[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 71 (Thursday, June 9, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: June 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--PUBLIC RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPTS AND OTHER
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE INVESTIGATION OF THE HOUSE POST
OFFICE
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res.
450) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 450
Whereas, on July 22, 1992, the House of Representatives
voted to transmit to the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct the Committee Report and all records obtained by the
Task Force to Investigate the Operation and Management of the
House Post Office;
Whereas, the Report of the Committee on House
Administration selectively included portions of the
transcript of the proceedings of the Task Force in the
Appendix of their Report;
Whereas, efforts in the 102d Congress to release the full
transcript of the Task Force were defeated in the House on
July 22, 1992 and July 23, 1992 and again on July 22, 1993;
Whereas, the former Postmaster of the House of
Representatives, Robert V. Rota, from 1978 continuing until
April 1992 has admitted to conspiring with other persons to
commit offenses against the United States;
Whereas, the former Postmaster has pled guilty to making
false statements to the Task Force and during interviews with
United States Postal Inspectors and the Congressional
Committee investigating the House Post Office;
Whereas, the former Postmaster admitted to engaging in a
cover up of the exchange of vouchers and postage stamps for
cash beginning in May 1980 and continuing throughout the
House investigation of the post office;
Whereas, the integrity of the House of Representatives has
been impugned by the actions of Mr. Rota and others;
Whereas, on July 23, 1993, the House approved a privileged
resolution offered by the Majority Leader that stated: ``That
it is the sense of the House that should the United States
Attorney for the District of Columbia at any time inform the
House that he has no objection to the public release of the
transcripts of proceedings of the former Task Force, then the
House shall consider immediately the question of whether and
under what circumstances the transcripts of proceedings of
the former Task Force should be released to the public;''
Whereas, the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia has indicated in a letter to the Speaker and the
Minority Leader that ``in light of recent action by the Grand
Jury in the criminal investigation, this Office no longer
objects to the public release of the materials in question.''
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House make public in printed form all
transcripts and other relevant documents from any House
Administration Committee investigation of the House Post
Office as soon as possible.
Resolved, further that the Majority and Minority Leader
shall each designate a Member to review the materials and
that these materials shall be made public unless the
designees agree to the contrary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCloskey). The resolution presents a
question of privilege, and accordingly the Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] for 30 minutes, and the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel].
(Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, a year ago July I attempted to have the full
transcripts and other documentation of the House Administration Task
Force on the Investigation of the House Post Office released, and the
majority wanted to prevent disclosure until the U.S. attorney for the
District of Columbia removed his objections. As of today, Mr. Speaker,
the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia has no objections to the
release of the task force material, as evidenced by the letter I
received today and will here insert in total:
U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, June 9, 1994.
Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert H. Michel,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker and Congressman Michel, in a letter dated
July 23, 1993, the Speaker informed this Office of the
adoption of H. Res. 223. The effect of that Resolution was
that the House would refrain from voting on whether publicly
to release transcripts and other documents, all pertaining to
the proceedings of the House Post Office Task Force of the
House Administration Committee, for as long as the United
States Attorney for this District continued to object to
their public release. Those objections were based on the
ongoing criminal investigation of matters related to the
House Post Office. On behalf of the House, the Speaker urged
the United States Attorney to inform the House as soon as we
no longer had those objections.
I am writing to inform you, ad requested, that in light of
recent action by the Grand Jury in the criminal
investigation, this Office no longer objects to the public
release of the materials in question. We greatly appreciate
the House's forbearance in maintaining the confidentiality of
those materials, and in deferring to the interests of the
criminal process.
We look forward to continuing to work cooperatively with
the House on issues bearing on this and other criminal
investigations and prosecutions, particularly regarding the
advisability of parallel House inquiries of matters under
criminal investigation or indictment.
Sincerely.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
U.S. Attorney.
I, therefore, am renewing my request and am joined today by the
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Gephardt], and we are asking the House to permit the release of all
relevant documentation from the investigations undertaken by the
Committee on House Administration.
Now I understand the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has
two boxes of documents and several tapes of depositions and interviews.
The Committee on House Administration still has in its possession 20 or
so boxes of materials. As I understand it, these are documents supplied
to the task force or created by the task force but were not thought
pertinent enough to send to the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct.
Our resolution calls for the printing of these and their release
unless two Members designated by the majority leader and myself agree
that release serves no purpose. They will attempt to accommodate any
concerns of privacy or confidentiality that may arise, and we need to
put this sorry episode behind us, and the release of these documents
will go a long way toward that goal.
