[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 30 (Thursday, March 7, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1959-H1964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING SPECIAL AUTHORITIES TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND
OVERSIGHT TO OBTAIN TESTIMONY ON THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL OFFICE MATTER
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 369 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 369
Resolved, That--
(a) The Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, for purposes of the committee's investigation and
study of the White House Travel Office matter, may, upon
consultation with the ranking minority member of the
committee, authorize the taking of affidavits, and of
depositions pursuant to notice or subpoena, by a member or
staff of the committee designated by the chairman, or require
the furnishing of information by interrogatory, under oath
administered by a person otherwise authorized by law to
administer oaths.
(b) Deposition and affidavit testimony, and information
received by interrogatory, shall be deemed to have been taken
in executive session of the committee in Washington, District
of Columbia. All deposition and affidavit testimony and
information received by interrogatory shall be considered
nonpublic until received by the committee, except that all
such testimony and information shall, unless otherwise
directed by the committee, be available for use by members of
the committee in open session of the committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, let me announce at the outset, in the interest of time,
that the bipartisan leadership has agreed to limit debate on this
resolution to two speakers on each side.
general leave
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 369.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 369 is a resolution
providing special authorities to the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight to take testimony in the matter of the White House Travel
Office. Under the terms of the resolution the chairman of the Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight, upon consulting with the ranking
minority member, may authorize any member or designated staff of the
committee to take sworn affidavits and depositions pursuant to notice
or subpoena and could require furnishing of information by written
interrogatories under oath. Any such testimony received would be
considered to have been received in executive session by the committee
in Washington, DC, would be considered as nonpublic until received by
the committee and, thereafter, could be used by any member of the
committee in open session related to the investigation of the White
House Travel Office matter unless the committee directs otherwise.
The reason this authority requires the approval of the House is
because it departs from the standing House rule, clause 2(h), rule XI,
that requires a quorum of at least two members of a committee to take
testimony.
{time} 1815
This resolution differs from the House rule in that it would permit
the chairman to authorize any member or staff of the committee to take
testimony by sworn deposition or affidavit.
Mr. Speaker, on May 19, 1993, seven White House Travel Office
staffers, after years, and in some cases decades, of faithful service,
were summarily fired and told to vacate their offices in 2 hours. Later
the same day, the White House announced the launching of an FBI
criminal investigation of the former employees, which ended in Office
Director Billy Dale's indictment on two embezzlement charges--charges
proved utterly meritless when a Federal jury acquitted him after less
than 2 hours of deliberation.
Mr. Speaker, before his complete exoneration, Billy Dale endured 2\1/
2\ years of investigation, prosecution, and humiliation. One of Mr.
Dale's daughters was forced to account for every penny spent on her
wedding and honeymoon, and the other was asked by an interrogator
whether she wasn't worried about letting her father handle her money.
Mr. Dale's father died without ever seeing his son exonerated. Mr.
Dale's legal bills amounted to over $500,000. Billy Dale--an innocent
man--felt the full weight of the FBI, the IRS, the Justice Department,
and the White House arrayed against him. The public deserves to know
the truth. Billy Dale deserves to have this story told.
I commend Chairman Clinger for his efforts in this matter. He has
brought home to the American people the enormity of the wrong committed
against these seven people.
Chairman Clinger has indicated that the special authority is needed
because of the reluctance and even refusal of certain potential
witnesses to cooperate voluntarily in submitting to staff interviews
preliminary to a hearing. This makes it extremely difficult, if not
impossible, for a committee to adequately prepare background
information and questions for a hearing.
Absent such important background information prior to a formal
hearing, the committee is left to elicit the same information during
the course of the hearing--something that can greatly prolong a hearing
and reduce members to searching for the appropriate questions to ask of
a witness.
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the special authority proposed
in the resolution before us today is something that the Rules Committee
and the House have granted only in extraordinary circumstances where
there is a compelling need for such authority and it is investigation-
specific. This is not a grant of blanket authority for all
investigations of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee or any
other committee.
But this body has granted such authority in the past. Examples of
investigation authorization resolutions that have contained special
deposition authority include: the President Nixon impeachment
proceedings, Koreagate, Abscam, and Iran-Contra.
Moreover, the committee has made it clear that the granting of this
special authority should be accompanied by assurances that the minority
will not only be consulted prior to the noticing of any special
testimony, but guaranteed participation and access in the process,
just as it would in a committee hearing.
