps a difference in tone 
between those Republican Members who are serving on the committee and 
those who do not.
  The Members on the committee are scrupulously trying to maintain the 
integrity of the Justice Department investigation while asking for a 
little bit more flexibility to proceed within the committee. That is 
why we have consciously tried to tone down the rhetoric in our remarks.
  But whether you are on the committee or not on the committee, Mr. 
Speaker, the question we are asking today and we have asked before in 
this body is what must the House do to begin to restore its lost 
credibility with the American people? Unfortunately, whenever that 
happens, when public pressure collides with committee procedures with 
prerogatives, usually public pressure wins because we are trying to 
protect public trust in this institution.
  The last precedent, we all remember it, was when we voted to turn 
over material to Judge Wilke, who was special counsel on the bank 
scandal. Unfortunately, we divided along partisan lines, and we will 
divide along partisan lines again.
  That was an important precedent for us to remember. Members of this 
House did not want to give up their personal files to a Justice 
investigation, but we did. Today we ask for the opportunity to question 
Justice's prerogatives.
  I would add one more point, Mr. Speaker: The Istook resolution asks 
the committee to do something we are doing today but we should do 
periodically, which is to report to the House. We may report, we cannot 
proceed; Justice has told us clearly what we can and cannot do, and we 
concur.
  I appreciate the support of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], and 
others of the committee who do know that we are trying to find some 
kind of balance. The Istook resolution asks us to question that 
balance, to go back to Justice, to ask them to be a little bit more 
forthcoming in the material that they have provided and in the material 
that they have not provided.
  So, again, the debate today is whether we shall defer in the Gephardt 
resolution and do nothing and maintain the status quo or whether in the 
Istook resolution we may defer. It is the difference between the status 
quo and the status quo-plus. It may seem slight, but it has brought us 
to this debate today, and I encourage Members of this Congress to 
reject the Gephardt resolution and support the Istook resolution.

                          ____________________