Mr. Speaker, keeping these documents confidential no longer serves
any purpose, and the public interest, such as it is, is served by their
release.
My concern has primarily been about this great institution. I am not
surprised why the public holds us in such low esteem. Time after time,
when things go wrong, we tend to look the other way, pretend it did not
happen.
{time} 1800
But worse, we do not do anything to correct it. And I have done all I
can to bring forward House reforms to fix what has been wrong and
attempt to eliminate any temptations or the possibility for further
wrongdoing.
The reorganization of the House officers was at our suggestion, and
some moves have been made in the right direction. More needs to be
done. Today we are taking another step toward renewing the public's
confidence that we will police ourselves. I would strongly urge the
majority to recognize the need to do more, and urge the adoption of the
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my friend, the minority leader
of this House, for joining me in introducing this resolution.
The fact is, the public has a right to see the records and
transcripts of our investigation into the House Post Office.
The problems we encountered with our post office were simply
unacceptable for this institution. And just as this House spared no
time in getting all the facts, the public deserves those facts at the
first appropriate moment.
But we also have an obligation to make sure that we do not interfere
with the work of the criminal justice system--to make sure that the
public's right to know does not compromise the U.S. attorney's ability
to conduct a fair and thorough criminal investigation.
That is why last July was the wrong time to make these documents
public.
The U.S. attorney urged us to wait until his investigation was
complete, so that justice could be fully served.
In fact, the U.S. attorney wrote to the Speaker and the minority
leader to express his ``serious concern that the release of such
materials could have [had] a significant adverse effect on the ongoing
criminal investigation * * * into matters associated with the House
Post Office.''
So at his request, I introduced a resolution that deferred to his
request, and kept these documents in the hands of the Justice
Department until their work was done.
And I made very clear in offering that resolution that, ``should the
U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia at any time inform the House
that he has no objection to [the documents'] public release * * * then
the House shall consider [that issue] immediately.'' The bottom line is
that we all wanted to act on this issue when the time was right.
Now that the U.S. attorney has finished that important work, and
advised us that he now has no objection to the release of these
documents, it is time for the documents to be released. And it is time
for the public to be able to see them.
I believe that when they do, they will see that the House took strong
action to curb past abuses even before we started this investigation.
I am proud that we have now appointed an experienced, senior-level
Federal postal official to run our post office.
I am proud that we have put the post office in order, and everyone
now agrees that it is being run properly and professionally.
And in doing so, I believe that we have maintained the integrity of
this entire body.
I am grateful to the minority leader for agreeing that all documents
will be reviewed before their release by two Members, one appointed by
me, one by the minority leader.
To ensure that we do not subject the public to the burden or expense
of trivial, irrelevant administrative documents, or those that
compromise people's privacy, but are simply irrelevant to the issues at
hand.
Only those documents important to the issues and allegations at hand
will be released. But let me be very clear about this: all of the
documents that are relevant to the issues and allegations will be
released.
And we will continue to work very closely with the U.S. attorney's
office to make sure that his ongoing criminal investigations are not
compromised to the slightest degree--in this matter or in any other.
In fact, he urged us in his letter today to keep in close contact
with him ``regarding the advisability of parallel House inquiries of
matters under criminal investigation or indictment.''
Finally, let me say that by acting on this issue today--the very day
the U.S. attorney removed his strong objections to the release of these
documents--I believe we are doing the right thing.
I believe the House has handled this investigation with care and
caution. As a result of that, justice is being served.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
(Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Michel resolution to finally
ensure the public release of House Post Office investigation
transcripts and documents.
As the Republican cochairman of the task force investigation, I
strongly contend and believe that public release of this information
has been inappropriately delayed. The time is long overdue for the
House to be forthcoming.
More than 3 years ago, a House Post Office employee stole $5,000 in
official funds and fled to Puerto Rico. He returned to Washington, was
arrested and made serious allegations regarding the operation of the
House Post Office. Including embezzlement and drug use, these
allegations lead to a Capitol Hill Police investigation and a review by
the U.S. Postal Inspection Service that identified potential criminal
violations. Unfortunately, this entire situation, including a cursory
investigation by the majority, was kept secret by the Democratic House
leadership.
After reports of this coverup appeared in news stories in late-
January of 1992, the Republican leadership insisted that a special
counsel be created to review the matter. The Democratic leadership
opposed this effort and requested that the House Administration
Committee conduct its won internal review on the operation and
management of the House Post Office. This review lasted six months and
a final report, with separate Democrat and Republican sections, was
reported to the House on July 22, 1992. This report was based upon
testimony from 61 witnesses and numerous other documents and
information.