Chairman Clinger has assured both us and the committee minority that
this was his clear and unequivocal commitment and intent from the
start. And it is my understanding that Chairman Clinger, a man of his
word, has worked with the minority, led by the distinguished
gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Collins, in crafting this resolution
and the limits that have been placed on its scope. In fact, the
committee met early this morning and passed the resolution by a
bipartisan voice vote.
Finally, I would note that the special testimony authority language
of House Resolution 369 is nearly identical to that contained in House
Resolution 12 in the 100th Congress, creating the House Select
Committee on Iran-Contra.
That resolution was drafted on a bipartisan basis and overwhelmingly
adopted by the House on January 7, 1987, by a vote of 416 to 2.
I urge my colleagues to give this resolution the same measure of
bipartisan support that the Iran-Contra resolution had in the 100th
Congress so that the Government Reform and Oversight Committee can
expedite its hearings process and complete its investigation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H1960]]
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the gentlewoman from
Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], explained, House Resolution 369 is a resolution
that will allow the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight staff
to take depositions in the White House travel office matter. I have
strong concerns about this resolution because it does not contain
sufficient safeguards to protect the integrity of the investigation
process and of the House.
House Resolution 369 conveys a heavy authority to the Government
Reform Committee and its staff. This kind of authority has only
sparingly been granted by the House in the past. Recent examples
include investigations into the matters of Iran-Contra, Abscam, and
Koreagate.
The standing House rule, which this resolution supersedes for this
investigation, does not specifically authorize staff depositions and it
requires two members to be present when testimony is taken. This rule
was enacted in 1955 in response to the abuses of the McCarthy era.
During Rules Committee consideration of this resolution, Democrats
offered three small, but significant amendments intended to ensure that
the authority granted by this resolution would meet the highest
standards of integrity. All three amendments were defeated along
straight or near-straight party line votes.
One amendment would establish a time limit of June 30, 1996, on the
authority granted by the resolution. There are House precedents for
placing such a restriction. A time limit expresses the will of the
House that this investigation be conducted to expose the facts as
quickly as possible.
The Government Reform Committee has been looking into the Travel
Office matter for some time, and it is unlikely that new, unexpected
leads will develop that will require an excessive amount of time. If it
turns out that the time limit is too short for a full investigation,
then the House by resolution, can extend the authority.
The second amendment offered by the Democrats would require agreement
with the ranking minority member of the Government Reform Committee, or
a vote of the full committee, in order to issue a subpoena. Again,
there are House precedents for this provision.
Had the amendment passed, it would not have prevented the committee
majority from exercising the authority established by this resolution.
Rather, the intention was only to ensure accountability of the majority
and to protect the right of the minority to participate publicly in the
process.
The third amendment was intended to establish that this resolution
does not challenge longstanding House precedent that witnesses
subpoenaed for staff depositions who refuse to cooperate may not
automatically be cited for contempt of Congress unless they also refuse
to appear before the full Government Reform Committee in a public
hearing. This is a key right of witnesses who are subpoenaed by
Congress.
I want to stress that I support the authority of this House to
conduct a thorough investigation into the White House Travel Office--or
any matter involving the expenditure of public funds. I have no
objection to giving this House the tools it needs to bring out the
truth.
Moreover, my concern for this resolution does not in any way diminish
my confidence in the Government Reform Committee to conduct a complete
and fair investigation that protects the rights of the minority and of
witnesses.
However, especially in times like these when the Government is being
accused of overstepping its bounds, and when the authority of Congress
is being challenged more than ever, we cannot be too cautious. Let us
not forget that the standing House rule is an attempt to erase the
shame of earlier excesses in taking testimony.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the
committee.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 369. It is
essential in order to move forward on the White House Travel Office
investigation and bring closure to this matter once and for all and
complete this investigation in a thorough and timely manner.
House Resolution 369 is--quite deliberately--a carefully limited
solution to a unique situation. It simply grants this specific
authority to the Government Reform and Oversight Committee during the
conduct of the White House Travel Office investigation. It grants the
committee the authority to draft rules which will dictate how those
depositions and affidavits are carried out. We have worked closely with
the minority in developing a new committee rule to provide for the
implementation of the affidavit and deposition authorities provided in
House Resolution 369. We have ensured that the minority will be equal
players as the depositions proceed and that this authority will not be
abused in any way.
