[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.
____________________