[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 85 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5315-H5328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1215
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4112, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 489 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 489

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4112) making appropriations for the 
     Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1999, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 
     2(l)(6) of rule XI, clause 3 or 7 of rule XXI, or section 401 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
     as read. Points of order against provisions in the bill for 
     failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived 
     except as follows: page 10, line 1 through line 10. No 
     amendment shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each amendment maybe considered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
     shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order 
     against amendments printed in the report are waived. The 
     chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone 
     until a time during further consideration in the Committee of 
     the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and 
     (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic 
     voting on any postponed question that follows another 
     electronic vote without intervening business, provided that 
     the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.


[[Page H5316]]


  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 purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 489 is a structured rule providing for 
the consideration of H.R. 4112, the fiscal year 1999 Legislative Branch 
appropriations bill.
  At the outset, I would like to commend the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their 
bipartisan efforts to produce a good bill which continues our efforts 
to create a smaller, smarter government and to lead by example.
  For instance, H.R. 4112 scales back employment in the Legislative 
Branch by eliminating 438 positions. The bill continues efforts to 
reduce redundancy and inefficiencies by preparing for the closure of 
the Joint Committee on Printing.
  That said, some of my colleagues may point out that this bill 
actually provides for a slight increase in spending over last year's 
level. However, taken in the context of our progress over 4 years, it 
contributes to an overall savings of $575 million in Legislative Branch 
spending under this majority. In fact, since 1994, over 15 percent of 
the Legislative Branch has been downsized.
  The rule before us will provide an opportunity to acknowledge this 
good work and debate what more we can do to improve the operations of 
this institution.
  Specifically, the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. Under the rule, clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI is waived as 
are clause 3 and 7 of rule XXI. In our hearing yesterday, the Committee 
on Rules heard no objection to these provisions which are designed to 
facilitate consideration of this bipartisan bill.
  The rule also waives section 104 of the Budget Act which is necessary 
to provide for the salary of the Director of the Congressional Research 
Service. In addition, this waiver will protect provisions in the bill 
that address severance pay and early retirement for employees of the 
Architect of the Capitol as well as voluntary separation incentives for 
employees of the Government Printing Office.
  Further, clause 2 of rule XXI which prohibits unauthorized 
appropriations or legislative provisions in a general appropriations 
bill is waived, as is clause 6 of rule XXI which prohibits 
reappropriations in a general appropriations bill. However, these 
waivers do not apply to section 108 of the bill. Section 108 allows the 
House to participate in State and local government transit programs 
which encourage employees to use public transportation. This is an idea 
that has merit which is evidenced by the bipartisan support it has 
gained as a freestanding bill. There are many private businesses as 
well as government agencies which compensate employees for part of 
their public transportation expenses. There is no reason the House 
should not consider affording the benefit to its employees. However, 
the Committee on Rules believes it is wiser to allow this change in 
House policy to run through the normal channels of committee 
consideration rather than add it on to a spending bill.
  Under the rule, the two amendments printed in the Committee on Rules 
report are the only ones made in order for House consideration. These 
amendments, both offered by Democrat Members, address the important 
issues of recycling and energy conservation. I know that many of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle are interested in these issues. 
In fact, a number of us have developed office policies to encourage 
such efficiencies. But there is much more we can do as an institution 
to improve upon these efforts and it makes sense to do these things in 
terms of fulfilling both environmental and fiscal responsibilities.
  Under the rule, these amendments may be offered by the Democratic 
Members designated in the Committee on Rules report, are not subject to 
amendment, and shall be debatable for 10 minutes each, equally divided 
between a proponent and an opponent. All points of order against the 
amendments are waived.
  To provide for speedy and orderly consideration of the Legislative 
Branch appropriations bill, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
may postpone and reduce votes to 5 minutes as long as the first vote in 
any series is 15 minutes. Another opportunity to change the bill exists 
through a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, there is more in the Legislative Branch appropriations 
bill than salaries and expenses for Members of Congress and their 
staff. The spending in this bill also serves the thousands of Americans 
who visit their Nation's Capitol each year to witness democracy in 
action. This bill provides the funding which preserves the Capitol 
building and the grounds of the Capitol for enjoyment of all our 
Nation's visitors. And it is this legislation that supports the hard 
work and dedication of our Capitol police force who keep our Capitol 
and the surrounding neighborhoods safe for visitors and residents 
alike.
  I am also pleased to report that through this appropriations bill, we 
will support the ongoing efforts to examine the art work in the Capitol 
with an eye to how it can better represent the contributions and 
accomplishments of American women throughout our Nation's history.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this is a fair rule which the 
Committee on Rules reported by voice vote. The underlying bill is 
bipartisan and fiscally responsible. The subcommittee did an excellent 
job of allocating scarce resources while building upon the internal 
reforms we have adopted in recent years to improve congressional 
operations. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule as well as 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Republican majority on the Committee on 
Rules refused to make in order an amendment to this rule which would 
have allowed the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) to offer a 
sensible amendment to H.R. 4112, the Legislative Branch appropriations 
bill. For that reason, it is my intention to oppose the previous 
question on this rule. Should the House defeat the previous question, 
it will be my intention to offer an amendment to this rule which will 
allow for consideration of the Hoyer amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, as Members know, at the beginning of the 105th Congress, 
the rules package of the Republican majority included an amendment to 
rule XI which created a new slush fund for committees to draw from for 
the expenses associated with the numerous investigations planned by the 
Republican leadership for this Congress. Subsequently, the Republican 
majority adopted a committee funding resolution which included, along 
with prior year unexpended funds, $7.9 million for the slush fund, and 
my Republican colleagues have been happily spending that money ever 
since.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a report prepared by the 
Democratic leadership about the partisan investigations that have been 
conducted by the Republican majority during the 105th Congress.
  The text of the report is as follows:

