[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 87 (Friday, June 20, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4091-H4103]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES FOR COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT 
                          REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 167 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 167

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. APPLICATION.

       This resolution shall apply to the investigation by the 
     Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of political 
     fundraising improprieties and possible violations of law.

     SEC. 2. HANDLING OF INFORMATION.

       Information obtained under the authority of this resolution 
     shall be--
       (1) considered as taken by the Committee on Government 
     Reform and Oversight in the District of Columbia, as well as 
     at the location actually taken; and
       (2) considered as taken in executive session.

     SEC. 3. DEPOSITIONS AND INTERROGATORIES.

       The chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight, after consultation with the ranking minority 
     member of the committee, may--
       (1) order the taking of depositions or interrogatories 
     anywhere within the United States, under oath and pursuant to 
     notice or subpoena; and
       (2) designate a member of the committee or an attorney on 
     the staff of the committee to conduct any such proceeding.

     SEC. 4. INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES.

       The chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight, after consultation with the ranking minority 
     member of the committee, may--
       (1) order the taking of depositions and other testimony 
     under oath anywhere outside the United States; and
       (2) make application for issuance of letters rogatory, and 
     request, through appropriate channels, other means of 
     international assistance, as appropriate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley], my good friend and the distinguished ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Rules, 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.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within

[[Page H4092]]

which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 167, and that I may 
be permitted to insert extraneous materials in the Record following my 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 167 is a 
straightforward resolution designed to provide special investigative 
authorities for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. In 
most cases, the standing rules of the House provide committees with the 
tools they need to carry out formal investigations, including the power 
to issue subpoenas. But in circumstances such as this, the complexity 
and scope of congressional inquiry require that special authorities be 
granted to ensure that investigations are conducted thoroughly and that 
they are not unduly prolonged.
  This resolution applies only to the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight's current investigation of political fund-raising abuses 
and possible violations of Federal law, and it is divided into three 
basic parts:
  First, the resolution states that information obtained under its 
authority shall be considered as taken by the committee in the District 
of Columbia and that the information shall be considered as taken in 
executive session of the committee.
  Second, the resolution authorizes the chairman, after consultation 
with the ranking minority member, to order the taking of depositions or 
interrogatories anywhere within the United States, under oath and 
pursuant to notice or subpoena, and to designate a member of the 
committee or staff attorney to conduct any such proceeding.
  Finally, because it may be necessary to seek evidence beyond our 
borders, the resolution authorizes the chairman, again after 
consultation with the ranking minority member, to order the taking of 
depositions and other testimony, under oath, anywhere outside the 
United States, and to make application for issuance of letters 
rogatory, and to request, through the appropriate channels, other means 
of international assistance.
  In the view of the Committee on Rules, the need for deposition 
authority in this case is clearly justified. The investigation concerns 
a series of complex matters that necessitate the taking of testimony of 
numerous key witnesses under oath. For major wide-ranging 
investigations such as this, the House has historically provided 
deposition authority in order to facilitate the fact-finding process.
  Because of the potentially hundreds of witnesses who will need to be 
deposed, it would not only be impractical but physically impossible for 
Members to be present at every step and to engage in time-consuming 
depositions. In this way, staff depositions will allow the committee to 
obtain sworn testimony quickly and confidently without the need for 
lengthy and possibly unfocused hearings.
  The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight at the present time 
is deeply involved in a massive investigation focused on the use of 
illegal foreign contributions to influence American policy, which also 
includes matters relating to potential illegal or improper political 
fund-raising, related activities involving the White House and other 
Federal agencies, the improper use of official resources, potential 
interference with Government investigation, and many other related 
matters. As the principal investigatory body of the House, this is the 
committee's statutory obligation.
  As our colleagues know, serious questions of national policy and 
national security have arisen as daily revelations disclose more 
troubling facts about the unusual access that questionable individuals 
had to high-ranking White House and administration officials. The 
threats to national security are a very troubling matter, Mr. Speaker, 
and I know the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] will have more to 
say about that in just a few minutes.
  These disturbing questions and allegations clearly point to the need 
for the resolution that is now before us. Due to the sheer magnitude 
and severity of the revelations from the executive branch, and the need 
to bolster the ability of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight to properly investigate this matter, the Committee on Rules 
is compelled to bring this resolution today.
  Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules marked up this resolution 
yesterday, our colleagues in the minority raised several concerns, and 
I recognize their sincerity; but I would hasten to add this resolution 
is not only backed by ample precedent, it is also justifiably warranted 
given the enormous amount of ground that the Burton investigation must 
cover. We owe it to the integrity of Congress' investigatory process to 
make certain that the investigation is conducted as officially as 
possible and in a manner that will guard against any dilatory tactics 
that may be employed by those who oppose this investigation.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former judge, I recognize the importance of basing 
our actions on past precedent, and our committee staff has worked 
diligently to ensure that this resolution is in keeping with previous 
House practice. As our committee report points out, there have been 
many cases where special investigative authorities were granted. Since 
1974, there have been at least 10 major investigations undertaken by 
the House where the membership determined that additional authorities 
beyond those provided in House rules were needed to ensure a thorough 
and complete inquiry.
  In at least six major investigations since 1975, the House concluded 
that the need to gather evidentiary information from abroad justified 
granting special authorities to the investigating committee. In just 
the last Congress, staff deposition authority and the ability to gather 
evidence abroad were granted for the Bosnia select subcommittee, 
investigating the White House Travel Office matter, for the Senate 
Whitewater investigation, and the list goes on.
  Like so many Americans, we on the Committee on Rules are very 
concerned about the numerous allegations that lay at the heart of this 
investigation, and we are equally alarmed that our national security 
may have been severely compromised in this affair. As a result, the 
Committee on Rules has responded with a fair, responsible resolution 
that, No. 1, conforms with the investigating committee's own rules; No. 
2, does not depart in any significant way from previous House practice; 
and, No. 3, that is designed to assist the investigating committee in 
finding answers to these and other troubling questions.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support this 
straightforward resolution. It is an honest attempt to balance 
efficiency, expediency and fairness without trampling on the rules of 
the House or on the basic rights of the minority. I urge a ``yes'' vote 
on this very important resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank my colleague and dear friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Pryce] for yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by complimenting my chairman, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for making some improvements to 
the first draft of this resolution that came to the Committee on Rules. 
That proposal was even more outrageous than this one. The Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight actually wanted access to tax records 
of all the witnesses that appear before them, but the gentleman from 
New York wisely, living up to his name, said no, and he was right to do 
so.
  But despite that improvement, I am urging my colleagues to defeat 
this resolution and not to grant special investigative powers to the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. My colleagues say they 
want to clean up campaign practices. We should certainly do that, but 
the additional powers we are considering today far exceed what is 
required to ensure clean campaign practices, if that is indeed the 
goal.
  I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, what the goal is, because although the 
scope of the investigation is political fundraising improprieties, what 
worries me is how that scope is defined. It seems to be only alleged 
improprieties on the part of Democrats, not improprieties on the part 
of Republicans.