In reviewing this information, the Democrat and Republican members of
the task force disagreed on the seriousness and extent of potential
wrongdoing. That is why these records should be made public and the
American people should be allowed to judge the allegations and
concerns.
What did the task force find?
The task force review found the House Post Office management to be
both incompetent and incapable to carryout the most basic of tasks.
But, more importantly, we found a system that was abusive and
insensitive to employees and one that catered to the wants and desires
of certain members and staff. It was a tragic example of patronage,
waste and arrogance in the operation of the House.
In addition, the testimony indicated multiple allegations of
potential criminal wrongdoing and House rules violations. This list
includes: Embezzlement; drug use and sales; ghost employees; abuse of
personal allowances and public funds.
Already, eight former House employees have admitted to criminal
wrongdoing regarding the House Post Office, including perjury before
our task force.
What will the public find: When these transcripts are made public?
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the public will find that the ``house of
the people'' failed in its responsibility in several ways. First,
Americans will see that a full 6 months passed before the post office
affair was investigated. Second, they will discover the Capitol Hill
Police were bullied and threatened in an effort to get the
investigation quashed and that in the midst of the investigation there
was a 6-week delay that raises concern in regard to evidence and
procedure. What else may have been covered up? And finally they will
conclude that some in the House were more interested in protecting
their own interests than in getting to the truth.
These issues need to be addressed by the House Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct. Unfortunately, 2 years after receiving our report
and supporting documents, nothing has been done and House rules
continue to go unenforced.
My colleagues, the time has come. It is time for public disclosure
and it is time for the House to step up to our basic obligation of
self-discipline.
{time} 1610
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas].
(Mr. THOMAS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the
minority leader, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, come with me back to July 1992. We were discussing the
task force's examination of the conduct of employees and Members at the
Post Office. As the gentleman from Kansas said, the majority and the
minority, an equal number on that task force, could not come to an
agreement on the basis of the facts. We issued two separate reports.
Mr. Speaker, let me read the Republican segment on the question of
the exchange of stamps for cash. Remember, Mr. Speaker, Democrats and
Republicans could not agree on the facts. This was the Republican
position on the exchange of stamps for cash:
A lack of standard procedures and failure to follow USPS
regulations may have permitted some Members' personal and
campaign offices to convert official funds to personal use by
exchanging stamps for cash.
While the USPS may, under certain circumstances, exchange
damaged USPS stamps for new stamps, USPS regulations prohibit
the exchange of stamps for cash. There have been various
public reports of stamps being exchanged for cash for some
Members and others. If such activity occurred, Official
Expenses Allowance funds may have been turned into cash for
possible personal or other use. This matter is the subject of
a continuing Grand Jury investigation.
That is the Republican examination of stamps for cash.
Let me read the Democrats' examination of the same question. This is
the Democrats' examination of the same facts:
The Task Force investigated allegations made in the press
that individuals exchanged stamps for cash at the House Post
Office. The Task Force found instances where individuals
exchanged old stamps for new stamps, either because the old
stamps were damaged, or because the individual wanted special
commemorative stamps. The Task Force found no evidence that
any exchange of stamps for cash ever took place at the House
Post Office, and considers these allegations to be unfounded.
The Democrats and the Republicans, in equal numbers on the task
force, could not come to an agreement. This is a clear indication of
the kinds of disagreements that we had. The Democrats wanted to make a
flat-out declaratory statement that the allegations were unfounded.
That in fact was the Democrats' report, that the allegations were
unfounded.
The Republicans wanted to indicate that there were allegations made
that there was a possibility that these events occurred, and that there
was an ongoing investigation, and we wanted to make note of that. That
is what the Republican report said. On and on through this task force,
those were the kinds of differences we had.
I do not want to dwell on the past, Mr. Speaker. I want to look at
tomorrow. I want us not to be here on a resolution over another area,
such as vouchers. The Post Office was the first agency given to the new
director. The second office was the Finance Office. Yet, today, Mr.
Speaker, and I would say also to the majority leader, the Finance
Office is not being run in a nonpartisan way. The Finance Office,
including the approval of vouchers, the presentations of exceptions and
the approval or disapproval of Members' privileges is being run in a
partisan way.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be on this floor 2 years hence quoting
that the Democrats said, ``There is nothing wrong in this area.'' There
are Justice Department indictments against Members because of the way
in which vouchers are being held, and we once again are saying, ``Gee,
we wish it had been run in a different way.''
