[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 22, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT 
     OVERSIGHT OF MATTERS RELATING TO OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 394) to express the sense of the House that 
Congress has a constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of 
matters relating to the operations of the Government.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 394

       Resolved, That it is the Sense of the House of 
     Representatives that--
       (a) Congress has a Constitutional obligation to conduct 
     oversight of matters relating to the operations of the 
     government, including matters related to any governmental 
     investigations which may, from time to time, be undertaken.
       (b) The Speaker, Majority and Minority Leaders should meet 
     to determine the appropriate timetable, procedures, and forum 
     for appropriate Congressional oversight, including hearings 
     on all matters related to ``Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan 
     Association (`MGS&L'), Whitewater Development Corporation and 
     Capital Management Services Inc. (`CMS').''
       (c) No witness called to testify at these hearings shall be 
     granted immunity under sections 6002 and 6005 of Title 18, 
     United States Code, over the objection of Special Counsel 
     Robert B. Fiske, Jr.
       (d) The hearings should be structured and sequenced in such 
     a manner that in the judgment of the Leaders they would not 
     interfere with the ongoing investigation of Special Counsel 
     Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution presented by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Michel] and myself. It is a sense of the House 
resolution. It says that the Congress has a constitutional obligation 
to conduct oversight of matters relating to the operations of the 
Government, including matters relating to any governmental 
investigations which may from time to time be undertaken.
  It states that the Speaker, the majority and the minority leader 
should meet to determine the appropriate timetable, procedures, and 
forum for appropriate congressional oversight, including hearings on 
all matters related to Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, 
Whitewater Development Corp., and Capital Management Services, Inc.
  It further states that no witness called to testify shall be granted 
immunity under certain sections of the United States Code over the 
objections of the special counsel, Robert Fiske.
  Finally, it says that the hearings should be structured and sequenced 
in such a manner that in the judgment of the leaders, they would not 
interfere with the ongoing investigation of the special counsel, Mr. 
Fiske.
  Over the past days and weeks, there have been a number of allegations 
lodged, there has been a great deal of speculation about the Whitewater 
Development Corp. and the facts surrounding that corporation. And I 
might add that that speculation is not unimportant. The American people 
have the right to know the facts. Congress has an obligation to try to 
provide those facts.
  But we also have an obligation to ensure that our three-branch 
Government does not become a three-ring circus.
  We have an obligation to ensure that we find the facts without all 
the partisan fingerpointing that only distracts us from the real 
business of the people.
  That is why the minority leader and I have submitted this resolution. 
Because while we cannot ignore Whitewater, neither can we allow it to 
flood this Chamber.
  There is a special counsel in place. An independent, objective, and 
seemingly Republican-leaning special counsel.
  He is doing his work, carefully and thoughtfully, and I think in 
quick time.
  And there is a role for congressional oversight as well. 
Congressional oversight that does not interfere with the special 
counsel's work. Congressional oversight that is vigilant about the 
facts, and fair in its methods.
  Both parties have now agreed to sit down, and try to find the best 
way to structure such oversight hearings--without compromising the work 
of the special counsel--without granting immunity to those who 
testify--and without crossing the line that separates the people's 
priorities from party politics.
  I believe we will reach such an agreement, in good faith and with due 
speed.
  Then we can get back and now we should get back to the real work we 
were sent here to do--guaranteeing health care for all Americans; 
keeping our economy on the path to growth and progress; and improving 
the general welfare, not of a handful of would-be prosecutors, but of 
the good people we were elected to serve.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, as the distinguished majority leader 
indicated, we are cosponsoring this resolution today. Originally I had 
intended to offer a motion to recommit the committee funding resolution 
to provide for an investigation and hold appropriate hearings on 
Whitewater. But after discussions this morning in the Speaker's office, 
we agreed on this resolution which is in the same language as was 
adopted in the other body some time ago.
  Today the House is expressing the need for oversight and hearings, 
and today the House is expressing its right and the public's right to 
know the workings of its Government. This is but the first step in 
establishing procedures and guidelines for congressional oversight 
hearings, but it is very meaningful that we are here at this point.
  Congress has a constitutional mandate to oversee the programs that it 
enacts into law. Serious allegations have been raised about the 
potential misuse of Government funds in various Federal programs as 
well as other ethical improprieties.
  The New York Times in the Sunday edition stated the case well:

