[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.

                          ____________________