[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.
____________________