I appreciate that the House does not grant the authority requested in
this resolution routinely and we have worked with the minority to
assure that witnesses rights will be protected. I would like to thank
the ranking minority member of the committee, Congresswoman Collins and
her staff who made considerable efforts with my staff in drafting the
committee rule that we adopted this morning in our committee business
meeting.
We are asking for this limited resolution so that the committee can
conclude this matter in a timely fashion and resolve the many
conflicting accounts surrounding these events. The need for this
authority is compelling. A number of key witnesses have refused
requests by our committee to be interviewed. A number of other
witnesses have refused to interview voluntarily with the committee
under oath. Given already identified contradictions in statements and
accounts regarding this matter, it is vital that the committee
interview under oath key witnesses and have assurances that these
accounts are provided under circumstances imposing a premium on truth-
telling.
It would be extremely impractical to expect this committee to hold
enough hearings to place all of the necessary witnesses under oath
publicly. This resolution will allow the committee to wrap up this
investigation without bringing to a halt all of the other productive
and important work that this committee performs. With this authority,
it is my hope to wrap up this investigation with only a few more public
hearings.
The White House Travel Office matter was investigated first by the
White House itself, then by the GAO, the Justice Department's Office of
Professional Responsibility, the Treasury Inspector General, the IRS
Inspection Division and finally the Justice Department Public Integrity
Criminal Division. Unfortunately none of these investigations was
provided with all or indeed most of the information which my committee
now has obtained. Therefore these prior investigations were incomplete.
We now know that some individuals may have misrepresented events and
omitted significant information as a result. Several weeks ago, a
criminal referral on David Watkins' statements was made by GAO to the
U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
This resolution will allow the committee to conduct and conclude this
investigation without bringing to a halt all of the other productive
and important work that this committee oversees. It would be extremely
impractical for this committee to hold enough hearings to place all of
the necessary witnesses under oath publicly. With this authority, it is
my hope that we will be able to have a limited number of additional
hearings.
This resolution will allow the committee to conduct depositions and
submit interrogatories under oath regarding events leading up to the
firings of the entire staff of the White House Travel Office in May
1993, the related events surrounding the firings, the individuals
prompting these firings, the appropriateness of actions taken, possible
conflicts or ethical violations that occurred, the subsequent
investigations of these matters and the levels of candor and
cooperation by those
[[Page H1961]]
involved in both responding to the investigations and conducting the
investigations.
By allowing depositions and the submission of interrogatories by the
committee, we can hope to clear up many of the conflicting statements
and questionable accounts that have been provided to previous
investigators. Clearly, voluntary interviews that are not under oath
are not feasible in a situation such as this where there have already
been conflicting accounts and many witnesses are reluctant to speak to
the issues at all.
I have pursued this investigation for some time now because I was
concerned with the wholly unjustified conduct in sacking the career
travel office staff. Seven people had their lives turned upside down.
We owe it to these seven men to find out what the real facts are behind
all of the stonewalling. We owe it to the many Government civil and
criminal investigators, many of whom tried to responsibly investigate
this matter in prior investigations but were thwarted in conducting the
investigations they were originally tasked with doing.
Allowing for this limited solution to provide for depositions and
interrogatories under oath in the Travelgate matter will permit this
long thwarted investigation to move to a more thorough and expeditious
conclusion.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
(Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution
369.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Solomon and Chairman Clinger
for brining this resolution to the floor today.
I also want to commend and applaud Chairman Clinger for his continued
efforts to get to the bottom of the travel office investigation in a
fair and bipartisan manner. Although the minority hasn't been crazy
about the fact that the committee is investigating the firing of seven
long-time civil servants, there have been no complaints that I can
recall about the fairness Chairman Clinger has demonstrated in
conducting these hearings. Like many in this House, I will greatly miss
the chairman's leadership and would suggest that there would be no need
for a civility pledge in this body if we all took a cue from Bill
Clinger.
In urging Members to support H.R. 369 I would ask that they answer,
for themselves, three questions:
First, is there precedence in the House for such a resolution?
Second, is there a need for this special request? and
Third, will it fairly expedite the committee's work to the benefit of
all concerned?
The answer to all three questions is a definite--yes.
First, similar resolutions have been adopted by the House, at the
request of the then majority in the 93d, 95th, 97th, 100th, and 103d
Congresses. The language proposed by H.R. 369 is identical to the text
adopted by a vote of 416 to 2 on Jan. 7, 1987, relating to the Select
Committee on Iran-Contra.
Second, there is unfortunately, as Chairman Clinger noted, a need for
this legislation.