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the majority leader, we have not finished
the business of House Resolution 423. The resolution that created the
Office of Director of Nonlegislative and Financial Services. We clearly
know there are flaws in the working of the director's office. We have
had one director resign because of his inability to work the system.
Can we please, in a bipartisan way, examine the nonlegislative and
financial areas of this institution and set up a structure which will
not allow us to go down this road again? Mr. Speaker, I would say to
the majority leader, let us get it right.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority leader for yielding me
some time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a culmination of a process that began some
months ago with a resolution that I first brought to the floor, and I
am pleased that we are going to have a bipartisan approval of that kind
of language today.
It is being said that the bipartisan approval is based upon a change
of circumstances. I guess we can all interpret that any way we want. I
should say, this is not the last step, this is but another step, and
there are steps yet to come, because I believe that the release of this
transcript will simply provide one body of information upon which other
information now will have to be built.
We do know now that there exists a tape, done by the Capitol Hill
Police, that relates to this matter. What we are going to want to do is
to put together the information that is in these transcripts that will
be released pursuant to this resolution with the tape done by the
Capitol Hill Police.
What we are going to find is discrepancies between the two accounts.
In particular, we are going to find that the House counsel was in fact
talking two different ways on this issue. For example, it was raised
earlier by the gentleman from Kansas about what happened with the
police investigation. It is clear from the police tape that at one
point the police force was threatened that members of the police force
would be fired if they continued to turn over information to the U.S.
prosecutors. It is also clear that at one point the House counsel said
on that tape that the whole police force could be replaced by Pinkerton
guards. In another place on the tape, the House counsel even alludes to
obstruction of justice.
Mr. Speaker, those are serious concerns, and as they relate to what
we will now find in these tapes, I think we will have additional steps
that need to be further investigated.
I do not know what the appropriate venue for that is, probably the
Ethics Committee, but it is clear that the release of this information
is not an end in itself. This is simply a way of assuring that the
public now has some information off which we can now look at other
information that exists in the public realm.
CNN has already broadcast some of the information that exists on that
police tape. I think that this is a process that has to be ongoing. I
hope we are going to find the same level of cooperation in that ongoing
investigation that we have here today in the release of the tapes.
There is a necessity now, Mr. Speaker, to go beyond and find out what
went wrong in the House of Representatives that led to this problem and
led to the actual criminal indictments of Members of Congress.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift].
(Mr. SWIFT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, I suppose in the climate in which we live
today, anyone who talks about honor and Congress in the same breath
invites hoots of derision from the cynics, but I must rise today to
note that we are about to dishonor ourselves. Let me explain why.
Mr. Speaker, our job, those of us who were unfortunate enough to be
assigned to serve on the committee to investigate the Post Office, was
to analyze what went wrong administratively, where was the cash kept,
in what drawer, who was overseeing it, and all that kind of stuff; why
was that done, why was it not done better, and to recommend ways to
improve that.
{time} 1820
We did find out and we did recommend, and through that and other
procedures, that problem has been resolved.
But as a result of the fact that our role was simply to figure out
what was going on administratively, it was not to build a groundwork
for a criminal prosecution. The structure of the testimony we took was
very informal, wholly inadequate for any kind of a criminal
investigation. Most was not sworn. We accepted hearsay, we accepted
gossip, we accepted innuendo, and, I am afraid, some lies. For our
purposes, which was to understand what went on administratively, that
was all right, because we could throw all that stuff out and make the
kinds of general judgments we had to make and move on. But the
testimony we are about to release is unreliable for virtually any other
purpose. So far I may have demonstrated folly but not dishonor in the
action we are about to take.
Mr. Speaker, let me go further. With many witnesses, perhaps most,
assurances were given by counsel that the testimony would be off the
record. Many were told, ``Your testimony will be tape recorded, but it
will be off the record.'' The records do not reveal to whom those
promises were made and to whom such promises were not made. We can
decide now that it was unwise to make any such commitment. We can wish
we had not done it. But we did it. Those promises were made by counsel,
but they were made on behalf of the whole House. People testified, they
talked to us, with the understanding that it was off the record. Now we
are about to renege. We are about to break our word. To whom? Nobody
really important, just some employees. These people are not even staff.
They are just employees. If they walked across the well right now, I
doubt if any of us would even recognize them. We do not know their
names, we do not know their families, we know nothing about them. It is
pretty easy to do what we are going to do. A counsel we do not know
gave word on our behalf to people we do not know. What is the big deal?
But we gave them our word, and they acted on the word we gave them.