       Whitewater raises at least two important policy issues that 
     fall within the oversight authority of the House and Senate 
     Banking Committees. One involves the integrity of the banking 
     system, the other the integrity of its regulators.

  That is what congressional oversight is all about, and that is the 
intent here.
  Let me be clear about one point. Special Prosecutor Fiske is 
investigating potential criminal wrongdoing. That is his job and not 
ours. These congressional hearings are not about criminal liability but 
about the proper, legitimate role of Congress is oversight.
  And may I say, finally, that we all owe a deep debt of gratitude to 
one of our own Members, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], our 
ranking member on the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, 
who has done so much to pursue the constitutional duty of congressional 
oversight when no one was interested and when many obstacles were 
placed in his way. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has brought 
dignity, intelligence, and fairness to the process for which we are 
indebted to him.
  Mr. Speaker, I include with my remarks a list of the number of 
congressional investigations that have taken place since 1981, as 
follows:

                      Congressional Investigations

       1981: William Casey, CIA.
       1982: EPA, Superfund; EPA, private meetings.
       1983: John Fedders, SEC; OSHA, Office of VP.
       1984: Hugh Reilly, NLRB; Charles Wick, USIA.
       1985: Victor Thompson, Synthetic Fuels Corporation, 
     Synthetic Fuels Corporation; Charles Wick, USIA 
     ``Blacklist''.
       1986: HUD Influence Peddling; EPA, Superfund; Walter 
     Lenaham, Textile Imports; Robert Buford, BLM; Iran Contra.
       1987: Michael Deaver; Joseph Wright, OMB; Iran Contra.
       1988: Ambassador Faith Whittlesey; Edwin Meese, DOJ.
       1989: June Koch, HUD.
       1990: Wedtech Corporation; Silverado Banking.
       1992: October Surprise; Competitiveness Council; Columbus 
     Quincentenary Commission.

  Mr. Speaker, if I might at this time ask the distinguished majority 
leader several questions to be perfectly clear here, is the Democratic 
leadership committed to holding the previous RTC oversight hearing that 
is mandated by law?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICHEL. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.
  Mr. MICHEL. Do we have any idea of when that might be scheduled?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I would say to the gentleman that it would be scheduled 
as soon as practicable, in consultation with all of the people on the 
committee, and the chairman of the committee, and the ranking member 
and the Members on both sides.
  Mr. MICHEL. And it is my understanding from previous conversations 
that we have had that the minority will be allowed a day of witnesses 
as provided under rule XI, is that correct?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. MICHEL. I thank the distinguished majority leader.
  Does this resolution therefore then, I would ask the majority leader, 
put the House on record as being committed to holding hearings, 
realizing that the timing, procedure, and other matters still have to 
be worked out?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. As the Speaker I believe stated in the meeting, and 
probably later in the press conference that the gentleman was able to 
have with him, our commitment is in good faith, and in consultation 
with the minority leadership and others in the minority to try to find 
the right way of having hearings, the right schedule, and in 
conjunction with Mr. Fiske. So that is our commitment. Our commitment 
is to in good faith try to find a way to have the kind of hearings that 
would be reasonable with regard to this matter.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me 
this time, and I thank the majority leader and the minority leader for 
working this out.
  Let me just say that obviously a resolution like this involves issues 
where there are some conflicting crosscurrents. The most important 
conflicting crosscurrents are the right of the public to know and the 
obligation of Mr. Fiske to conduct a full and fair investigation. And 
those do conflict at times, not just on the issue of immunity which the 
resolution handles, but as any prosecutor can tell you, he certainly 
does not want his witnesses to state their full point of view before 
the public before he gets a chance to present the case, examine them, 
et cetera. So you have that conflicting, and then you have another 
conflict here, and that is the public's certain right, a right which we 
all support, to find out what is going on.
  But at the same time, the conflict being the political overtones to 
this where the motives of both sides are doubted. And I think this 
resolution deals with those two conflicts very well.
  The public will have the right to find out what goes on, and yet it 
will not interfere with Mr. Fiske's obligation to turn over every stone 
and prosecute or investigate this case to the fullest and take it where 
it leads.