[[Page H4093]]

  In the report the Committee on Rules presented to us just yesterday, 
12 pages were dedicated to a long list of alleged Democratic activities 
and there was only mention of one Republican activity, although we know 
that there are more than just a few of those activities out there.

                              {time}  1000

  So in terms of this investigation, the Republican committee does not 
know what exactly they are investigating, they just know who they are 
investigating. They do not seem to be out to get facts as much as they 
are out to get Democrats. It is very clear to me, Mr. Speaker, after 
the number of subpoenas that have been issued, it is very clear who 
they are after in the way the Committee on Rules report is written. It 
is clear they are after who they are after in the questioning of 
witnesses.
  Mr. Speaker, if it is clear who the Republican leadership is after 
but it is not exactly clear what they are after, then this is a lot 
more partisan fishing expedition and a lot less of a serious 
investigation. We seriously, certainly, do not need any more partisan 
fishing expeditions, particularly partisan fishing expeditions that 
violate the rights of the witnesses and virtually ignore the minority.
  The chairman of the committee, and I would like everybody to pay 
attention to this, the chairman of the committee has already issued 
more unilateral subpoenas than any other Member in the history of the 
House of Representatives, 165 unilateral subpoenas to be exact; and he 
has also conducted interviews. But the Democrats on that committee do 
not know exactly how many because they were not consulted.
  Mr. Speaker, this is no way to conduct a fair bipartisan 
investigation. I realize that none of this investigating is very 
pleasant business. Frankly, I do not think Congress should conduct so 
many investigations and pass so few laws. But if that is the way the 
Republican leadership wants to do things, if they want to spend 
millions upon millions of dollars looking for something, then by all 
means they should be fair about it, they should protect the rights of 
the witnesses and at least pretend the investigation is bipartisan.
  Because if they do not, Mr. Speaker, if they continue the way they 
are going, absolutely no one is going to believe the outcome of this 
so-called investigation, if anything other than opposition research is 
left for the next campaign. And it is very possible, Mr. Speaker, to 
conduct a better investigation.
  The Iran-Contra hearings, the October Surprise hearings, and even the 
Bosnia arms transfer investigation were conducted with joint 
cooperation of the majority and minority. They managed to protect 
witnesses' rights. They managed to define the scope. And they managed 
to cut with the minority. And since the committees and the last 
Congress managed to complete their investigations without being granted 
these very unusual powers, I believe that the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight in this Congress should be no different.
  For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will try to defeat the previous 
question in order to require that the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight adopt the same rules that Chairman Clinger used last 
Congress. These rules worked perfectly, and they protected the rights 
of the witnesses and they protected the rights of the minority. This 
investigation should be no different.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose granting unprecedented powers to 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and defeat the 
previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution. It 
is a resolution that provides tools needed by the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight so that it may conduct a proper, fair, 
and thorough investigation of political fund-raising improprieties and 
other possible violations of the law.
  Staff deposition authority is not something new for a committee to be 
granted. There are several examples from a few Republican, but mostly 
Democratic, controlled majorities in which this practice was used, 
consistent with what this resolution provides. The impeachment 
proceedings of President Nixon, the House assassinations inquiry, and 
Koreagate are all instances from the 1970s in which similar staff 
deposition authority was utilized.
  In the 1980's, there were, among others, the Iran-Contra committee 
and the Abscam investigations. And more recently, this authority for 
the taking of depositions by staff attorneys was practiced by the 
October Surprise Task Force, the White House Travel Office matter 
investigation, and the Bosnia select subcommittee.
  As for the international aspects of the investigation, there are also 
several cases of similar precedence, including the Church Committee, 
the House assassinations inquiry, Koreagate, Abscam, Iran-Contra, the 
October Surprise Task Force, and the Senate Whitewater investigation.
  It is important to keep in mind why deposition authority is needed by 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. This investigation, 
Mr. Speaker, concerns matters of very serious national security which 
require the sworn testimony of numerous key witnesses.
  Let us remember that there are serious allegations that even national 
security secrets were leaked, for example, to the Chinese Government in 
exchange for campaign contributions. In serious investigations such as 
this, the House has historically provided deposition authority in order 
to expedite the fact-finding process. As opposed to lengthy and 
possibly unfocused hearings, the deposition process allows the 
committee to obtain testimony under oath both quickly and 
confidentially.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter. I think it is important 
that we all support it. We are simply trying to provide tools for the 
committee to make it easier, to make it possible, in fact, for the 
committee to get to the truth. I strongly urge the adoption of this 
resolution and urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Waxman], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution. The majority is establishing procedures for the House 
campaign finance investigation that have no precedent. Those procedures 
allow the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] to act unilaterally, and 
they ensure that the minority will have no real voice in the 
committee's work.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] alone is being given the 
authority to subpoena any document he wants or any witness he chooses 
to depose. He can make those decisions without any committee debate or 
any committee vote. These procedures deny the minority even the chance 
of debating or appealing the decisions of Chairman Burton to the other 
23 Republican members of the committee. And when the minority wants to 
issue a subpoena of its own, it can only ask Chairman Burton to do so. 
If he says no, there is no opportunity for the minority to debate the 
issue or take it to a committee vote.
  That is all the minority is asking for, an opportunity for the 
committee, and not just the chairman, to decide important questions. 
That is why in committee we offered the Clinger language adopted by the 
Republican majority in 1996, when the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight used subpoena power for depositions for the very first 
time in its history.
  That precedent, which Chairman Clinger wrote, memorializes the long-
standing practice of this committee to seek a consensus on the issuance 
of a subpoena, provided that subpoenas for depositions would only be 
issued if the minority concurred or if the committee voted to issue 
one.
  Last year, that language was proposed by a Republican chairman, 
ratified by the Republican majority in committee and in the House, and 
implemented without any problem during the travel office investigation. 
This year, we told Chairman Burton that we would support his request 
for subpoena power if he followed that common-sense process. It did not 
give the minority a veto, it only gave us a chance to be heard.

[[Page H4094]]

  That is why the House has always conducted its investigations in this 
manner. As this chart indicates, from 1971 to 1994, no Democratic 
chairman ever issued a unilateral subpoena, never. But since February, 
Chairman Burton has issued 156 unilateral subpoenas for documents. And 
he is now threatening to issue hundreds and hundreds of subpoenas 
without any debate or committee approval for depositions.
  No Member of Congress, no American has ever had that breadth of 
power. It is a terrible idea even if it were being handled responsibly. 
But it is not. The record of these past 4 months proves that it is 
being used as a raw partisan tool.
  The second chart, this one over here, shows that Chairman Burton has 
sent over 280 subpoenas and letters seeking information to Democratic 
targets. Only 10 Republican targets have received subpoenas or letters 
seeking information. The third chart, over at the end here, shows the 
Democratic targets have submitted over 320,000 pages of documents to 
the committee. Republican targets, as my colleagues can see from that 
chart, have given us a total of 15 pages.
  There is not even a pretense of fairness. If there were, our request 
to subpoena Haley Barbour would have been granted weeks ago. Instead, 
it was refused by the chairman.
  So this is what we have. The chairman finds the Clinger precedent set 
just 1 year ago too personally confining. He has decided to contend 
that longstanding practice Chairman Clinger articulated no longer 
exists, and he is refusing to allow any debate or votes on his subpoena 
decision.
  This multi-million-dollar partisan crusade has no legitimacy. I urge 
my colleagues to follow their conscience, follow the House precedence, 
follow ordinary fairness, and defeat this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record the following:

       The number of subpoenas issued unilaterally by Democratic 
     chairmen, 0--1971-1994.
       The number of subpoenas issued unilaterally by Chairman Dan 
     Burton, 156--February-June 1997.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman], smoke follows fire. The subpoenas follow the 
trouble. That is why they are directed at the White House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the last sentence of the last speaker, saying that there 
is no basis for this investigation, I think speaks to the problem here 
today, and it is why we need the Solomon resolution on this floor, 
giving the authority to the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.
  Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this debate, I want to commend the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. He has one of the toughest jobs in 
this Congress. And I would remind my minority colleagues of the grave 
institutional importance of this inquiry. Anybody that does not think 
so had better think twice.
  As my colleagues know, Congress' authority to investigate is derived 
principally from the authority to legislate; and our ability to conduct 
effective investigations is absolutely crucial to our legislative 
function.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], has 
more than ably explained this resolution, but I must emphasize that in 
the development of this resolution, the Committee on Rules insisted, 
and I want you to listen to this back in your offices or the White 
House, wherever everybody is, that the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight adopt committee rules in advance which specify the right 
of the minority to participate in staff depositions in protection for 
witnesses, very important to me, provisions for notice, among other 
things.
  The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, after an extensive 
and lengthy debate on Tuesday, adopted rules as I have just described, 
and I went over them thoroughly. The Committee on Rules believes that 
this procedure which we have before us today, in which the committee of 
jurisdiction is free to adopt its own specific rules in its own 
committee, while at the same time the House grants the broader 
authority necessary under the Solomon resolution on the floor here 
right now, is the proper manner, and it is the manner that has been 
followed by precedent, in which this body should grant additional 
authority to committees when necessary.
  The Committee on Rules also insisted, and this is very important, 
that the rules of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight be 
consistent with House rules. In other words, we cannot vary from that, 
we must stick to the precedent to protect the integrity of this House 
and to be consistent with past precedence; and these requirements have 
clearly met all of that.
  Let me read the first sentence of the statement of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica] which cites the comparison of Iran-Contra, October 
Surprise, and the GRO committee subpoena authority. Let me read the 
first sentence to my colleagues, because this is the precedent in all 
eight of the last previous investigations:

       Unless otherwise determined by the select committee the 
     chairman, upon consultation with the ranking minority member, 
     or the select committee, may authorize the taking of 
     affidavits, and of depositions pursuant to notice or 
     subpoena.

  And it goes on and on.
  Mr. Speaker, the staff deposition authority provided in this 
resolution is consistent with 10 House precedents in major 
congressional investigations, dating all the way back to 1974, in 
addressing investigations of Republicans and Democratic 
administrations.
  My colleagues, there has been a reluctance, even a refusal, of some 
to cooperate in perfectly necessary and legitimate congressional 
inquiry. The committee has been faced with fifth amendment claims, 
people taking the fifth, over a dozen of them. Why are they taking the 
fifth amendment? Assertions of executive privilege. Why? And the flight 
from the country of other key figures in this scandal, such as, well I 
could name a bunch, but I will not take the time right now. I will 
submit it for the Record afterwards.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record the following:

Comparison of Iran-Contra, October Surprise, and GRO Committee Subpoena 
                               Authority


                         iran-contra--rule 7.1

       ``Unless otherwise determined by the select committee the 
     chairman, upon consultation with the ranking minority member, 
     or the select 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. The chairman may either issue the deposition 
     notices himself, or direct the chief counsel to do so.''


                       october surprise--rule 7.1

       ``The chairman, upon consultation with the ranking 
     Republican member, or the Task Force, 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. The chairman may either issue the deposition 
     notices himself, or direct the chief counsel to do so.''


 government reform and oversight committee--excerpt from proposed rule 
                                   20

       ``The chairman, upon consultation with the ranking minority 
     member, may order the taking of interrogatories or 
     depositions, under oath and pursuant to notice or subpoena. 
     Such authorization may occur on a case-by-case basis, or by 
     instructions to take a series of interrogatories or 
     depositions. Notices for the taking of depositions shall 
     specify the date, time, and place of examination. Answers to 
     interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing under oath 
     and depositions shall be taken under oath administered by a 
     member or a person otherwise authorized by law to 
     administered oaths. Consultation with the ranking minority 
     member shall include three day's notice before any deposition 
     it taken. All members shall also receive three day's notice 
     that a deposition has been scheduled.''

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. Speaker, because of the obstructionist tactics that the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has encountered, the deposition authority 
contained in this resolution is necessary to take quick evidence in 
confidentiality. The limited abilities to seek information overseas 
also contained in this resolution before the House today conforms with 
all eight previous congressional investigations, again dating back to 
1975.

[[Page H4095]]