        Politically-Motivated Investigations by House Committees

                              1995-Present

  U.S. House Democratic Policy Committee, Richard A. Gephardt, Chair, 
                             June 18, 1998

       ``The congressional investigation can be an instrument of 
     freedom. Or it can be freedom's scourge. A legislative 
     inquiry can serve as the tool to pry open the barriers that 
     hide government corruption. It can be the catalyst that spurs 
     Congress and the public to support vital reforms in our 
     nation's laws. Or it can debase our principles, invade the 
     privacy of our citizens, and afford a platform for demagogues 
     and the rankest partisans.''--Senator Sam J. Ervin (D-
     N.C.)\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnote are at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       ``Long ago, before the permanent culture of investigation 
     had laid siege to Washington--meaning in the early 1980's--a 
     formal congressional investigation was considered major if it 
     issued a few dozen subpoenas. That was then. In the [last] 
     year or so . . .  [one committee] has issued 479 supoenas. 
     Those forced to appear are grilled in private, sometimes for 
     hours at a

[[Page H5317]]

     stretch, with few of the protections from badgering that 
     shield witnesses in the real world . . . [it is] redolent of 
     a mentality that Washington has not seen for some decades. 
     The term `McCarthyism' is used too often and too loosely, but 
     there are times when it is useful and one of these is 
     now.''--Jonathan Rauch\2\


                           Executive Summary

       ``Clinton Democrats should be portrayed as `the enemy of 
     normal Americans . . . Republicans will use the subpoena 
     power to investigate the Administration.' \3\--House Speaker 
     Newt Gingrich
       Since Republicans took control of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives in 1995, they have initiated an endless 
     parade of politically-motivated investigations.
       This report details the breadth and magnitude of the 
     Republican effort, including how duplicative and wasteful the 
     committee investigations have been, and how much of the 
     committees' taxpayer-financed resources are devoted to these 
     politically-motivated investigations.
       In other words, this report investigates the self-appointed 
     investigators, in order to provide the public with 
     information about how their taxpayer dollars are being 
     misappropriated.
       Key findings include:
       As of today, House Republicans have spent more than $17 
     million in taxpayer dollars on politically-motivated 
     investigations.
       There have been more than 50 politically-motivated 
     investigations in the House, 38 of which are still ongoing.
       These investigations have involved 15 of the 20 House 
     standing committees. Currently, 13 committees are involved in 
     investigations.
       Of all the completed investigations, none have turned up 
     evidence of wrongdoing.
       Perhaps even more important, a clear pattern of abuse has 
     emerged. The House Republican leadership has called on and, 
     when necessary, prodded its committees to devote their 
     resources to harass political enemies.
       In the process, Republicans have: undermined the 
     credibility of the oversight function of Congress; issued 
     overly broad and excessive subpoenas; and targeted innocent 
     private individuals with whom they have political 
     disagreements, and as a result, have harmed those people's 
     businesses, humiliated them personally and professionally, 
     and forced them to bear extraordinary travel and legal costs 
     to try to defend their reputations.


                            historical note

       ``Washington just can't imagine a world in which 
     Republicans would have subpoena power,'' said Newt Gingrich 
     shortly before he became Speaker.\4\ It was a surprising 
     comment for a historian to make.
       The House first asserted its power to investigate in 
     1792,\5\ when a special House committee was appointed to look 
     into the Indian massacre of U.S. soldiers under Major General 
     Arthur St. Clair's command.
       Republicans have led some of the worst \6\ investigations 
     in the history of the Congress. In particular, Senator Joseph 
     McCarthy's (R-WI)\7\ hearings will long be remembered as the 
     most egregious abuse of Congress' power to investigate.