Over a 2\1/2\ year period, requested documents have trickled into the
committee drip by drip. Molasses flows faster in January than the
document production in this matter.
Sadly, the record before the committee reveals that statements,
reports, and documents are at variance with one another. The report
authors and investigative agencies were hamstrung by either a lack of
information being provided by witnesses or documents; or pertinent
information was deliberately left out of reports because the authors
possessed the attitude--``If it doesn't fit, you must omit.''
And, a number of key witnesses have declined, refused or evaded staff
interviews and document requests.
Third, this resolution will provide what those of us with courtroom
experience term ``judicial economy.''
The over 50 potential witnesses can be deposed at the staff level and
will permit the chairman, in consultation with the minority, to
determine which witnesses should appear before the full committee. This
procedure will allow the investigation to move to conclusion more
quickly; will eliminate duplicative or valueless witnesses; and will
save time.
As the depositions will be conducted under oath, the witnesses will
be encouraged to provide a truthful account the first time rather than
conflicting accounts in documents, staff interviews and testimony.
The expedited procedure of H.R. 369 will ensure that criticism which
has been leveled against the other body's probe of Whitewater--too many
hearings; too many witnesses; taking too long; and designed to
embarrass the White House in an election year, will be avoided and the
committee's legitimate oversight responsibilities may conclude.
For all the aforementioned reasons, I again commend Chairman
Clinger's work, and would urge the adoption of this resolution.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume
to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking minority
member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
(Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, while I support our committee's efforts to obtain all of
the relevant information regarding the Travel Office firings, I do not
believe that this resolution, which grants authority to staff to
conduct sworn depositions, is necessary.
Let me add, however, that earlier today the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight adopted procedures to implement the resolution
which accord full rights to the minority and the witnesses, and I
supported these procedures.
The authority granted under this resolution is unnecessary and
unwarranted. House Resolution 369 is an unprecedented grant of
authority to the staff of a standing committee during the course of an
ongoing investigation on the eve of a Presidential election. Under such
troubling circumstances, there is a heavy burden on the proponents of
the resolution to show a compelling need for such authority. We should
not act just for the convenience of the staff, or because of an
isolated case of a reluctant witness. There must be a convincing case
that without this authority, the committee cannot complete its
investigation. I do not believe that this threshold has been met.
According to Chairman Clinger's letter to the Rules Committee, the
stated reason for the Resolution is that--I'm quoting--``we have been
faced with the reluctance and even refusal of certain potential
witnesses to voluntarily submit to staff interviews preliminary to a
hearing.''
I am aware of no evidence that witnesses have refused to cooperate
with the committee during the course of this investigation. Nor have I
seen any letters from witnesses refusing to provide information to the
committee. Further, I know of no witness who has refused to provide
testimony to the committee under oath. The Rules Committee received no
documentation nor testimony demonstrating a compelling need for this
extraordinary authority.
To the contrary, the record suggests that witnesses agreed to
cooperate with the committee, except when unwarranted conditions have
been demanded by the majority staff. To the extent that witnesses have
been reluctant to submit to interviews, it has only been after demands
by the majority staff that minority staff not be present, or that
interviews be taken under an oath administered by a staff that lacked
such authority.
Mr. Speaker, both the Parliamentarians and the American Law Division
of the Congressional Research Service has told majority staff that
there was no authority for staff to take sworn depositions absent a
resolution by the House. Yet, knowing full well that they lacked both
the authority to require a sworn deposition and the ability to
administer an oath to witnesses, the majority staff repeatedly
threatened witnesses in an effort to force them to comply.
As evidence of this behavior by the majority staff, let me read from
a letter to Chairman Clinger dated December 4 of last year, from David
H. Williams, the attorney representing Patsy Thomasson: It says in
part:
I called Ms. Brasher [a member of the Republican staff]
back and told her that Patsy would still appear for a
voluntary interview (provided that Democratic staff be
allowed to attend, and) that I needed a commitment from her
to confirm her agreement to this condition. Instead, what I
got, was a series of threats that she would subpoena Patsy to
a sworn deposition and that Patsy could be in a lot of
trouble in refusing to do this interview privately as she had
demanded.
Mr. Speaker, I include this letter for the Record at this point:
[[Page H1962]]
David H. Williams,
Attorney at Law,
Little Rock, AR, December 4, 1995.
Representative William F. Clinger, Jr.,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re Patsy Thomasson Interview.