  During the consideration of this resolution before the Committee on 
Rules, we heard a great deal from the minority about the internal 
proceedings of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. In 
fact, when pressed, the minority admitted that they had no problem with 
this resolution on the floor here today.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a great reluctance on the part of the 
minority to address the international evidence-gathering techniques in 
this resolution, which are so vitally important to enable the committee 
to do its job.
  Let me be perfectly clear, the Committee on Rules intends that if the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight seeks letters rogatory or 
other means of international assistance to question a recalcitrant 
witness through official channels, such as the State Department, then 
the committee is given all necessary assistance in the furtherance of 
such a request. We must get to the bottom of this.
  The executive branch, if called upon for such a mechanism, would be 
very wise to cooperate with this effort to conduct worldwide discovery 
just as they should be cooperative in the McIntosh investigation on the 
data base.
  Mr. Speaker, because certain witnesses have chosen to leave this 
country rather than cooperate, the committee needs these international 
evidence-gathering techniques to adequately investigate the complicated 
financial dealings of the Clinton administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I might ask my friends in the minority who occasionally 
ensnare one of our rules that I bring on the floor in nongermane debate 
relating to campaign finance reform, I want them to come over here and 
vote for this resolution. If my colleagues assert that there is a 
problem in the manner in which campaigns are financed in this country, 
then here is the opportunity to give the Congress the effective tools 
it needs to investigate the extent of which current law has been 
ignored by the Clinton administration.
  What I read about in the newspapers, and what my constituents in the 
Hudson Valley are asking me about, is not campaign financing, but 
rather, has the White House obeyed the law? These are the questions 
that need to be answered here.
  Mr. Speaker, the campaign finance improprieties which have been 
documented in the media are serious enough, but I am truly alarmed at 
the flood of daily revelations which indicate that national security 
has been compromised by high-ranking political appointees serving in 
the Clinton administration.
  Mr. Speaker, breaches of national security and economic espionage by 
people in the Clinton administration have real consequences to 
Americans and this country's security but, more than that, jobs back in 
my colleagues' districts. Mr. Speaker, these are not merely ethical 
violations or moral transgressions. These are crimes which have led to 
breaching of our security by foreign governments and it is American 
jobs and our economic well-being that suffers.
  Let me just say, passage of this resolution is absolutely essential 
so we can go home and tell the American people that they can have 
confidence in the executive branch of this Government. Governments have 
an obligation to investigate our national security, whether it has been 
compromised by a foreign government.
  Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to come over here and vote for this 
resolution. We made absolutely sure that it does not violate House 
rules and we will continue to see to it that it does not through our 
own personal oversight.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit].
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, first let me clearly state that I fully 
support an investigative look and review of any wrongdoing. I think we 
ought to do that. But let me tell my colleagues, when we were in 
committee a couple of days ago, it sounded sort of like this:
  ``Last year you did this, so that means we do this.''
  ``Two years ago they did that, so we do this.''
  ``Twenty years ago, you did it that way, so we ought to do it this 
way.''
  ``Twenty-five years ago that's the way it was.''
  Mr. Speaker, we have been there, we have done that, and we ought to 
be wiser for the fact that we have been through this many, many times.
  Investigations ought not to be about drama and theater. It ought not 
to be a search and destroy mission. It ought to be about trying to find 
the truth in an efficient and effective way. We have urged this 
committee, we have urged and pleaded with the committee not to 
duplicate what the Senate is doing. We have asked them to work with 
Senator Thompson, to try to figure out, not to call all these people up 
here to be witnesses and be subpoenaed and be deposed two times. It is 
a tremendous cost to the committee and to the taxpayers of this 
country, and they are confused why we cannot work together. They cannot 
figure that out. Neighbors can share a lawn mower, but we cannot share 
information. How silly. They think we are silly because we cannot share 
information.
  That is what is wrong with this resolution. That is what is wrong 
with the investigative process, is that we do not want to share 
information. We do not want to save money for the taxpayers. We can do 
that if we force ourselves to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, we ought to be against this resolution. We will have a 
recommit motion later today. The recommit motion will have that 
language in there. We will not have duplication. I ask my colleagues to 
vote against this resolution and for the motion to recommit.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. As was 
noted, she is a former judge and she correctly cited the precedents of 
this House. I am a former professor of political science and primarily 
a historian with some expertise on Congress, and obviously when I get 
into a situation like this, I like to look at what various Members of 
the House said.
  One of the people in this House for whom I have the highest regard 
and whom I regularly showed my students on videotapes, one of the most 
respected Members for the last several decades, I want to quote from 
what he had to say. He is a leading Democrat. During the October 
surprise resolution, when a similar situation was on the floor, he 
said:
  ``My final reason for urging Members to oppose the substitute, and 
the substitute is in essence what the minority wants to do here, is 
because it provides for rules and procedures that would severely 
hamstring the investigation. The procedures proposed in the substitute 
are a recipe for an ineffective investigation. The substitute would in 
fact deprive the task force of the same tools that have been given 
other congressional investigative bodies. First, requiring a majority 
vote for each subpoena would be extremely time consuming and difficult 
to arrange. It would be impractical. It has been common practice in 
special congressional investigations to give the chairman 
responsibility for issuing subpoenas.''
  Now, who said that? Was it some conservative? No, it was the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], speaking on the October surprise 
resolution, one of the most respected Members of this House, a leading 
member of the Democratic Party. Follow his advice.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct a statement 
that the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] said. He talked about 
the vote on the motion to recommit. There is no motion to recommit. His 
amendment will be in the previous question. The gentleman is asking to 
defeat the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter].
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I in no way want to impede this hearing 
process. Like everybody else in the country, I want to make sure that 
the political process in the United States is as good as it can be, but 
I want to speak to the committee process, if I may.
  Protecting the civil liberties and the civil rights of the citizens 
of the United States is our job. We write the laws here that people 
count on to do just

[[Page H4096]]

that. Also, the importance of the committee hearing is almost a 
religious belief in the United States. A congressional hearing carries 
the weight of truth and honor with it.
  I served on this Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in the 
last term of Congress when we had the Waco hearings, and to our great 
surprise when we had those hearings, we found that persons who 
identified themselves as being with the committee were instead with the 
National Rifle Association, having no connection whatever with 
Congress. Yet they felt free and were allowed to call witnesses and ask 
them questions about the hearing before they came to testify. This was 
a terrible breach of Congressional process. Was the committee chair 
disturbed? Not at all. Did the Justice Dept. care. Not at all. It is 
only the protection of minority and majority working in concert that 
keeps the process honest. For the first time in the history of the 
House, that consultation and concurrence of the majority and minority 
has been breached. This is a perilous step to take. As long as outside 
sources or special interest groups are allowed to pose as Government 
officials, we abrogate our authority as Members. We are not entitled to 
do that.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, why do we need this deposition authority? 
First, the scope of this scandal, I submit, is unprecedented in the 
history of this Congress or any administration, Republican or Democrat. 
Second, nearly every individual subpoenaed has fled the country or pled 
the fifth amendment. Third, in an unprecedented fashion, everything 
possible has been done to block, intimidate, destroy, obstruct, and 
block this investigation and get to the truth of this matter.
  The investigative authority sought here today is no different than 
what the Democrats had under Iran Contra and October Surprise. 
Congress, the American people and responsible media should be outraged 
that this administration and certain members of the other party are 
trying to close down this investigation and this outrageous corruption 
of our political process. What every American should be asking is, why 
are they trying to block this investigation? Why are they trying to 
keep us from talking to foreign nationals who fled the country and 
corrupted this process? Why are they trying to keep us from questioning 
those who have corrupted our elections process on a scale unprecedented 
in American history?
  This week brings the latest threat to disrupt and destroy this 
process. The Democrats have said they will block attempts to grant 
immunity with those who hope to cooperate.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine [Mr. Allen].
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that this is not about our 
effort to prevent an investigation. We believe in this investigation. 
It must go forward. We believe in staff depositions. They must be 
taken. We believe that this investigation should be pursued as far as 
it can go. That is not the issue in front of this Congress today.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio began this debate by talking about the 
importance of precedent. Several Members on the other side have stood 
up and talked about the importance of precedent. Mr. Speaker, there is 
precedent. There is absolutely solid precedent on the issue that we are 
confronted with today. I would simply read from the Congressional 
Record. The rule adopted by the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight last year concerning subpoenas for depositions, the rule 
approved by this House said simply:
  ``The chairman shall not authorize and issue a subpoena for a 
deposition without the concurrence of the ranking minority member or 
the committee.''
  That was the rule that applied in the White House Travel Office case. 
That is the rule that the Republicans proposed and this House adopted. 
It was good enough last year. It is good enough for this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that last year, March 6, 1996, 
the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Bill 
Clinger, wrote to Cardiss Collins, the ranking minority member, and 
described the precedent for issuing subpoenas for deposition. He said:
  ``The proposed rule requires that if a subpoena is required in the 
case of an affidavit or a 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 subpoenas.''
  Mr. Speaker, we have precedent, it is directly relevant, and we 
should follow it. That is what the minority is asking for.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, of course this investigation 
should be getting at the truth. We should be investigating allegations 
against both Democrats and Republicans of campaign finance misuse. The 
current system is wrong. It is a disgrace. But there should not be a 
person in this room who is going to leave this room today who think 
that the Democrats have done something wrong and the Republicans have 
raised all their money from widows and altar boys. That is not the 
case. But we should have and what we do not have is a fair 
investigation. There is nothing fair about this investigation at all. 
Look at this graph.