                   extent and cost of investigations

       ``Republicans are pouring millions of new dollars into 
     House committees to beef up the party's ability to 
     investigate not only Democratic fundraising scandals but also 
     longtime adversaries such as organized labor.'' \8\
       ``Speaker Newt Gingrich is poised to launch a battery of 
     probes next year [1998] that will involve half of the House's 
     20 committees.'' \9\
       Since assuming control of Congress in 1995, House 
     Republicans have pressed 15 of the 20 standing committees 
     into service to conduct more than 50 politically-motivated 
     investigations.
       None of the completed investigations has turned up evidence 
     of wrongdoing.
       Today, 13 committees are conducting 38 separate 
     politically-motivated investigations. These investigations 
     are aimed exclusively at the individuals and organizations 
     perceived by the Republican leadership as their political 
     enemies, including the Clinton Administration, Democratic 
     state parties, environmentalists, and labor unions.
       The cost to the taxpayers of the House investigations now 
     exceeds $17 million. This figure includes only costs incurred 
     by the legislative branch, and does not include the extensive 
     costs incurred by federal agencies to comply with these 
     investigations, which is currently the subject of an ongoing 
     GAO study.
       Following is an accounting of the politically-motivated 
     investigations conducted by House committees since 1995.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Cost to taxpayer
                                                                                                (includes costs
  Subject of investigation (listed by           Start date                    Status              incurred by
          committee and no.)                                                                      legislative
                                                                                                  branch only)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture...........................  ..........................  .........................      \10\ $105,000
    1. Commodity transactions by First  1996......................  Closed...................  .................
     Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Appropriations........................  ..........................  .........................      \11\ $118,000
    2. Alleged access to White House    1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     (Lincoln Bedroom, etc.) in
     exchange for contributions to the
     DNC.
Banking...............................  ..........................  .........................    \12\ $2,250,000
    3. Whitewater.....................  1995......................  Closed...................  .................
    4. Alleged money-laundering and     1996......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     drug trafficking at the Mena,
     Arkansas airport during the term
     of then-Gov. Clinton.
Commerce..............................  ..........................  .........................      \13\ $128,000
    5. Allegations that the Molten      1997......................  Closed...................  .................
     Metal Technology company received
     government contracts in exchange
     for contributions to the Clinton-
     Gore campaign.
    6. Involvement of former Gore aide  1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     Peter Knight in advocating a
     relocation of the FCC to the
     Portals building in Southwest
     D.C..
Education and the Workforce...........  ..........................  .........................    \14\ $2,530,000
    7. American Worker Project, to      1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     look into the conduct of labor
     unions and the agencies that
     oversee them.
    8. Irregularities in the Teamsters  1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     1996 elections.
Government Reform and Oversight.......  ..........................  .........................    \15\ $6,000,000
    9. Review of Ramspeck Act,          1995......................  Closed...................  .................
     prompted by large numbers of
     Democratic staff getting
     executive branch jobs following
     GOP takeover of House.
    10. Political ideology of           1995......................  Closed...................  .................
     organizations participating in
     the Combined Federal Campaign.
    11. Firing of White House travel    1996......................  Closed...................  .................
     office personnel.
    12. Alleged White House             1995......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     acquisition of FBI files of
     certain individuals.
    13. Alleged abuse of travel         1995......................  Closed...................  .................
     privileges by Energy Secretary
     Hazel O'Leary.
    14. Clinton Administration          1995......................  Closed...................  .................
     enforcement action against the
     Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas.
    15. Financial holdings and          1996......................  Closed...................  .................
     activities of former Commerce
     Secretary Rob Brown.
    16. Alleged illegal foreign         1996......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     contributions to the DNC in the
     '96 elections.
    17. Alleged fundraising activities  1996......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     on federal property (e.g. White
     House coffees, Lincoln Bedroom).
    18. Alleged Hatch Act violations    1996......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     (e.g. fundraising phone calls
     from official residences,
     acceptance of campaign checks by
     White House secretaries).
    19. Alleged ``conduit''             1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     contributions to the DNC in the
     '96 elections (made at the
     request of and paid for by a
     third party).
    20. Alleged foreign influence on    1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     U.S. elections and access to U.S.
     intelligence.
    21. Clinton Administration's        1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     appointment of Charlie Trie to a
     special Commerce trade commission
     allegedly in return for campaign
     contributions.
    22. Justice Department failure to   1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     appoint an independent counsel to
     investigate alleged fundraising
     calls from the White House.
    23. Alleged quid pro quo--refusal   1997......................  Closed...................  .................
     by Interior Secretary Babbitt to
     grant a gaming permit to the
     Hudson Casino and Dog Track
     because of campaign contributions
     from opposing parties.
    24. Designation of Grand Staircase- 1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     Escalante National Monument,
     allegedly in part to benefit a
     Texas mining company connected
     with James Riady which did not
     want mining competition in Utah.
    25. Alleged failure of FEC to       1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     prosecute fundraiser Howard
     Glicken, because of ties to Vice
     President Gore.
    26. Fundraising practices of state  1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     Democratic parties.
    27. Alleged use of White House      1996......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     databases for political purposes.
    28. Irregularities in the           1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     Teamsters 1996 elections.
    29. Alleged lack of compliance      1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     with subpoenas issued to White
     House, including failure to
     produce videotapes of White House
     coffees.
    30. Alleged acceptance by Webb      1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     Hubbell of White House-arranged
     ``hush money''.
    31. Alleged White House             1998......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     obstruction surrounding
     allegations regarding Monica
     Lewinsky and her relationship
     with President Clinton.
House Oversight.......................  ..........................  .........................    \16\ $1,510,000
    32. Alleged voter fraud in the      1997......................  Closed...................  .................
     Dornan-Sanchez election contest
     in California's 46th district in
     1996.
Intelligence..........................  ..........................  .........................                N/A
    33. Alleged foreign influence on    1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     U.S. elections and access to U.S.
     intelligence.
    34. U.S. technology transfers to    1998......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     China, including allegations that
     political contributions
     influenced the Clinton
     Administration's export policy.
International Relations...............  ..........................  .........................                (*)
    35. Alleged link between Clinton    1996......................  Closed...................                (*)
     Administration's trade policies
     and political contributions,
     including but not limited to
     alleged illegal contributions
     from Indonesian and Chinese
     sources.
    36. U.S. technology transfers to    1998......................  Ongoing..................                (*)
     China, including allegations that
     political contributions
     influenced the Clinton
     Administration's export policy.
Judiciary.............................  ..........................  .........................    \17\ $1,445,000
    37. Clinton Administration          1995......................  Closed...................  .................
     enforcement action against the
     Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas.
    38. Allegations that the Clinton    1996......................  Closed...................  .................
     Administration improperly
     influenced career prosecutors at
     the Justice Dept. to settle a
     civil racketeering lawsuit
     involving the Laborers'
     International Union.
    39. Justice Department failure to   1997......................  Closed...................  .................
     appoint an independence counsel
     to investigate alleged
     fundraising calls from the White
     House.
    40. Justice Department oversight/   1998......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     preparation for impeachment
     proceedings.
National Security.....................  ..........................  .........................                (*)
    41. U.S. technology transfers to    1998......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     China, including allegations that
     political contributions
     influenced the Clinton
     Administration's export policy.
Resources.............................  ..........................  .........................      \18\ $460,000