Dear Chairman Clinger: I have been trying to accommodate a
request from Barbara Cornstock to interview my client, Patsy
Thomasson. All I have ever asked her is that Ms. Thomasson be
able to do this interview one time with both majority/
minority parties being present and being represented. All I
want for my client is a fair interview and I think that
having both Republican and Democratic staff counsel present
is the best way to insure that this takes place.
After explaining this to Barbara Cornstock, she offered to
allow Don Goldberg to interview Patsy, privately, first, and
then for her to interview Patsy afterwards. I called back
this morning to speak to Barbara Cornstock and spoke to
Barbara Brasher instead. She explained to me that she was
concerned over leaks and that keeping Don Goldberg out of the
interview room would be a way to protect against leaks. She
didn't accuse Mr. Goldberg, but implied that leaks had to be
coming from the other side. I told Ms. Brasher that I really
didn't see how this proposal would help, nor did I see how
she could guarantee confidentiality because leaks in matters
such as this are a know historical fact. There are just too
many people involved in the political process to avoid leaks
or have any control over them. Secondly, I told Ms. Brasher
that my concern was with the fairness of the interview. She
told me that if Patsy didn't agree to the interview being
conducted privately with Republican Counsel, then she would
have her subpoenaed for a sworn deposition. I told her I
would consult with Patsy about this and call her back.
I did consult with my client and told her that nothing had
really changed to persuade me that it was in her best
interest to conduct two private interviews where the
Democratic Counsel was excluded from one and the Republican
Counsel was excluded from the other. I told her that this
arrangement seemed to me to promote partisanship, antagonism,
and unfairness. I called Ms. Brasher back and told her that
Patsy would still appear for a voluntary interview but since
my plane left at 1:20 p.m. cst, today that I needed a
commitment from her to confirm her agreement to this
condition. Instead, what I got, was a series of threats that
she would subpoena Patsy to a sworn deposition, which Ms.
Brasher said would not be in Patsy's best interest, and that
she hoped that I was making an informed decision because
Patsy could be in a lot of trouble in refusing to do this
interview privately as she had demanded, and could only
exacerbate Patsy's situation. I told Ms. Brasher that if she
was trying to be persuasive, that she was not doing a very
good job, and that her attitude was convincing me that I had
very little reason to expose Patsy to any kind of an
interview or deposition. I have been practicing law for
twenty years and I still cannot understand why lawyers
threaten other lawyers. It never works and it only makes the
lawyer on the other side dig in his or her heels.
In any event, this is not an issue that I can, or need to
solve. This is a matter for the Committee to solve between
the majority and minority members. The rules for the conduct
of these interviews should be the result of an agreement
between the ranking members. I am not going to get myself
caught in a trap, nor am I going to allow my client to get
whipsawed into the middle of a political battle over who gets
to take the first bite out of her.
Therefore, I respectfully declined Ms. Brasher's demands
and canceled my flight when she refused to agree to this sole
condition for Patsy to be interviewed. I hope that you and
Congresswoman Collins are able to resolve this problem and
someone will let me know that the interview is going to be
conducted with both sides present. Patsy remains willing and
able to cooperate and has no intention of being difficult or
obstructive.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration and
cooperation.
Very truly yours,
David H. Williams.
I also include a February 20, 1996, letter from Stephen L. Braga, the
attorney representing Catherine Cornelius to Chairman Clinger's staff
for the Record. In it, the attorney for Ms. Cornelius agreed to make
her available for transcribed interview provided that both majority and
minority staff were present. The majority staff turned him down,
however, because he would not agree to swearing in his client, even
though, as I have stated, the majority staff knew it had no legal
authority to do so.
The letter is as follows:
Miller, Cassidy,
Larroca & Lewin, L.L.P.
Washington, DC, February 20, 1996.
Re Catherine Cornelius.
Barbara Comstock,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Barbara: I write with respect to the ``deposition'' of
my above-referenced client that we have scheduled for
tomorrow in your office. Although we have not discussed any
``ground rules'' for this ``deposition,'' I think that there
are a number of process-related points that we should agree
upon up front before any questioning of the witness is
undertaken. I believe that those points are as follows:
1. While Ms. Cornelius' testimony will be recorded verbatim
by a court reporter in deposition-like fashion, there will be
no oath administered to Ms. Cornelius at the outset of the
questioning.\1\ In this regard, the ``deposition'' will
simply be like a voluntary interview that is being
stenographically recorded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ I know of no authority authorizing or requiring the
administration of such an oath in the circumstances of your
staff investigation. If you are aware of any authority to the
contrary, please let me know as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. After it is concluded, transcripts of Ms. Cornelius'
testimony will be made available for review by the witness
and/or her council--in addition to the Majority and Minority
staff--with an opportunity to submit any written corrections
they might have to the text of the testimony as so
transcribed.