  Second, by allowing that to happen, I think we also clear the air of 
some of the partisan overtones that have occurred in the last few days, 
and really do not bring credit not only to this House but do not affirm 
the public's view that everything will be unveiled.
  So I would salute the majority leader and the minority leader and the 
House leadership on both sides of the aisle for coming together with 
this resolution, as was mentioned, very similar to the Senate 
resolution, which does, I think, ably deal with both sets of conflicts.
  I urge support for it.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished leader for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise for several purposes. One, I would like to 
commend the leadership of the majority for reaching the conclusion it 
did.
  I would stress here that the first and major request that the 
minority made last November was for a full and open hearing. That was 
all it was. And it was only after that request was turned down that 
this issue escalated in magnitude. What this represents today is the 
first bipartisan commitment to a bipartisan hearing. And that is all 
the minority initially requested.
  One of the real traumas of this issue is how to bring it to 
resolution. In this Member's view, it cannot be brought to resolution 
without full public disclosure. That is what the minority is seeking, 
public disclosure. Then the issue can be put behind.
  I happen to concur totally with the view of the President of the 
United States that this country wants to get on with the health care 
debate, they want to get on with the business of welfare reform, with 
crime legislation.
  The most propitious way to do that is to put this issue behind, 
bringing witnesses, letting the public draw what conclusions it may 
wish, and then we are through.
  Let me conclude by noting that the minority is very sensitive to the 
rights of potential witnesses. We have no desire whatsoever to put 
people through a more difficult process than that which would be 
understandable and reasonable under the circumstance. I would also say 
the minority has bent over backwards to be sensitive to the legitimate 
concerns of the special counsel. We have provided him witness lists in 
advance. We have provided him a great deal of material.
  We have no intent nor power to offer immunity, which is the issue 
that causes hearings to be difficult for potential prosecutors. With 
regard to learning the minority pledges decency of temper, it pledges a 
strict adherence to the rules of the House, and it pledges to do 
everything possible to be respectful of the operation of the special 
counsel's office.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the distinguished ranking member on our 
Committee on Government Operations, a committee which also has 
jurisdiction in this regard.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my leader for yielding me this 
time.
  I also wish to commend the majority and the minority leaders for 
working out this accommodation in recognition that we do as a Congress 
have a constitutional duty to conduct effective, aggressive oversight 
of the executive branch.
  Under the committee funding resolution which will be before us later 
today, literally millions of taxpayer dollars are being allocated to 
the various congressional oversight committees for the express purpose 
of conducting oversight of these activities, and despite the acceptance 
of these funds, we have not been perhaps as vigorous in this regard as 
we should be in bringing to closure an issue that has kept the country 
involved for way too many weeks.
  The current Whitewater affairs has clearly raised serious questions 
which need to be considered by the Congress and that go beyond frankly 
Whitewater itself. For example, through my position as ranking 
Republican on the Committee on Government Operations, which is 
principal oversight committee of the Congress, I have been reviewing 
some disturbing circumstances surrounding the investigation of Vince 
Foster's death, not to determine the cause of death or not even, 
frankly, to determine whether that death had any involvement with the 
Whitewater situation or not, but really to try and determine if there 
was in fact an improper impediment or interference with that 
investigation by the White House.
  So I think that the Committee on Government Operations may well have 
a vital role to play in the conduct of any hearing on general 
Whitewater topics and should be included in the hearings called for by 
this resolution unless, or course, there is a select committee 
designated as a result of further discussions between the majority and 
minority.
  Let me now also mention what I really believe to be a dangerous 
patter I see emerging wherein the executive branch has increasingly 
denied information to Republican Members of Congress conducting 
legitimate oversight responsibilities. In turn, senior congressional 
Democrats have used their committee positions to assist the executive 
in blocking effective oversight of the executive branch which it has 
been my observation increasingly is necessary. So, Mr. Speaker, we 
abandon our responsibilities and turn our backs on the Constitution 
when we allow this to happen.
  The American people expect us to do our jobs. I think this resolution 
commits us to a pattern that it will see that our job is done and 
effective oversight is carried out.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful we are here, but I am at a 
loss to understand what the controversy has been about over these last 
several months.
  A resolution like this should have passed without discussion months 
ago. This really is not a partisan issue.
  But unfortunately with the stonewalling of the 
administration and the majority party, it has become one. The mere 
oversight of the Madison Savings and Loan should have been routine, 
just as the oversight of Neil Bush and the Silverado Savings and Loan 
was. There is no difference, except that because of the constant 
refusal by the White House and the Democrats to investigate this 
matter, we now see extraneous issues rising to the surface, like 
suggestions of shredding of documents, improper SBA loans, sweetheart 
deals, withholding of information from the RTC, from the FBI, and from 
the IRS, sealed autopsy and death investigation documents regarding a 
prominent administration counsel who was alleged to have been working 
on private affairs of the President.