With the vote coming soon, we will break our word to some of those in
this institution least able to object and protect themselves. We will
do it for high-sounding reasons, or ruthless political advantage, or
craven political cowardice, take your pick. But when we do it, make no
mistake, we will dishonor ourselves and this grand institution.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
(Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, there were 61 witnesses that were deposed
in the investigation. Yes, if they were to walk through right here in
this well, I would recognize them. I was there for approximately 55 of
these witnesses, and the reason I would recognize them was the fear
that they had in their hearts suffering from a patronage system that
had become so sordid that they were worried about their jobs.
I can talk to my colleagues about the Congressman's son who took off
his clothes and imitated an airplane while he was on drugs and was
detained by a House Post Office employee, only to be called the next
day by the wife of the Congressman saying, ``Why did you do this?'' And
transferred to a new position.
I can tell my colleagues about the witnesses who came to us as
friends, worried about their jobs, worried about bomb threats, but
worried that because with the patronage system, they could not do
anything about it.
Yes, I know these 61 witnesses, and I share the concern of the
gentleman from Washington. I understand his arguments. I do not agree
with many of his points.
First and foremost, there was not an explicit or implicit guarantee
of confidentiality that was given to individuals appearing before the
task force. Secondly, I would argue that we had no authority to provide
any such guarantee to anyone. But knowing of the concern about
confidentiality, I am instructed by a group of bipartisan counsel to
make this statement. Upon a preliminary review of the transcripts today
that we requested as of this morning, ``there is no evidence within the
transcripts of the witnesses' interviews by the House Administration
Post Office task force to indicate that the witnesses were told that
their testimony would never be made public.''
Second, I have direct testimony from these transcripts. The name of
the individual will be withheld. The name of the individual who said,
``How candid can I be here? How much of this is going to leave this
room?''
The attorney, Mr. Mark Hathaway, our Republican attorney, said this:
``Everyone in the room, all the staff members have signed an
agreement of confidentiality to keep all, everything that is said in
this room, confidential. That is not to say that information that is
relevant to the reporting of the operations of the Post Office back to
the Congress on May 30 will not become public at some point.''
I say to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], his staff member
was present at that deposition.
Third, to further allay any concern, we recognize the sensitivity of
this issue. That is why our leader and the distinguished majority
leader agree that before any information is released, it shall be
reviewed, efforts will be made to make certain no confidentiality
agreements have been made or broken before any documents are released.
We have the safeguard there.
Hopefully, this can appease my colleague's concern.
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBERTS. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the process, and I want to make it clear, there was not
a consistent process used with every witness, and one of the big
problems here is, I think, we cannot reconstruct who was given these
assurances and who was not. But one of the procedures that went on, and
this can be made to sound sinister, and I do not believe it was, but
the Republican counsel said, in instance after instance, ``We are going
to tape record this, but it will be off the record.'' And then turned
on the tape recorder.
As I said, one could make something sinister of that. I make no such
charge. That seems to me kind of like what one does, tell them what the
ground rules are, tell them it is going to be recorded, let them
understand that, then turn it on.
I see no deep dark conspiracy. But it was done, and it cannot be
undone, and that word was given a number of those witnesses, and they
are all in the soup. We cannot take some of the water back out of the
soup. It is all mixed in together. We will never be able to separate
who was given those assurances and who was not. Any two people
appointed by the respective leaders are not going to be able to
separate the soup, either.
Mr. Speaker, the basic point that I make, I argue, is still extremely
valid. There will be people, lots of them, who were given the word of
the House that it would be off the record, and we are about to renege
on that promise.
Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBERTS. Reclaiming my time, I am happy to yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. THOMAS of California. I think we have to understand the whole
question of confidentiality and who the concern about confidentiality
was imposed upon.
In the official report of the majority, it says, ``The task force
agreed at its organizational meeting that all information on the
investigation must be kept confidential until the task force filed its
report.
{time} 1830
``Toward this end, each staff member was required to agree in writing
to keep such information confidential.'' We were concerned about the
possibility that staff could leak information. They were the ones that
were required to personally sign strict confidentiality statements.
The gentleman from Washington twice now has said there is no record.
The gentleman from Kansas has shown there is no record in statements
made guaranteeing confidentiality to witnesses.
Let us remember who we were dealing with. We were dealing with
employees of the Post Office who were there by patronage under an
officer run by the majority, and they knew that officer had lied.
That was why we were concerned about confidentiality.
Today the Post Office is a professional operation. The people who are
still there pass tests. They are run by a professional in a
professional way.
