[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 68 (Thursday, May 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 NOTICE OF REVISION OF DATE FOR INTRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED RESOLUTION 
              REGARDING INVESTIGATION OF HOUSE POST OFFICE

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday we filed a privileged resolution 
regarding an ethics investigation into the House Post Office. It was my 
original intention to call up that resolution either this afternoon or 
this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of rule IX of the rules of 
the House, I wish to give formal notice of calling up that privileged 
resolution No. 436 instead after we return from Memorial Day on either 
Wednesday, June 8, or Thursday, June 9, and I ask unanimous consent 
that the resolution be printed in the Record as if read at this point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 436

       Whereas allegations reported in public and made in official 
     Department of Justice court documents that personnel of the 
     House Post Office provided illegal cash to certain Members in 
     three ways: (1) cash instead of stamps for official vouchers, 
     (2) cash for postage stamps which had earlier been purchased 
     with official vouchers, and (3) cash for campaign checks;
       Whereas the Department of Justice has secured admissions of 
     criminal guilt regarding past activities in the House Post 
     Office;
       Whereas multiple concerns and allegations of possible 
     wrongdoing by House employees, a House officer, and Members 
     had been raised within the report of the House Administration 
     Committee Task Force to Investigate the Operation and 
     Management of the House Post Office;
       Whereas all these allegations directly affect the rights of 
     the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the 
     integrity of its proceedings, and the rights, reputation, and 
     conduct of its Members;
       Whereas Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution gives 
     each House of Congress responsibility over disorderly 
     behavior of its Members; and
       Whereas the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has 
     jurisdiction over the conduct and behavior of current House 
     Members, officers, and employees, including investigatory 
     authority, and is the appropriate body of this House to 
     conduct any inquiry: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct is instructed to immediately investigate any alleged 
     violation, by any Member, officer, or employee of the House, 
     of the Code of Official Conduct or of any law, rule, 
     regulation, or other standard of conduct that is related to 
     activities, described by or referred to in, documents that it 
     received on July 22, 1992, from the Committee on House 
     Administration pertaining to the House Administration 
     Committee Task Force to Investigate the Operation and 
     Management of the House Post Office investigation. Not later 
     than 60 days after this resolution is agreed to and 
     periodically thereafter, the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct shall report to the House the status of this 
     investigation. Not later than September 30, 1994, the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall report to 
     the House its findings of fact and recommendations on 
     possible disciplinary actions.

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
Record a letter addressed to me as chairman of the Ethics Committee 
from Eric H. Holder, U.S. attorney at this point in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fingerhut). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                        Department of Justice,

                                     Washington, DC, May 26, 1994.
     Hon. Jim McDermott,
     Chairman, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McDermott: This is in response to your letter 
     of May 25, 1994, inviting the views of this Office on the 
     pendency of House Resolution 436. The Resolution would direct 
     the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to commence 
     immediately an investigation of matters associated with the 
     House Post Office.
       This Office's views on such a measure are unequivocal: a 
     parallel investigation by a congressional committee, at this 
     juncture, would interfere directly with the federal grand 
     jury's final considerations of possible criminal charges 
     based on the same factual circumstances.
       I and my predecessors in this Office have repeatedly asked 
     the House of Representatives not to take similar action on 
     similar measures. We have appreciated the consistent courtesy 
     shown by your Committee, and by the leadership of both 
     parties in the House, in requesting our views on such 
     matters. We have also appreciated the restraint shown by the 
     House as a whole in resisting calls for internal House 
     inquiries that could have crippled the criminal 
     investigation. Most recently, in a letter to the Speaker and 
     the Minority Leader dated February 23 of this year, I 
     explained that this lengthy investigation was in its final 
     stages and would be concluded in the near future. The House 
     prudently concluded at that time, as it had done before, that 
     any inquiry by the Ethics Committee should at least await the 
     conclusion of the grand jury's investigation.
       House Resolution 436 is squarely at odds with the care so 
     far shown by the House to respect the integrity of the 
     criminal process. The grand jury's investigation of the 
     matters discussed in my letter of February 23 is virtually 
     concluded. If that investigation results in further criminal 
     charges, then I assume that the House will take the only 
     conceivably responsible course, and will refrain from any 
     inquiry of its own until the criminal case is concluded. 
     Particularly in that light, the action contemplated by House 
     Resolution 436, coming as it does at the very culmination of 
     the grand jury's investigation, seems both inappropriate and 
     almost irresponsible, since it could not be better timed to 
     complicate a criminal investigation that is in its final 
     days.
       I urge the House of Representatives not to take an action 
     that would be so heedless of the processes of criminal 
     justice.
       Thank you again for the opportunity to express these views.
           Sincerely,
                                              Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
     U.S. Attorney.

                          ____________________