                             {time}   1530

  We are bothered by the fact that the No. 2 and No. 3 attorneys at the 
Justice Department have resigned, one in the wake of suggestions of 
questionable billings at his former law firm, the same firm to which 
the First Lady belonged, possibly for billing American taxpayers too 
much. He being one of the best friends of the President, we are 
concerned the case in which he is suggested to have overbilled, lists 
the First Lady as co-counsel. Now we hear the President may have 
underpaid his taxes, but that he took extraordinary writeoffs.
  We worry that the First Lady qualified herself in court as a Federal 
employee, but neglected to put her assets in a blind trust during the 
first 7 months of the Presidency, she being heralded as one of the most 
astute attorneys in the country.
  Mr. Speaker, Neil Bush's role as a passive director in a failed 
savings-and-loan prompted congressional hearings, and so should Madison 
Savings and Loan, for it is all that the Bush deal was and so very much 
more.
  We should have full disclosure and full hearings, and we should not 
complete those hearings until every single question has been answered.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time. We have one additional 
speaker remaining, and I would like to have that speaker close.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] to propound several 
questions.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding to me.
  I want to say I want to ask these questions as a member of the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and I want to preface 
my questions by saying that I want to be sure that there is no 
inference here that either Mr. Leach or any of us members, Republican 
members of the committee, had intruded on the proper procedures with 
our original request on these oversight hearings.
  There was certainly nothing in the requests made by Mr. Leach that 
would violate the authority or the responsibilities of the special 
prosecutor. I want to be sure there is nothing here that has an 
inference as to that; but since, as I understand it--I was not in the 
negotiations--as I understand it from this discussion, there are now 
proposals in this resolution that commit this House to two hearings, 
that that is an iron-clad commitment; that at least one hearing or a 
series of hearings that is going to be our proper oversight role as the 
Banking Committee oversight over both the integrity of the system as 
well as the integrity of the regulators, I believe was mentioned by one 
of the speakers, the previous speaker.
  Now, would the majority leader respond, please?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentlewoman would yield, there is a commitment 
here to carry out as soon as practicable the legally authorized and 
required hearing in the Committee on Banking on oversight of the 
Resolution Trust Corporation. It is my understanding that that is 
probably a 2-day event. There is a hearing that is held by the 
majority, and then under rule XI, as I understand it, the minority has 
the right to conduct a hearing according to the rules of the House and 
the Banking Committee. And the commitment is as soon as practicable to 
have both of those hearings.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Is the gentleman thereby saying that the authority over 
the calling of witnesses will be separated according to majority and 
minority, or will it follow the normal practice of the committee?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentlewoman would yield, it is my understanding 
that the witnesses in this type hearing are invited, that the minority 
has the ability to invite people to come. And then the questions and 
the appropriateness of the questions as you go through the hearings is 
determined by the procedures of the committee.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. That is fine. And then the second part of the 
resolution makes a total commitment subject to further negotiations as 
to further hearings of either a special committee or some other 
committee designated by the House. It is very unclear as to the 
discussion thus far as to the composition of that committee.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentlewoman would yield, she is quite right. It 
is unclear at this point the forum, it is unclear exactly how these 
could be structured, it is unclear as to exactly what would be 
included. These are all issues that have to be discussed and decided. 
But there is a commitment to make every attempt in good faith between 
the parties to work out those issues. We are not concerned about 