3. The transcripts of Ms. Cornelius' testimony will be kept
confidential by the Committee unless and until they are first
used in any public hearing by the Committee, and the
confidentiality of those transcripts will then be waived only
to the extent that they are actually used in such a hearing.
4. No non-Committee staff members, other than the court
reporter, will be present during the questioning of Ms.
Cornelius.
5. The questioning of Ms. Cornelius will conclude by 5:30
P.M. on February 21st.
If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please
do not hesitate to call. Otherwise, I will expect to put our
agreement to the foregoing points on the record at the outset
of the interview session tomorrow morning.
Best regards,
Stephen L. Braga.
Mr. Speaker, if the majority staff conducts itself in a professional
and non-partisan manner and in keeping with the decorum of the House. I
believe they will find no resistance to timely informal interviews. In
those cases where there is reluctance, are brought to my attention I
will work with the chairman in urging complete cooperation. I sincerely
hope and expect that the authority granted by this resolution will be
reserved for those few cases where it is absolutely necessary, and not
routinely exercised as a substitute for the regular practices of the
House.
Let me turn to another issue concerning the rights of witnesses.
Following discussions with the Parliamentarian, I am aware of no
precedent of a witness who has objected to a question or failed to
appear for a staff deposition being cited for contempt without an
opportunity to explain his actions before the entire committee. This
resolution does not supplant existing House rules regarding contempt of
Congress and the rights accorded to witnesses. Nothing in this
resolution would require a contempt citation simply because a witness
under subpoena refuses to appear before or answer questions in a staff
deposition. Prior to any action, the committee should give the witness
an opportunity to respond fully at a duly called hearing of the
committee, with a proper quorum of members present.
In closing, let me thank Chairman Clinger for his cooperation earlier
today in adopting committee implementing rules which accord full rights
to the minority and the witnesses. I have also received a letter from
Chairman Clinger further clarifying how he intends to interpret these
rules. I include the committee rules and the chairman's letter for the
Record, as follows:
To: Members of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee
From: William F. Clinger, Jr., Chairman
Date: March 6, 1996
Re House Resolution 369 to provide for deposition authority
in the White House Travel Office investigation and
committee rules to implement such authority.
On Thursday, March 7, 1996, the Committee will vote on
adopting a new Committee Rule to allow for special affidavits
and depositions. The Rule will be voted on in anticipation of
passage of House Resolution 369, which is expected to have
floor consideration on Thursday, March 7 or Friday, March 8,
1996. (See attached copy of Draft Rule.)
House Resolution 369 will provide authority to the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to conduct
depositions and submit interrogatories under oath in the
process of conducting the ongoing White House Travel Office
investigation. The Resolution only applies to the White House
Travel Office investigation. Rules to conduct the depositions
and interrogatories have been developed in consultation with
the minority ranking member of the Committee.
[[Page H1963]]
Deposition authority is sought to obtain testimony in a
timely and efficient manner and curtail the need for
extensive hearings. Such depositions will help resolve the
numerous discrepancies that have arisen in the course of
civil and criminal investigations into the White House Travel
Office matter over the past two and a half years.
rule 19.--special affidavits and depositions
If the House provides the committee with authority to take
affidavits and depositions, the following rules apply:
(a) The Chairman, upon consultation with the ranking
minority member or the committee, may authorize the taking of
affidavits, and of depositions pursuant to notice or
subpoena. Such authorization may occur on a case-by-case
basis, or by instructions to take a series of affidavits or
depositions. Notices for the taking of depositions shall
specify a time and place for examination. Affidavits and
depositions shall be taken under oath administered by a
member or a person otherwise authorized by law to administer
oaths. Consultation with the ranking minority member will
include three (3) business days written notice before any
deposition is taken, unless otherwise agreed to by the
ranking minority member or committee.
(b) The committee shall not initiate procedures leading to
contempt proceedings in the event a witness fails to appear
at a deposition unless the deposition notice was accompanied
by a committee subpoena authorized and issued by the
chairman. Notwithstanding committee Rule 18(d), the chairman
shall not authorize and issue a subpoena for a deposition
without the concurrence of the ranking minority member or the
committee.