[[Page H5318]]

 
Note: There are more than 15
 investigations ongoing in the
 Resources Committee which involve
 abuses of the investigative powers of
 the Congress. In several instances,
 committee Republicans have used
 investigations to aid a conservative
 legal foundation which has brought
 three lawsuits against the Clinton
 Administration (these are discussed
 later in this report, under ``Abuse
 of Subpoena Power.'') Following is a
 description of some of the most
 clearly politically-motivated
 Resources Committee investigations.
    42. Designation of Grand Staircase- 1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     Escalante National Monument,
     allegedly for political purposes.
    43. Alleged quid pro quo--refusal   1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     by Interior Secretary Babbitt to
     grant a gaming permit to the
     Hudson Casino and Dog Track
     because of campaign contributions.
    44. Allegations that campaign       1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     contributions influenced Interior
     Department policies on Guam.
Rules.................................  ..........................  .........................       \19\ $75,000
    45. Allegations that former Energy  1996......................  Closed...................  .................
     Secretary Hazel O'Leary or her
     staff solicited a bribe for a
     Department of Energy contract.
    46. General investigation into      1996......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     fundraising activities of Clinton
     Administration and Democratic
     party officials.
    47. Alleged economic espionage for  1996......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     the Chinese government by John
     Huang while employed at the
     Commerce Dept..
    48. Alleged foreign influence on    1996......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     U.S. elections and access to U.S.
     intelligence.
    49. China Ocean Shipping Company..  1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
    50. Preparation for impeachment     1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     inquiry (based on referral to
     committee of Barr resolution, H.
     Res. 304).
    51. Pentagon release to press of    1998......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     Linda Tripp's personnel file.
    52. U.S. technology transfers to    1998......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     China, including allegations that
     political contributions
     influenced the Clinton
     Administration's export policy.
Select Committee on China.............  ..........................  .........................         $2,500,000
    53. U.S. technology transfers to    1998......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     China, including allegations that
     political contributions
     influenced the Clinton
     Administration's export policy.
Veterans' Affairs.....................  ..........................  .........................                (*)
    54. Alleged use of political        1997......................  Closed...................  .................
     influence and campaign
     contributions to allow for burial
     of non-eligible persons in
     Arlington National Cemetery.
Ways and Means/Joint Tax..............  ..........................  .........................                (*)
    55. Alleged politically-motivated   1997......................  Ongoing..................  .................
     IRS audits of conservative
     organizations.
                                                                                              ------------------
      Total cost for all committees...  ..........................  .........................        $17,121,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Less than $25,000.