                              {time}  1030

  Ever since we started having investigations there has not been a 
single chairman, either a Democrat or a Republican, who has not failed 
to get concurrence from the minority members, not a single one until 
the current chairman of this committee; and in the last 4 months we 
have had 156 subpoenas without any input from the Democrats, without 
any input at all.
  Why is input important? The reason it is important is we cannot have 
a committee chairman who attempts to intimidate witnesses simply for 
giving money to Democrats, and that is what this is. This is campaign 
finance reform, Republican style.
  What they are going to do is try to intimidate anybody who has ever 
given money to Democrats, and they are not just going to do it once. 
They will hit them over in the Senate, and they will make them hire an 
attorney here in the House as well. They are going to waste taxpayers' 
dollars by having these people who have been forced not only to be 
interrogated by the Senate committee, but also to be interrogated here.
  Mr. Speaker, that is wrong; that is something that has never occurred 
in the history of this country. There has never been a chairman in the 
history of this country who has issued these subpoenas without either 
concurrence of the minority Members or by having the approval by the 
House.
  We should not be taking a step off this cliff. It is dangerous not 
because Republicans are in control, not because the Democrats are in 
control, but because of the need for checks and balance in this system. 
We have to have checks and balances in the system. There should not be 
one man who has this power.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Blagojevich].
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Speaker, let me just reiterate briefly the issue 
which we have to decide today, and that is very simply whether or not 
this committee, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and 
whether or not this Congress will give to a committee chairman of an 
investigative committee the right to unilaterally issue subpoenas for 
people to appear for depositions.
  Will we decide to do something that has never ever been done before 
in the history of Congress? And I would like to, if I can, piggyback 
briefly on what the previous speaker from Wisconsin said.
  The issue fundamentally is one of fairness and the credibility and 
the integrity of this investigation. If this investigation does not 
have the fundamental fairness and integrity, then the fruits of the 
investigation will not be believed; and they will not be credible and, 
therefore, they will be tainted. These are serious allegations.
  I love my country more than I love my political party, and I am as 
outraged by some of these allegations as

[[Page H4097]]

most Americans ought to be. But before we decide whether these 
allegations are in fact true, let us make sure that we find and have a 
factfinding committee that is going to do this in a fair way that 
includes all Members.
  This ought to be a joint undertaking to find the truth, not a 
partisan effort to find dirt.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney], a member of the committee.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that as a member of the 
committee, I think that it is important to note that everybody on the 
Democratic side of this committee is perfectly willing to step forward 
and investigate any alleged abuses of our campaign finance reform 
system, whether they be Democratic or Republican. What we are not 
willing to do is to proceed with an investigation that is overly 
partisan, which lacks any credibility and which is not inclusive. 
Whether my colleagues are a prior judge or a prior professor or 
whatever their background is, I think everybody can recognize that 
there is no value to the outcome of any investigation that does not 
have integrity, that is not credible and that was not inclusive of the 
entire committee that was charged with the investigation.
  Mr. Speaker, from the first time we sat down in this committee, we 
suggested that we not duplicate the efforts of the Senate, that we work 
with them, that we not spend twice as much money. A strictly partisan 
vote defeated that idea, and it has been that way every day in that 
committee since then. I should think that if my colleagues want to have 
an investigation that means anything, they want to have an 
investigation that the people can have confidence in, they will get off 
the partisanship and move toward the credibility; and we ask that the 
committee do that.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Towns].
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I was hoping that 
when we got involved in this process that maybe something positive 
would come out of it. But we are starting out in a way that we have no 
credibility right from the outset, that we are just starting out, 
chairman subpoenaed everybody, people that really had nothing to do. 
The only thing they did was make a contribution to the Democratic 
Party. He subpoenaed them. And the fact is that we are wasting money.
  The Senate side is doing the same thing that we are doing, that if 
somebody lives in Alaska, they would come here because they are being 
subpoenaed by the Senate, and as soon as they get back home, within 24 
hours they could be subpoenaed to come back by our committee.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a very obvious waste of money, waste of time, 
and also the fact that we are not really accomplishing anything.
  The other part which I think that, if we are going to do something, 
we should at least have credibility. It is very obvious that this is a 
situation where the Republican Party is trying to gain advantage over 
the Democratic Party. I am not interested in any kind of campaign 
reform, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have been told that there is a 
principle which states that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts 
absolutely.
  It seems to me that we ought to be trying to find corruption and 
ferret it out, not create an opportunity to further it.
  And so it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that if we are looking for 
corruption, then we ought to have an open and fair investigation, not 
give all of the power to one person. Let us vote down this resolution 
and give the American people a fair process, an honest process, an open 
process. Let us give them fairness.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, when Oliver North was called in front of the 
Iran Contra Committee, he complained that he would not be a potted 
plant. When we pass these rules, we are going to make the Democratic 
side an entire garden because that is what these rules are designed to 
do.
  I want to talk about the precedent of practice. I have heard a lot 
about what the rules were in the past. Let us look at the precedent of 
practice.
  The precedent of practice says that from 1971 to 1994 no Democratic 
chairman issued a unilateral subpoena; they went and they got the 
concurrence of the minority, the other side, as well.
  In this year alone, February to June of 1997, our chairman has issued 
156 unilateral subpoenas. ``Unilateral'' means one person.
  Nobody argues about issuing subpoenas. I want subpoenas issued when 
it is valid, too. But I think in order to have a credible 
investigation, a bipartisan investigation, both sides have to be 
involved in which we bring it to the minority member for concurrence, 
and if we do not get that, then we bring it to the full committee for a 
vote.
  As a Democrat, I am very concerned about the allegations and the 
possible cloud that may hang over fund-raising practices of my party. 
As a Republican, I would be even more concerned, being in the majority, 
that their significant allegations are not even going to be looked at.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the gentleman to 
know it was not Oliver North; it was his attorney who stated he was not 
a potted plant.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton] chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
who has a great job ahead of him to conduct this investigation.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio 
for yielding this time to me.
  I would just like to say to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, we are not going to try to intimidate anybody. That is first; 
and second, we are going to be working with the Senate wherever 
possible. I am going to be meeting with Senator Thompson next week and 
his staff to coordinate our activities.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues a few of the things about 
which this committee is going to be investigating and why.
  We are investigating a possible massive scheme, massive scheme of 
funneling millions of dollars in foreign money into the U.S. electoral 
system. We are investigating allegations that the Chinese Government at 
the highest levels decided to infiltrate our political system. We are 
investigating allegations of gross misuse of our national security 
structure including the national security council and the CIA. We are 
investigating the White House that became a frequent stop, a frequent 
stop for major donors with foreign ties who have now fled the country 
or taken the fifth amendment.
  Here are some key facts to prove the critical importance of this 
investigation, and I hope my colleagues will look at this chart.
  Charlie Trie, a friend of the President for 20 years, has reportedly 
fled the country and is in the People's Republic of China, Communist 
China, to avoid being questioned about wire transfers of over $1 
million from Asian banks to him at the same time that he was giving in 
excess of $200,000 to the Democrat National Committee and more than 
$600,000 to the President's legal defense fund. All of that money has 
been returned, the $600,000.
  John Huang, a friend of the President's who is pleading the fifth 
amendment raised between $3 and $4 million for the Democrat National 
Committee. The DNC is currently pledged to return almost half of that 
money. Huang is also under investigation for allegedly disclosing 
secret information to his former employer the Lippo Bank that has ties 
with the Chinese Communist Government and possibly the Chinese 
Government itself, and he did this while he was at the Commerce 
Department and the Democrat National Committee.
  Roger Tamraz, who was recently detained by the Government of Georgia 
because there was an international arrest warrant for him issued by 
Lebanon, received repeated meetings with President Clinton at a time 
when he was trying to get the administration support to build a 
pipeline in Asia despite objections by the National Security Council. A 
NSC staffer was recently reported as saying that she felt