whether or not there are hearings; what we are concerned about, and the 
minority is concerned about, is how it is done, that it is done 
properly so that it does not interfere, as the resolution says, with 
what is the job and the responsibility of the special counsel.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to remind the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] that we are operating under strict time 
limitations, and I have obligated my time here, I hope the answers have 
satisfied the gentlewoman's questions. If not, we will try as soon as 
we can to supply more information.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. If the answer concurs with what the gentleman 
understands.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). The Chair would advise the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] that the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Michel] has control of the time.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me say that everybody on both sides of this question are acting 
in good faith and I think we just need to clarify what the situation 
is, because the legislative history on this resolution becomes 
extremely important. I have heard a number of caveats in what the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] was telling us. We are operating 
with an AP story here that says, after your meeting today, that the 
Speaker insisted he was not making a concession that hearings were 
going to take place. Now, in my view, it seems to met that we have 
conceded, for purposes of this resolution, that we do not know enough 
to know when these hearings are going to be held, we do not know enough 
to know how they are going to be held.
  But what I want to be assured of is that hearings are going to be 
held, comprehensive hearings are going to be held on Whitewater. Can 
the gentleman give me that----
  Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. WALKER. I certainly do yield.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. What the Speaker was saying earlier today and what we 
are trying to say now is that there is a commitment to try in good 
faith to find the right, the appropriate way, to have hearings on 
Whitewater. Obviously implicit in that statement is the understanding 
that even after we both try in good faith to do that, that we may not 
be able to agree on how to do that.
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman would allow me to reclaim my time.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Well, let me finish and I will give you more time.
  Let me finish.
  If that were to happen, obviously there is nothing that precludes the 
minority at that point, if that unforeseen thing happens, to come to 
the floor and ask for a resolution that would call for hearings under 
the circumstances which you would want to have the hearings. But you 
and all the Members of the House have a commitment that we will do 
everything in our power to try to work out those hearings 
appropriately.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker] 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate that. 
But from my perspective, the committees of the Congress with 
jurisdiction in the areas mentioned in this resolution already have all 
the powers they need to hold hearings. There is no doubt those hearings 
can be held. The Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs can 
schedule hearings tomorrow, the committee on Small Business can hold 
hearings tomorrow; all of the processes and procedures are in place 
already in the rules. We know, because during the 1980's there are 
literally dozens of hearings held during oversight of possible 
misfeasance or malfeasance in the administrations. So we know these 
things can take place.
  What we are seeking in this resolution is an assurance that, given 
all of those things, that we are going to have those hearings, that 
they are no longer going to be blocked by consultations with the 
administration; that these hearings are going to go ahead and be held. 
I have not heard that yet. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman would yield, there has been no attempt 
on this side to block hearings by the leadership of the House. What we 
have attempted to do is to figure out how to do this appropriately in 
coordination with the special counsel, now that we have a special 
counsel.
  Mr. WALKER. I would say to the gentleman that the chairman of the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs came to the floor one 
day and assured this gentleman in a colloquy on the floor that there 
were going to be hearings held in his committee. Within a matter of 
hours he had backed off of that.