                         duplication and waste

       ``It's been very expensive and it hasn't amounted to 
     much.''\20\--Senior Republican leadership aide.
       Many House committees are covering the same ground:
       Four House committees are investigating the influence of 
     foreign governments on American elections (Government Reform 
     and Oversight; Intelligence, International Relations; and 
     Rules)
       Two House committees are looking into use of the Lincoln 
     bedroom (Appropriations and Government Reform and Oversight).
       Two House committees are looking into the Hudson casino and 
     dogtrack (Government Reform and Oversight and Resources).
       Two House committees are looking into an alleged Riady 
     connection to the designation of Grand Staircase-Escalate 
     National Monument (Government Reform and Oversight and 
     Resources).
       Two House committees investigated Waco (Government Reform 
     and Oversight and Judiciary).
       Both the Education and the Workforce Committee and the 
     Government Reform and Oversight Committee have issued similar 
     subpoenas to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the 
     Ron Carey campaign, and Citizen Action to gather information 
     related to the contested union election of 1996.
       The Judiciary Committee and the Government Reform and 
     Oversight Committee both investigated the Attorney General's 
     decision not to appoint an independent counsel to investigate 
     campaign finance matters. The Attorney General testified at 
     the Judiciary Committee on October 15, 1997; less than two 
     months later she was called to answer the same questions 
     before the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
       Duplication within the House is only a part of the picture.
       Both the large investigations and the more focused 
     inquiries in the House are covering the same ground covered 
     by Senate investigations, Justice Department examinations, 
     and explorations by federal prosecutors and grand juries.
       The Senate Commerce Committee already looked into the FCC 
     relocation into the Portals Building. The House Commerce 
     Committee recently authorized eight subpoenas in the same 
     matter and several have been issued.
       In addition to the $1.6 million spent by the House 
     investigating Whitewater: the Senate spent $1.8 million; the 
     RTC spent $3.6 million; and the independent counsels have 
     spent $30 million.
       Reagan-appointed federal prosecutors and several grand 
     juries thoroughly examined allegations of money-laundering 
     and trafficking at the Mena, Arkansas airport during Gov. 
     Clinton's term and concluded no indictments were warranted 
     long before the House Banking Committee undertook its 
     investigation.
       The House investigation of campaign finance follows on a 
     completed Senate investigation and a Justice Department 
     probe. Much of Chairman Burton's work directly duplicates 
     Senator Thompson's investigation: of the 524 subpoenas issued 
     by Chairman Burton, 210 (more than 40%) are duplicates of 
     subpoenas issued in the already completed Senate 
     investigation.
       Furthermore, the House Government Reform and Oversight 
     Committee has spent $6 million to produce only seven public 
     hearings and hastily doctored transcripts of Webster 
     Hubbell's phone calls. By comparison, the Senate Governmental 
     Affairs Committee finished its work months ago, having spent 
     a total of $3.5 million hold 33 days of hearings and publish 
     a 1,100 page report.
       The tower of wasted dollars has been built up brick by 
     brick. In June 1997, the House Government Reform and 
     Oversight Committee sent three staff members to Miami to 
     retrieve a computer disk. The two-day trip (six working days 
     of staff time) cost several thousands of dollars. Later the 
     minority discovered that nothing prevented those who had the 
     disk from mailing it for the cost of first-class postage. 
     \21\
       The Government Reform Committee also paid for Charles 
     Intriago, a Florida businessman, to fly to Washington, D.C. 
     to be deposed despite the fact that his attorney had made 
     clear that Mr. Intriago would assert his Fifth Amendment 
     right not to testify.\22\ The bill came to several thousands 
     of dollars--after travel expenses, court reporter fees and 
     staff time--even though the committee knew he would answer no 
     questions. The committee spent $62,000 on domestic travel 
     last year, has authorized more than $50,000 this year, and 
     tapped a State Department account to pay for two trips 
     abroad.
       Chairman Burton rewarded his staff by providing ``lavish 
     bonuses to his investigators.'' \23\ The former investigation 
     coordinator, David Bossie, received three pay raises in the 
     course of a single year, bumping him up to an annual wage of 
     $123,000. The firm of the lead attorney, Richard Bennett, is 
     paid $15,000 a month, far more than the maximum amount 
     permitted for congressional employees.
       Government Reform is not the only committee with expensive 
     staff. The Teamster investigation conducted by the Education 
     and the Workforce Committee has hired Joseph DiGenova and 
     Victoria Toensing as outside counsel/consultants. The two 
     together are to be paid $150,000 for six months of part-time 
     work. They each receive $12,500 a month for a 20-hour work 
     week, which is the equivalent--on a full-time annualized 
     basis--of $300,000 a year, more than double the maximum 
     salary allowed for any employee of the House of 
     Representatives. Moreover, as consultants who are not bound 
     by House ethics restrictions, they have lobbied Members of 
     Congress and provided legal representation for their clients 
     including Chairman Burton.
       Finally, there are significant costs which have not yet 
     been accounted for, which are attributable to the 
     administrative costs of producing and transmitting the vast 
     amounts of documents in these duplicative and overlapping 
     investigations.


                            central control

       ``Newt has made it very clear to the chairman how important 
     this investigation is, a source said after the meeting.'' 
     \24\
       ``Gingrich forced this thing, that's very clear. The guy 
     has tried to micromanage the investigation every step of the 
     way.'' \25\
       The fingerprints of Republican party leaders are all over 
     the political investigations in this Congress. This is a 
     dangerous sign because legitimate congressional inquiries 
     spring from legislative purposes. Committees are responsible 
     for investigating whether the laws under their jurisdiction 
     are administered properly and effectively, whether new laws 
     are needed and whether old programs still serve a worthwhile 
     purpose. Given these aims, one expects the initial inquiry to 
     come from the legislators involved in the issues, not from a 
     directive of the party leaders.
       But the Republican House leadership, in the 104th Congress, 
     issued urgent instructions to all the committees to dig up 
     dirt on specific enemies of the Republican party: ``On behalf 
     of the House leadership, we have been asked to cull all 
     committees for information . . . The subjects are: waste, 
     fraud and abuse in the Clinton Administration; influence of 
     Washington labor union bosses/corruption; examples of 
     dishonesty or ethical lapses in the Clinton administration.'' 
     \26\
       The memo lists as the contact person a staffer in Majority 
     Leader Dick Armey's office.
       After the Republican leadership issued their general call 
     to investigate and harass its enemies, they did not keep 
     their hands off. The leadership waded into the details of 
     many of these political investigations, prodding them on.