The task force agreed until the report was made public we needed
confidentiality. You have already stated, and I think there is a clear
understanding, that if there is a sensitive issue, by agreement by the
majority and minority person who have been or who will be appointed to
vet this testimony, that clearly the information in question will not
be released. We are not interested in sensationalism. We are interested
in public understanding of what went on.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
I would note already that sections of these transcripts were released
as part of the Democrat section of the task force report. It seems
somewhat unique to me to suggest now that all transcripts should not be
released when that report included selective excerpts from them and
were released 2 years ago.
I would again say, knowing of the gentleman's concern, that we have
asked bipartisan counsel to review these transcripts, and they have
reviewed them, and I am instructed to say there is no evidence within
the transcripts of the witnesses interviewed by the House
Administration Post Office task force to indicate that the witnesses
were told that their testimony would never be made public. It just is
not so.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose], the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on House Administration.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me
this time.
I rise in support of this resolution.
Three things have occurred that give us, in my opinion, the necessity
of approving this resolution. One, the U.S. attorney has sent forward a
letter saying that he has no objection.
The majority leader has correctly stated what we told the House and
what was in our agreement with the U.S. attorney in the letters to him.
There is some doubt about the message of confidentiality. I know the
gentleman from Washington on many occasions, when he was present at
these questionings, told the people that were there that it would be
confidential, and he is rightfully concerned not only about that but
about the fact that it may affect our ability to get employees of the
House to voluntarily give us information in any investigation wherever
that may occur in the House in the future.
But I strongly support the resolution, and I would just urge that
since this directs the House, not the Committee on House
Administration, I would just urge the House to get this done as quickly
as possible and let us get on with it.
There are many, many newspaper reporters in this town who seem to
have almost full sets of these transcripts already, and I would predict
that we are going to start reading this stuff in the paper almost
probably tonight.
But we should get the bulk of it out as quickly as possible.
I support the resolution and encourage all Members of the House to
vote for it.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the long-awaited release of these documents
is an important first step in the House effort to come to terms with
the post office scandal.
Clearly the next step is for the Ethics Committee to fully
investigate the matter--so we can clear the air and fulfill our
constitutional responsibility to police ourselves.
Again and again we have heard the other side say: ``Nothing happened
and we can't investigate anyway because the Justice Department says
so.''
Well, after nine post office employees have pleaded guilty and the
indictment of a Member of Congress, opponents of an investigation can
no longer say: ``Nothing happened.''
So they are left with only one argument.
Their thesis is: ``If the House conducts an investigation, it
threatens the successful completion of Justice's criminal probe.''
Well, as logic demands, a single contradiction to this thesis would
make the argument invalid: I submit two.
First is the case of Representative Daniel J. Flood, indicted by two
grand juries in 1978.
The Ethics Committee began its inquiry into whether House rules were
broken by Representative Flood that same year--despite appeals by his
attorney that the committee's investigation would interfere with the
upcoming trial.
The result: Representative Flood was charged with 25 violations of
House rules by the Ethics Committee and pleaded guilty to Federal
criminal charges.
The other case deals with one of the biggest government scandals this
century--Abscam.
Despite an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department that
implicated six House Members, the House voted on March 27, 1980, 382-1,
to compel the Ethics Committee to begin an immediate and thorough
investigation into the matter.
Democrats and Republicans agreed that, while working with the Justice
Department, the Ethics Committee could and should determine if any
House rules were broken and then recommend possible disciplinary
action.
Despite Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti's appeal to the Congress
to hold up its investigation until the criminal trials were completed,
both the House and Senate voted to proceed anyway.
The result: The six House Members were convicted, and the Ethics
Committee recommended expulsion for those Members still serving in the
House.
More recently on the matter of the Post Office, the Speaker of the
House himself expressed the belief that the House could conduct an
investigation without unduly interfering with the Justice Department.
In a letter dated April 2, 1992, and citing ``legislative and
constitutional mandates,'' the Speaker and other Members rejected a
Justice Department plea to put the House's investigation into the Post
Office on hold, by writing:
We do not want to impair or infringe on an ongoing criminal
investigation by the Department of Justice. We are confident,
however, that the task force investigation will not interfere
with your criminal investigation.
We must all remember that violations of House rules and violations of
criminal law are two different things. As a co-equal branch of
government, it is our constitutional responsibility, and not the
executive branch's, to determine if our rules have been broken.
Rules of the House are supposed to be a higher standard than mere
criminal law, and it is clear that while crimes have been committed at
the Post Office, the House has thus far refused to look at whether our
own rules have been violated.