                              {time}  1540

  The newspaper stories at that time said that he backed off it after 
consultations with the leadership on the gentleman's side. Now maybe 
the stories were completely wrong, but I have to assume that somewhere 
that kind of dialogue took place. But he backed off on what he promised 
this gentleman on the floor that day.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, let me 
review again what I think is being committed in this resolution:
  First, that the hearings which the gentleman just talked about in the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs will take place as soon 
as practicable----
  Mr. WALKER. No, we were going to have those hearings, and then he 
also promised comprehensive hearings on Whitewater would be held.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I am reviewing now what is in the resolution. That is 
first.
  Second, the gentleman is right, that there are other committees that 
have other fragments and pieces of this fact situation that will be 
dealt with in other committees under their own rules. As the gentleman 
stated, the Committee on Small Business has already taken something 
with regard to a GAO report today.
  Finally, there is a commitment again to try to find a way to have a 
more comprehensive set of hearings in an appropriate way, hopefully in 
one forum, but we have not addressed that question yet, but in one 
forum that can go forward under a time schedule and under a procedure 
that is agreeable, and makes sense to both sides, and makes sense to 
the special prosecutor.
  Mr. WALKER. So the gentleman is telling me that the newspaper story 
here is wrong, that the Speaker was not saying when he said, ``a 
concession, that he was not making, a concession that hearings are 
going to take place.'' He is saying that that is a misstatement of the 
situation and that in fact this resolution is predicated on a good-
faith belief that hearings will be held.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, maybe it is a 
difference of interpretation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). The time of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has expired.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that perhaps it is a 
difference in interpretation of the words of the Speaker. I believe, 
again, the commitment is ironclad that there will be an attempt made, a 
very serious attempt in good faith, to try to find a way in the proper 
forum, at the proper time, in the proper sequencing, in coordination 
with the special prosecutor, to have comprehensive hearings that will 
put all the facts on the table.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt].
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this resolution, but I 
just want to say I regret keenly that we are giving up in this 
resolution the right to immunize witnesses. We should be very jealous 
of our prerogatives and the right of oversight by Congress rests in the 
constitution. It may well be to properly fulfill our constitutional 
duty of oversight we might have to give immunity to some witness. I 
hope not, and I think that can be agreed upon by people on this 
investigating committee. But why do we yield to Mr. Fiske whose job is 
to prosecute, search out, investigate and report on whether criminal 
activity has occurred? Our job is to oversee how this institution 
worked and how the people worked it, and it may be that we will need to 
grant immunity to somebody.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be jealous of our powers just as the President 
is jealous of executive privilege. All Presidents have resisted the War 
Powers Act. I say to my colleagues, you don't diminish the office 
during your tenure, and we shouldn't diminish the power of any and 
every investigating committee of the House by yielding in the beginning 
before we get into hearings a power that may well be necessary for us 
to fulfill our responsibility for proper oversight.
  That may be just a slight point, but I wanted to make it.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution, 
and I would like to make clear the basis.
  First, we have had two sets of accusations. Many of us felt that the 
first set really did not--really rise to the level requiring a full 
investigation. We have been talking to some extent about events 
involving regulations of a savings and loan institution during the mid-
1980's. We ought to be very clear when people talk about whether there 
has been any abuse within the administration, that with regard to those 
events, Madison Savings and Loan, Whitewater, et cetera, that no member 
of the Clinton administration was then holding Federal office. Any 
failure at that time to protect the interests of the Federal Government 
presumably will be laid at the door of the hearings of the people then 
in office, the appointees of President Reagan and, subsequently, the 
appointees of President Bush. I did believe that we have had in this 
Congress sufficient airing of those periods. If people want to go back 
to them later, I see no harm to it.
  It did seem to me that a new set of issues arose when people alleged 
that there may have been at the White House some interference with the 
regulatory process. I have seen no suggestion that anything adverse 
