[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.

                          ____________________