While the House and the Ethics Committee must proceed in cooperation
with the Justice Department to avoid hurting their criminal
investigation, we must recognize our obligation to pursue this
important matter; we do not need the executive branch's permission to
meet this responsibility.
The people have waited 2 years for this release of documents and the
opposition has run out of excuses. We should not wait another day
before investigating this matter for ourselves--once and for all.
Today's action is a good step forward. I eagerly await a full Ethics
Committee investigation so as to lay all the facts before the American
people.
{time} 1840
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, does the majority leader have any speakers?
I believe the gentleman from Illinois here has the right to close.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I have one additional speaker.
Mr. MICHEL. We have just one more on our side.
Mr. GEPHARDT. In that case Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
Mr. KLECZKA. I thank the majority leader for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker and Members, I was one of the members of the Post Office
Task Force. So as we talk about this preceding incident I have some
knowledge, although not the greatest, because I was appointed after the
task force began its deliberations.
Let me indicate again to the Members that this is a bipartisan
resolution, one which I will be supporting and one which I have not
supported in the past. I would think you have to ask the question ``Why
hasn't this issue been passed?'' And ``Why isn't it behind us?'' Well,
because at that point my friends, the issue was not right. There was an
ongoing investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia
and when these resolution came up in the past we were advised, not by a
Democrat, not to move ahead, but at that point it was a Republican
appointee who said ``Do not move ahead. This could hamper my criminal
investigation of this matter.''
So we heeded the advice of that U.S. Attorney and the one who came
after him. But, however, things have changed to the point where he did
send a letter which I read today indicating that ``for purposes of my
investigation an indictment has been issued and now it is my belief
that these records can be released.'' And that is what we are doing
today.
So to go back over the last couple of years and continue to harp
about something that did not occur, that is the reason why it did not
occur. In 1992 we had 2 votes on release of the transcripts. My
colleague, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] is correct, the
minority counsel on that committee told the witnesses what I was there
for, that their testimony would be held confidential. And so we had a
vote on July 22nd of 1992 to willy nilly release all the testimony from
the witnesses. And Representative Swift from Washington opposed that as
I did, indicating ``Wait a minute, folks, that wasn't the deal, that
wasn't what we told these people. We told them that what they told us
would be confidential.'' Well, what did they tell us? Everything. They
snipped on the guy next door who came in late, about this guy using a
vehicle, and all sorts of stuff. Then they went above and beyond that,
things that had very little to do with the Post Office operation
itself.
So we defeated those two attempts to just willy nilly release the
testimony of those employs who were told that what they told us would
be confidential.
I support the resolution today because it has one very important
section. It indicates here on the last paragraph that the majority
leader and the minority leader shall each appoint a Member who will
sift through all those documents--and Mr. Majority Leader, do not
appoint me because I do not want to sift through those documents--but
someone is going to have to go through that and excise those little
off-the-cuff comments which could be injurious to the fellow employee
but which does not have a whit to do about the postal investigation.
I think that is important. That is an overriding phrase for this
Member to support the resolution.
So I think the time is ripe, as the attorneys say; the time is ripe
for us to do this and it will be done. But to go back to 1978 and tell
the story about a former Representative by the name of Flood--who by
the way just recently passed away--does not do two whits or does not
mean a thing when it comes to the Post Office Resolution. My
disadvantage is I did not know former Congressman Flood. I do not know
if he was a Democrat or a Republican.
Let me further add----
Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KLECZKA. Let me finish my comments, Mr. Thomas. You had two kicks
of the cat here and you will have many more, I am assuming.
As far as one of the new Members talking about some tapes that were
aired on CNN, again, I was a member of the Task Force, and I do not
remember any of those tapes. So if you think that tape is going to be
released with these documents, I sincerely doubt it because the tapes
we are going to release are testimony that we heard and nothing that I
heard sitting there had anything to do with the police chief or any
other people. So if the minority wants copies of that tape, I suggest
you have to call CNN, because they ``ain't'' going to find it in the 20
boxes that you are going to have to read through.
There was another Member who indicated that the majority report
indicated that there was no evidence of cash for stamps. How did the
majority put that in the report? Well, we did so based on what the
witnesses told us. The former Postmaster was there, and he said,
``No,'' it did not occur. Other employees testified, and they said,
``No,'' it did not occur.
So how in God's green Earth could the majority say ``There is a lot
of suspicion here that there was stamps for cash,'' when no one came
before us and told us that? And do you know how it became part of the
indictment? On a perjury charge for the former Postmaster. He lied to
us.