happened, but I do agree that when allegations reach a certain level of 
decibel that it becomes important to have the hearings.
  Now we ought to be very clear. Hearings are not a sign that something 
definitely has gone wrong. I think an analogy of the independent 
counsel statute is important. I have always felt that was important, 
both to find out where there was wrongdoing and to give the appropriate 
exoneration where wrongdoing was inaccurately charged, and one of the 
advantages of the independent counsel is that the independent counsel 
can give that exoneration with a degree of credibility that the 
President's own party could not give. I regard hearings now as a 
similar opportunity. I welcome the chance to have hearings.
  Frankly we have heard even on the floor today references to two 
people resigning in the Justice Department when obviously one has 
nothing to do with anything remotely comparable here. An innuendo, an 
inference perhaps, because of billing practices that happened because 
the First Lady was in the same firm. I welcome the chance to set these 
straight. But I do think we have to talk about the role of the special 
counsel.
  Many of us believe that there was not a sufficient legal basis to 
trigger the appointment of a special counsel, but the administration, I 
think sensibly to lean over backwards, appointed one at the request of 
the Republican leadership, and now the special counsel, a Republican, 
an appointee, a would-be appointee of Republican administrations, 
having said, ``It will interfere with the investigation you asked me to 
have if you have a certain kind of hearing''; I think we are on to 
that, and I would differ with my friend, the gentleman from Illinois. 
We appointed the special counsel. The President asked that a special 
counsel be appointed because the Republicans asked that we have him. To 
interfere now with the special counsel to do things that the special 
counsel said would be an interference with his ability to do his job 
lays down the groundwork later on for discrediting the special counsel. 
Having asked for one, having gotten one, it seems to me that 
consistency and fairness require that the special counsel be allowed to 
do his job without any interference.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I agree perfectly with everything the 
gentleman from Massachusetts said. I just formally do not like to yield 
a prerogative that is ours.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge what the 
gentleman from Illinois said. He might not disagree in a specific 
instance, but let me say to my friend, by making that decision about 
immunity in a resolution on which we vote I don't think we give away 
any of our prerogatives. I don't think we're suggesting we give them to 
anybody else, and I gather we do agree in the given instance given the 
circumstances of the appointment of this special counsel to do things 
which he said would interfere, and, as we know, it's not just immunity 
that can interfere, but it is witnesses hearing what other witnesses 
say, it is having things done in public which ought to be done in 
private, it is having interviews at one level when they are being 
conducted privately at another.
  I do think that it is very important, given the circumstances of this 
special counsel when he was appointed, that we not be interfering with 
what the special counsel does, and, therefore, I think it is 
appropriate that the resolution says we will work together, both sides, 
in good faith to come up with a format for hearings that will not 
interfere with the special counsel because, having appointed him, 
having led to having put pressure on to appoint him, having seen his 
appointment, now to undercut him now I think would be an illegitimate 
action.

                              {time}  1550

  Therefore, the resolution seems to me to be appropriately done.
  Finally, let me say that people who say that the chairman of the 
Banking Committee was somehow under the direction of the leadership 
have apparently never worked with the chairman of the Banking 
Committee. We may disagree with him, but his integrity and his 
commitment to fairness, as he sees fit, and his independence ought not 
to be things that anyone would question.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. de la Garza). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] that the 
House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H.Res. 394.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 408, 
nays 15, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 78]

                               YEAS--408

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--15

     Abercrombie
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Dellums
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Kopetski
     Matsui
     McKinney
     Miller (CA)
     Pelosi
     Stupak
     Towns
     Washington
     Waters

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Clay
     Gallo
     Gillmor
     Grandy
     Hastings
     Maloney
     Meek
     Natcher
     Sundquist
     Torres

                              {time}  1617

  Mr. MILLER of California, Mr. TOWNS, and Ms. McKINNEY changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________