[[Page H5319]]

     Gingrich slush fund
       The clearest indication that the Speaker intended all along 
     to maintain control of the investigations was evident, though 
     little noted, on day one of the 105th Congress. On January 7, 
     1997, the House adopted, by party-line vote, its rules for 
     the new Congress. Embedded among them was a small item 
     (section 15 of House Resolution 5) which authorized a 
     committee reserve fund for ``unanticipated committee needs.'' 
     The fund is under the Speaker's control through the House 
     Oversight Committee. On March 21, the House capitalized the 
     slush fund to the tune of $7.9 million. The House placed an 
     unprecedented multi-million dollar slush fund in the hands of 
     a Speaker for the purpose of funding, controlling, and 
     directing partisan investigations. To date, the Speaker, 
     without a vote of the House, has given $5.3 million from the 
     fund to three committees in connection with politically-
     motivated investigations:
       Education and the Workforce ($2.2 million) to look into 
     labor unions;
       Government Reform and Oversight ($1.8 million) to continue 
     its one-sided investigation into alleged Democratic campaign 
     finance irregularities; and
       Judiciary ($1.3 million) to prepare for a potential 
     impeachment investigation.
       The remainder is being held in reserve by Speaker Gingrich 
     for the next partisan investigation he decides to pursue.
       As one senior Republican leadership aide said, ``It's been 
     very expensive, and it hasn't amounted to much.'' \27\
     Teamsters
       The Speaker stepped into the Education and the Workforce 
     probe of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in its 
     earliest stages. ``House Speaker Newt Gingrich has intervened 
     on behalf of hard-liners in a simmering dispute among 
     Republicans on the House committee investigating the 
     Teamsters union . . . Committee sources said Chairman 
     Goodling is worried that the good relations he has had with 
     Democrats on education issues is being jeopardized by the 
     Hoekstra subcommittee investigation . . . `Newt has made it 
     very clear to the chairman how important this investigation 
     is,' a source said after the meeting. `He told the chairman, 
     ``You need to support it.'' ' '' \28\
       The intervention of leadership did not stop there. As 
     recently as April 30, 1998, it was reported that Mr. Gingrich 
     again asked to meet with Chairman Goodling and subcommittee 
     chair Hoekstra and, according to sources, the Speaker ``gave 
     his thoughts on where the investigation should go.'' \29\
     Laborers
       At the behest of the Republican leadership, the Judiciary 
     Committee conducted an investigation into the 
     Administration's successful efforts to rid the Laborers' 
     International Union of organized crime influence. In a series 
     of memos, the leadership prejudicially charged the 
     Administration with improperly influencing career prosecutors 
     at the Justice Department to settle a civil racketeering 
     lawsuit involving the Laborers' Union. Rep. John Boehner (R-
     OH), chairman of the House Republican Conference, wrote 
     urging investigations into ``the action by Clinton appointees 
     in the Justice Department to quash the efforts by Justice 
     Department prosecutors to clean up Coia's union.'' \30\ 
     Shortly thereafter, he followed up with a Republican 
     Conference report titled, ``Washington's Union Bosses: A Look 
     Behind the Rhetoric,'' in which it is stated that: 
     ``Washington union bosses [are] winning favor with the 
     Clinton Administration to block Justice Department 
     investigations into union boss corruption . . . Arthur Coia, 
     President of the Laborers International Union of North 
     America, recently received a ``sweetheart' deal from the 
     Clinton DOJ in the face of a 212 page racketeering 
     complaint.''
       It should be noted that the Judiciary Committee majority 
     report filed after the investigation was completed admitted 
     that there was no direct evidence of ``wrongdoing'' or 
     ``improper influence.'' Moreover, the Republican report 
     concluded that the settlement which there leadership had 
     called a ``sweetheart deal'' had in fact ``produced positive 
     results.'' \31\
     Campaign finance
       The series of investigations on campaign finance by the 
     Government Reform and Oversight Committee have, from their 
     inception, been closely monitored by the Republican House 
     leadership. In June 1997, Speaker Gingrich told CNN's 
     ``Inside Politics'' that he would be ``overseeing how 
     Burton's committee investigation is unfolding.'' \32\ At 
     about the same time, Roll Call reported that Speaker Gingrich 
     assigned four senior Republicans to meet regularly with 
     Chairman Burton to ``allow Gingrich and his leadership to 
     keep close tabs on Burton and his plans for the investigation 
     . . . `Newt just wants to monitor the situation and be 
     prepared to act when necessary,' [according to a Republican 
     leadership advisor].'' \33\ Another account quotes ``a close 
     Gingrich advisor'' who gives this rationale for the Speaker 
     appointing Representative Chris Cox as vice chairman under 
     Chairman Burton: ``The Speaker's real goal is `to encircle' 
     the chairman and `put him on a short leash.''' \34\ Time 
     magazine quotes another Republican leadership aide: ``We only 
     gave him [Chairman Burton] money for this year. That way, if 
     he tanks, we can pull the plug on him.''