(c) Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel
to advise them of their constitutional rights. Absent special
permission or instructions from the chairman, no one may be
present in depositions except members, staff designated by
the chairman or ranking minority member, an official
reporter, the witness and any counsel; observers or counsel
for other persons or for the agencies under investigation may
not attend.
(d) A deposition will be conducted by members or jointly by
(1) No more than two staff members of the committee, of
whom--
(1.a) One will be designated by the chairman of the
committee, and
(2.b) One will be designated by the ranking minority party
member of the committee, unless such member elects not to
designate a staff member.
(2) Any member designated by the chairman.
Other staff designated by the chairman or ranking minority
members may attend, but are not permitted to pose questions
to the witness.
(e) Questions in the deposition will be propounded in
rounds. A round will include as much time as necessary to ask
all pending questions, but not more than one hour. In each
round, the member or staff member designated by the chairman
will ask questions first, and the member or staff member
designated by the ranking minority member will ask questions
second.
(f) Objections by the witness as to the form of questions
shall be noted for the record. If a witness objects to a
question and refuses to answer, the members or staff may
proceed with the deposition, or may obtain, at that time or
at a subsequent time, a ruling on the objection by telephone
or otherwise from the chairman or his designee. The committee
shall not initiate procedures leading to contempt for
refusals to answer questions at a deposition unless the
witness refuses to testify after his objection has been
overruled and after he has been ordered and directed to
answer by the chairman or his designee upon a good faith
attempt to consult with the ranking minority member or her
designee.
(g) The committee staff shall insure that the testimony is
either transcribed or electronically recorded, or both. If a
witness' testimony is transcribed, he shall be furnished with
an opportunity to review a copy. No later than five days
thereafter, the staff shall enter the changes, if any,
requested by the witness, with a statement of the witness'
reasons for the changes, and the witness shall be instructed
to sign the transcript. The individual administering the
oath, if other than a member, shall certify on the transcript
that the witness was duly sworn in his presence, the
transcriber shall certify that the transcript is a true
record of the testimony, and the transcript shall be filed,
together with any electronic recording, with the clerk of the
committee in Washington, D.C. Affidavits and depositions
shall be deemed to have been taken in Washington, D.C. once
filed there with the clerk of the committee for the
committee's use. The ranking minority member will be provided
a copy of the transcripts of the deposition once the
procedures provided above have been completed.
(h) Unless otherwise directed by the committee, all
depositions and affidavits received in the investigation
shall be considered nonpublic until received by the
committee. Once received by the committee, use of such
materials shall be governed by the committee rules. All such
material shall unless otherwise directed by the committee, be
available for use by the members of the committee in open
session.
(i) A witness shall not be required to testify if they have
not been provided a copy of the House Resolution and the
amended Committee Rules.
(j) Committee Rule 19 expires on July 8, 1996
____
House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight,
Washington, DC, March 6, 1996.
Hon. Cardiss Collins,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Collins: Thank you and your staff for working with
my office to develop a new committee rule to provide for the
implementation of the affidavit and deposition authorities
provided in H. Res. 369. Your office has asked that I provide
you with the supplemental information regarding how I
interpret some provisions of the proposed committee rule.
19(a). Regarding the right of the minority to recommend
witnesses to be deposed, it is my intention that for any
witness you would recommend, I will either agree to issue a
subpoena or place the question before the full committee for
a vote.
19(b). The proposed rule requires that if a subpoena is
required in the case of an affidavit or deposition in the
Travel Office matter, I shall not authorize such subpoena
without your concurrence or the vote of the committee. I
believe that this new rule memorializes the longstanding
practice of this committee to seek a consensus on the
issuance of a subpoena.
19(c). The question has arisen as to whether a witness may
be represented by counsel employed by the same government
agency as the witness. I further understand that the White
House Counsel's office has indicated that it will not seek to
personally represent any White House employee during the
course of this investigation. It is my intention to discuss
with you on a case by case basis the ability of Justice
Department attorneys to represent Justice Department
witnesses. I respect the ability of a witness to have an
attorney of their choice, but I also must avoid any conflict
of interest between an agency under investigation and a
witness' individual rights.
19(d). The proposed committee rule is draft under the
assumption that most, if not all, depositions will be
conducted by staff. Any members who wish to participate in a
deposition should notify me before the scheduled day of the
deposition. I will, of course, designate the minority member
of your choice. However, in no way are the proposed committee
rules intended to limit the ability of a member to
participate and ask questions.