[[Page H4098]]

pressured to cooperate with Mr. Tamraz because of $200,000 in democrat 
contributions.
  Former DNC chairman, the chairman of the DNC, Don Fowler reportedly 
tried to manipulate the CIA to provide favorable information about 
Roger Tamraz so that the National Security Council would back off their 
objections to his going to the White House to meet with the President. 
The NSC lost that battle, and so did our national security because he 
did go to the White House and he did meet with the President.
  Another example of national security concerns being brushed aside in 
favor of campaign cash is a case of Johnny Chung. He raised $366,000 in 
contributions returned by the DNC. He visited the White House 49 times 
despite warnings by the National Security Council that he was a hustler 
and should not be there.
  Yogesh Gandhi was barred from giving money to President Clinton at 
the White House because of his dubious background, but that did not 
stop the White House. Craig Livingston and John Huang arranged a 
meeting two blocks away from the White House at a hotel where the 
President did meet with him and $325,000 was subsequently given to the 
DNC.
  Former third ranking Justice Department official and convicted felon, 
Webster Hubbell, between June 21, l994, and June 25, 1994, there were 
10 meetings at the White House, some involving the President regarding 
whether or not what he was going to be doing between the time he left 
the Justice Department and was indicted, and after the tenth meeting, 2 
days later the Lippo Group the Riadys gave him $100,000 in legal fees, 
and many people believed, myself included, that that might have been 
hush money. In fact Abe Rosenthal, a supporter of the President, said 
in a New York Times column it would not take a particularly suspicious 
mind let alone a prosecutor's to see high paying jobs as hush money to 
keep a defendant silent.
  Pauline Kanchanalak, the mysterious contributor from Thailand, was 
one of John Huang's associates. She visited the White House 30 times, 
raised money for the DNC, and she fled the country. We cannot get her 
even with a subpoena.
  Ted Sioeng, yet another dubious DNC contributor, is reportedly in 
Hong Kong now. He has avoided any questions about his contributions 
totaling $355,000 to the DNC.

                              {time}  1145

  He is under investigation right now, but we cannot get to him. He 
also worked with the Chinese Government, we believe, trying to acquire 
influence for China.
  Let me just say in closing, there is substantial reasons why this 
investigation must go forward. We must depose these witnesses and we 
need the help of this body to get that job done.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, my intentions were to reiterate some of 
the arguments made by myself and other members of the committee, but 
actually, after having heard the 5 minutes from the chairman of this 
committee, the question comes to my mind, why do we need an 
investigation? The chairman has just written the conclusions and the 
facts that he intends to find in his opening statement here trying to 
justify why we need an investigation.
  We could save an awful lot of money if the chairman of the committee 
just writes the report up, as the chairman has said it now. Obviously, 
his facts are found, his conclusions are made, and the purposes for 
this investigation are for no other purpose but for political purpose.
  The majority has an opportunity today, a simple opportunity. If it 
wants any credibility in this investigation, if it wants any appearance 
of fairness, it could adopt the rule that Mr. Clinger and past 
examinations of this Congress have always honored; that is, the 
majority chairman and the ranking member, with concurrence, would issue 
subpoenas. That is the only process that should be used. I urge that 
this is not going to be an investigation to find fact. This is a 
political witch-hunt.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cummings].
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the resolution that we are considering 
today gives the Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight broad and unprecedented powers. This resolution does not have 
an underlying premise of uncovering the truth in a bipartisan manner; 
but rather, its goal is to arm its bearers with overreaching 
congressional authority.
  My colleagues, if we vote to approve this resolution, we are creating 
a dangerous precedent. There has never been a single instance in which 
a chairman of any House or Senate committee has ever unilaterally 
issued subpoenas for depositions.
  Common Cause stated, ``Fairness will be ensured only if the committee 
follows congressional precedents for investigative procedures and gives 
the minority Members a voice in the investigation.''
  The League of Women Voters stated, ``The House is headed towards a 
partisan sideshow. These are the kind of political games that disgust 
the American people.''
  Let us return comity to this committee and resurrect what is left of 
this investigation. Let us work in a legitimate fact-finding manner. I 
urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I think that what we have here is maybe not 
what it appears to be, because what I am getting concerned about now is 
that perhaps the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is being used as 
some kind of fall guy. We know that he is over eager to investigate the 
Democrats and especially Bill Clinton.
  The majority gives him three times the amount of money, some $15 
million, $17 million to investigate. They want to give him all of the 
rights individually to decide on who should be subpoenaed, who should 
be deposed, unprecedented powers. No one else on the committee will 
have to risk their career, put their career on the line to vote on 
behalf of subpoenaing anyone, no one will have to take responsibility 
for the actions in this investigation.
  So what I suggest is that our view here in the minority is that we 
need to have everyone share the responsibility, not just put the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] out in front of this, as if he is 
the only one conducting this train and the only one responsible for 
what is going to be in the final analysis something that defamed 
seriously the credibility and the integrity of this Congress and this 
committee.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, if my majority colleagues have 
their way this morning, we will empower the chair of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight as never before, and I have just one 
question to ask my colleagues: Can anyone tell me when in the history 
of this Congress has this kind of authority been exercised 
unilaterally?
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, the rules of the 103d Congress 
state the following.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I did not 
ask about rules, I asked when was this power used unilaterally?
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman mean when 
did the Republicans in the minority not go along with what the 
Democrats wished to do?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, my question is, when was it 
used? When in the history of this Congress did a chairman go out and 
unilaterally issue subpoenas? Never in the history of this Congress has 
it happened. The numbers speak for themselves. Zero to 156.
  Furthermore, 156 of those subpoenas had been issued for Democrats, 9 
are targeting Republicans. The numbers speak for themselves. We should 
not be wasting $12 million to $15 million on a partisan investigation.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H4099]]