                        abuse of subpoena power

       A subpoena is a powerful tool. It compels people to produce 
     documents, even if compliance is against their wishes and 
     best interests, and threatens criminal sanctions for failure 
     to comply.
       Congressional subpoenas are more intrusive than court 
     subpoenas because many protections of individual rights do 
     not apply to documents requested in the course of a 
     congressional investigation. Congress is not always required 
     to recognize the attorney-client privilege, the work product 
     doctrine or other privileges protecting individuals' privacy 
     ordinarily recognized in the course of litigation. A 
     committee demanding documents in the course of an 
     investigation is also exempt from the Privacy Act and from 
     Bank Secrecy laws.
     Leaking subpoenaed documents to help GOP friends
       A troubling pattern of Republican abuse of their subpoena 
     power has been the leaking of subpoenaed documents to help 
     political allies in pending litigation against the federal 
     government.
       Congress can compel the production of some documents that 
     private litigants do not have a right to see. The Resources 
     Committee has used this technique in several instances to 
     help Republican friends. The document subpoenas issued in 
     relation to the President's designation of the Grand 
     Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah are a clear 
     example. Documents were delivered to the committee under 
     subpoena from the White House, on October 22, 1997, with the 
     comment from White House counsel Charles Ruff that the 
     documents ``implicate substantial confidentiality interests 
     of the Executive Branch.'' The subpoenaed documents included 
     communications among the President, the Vice President and 
     their senior advisors reflecting their deliberations. 
     Lawsuits challenging the President's monument declaration had 
     been filed by several interest groups, including the Rocky 
     Mountain States Legal Foundation. There is little doubt 
     the Foundation could not obtain the documents through a 
     Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request or as a 
     litigant. The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Chairman 
     Hansen subpoenaed the Grand Staircase-Escalante documents 
     and released them to help those suing the federal 
     government. ``Concern that one goal of the Congressional 
     investigation may be to benefit the lawsuits challenging 
     the document appear to be valid. After the release of the 
     internal White House documents, Rep. Jim Hansen R-Utah was 
     quoted as saying: `They [the groups suing] will feel they 
     hit the mother lode with this. That's one reason I pushed 
     to make the documents public, to help them'.'' \35\
       The same pattern was followed in the investigation of the 
     Bureau of Land Management's issuance of mining bonding 
     regulations. The mining industry has filed suit \36\ to 
     challenge the bonding regulations; the suit is pending in the 
     U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The mining 
     industry is represented by the Rocky Mountain States Legal 
     Foundation, the same group litigating to overturn the 
     President's Utah monument declaration.\37\ The Resources 
     Committee has developed a draft report concluding that the 
     bonding regulations are illegal and the report will be made 
     public shortly. It contains documents subpoenaed from the 
     Department of Interior, including attorney-client work 
     products that are otherwise not attainable by the litigants.
       These abuses of the subpoena power have made the agencies 
     understandably wary of even voluntary requests for documents. 
     A case study is the request by Resources Subcommittee on 
     Energy and Mineral Resources Chair Barbara Cubin (R-WY) for 
     certain documents at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
     relating to proposals to recover the costs of mineral 
     document processing. In June, 1997, the oil and gas industry 
     (including the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association, the 
     Independent Petroleum Association of America, the Independent 
     Petroleum Association of Mountain States, the New Mexico Oil 
     & Gas Association, the Western States Petroleum Association, 
     the American Association of Professional Landmen, the 
     California Independent Petroleum Association, the American 
     Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of 
     New Mexico, and the Wyoming Independent Petroleum 
     Association) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
     request at the Department of Interior for certain 
     documents.\38\ In November 1997, the same industry requesters 
     informed the BLM that the documents in question may be used 
     in litigation against the Department in the event the 
     Department adopts certain regulations relating to recovering 
     costs of mineral document processing.\39\ Commercial 
     companies making FOIA requests are required to pay for the 
     costs of gathering, reviewing and copying the documents. The 
     industry and the BLM began negotiating about how much the 
     requesters had to reimburse the agency and whether certain 
     documents were protected by litigation privileges. In March 
     1998, in the midst of these negotiations, Rep. Cubin wrote 
     the Secretary Babbitt requesting the very documents in 
     question. Ms. Melanie Beiler, assistant to the Secretary, 
     responded to the request noting: ``We have learned that there 
     is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request pending in the 
     BLM . . . requesting documents virtually identical to those 
     included in your request . . . The Department is also 
     concerned that documents provided to the Subcommittee that 
     would be protected

[[Page H5320]]