Do we know he lied at the time? No. How did the minority put in their
report that the suspicion was strong? I have to suspect, based on
newspaper accounts. But the task force was not asked to judge newspaper
accounts. We were there to judge what we were told by the witnesses.
And the majority report reflects that without conjecture or supposition
or guessing or hoping, maybe, on some people's part.
So at long last, we are going to pass the resolution because the
issue is now ripe. The U.S. Attorney indicates ``I am done with the
info, release it.'' For those who were protected under the
confidentiality rule, two Members, one on each side of the aisle, will
judge those statements to make sure no one is injured.
So let us get on with the business of this House and pass the
resolution. Again, I thank the majority leader.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCloskey). The gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Klug] is recognized for 4 minutes.
(Mr. KLUG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our distinguished leader
for granting me this time and for taking the leadership to speak to Mr.
Holder and the U.S. Attorney's Office to help move tonight's resolution
forward.
Tonight I believe we take a first step, and I think it is
fundamentally only a first step in restoring the public's confidence in
the people's house in this body before us here this evening, the House
of Representatives. But my colleagues, again I have to tell you I
believe it is only the first step, because since January of 1992, it is
my opinion that this body has done the greatest job of stalling since
Dean Smith invented the four corner offense for the basketball team of
North Carolina.
From Congressmen Rick Santorum, Bob Walker, our former colleague
Frank Riggs, Ernest Istook, Bill Thomas, all of us have urged this
House to act responsibly and asked this House to act promptly over the
last 2 years. And at every turn we have been told ``Uh-huh, not yet,
something might be wrong.'' And do you know what we have gotten from
those delays? Contempt and anger and scorn from the American public.
A letter today in my office from Tacoma, WA, ``I am really getting
tired of our leaders who do not have to live under the same rules they
set for the rest of America.'' From Madison, WI, ``Democrat,
Republican, liberal, conservative, are not we all weary of these power
brokers and their smugness?'' From Bronx, NY, ``Let's get all this
garbage into the open; and let's clean house, let's name names.
Eventually the truth will shine through.''
Today we are finally going to open up our files and let the American
public know what an absolute open sewer the House Post Office operation
really was. Its shoddy, embarrassing operation there has already led to
the indictment of 9 employees of the House of Representatives and
guilty pleas. And as we all watched sadly and tragically last week the
indictment of one of our own colleagues.
You know, despite that embarrassment, it really cannot stop us from
doing our duty. I applaud U.S. Attorney Eric Holder today for his help.
But regardless of his hesitation, or regardless of his approval, we
have our own responsibilities to police our own operation, to hold our
own painful investigations, to perhaps hold our own painful public
hearings, to do an Ethics Committee investigation, to do our own job.
As John Boehner told you, we have done that in the past. We have done
that in Abscam, we did it with the Flood case and we did it with the
House Bank, when a Republican prosecutor asked us not to do it. We went
ahead anyway.
We need to find out, as Bob Walker pointed out what happened to the
Capitol Hill Police investigation and charges of obstruction of justice
leveled by the former chief. After today's vote the public will get its
own first look at the allegations made by Frank Kerrigan, and a copy of
all the transcripts connected with those charges.
{time} 1850
But in the end I will guarantee my colleagues, as the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Roberts] told us earlier this evening, that when these
transcripts and documents get released in the weeks to come, they will
not answer the questions. They will raise only more questions,
questions which I believe can only be answered in the weeks ahead by a
full investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
into the House Post Office scandal because, as Eric Holder said 2 weeks
ago, this has never been the Dan Rostenkowski case. It has been the
House Post Office investigation.
Make the right vote tonight, to release the documents. Make the right
vote in the future, to support the ethics probes. And most of all, make
the right vote in the weeks to come, to restore public confidence in
this now, I think in some ways, disgraced body.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCloskey). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WALKER. 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 399,
nays 2, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 228]
YEAS--399
Abercrombie
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)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
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
Flake
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
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
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
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
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Lazio
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Michel
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Myers
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sharp
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Swett
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Unsoeld
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--2
Ford (MI)
Swift
NOT VOTING--33
Bryant
Carr
Collins (MI)
Dicks
Fish
Foglietta
Grandy
Hastings
Huffington
Jefferson
Kopetski
Lambert
Laughlin
Leach
Moakley
Murtha
Nadler
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Rangel
Ridge
Royce
Skelton
Slattery
Sundquist
Towns
Tucker
Valentine
Washington
Weldon
Whitten
{time} 1918
Messrs. HOKE, SENSENBRENNER, FRANK of Massachusetts, and BECERRA
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________