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton] and his staff for their diligent work and their important work 
in bringing this resolution to the floor at this time that would 
authorize the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, after consultation with the ranking minority member, to 
order the taking of depositions and interrogatories.
  My colleagues in the minority have raised the argument that such 
depositions in the committee's current subpoena authority is an abuse 
of majority power. In fact, during consideration of the October 
Surprise resolution, on February 5, the Democrats opposed and voted 
down the Republican substitute which would have authorized a majority 
vote before issuing any subpoenas.
  During that debate, it was stated, it has been common practice in 
special congressional investigations to give the chairman 
responsibility for issuing subpoenas. If such a limiting substitute was 
not impractical then, it certainly should not be impractical now.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution and allow 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to get on with its 
work.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, over a period of 14 years, the Committee on 
Commerce, under my chairmanship, conducted hundreds of investigations, 
issued thousands of subpoenas, and never were any of these events done 
without full participation by the minority, without full consultation, 
and without a vote of the minority.
  The public wants a good investigation of the election process and the 
fundraising. They will expect this Congress to do an honorable and a 
decent job. Let us investigate everybody.
  Let us see to it that we find out where the wrongdoing is, when it 
was done. Let us not have a carefully cooked investigation wherein only 
one side is investigated. Let us find all of the wrongdoing, and let us 
use this as what the American people want it to be, an investigation to 
lay the predicate for meaningful reform of our campaign laws. To do 
less brings shame upon the investigation, brings shame upon this body, 
and I would urge that this body make the kind of investigation that the 
American people want, where we get to the bottom of the facts and we 
conduct it in a fashion in which the American people may say, the 
Congress did well, and trust us to do well in the future. That is not 
to be seen here.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment which 
will do two things. First, it will require the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight to adopt the same rules that Mr. Clinger used in 
the last Congress and, second, prohibit the subpoena of any witness 
already deposed by the Senate unless the committee votes, unless the 
committee votes, to issue that subpoena.
  This is the taxpayer protection and antiduplication amendment of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], which was defeated in the 
committee, but it is a very, very good idea. I urge my colleagues to 
support it by defeating the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert my amendment and extraneous materials in the 
Record.
  Mr. SPEAKER, if the previous question is defeated I will offer an 
amendment to do two things: First, require the Government Reform 
Committee to adopt the same rules Chairman Clinger used last Congress 
and second, prohibit the subpoena of any witness already deposed by the 
Senate unless the committee votes to issue the subpoena.
  This is Mr. Condit's taxpayer protection and antiduplication 
amendment which was defeated in committee but is a very good idea, I 
urge my colleagues to support it by defeating the previous question.

               Previous Question for House Resolution 167

       Amendment text:
       Page 3, after line 2, insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 5. IMPLEMENTING RULES.

       The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight shall 
     implement this resolution by adopting rules identical in 
     substance to those adopted by the Committee on Government 
     Reform and Oversight in the 104th Congress to implement 
     H.Res. 369 as printed in the Congressional Record of March 7, 
     1996.

     SEC. 6. ANTI-DUPLICATION PROVISIONS.

       The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is 
     directed to amend its rules that implement this resolution to 
     require that the chairman and ranking member shall make a 
     formal request to the chairman of the Senate Committee on 
     Government Affairs to coordinate efforts to avoid duplication 
     in the deposition process. If the Senate Committee accepts 
     this request, the chairman shall consult with the Senate 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs prior to deposing a witness 
     that the Senate Committee has deposed or scheduled to depose. 
     If after such consultation the chairman seeks to depose such 
     witness, a Committee vote shall be required before a notice 
     or subpoena is authorized or issued for the deposition of the 
     witness. The chairman shall include the ranking minority 
     member in any consultations with the Senate Committee and 
     shall provide the ranking minority member with a copy of any 
     deposition transcripts obtained from the Senate Committee. In 
     turn, the chairman shall provide upon request to the Senate 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs a copy of any transcript of 
     a deposition taken by the House Committee.
                                                                    ____

     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.
       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 of 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

[[Page H4100]]

     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 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.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Waxman] is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, not a single Democrat is against 
investigating the campaign finance abuses of the 1996 campaign. That is 
not what this debate is all about. It is about whether a chairman ought 
to be given the power unilaterally to issue subpoenas. It has never 
happened before. No chairman has ever issued subpoenas unilaterally in 
the House, the Senate, Democrat or Republican. This is the first time 
that we have seen such an activity.
  This is about wasting money. I was impressed over and over again by 
the points made by the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]. He has 
worked on a bipartisan basis on fiscally conservative measures to save 
taxpayer's funds, and what he suggested is that we ought to coordinate 
our investigation with the Senate and not waste this money through 
duplication.
  We ought to defeat the amendment that is before us, defeat the 
previous question, so that we can offer the amendment that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] offered in committee, to simply 
have coordination and saving of taxpayers' dollars in a reasonable 
campaign finance investigation process so that we can return to the 
precedents of this House and this Congress, that all investigations 
will be determined by the members of a committee, even if the majority 
of the members want to vote on a party line basis, the members conduct 
the investigation, not one single person who happens to be chairman. 
Giving that kind of power to one person invites abuse, and we ought not 
to let that happen.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has 
been compelled by substantial allegations in the media, an accumulating 
body of evidence and an ensuing public outcry to undertake a thorough 
investigation of campaign financing improprieties and threats to 
national security. Because of the serious magnitude of the revelations 
that continue to surface in this scandal, the Committee on Rules has 
responded by crafting this very effective, but very limited resolution. 
So I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it 
so we can get to the bottom of this complicated and complex affair.

               Rule 20.--Interrogatories and Depositions

       The chairman, upon consultation with the ranking minority 
     member, may order the taking of interrogatories or 
     depositions, under oath and pursuant to notice or subpoena. 
     Such authorization may occur on a case-by-case basis, or by 
     instructions to take a series of interrogatories or 
     depositions. Notices for the taking of depositions shall 
     specify the date, time, and place of examination. Answers to 
     interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing under oath 
     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 shall 
     include three business day's written notice before any 
     deposition is taken. All members shall also receive three 
     business day's written notice that a deposition has been 
     scheduled.
       The committee shall not initiate contempt proceedings based 
     on the failure of a witness to appear at a deposition unless 
     the deposition notice was accompanied by a committee subpoena 
     issued by the chairman.