19(f). The term ``designee'' is intended to imply a member,
and not staff. Furthermore, let me confirm to you my
strongest intention to consult with you before ruling on an
objection raised by a witness. In the instance that you are
uncontrollably indisposed, I will certainly listen to any
concerns expressed by your senior staff.
19(h). The depositions will be assumed to be received in
executive session. Members and their staff will not be
permitted to release a copy or excerpt of the deposition
until such time that is entered into the official record of
the committee, under penalty of House sanction. Witnesses
will be given the opportunity to edit their transcript but
will not be given a copy.
Finally, a question has arisen regarding what steps occur
if a witness fails to appear for a deposition under subpoena
or fails to respond to a question notwithstanding the
chairman's ruling. It will be my intent, under such
circumstances, to subpoena the witness before the full
Committee to explain why he/she should not be held in
contempt of Congress. The scope of such a hearing would not
extend to the factual questions of the Travel Office matter,
but would be limited to the question of contempt of the prior
contempt.
I hope that this answers any outstanding questions you may
have. Please feel free to discuss this matter with me
further. And, again, thank you for your kind cooperation.
Sincerely,
William F. Clinger, Jr.,
Chairman.
{time} 1830
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that an
hour was allotted to the discussion on the pros and cons of the
resolution, one-half hour to each side, and further is my understanding
correct that there was a limitation on the speakers announced?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the 1-hour rule, the time is
controlled by the manager of the resolution, in this case the
gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], who has yielded one-half of her
time to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], for purposes of debate
only. There is no rule requiring debate to be allocated under the 1-
hour rule to an opponent.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I understood. If
the inquiry is for debate only, parliamentary inquiry further through
the Chair,
[[Page H1964]]
may I inquire through the Chair as to whether any speaker in opposition
will be allowed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It occurs to the Chair that the gentleman
should make his inquiry to the manager on the minority side, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, am I entitled to do that? Can I make an
inquiry?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio controls the time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say that there was an agreement between the
leadership on the debate of this particular resolution and I had agreed
that there would only be two speakers on both sides. That was agreed by
both sides, and I am trying to keep my word and stick by that.
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from Utah.
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Ohio would like to
yield on his time a few minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii and allow
him to raise his concerns about this matter, we would not see that in
any way contravening the agreement that we have reached.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker I thank the gentlewoman for that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr.
Abercrombie].
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentlewoman from
Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] for the opportunity to speak in opposition. I
want to indicate to the gentlewoman and to the Speaker and Members that
this was not planned in any other way. I was not aware that there were
not to be speakers allowed. I thought there was an hour and that this
could be undertaken, so I am grateful for the opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to House Resolution 369.
Allusions were made to Iran-Contra. I was here, however briefly, when
that issue was first being raised in the mid 1980's, I do not see that
this is comparable in any way, shape, or form.
As far as I know, the fifth amendment is still alive and well in the
Constitution of the United States, and if there are people who refuse
to testify for whatever reason, they are entitled to do so. If I
understand correctly the gentlewoman's comments that preceded me, that
the existing House rules with respect to contempt and subpoenas cover
the situation adequately, there is no need.
If I understood correctly the gentlewoman's comments, as well, there
is no need for this extraordinary authority. My question then becomes,
to what end is this resolution being put forward?
If the rules of the House already adequately cover it, if the rules
of the committee already adequately cover the situation with respect to
subpoenas, contempt, et cetera, if all the rules and regulations and
the admonitions incumbent upon us in the Constitution are still in
place, then why are we going ahead with it? If sworn depositions are
not in order except under the rules and regulations as provided by the
House, well, then, I think we should abide by that.
I do not understand why we are having this resolution brought forward
in this manner without reasons being given as to why the resolution is
necessary in the form that it takes. The title here says ``to provide
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight special authorities to
obtain testimony for purposes of investigation in study of the White
House travel office matter,'' but there has been no presentation that I
am aware of that indicates why special authorities are required to
obtain testimonies for the purposes of investigation and study.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this, at least
pending some kind of sufficient explanation as to why these special
authorities should be granted.
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary grant of authority but these
are extraordinary circumstances involving questions as to the possible
abuse of power at the highest levels of our Government against an
American citizen who took 2\1/2\ years to clear his name.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Can the Speaker indicate what he heard on the floor
in terms of the ``ayes'' or the ``nays''?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ayes have it. That was indicated as the
result of the voice vote.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________