[[Page H4101]]

       Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel to 
     advise them of their rights. No one may be present at 
     depositions except members, committee staff designated by the 
     chairman or ranking minority member, an official reporter, 
     the witness, and the witness's counsel. Observers or counsel 
     for other persons or for agencies under investigation may not 
     attend.
       A deposition shall be conducted by any member or committee 
     staff attorney designated by the chairman or ranking minority 
     member. When depositions are conducted by committee staff 
     attorneys, there shall be no more than two committee staff 
     attorneys of the committee permitted to question a witness 
     per round. One of the committee staff attorneys shall be 
     designated by the chairman and the other shall be designated 
     by the ranking minority member. Other committee staff members 
     designated by the chairman or the ranking minority member may 
     attend, but are not permitted to pose questions to the 
     witness.
       Questions in the deposition will be propounded in rounds. A 
     round shall include as much time as is necessary to ask all 
     pending questions. In each round, a member or committee staff 
     attorney designated by the chairman shall ask questions 
     first, and the member or committee staff attorney designated 
     by the ranking minority member shall ask questions second.
       An objection by the witness as to the form of a question 
     shall be noted for the record. If a witness objects to a 
     question and refuses to answer, the member or committee staff 
     attorney may proceed with the deposition, or may obtain, at 
     that time or a subsequent time, a ruling on the objection by 
     telephone or otherwise from the chairman or a member 
     designated chairman. The committee shall not initiate 
     procedures leading to contempt proceedings based on a refusal 
     to answer a question at a deposition unless the witness 
     refuses to testify after an objection of the witness has been 
     overruled and after the witness has been ordered by the 
     chairman or a member designated by the chairman to answer the 
     question. Overruled objections shall be preserved for 
     committee consideration within the meaning of clause 2(k)(8) 
     of House Rule 11.
       Committee staff shall insure that the testimony is either 
     transcribed or electronically recorded, or both. If a 
     witness's testimony is transcribed, the witness or the 
     witness's counsel shall be afforded an opportunity to review 
     a copy. No later than five days thereafter, the witness may 
     submit suggested changes to the chairman. Committee staff may 
     make any typographical and technical changes requested by the 
     witness. Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, 
     or amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by the 
     witness must be accompanied by a letter requesting the 
     changes and a statement of the witness's reasons for each 
     proposed change. A letter requesting any substantive changes, 
     modifications, clarifications, or amendments must be signed 
     by the witness. Any substantive changes, modifications, 
     clarifications, or amendments shall be included as an 
     appendix to the transcript conditioned upon the witness 
     signing the transcript.
       The individual administering the oath, if other than a 
     member, shall certify on the transcript that the witness was 
     duly sworn. 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. Interrogatories and 
     depositions shall be considered to have been taken in 
     Washington, D.C. as well as at the location actually taken 
     once filed there with the clerk of the committee for the 
     committee's use. The chairman and the ranking minority member 
     shall be provided with a copy of the transcripts of the 
     deposition at the same time.
       All depositions and interrogatories received pursuant to 
     this rule shall be considered as taken in executive session.
       A witness shall not be required to testify unless the 
     witness has been provided with a copy of the committee's 
     rules.
       This rule is applicable to the committee's investigation of 
     political fundraising improprieties and possible violations 
     of law, and is effective upon adoption of a resolution, in 
     the House of Representatives, providing the committee with 
     special investigative authorities.

   Rule 21.--Letters Rogatory and International Government Assistance

       The chairman, after consultation with the ranking minority 
     member, may obtain testimony and evidence in other countries 
     through letters rogatory and other means of international 
     government cooperation and assistance. This rule is 
     applicable to the committee's investigation of political 
     fundraising improprieties and possible violations of law, and 
     is effective upon adoption of a resolution, in the House of 
     Representatives, providing the committee with special 
     investigative authorities.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox], a member of the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, it is well, as we conclude debate 
and prepare to vote, that we recall what it is that is contained in the 
resolution before us. This is a resolution that will grant the staff 
attorneys, not the staff but the staff attorneys, former U.S. 
attorneys, of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the 
ability to conduct depositions in preparation for hearings by the full 
committee.
  The previous speaker spoke instead to the issue of subpoenas, and he 
said, incorrectly, that never before in history has the chairman had 
the power unilaterally to issue subpoenas. I first point out, that is 
not what this resolution provides. It does not provide anything about 
subpoenas.
  But for the Record, I would also point out that for the entirety of 
the Democratic control of Congress over a 40-year period that was 
precisely what was the rule, and for the most recent Democratic 
Congress, the 103d Congress, let me quote from the Committee on 
Government Operations, the House of Representatives, rule XVIII: ``The 
chairman of the full committee shall authorize and issue subpoenas.'' 
It does not say anything even about consultation with the minority, let 
alone concurrence.
  Second, with respect to staff depositions themselves, over and over 
and over again this authority has been granted by this Congress in 
precisely this way. This was the rule for the Iran-Contra 
investigation. Let me quote the rule: ``* * * the chairman, upon 
consultation with the ranking minority member * * * may authorize the 
taking * * * of depositions. * * *''
  That was the rule for Iran-Contra, and it is the very same rule we 
are adopting here, with consultation; not a veto, not concurrence, 
which means agreement, which means if we do not agree, as the minority, 
then we have to have a full committee vote on every one, but 
consultation.
  In fact, in this rule we provide something that the Democratic Party, 
for all the years they controlled Congress, never provided us when we 
were in the minority, and that is 3 full business days advance notice 
and consultation. This rule, therefore, is better than anything that 
the Democrats had when they were in charge.
  October Surprise, we have heard that mentioned out here before. Let 
me read the rule for the October Surprise investigation when the 
Democrats were in the majority: ``The chairman, upon consultation with 
the ranking Republican member * * * may authorize the taking of * * * 
depositions. * * *

  But that is not the rule they are offering. They wanted a veto power 
to kick it to full committee. Why should it not be kicked to full 
committee? Let me read from a leading Democrat, the gentleman from 
Indiana, Mr. Lee Hamilton, whose statement it seems to me speaks for 
itself:

       * * * requiring a majority vote for each subpoena would be 
     extremely time-consuming and difficult to arrange. It would 
     be impractical. It has been common practice in special 
     congressional investigations to give the chairman 
     responsibility for issuing subpoenas. * * *

  So we need to focus once again on what is in the resolution before 
us; nothing about subpoena authority, but the authority to take staff 
depositions. Let me add also that we have an opportunity to cooperate 
and to make this the kind of bipartisan investigation that so much of 
the debate has focused on here today.
  Mr. Speaker, recall what went on in the October Surprise 
investigation. It was an election year. This is not. The charges were 
not about Webster Hubbell receiving hush money from the Lippo Group and 
the Riadys, people that have taken the fifth amendment and fled the 
country, and whose grievous offenses, apparent grievous offenses have 
been drawn to the Nation's attention by the New York Times.
  Rather, it was alleged that President George Bush met secretly in 
Paris with the Ayatollah and begged that he not release our hostages. 
That absurd premise was dismissed because we cooperated in that 
investigation. Please cooperate with us in this one. Vote yes for the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time has expired.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H4102]]

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 196, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 219]

                               YEAS--217

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--196

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Ackerman
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Clayton
     DeGette
     Doolittle
     Goss
     Johnson, Sam
     Lipinski
     Miller (CA)
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Schiff
     Stark
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1121

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Ballenger for, with Ms. DeGette against.
       Mr. McIntosh for, with Mr. Stark against.

  So the previous question was ordered.

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 194, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 220]

                               AYES--216

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--194

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez

[[Page H4103]]


     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Ackerman
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bonilla
     Clayton
     DeGette
     Doolittle
     Goss
     Herger
     Johnson, Sam
     Lipinski
     McIntosh
     Miller (CA)
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Schiff
     Stark
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1140

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Ballenger for, with Ms. DeGette against.
       Mr. McIntosh for, Mr. Stark against.

  Ms. McKINNEY changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________