     from disclosure under FOIA or in any litigation will be made 
     available to potential litigants against the United States 
     through your Committee. In light of this, please advise us 
     whether you wish to proceed with your request, and if so, 
     what safeguards are appropriate to ensure that documents 
     protected from disclosure by FOIA and litigation privileges 
     are not made available to potential litigants against the 
     United States.'' \40\
       The request is still outstanding.
       The Resources Committee is not alone in using the subpoena 
     to help friendly private litigants. The Teamsters 
     investigation at the Education and Workforce Committee has 
     seen a similar pattern. A suit was brought against the 
     international Brotherhood of Teamsters to force them to 
     disclose certain documents. After a court ruled against 
     disclosure, the Chairman subpoenaed the same documents for 
     his investigation.
       Chairman Burton was also just recently caught trying the 
     same tactic. He subpoenaed all White House records related to 
     Hillary Clinton and the White House Counsel's office 
     acquisition of FBI files of former White House employees.\41\ 
     The subpoena was suspicious because the Committee had 
     completed a thorough investigation of the matter in the last 
     Congress, under a different chairman. The subpoena appears to 
     be ``designed to bolster the private lawsuit of Judicial 
     Watch, a nonprofit group headed by a leading Clinton critic 
     Larry Klayman.'' \42\ Klayman is quoted in The Hill saying 
     that the Committee and Judicial Watch ``generally know what 
     each other is doing'' and that Judicial Watch would be 
     ``interested to see'' the documents that the Committee has 
     obtained.\43\
       Plaintiffs suing the federal government to overturn the 
     decision to deny the Hudson casino application were also 
     helped by House investigators to documents they sought from 
     the Interior Department and the Democratic National 
     Committee. The Interior Department gave certain documents to 
     the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, including 
     documents prepared by the U.S. Attorney's office in 
     connection with the lawsuit. Ordinarily these items would be 
     denied to plaintiffs on grounds of work-product and attorney-
     client privilege Chairman Burton released the document 
     despite the Interior Department's objections.\44\ As to the 
     release of DNC documents, an employee, David Mercer, 
     testified under oath that he was contacted by a Milwaukee 
     reporter who told him, ``investigators had released documents 
     from the House committee to lawyers in the [Hudson] 
     litigation, and then the lawyers released it to the press . . 
     . the press was calling me to find out . . . what other 
     documents we were handing over to the House.'' \45\
       This misuse of Congressional subpoena power to benefit 
     favored private parties involved in federal court cases is 
     absolutely appalling. These types of actions raise some very 
     serious questions.
       But subpoenaed documents leaked for much simpler reasons 
     raise equally troubling questions. Chairman Burton's release 
     of subpoenaed Bureau of Prisons recordings of phone 
     conversations between Webster Hubbell and his wife and 
     doctored transcripts of selected portions of those tape have 
     led many to question his fairness as a ``seeker of truth.'' 
     But his leaks began when he took charge in November 1996. It 
     was promptly reported that ``Burton confirmed that . . . one 
     of his top aides improperly leaked the confidential phone 
     logs of former Commerce Department official John Huang.'' 
     \46\ On February 27, 1998, he released his staff's notes of 
     an interview with Steven Clemons, a former aide to Senator 
     Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-
     MS) and Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) had 
     agreed and notified Chairman Burton that, in order to protect 
     the independence of the two chambers, Mr. Clemons should not 
     be called to testify. Chairman Burton canceled his hearing 
     but released the notes, disregarding the Senate's concerns.
     Subpoenaming tax records
       There is also a pattern of Republican abuse of subpoena 
     power with regard to tax records. Chairman Burton subpoenaed 
     several tax accountants for their tax preparation materials 
     relating to specific clients, including accountant Donald Lam 
     with regard to Mr. Sioeng, and accountant Michael C. 
     Schaufele with regard to Webster Hubbell's taxes. It is 
     against the law for an accountant to reveal information 
     gathered to prepare tax returns without either the consent of 
     the client or a court order.\47\ When his client did not 
     consent to release and when Mr. Burton failed to seek a court 
     order, lawyers for Donald Lam informed the committee that for 
     his client to comply with the subpoena would subject him to 
     criminal penalties.\48\ One week later, Chairman Burton 
     threatened accountant Donald Lam with contempt of Congress if 
     he did not provide information to the Committee.\49\
       Moreover, federal law prohibits any House committee, except 
     the tax committees, from issuing a subpoena for tax records 
     without special authorization by the House to seek such 
     records.\50\ Chairman Burton's subpoenas are even more 
     questionable in light of the deliberate withdrawal of 
     language that would have granted Chairman Burton this 
     authority. The House adopted House Resolution 167 granting 
     Chairman Burton broad and unprecedented unilateral authority 
     to pursue his investigation. Before the Rules Committee 
     marked up that resolution, a draft resolution was circulated 
     for review. The draft resolution contained language giving 
     unilateral authority to request tax records of any 
     ``individuals and entities named by the Chairman of the 
     Committee as possible participants, beneficiaries, or 
     intermediaries in the transactions under investigation by the 
     Committee.'' \51\ The language was dropped immediately before 
     the Rules Committee markup. In this way, a deliberate 
     decision was made to deny Chairman Burton authority to seek 
     tax records.
       Chairman Burton was not alone in this abuse of the subpoena 
     power. Chairman Hoekstra requested, by letter, that the 
     accounting firm of Grant Thornton, the teamsters' outside 
     accountants, produce all work papers, correspondence files 
     and other documents it held relating to the preparation of 
     the Teamsters' financial statements and federal income taxes. 
     Knowing it was against the law to comply with the committee's 
     request without the consent of their client, the Grant 
     Thornton accountants sought the Teamsters' permission to 
     produce the documents. The Teamsters originally objected, 
     saying the request was too broad and that they needed time to 
     review the documents.
       The Grant Thornton accountants then returned to the 
     Republicans and tried to negotiate a narrowing of the 
     request. The Republicans promptly wrote to the Teamsters, 
     insisting they withdraw their objections and agree to let the 
     accountants release the tax records by 5 p.m., April 8, 1998 
     or else ``the Subcommittee will consider the means available 
     to it to enforce compliance, including the institution of 
     proceedings for contempt of Congress.'' \52\ Before the 
     deadline passed, the Chairman issued a subpoena and it was 
     served on the Grant Thornton firm on the afternoon of April 
     8, 1998.
       Needless to say, the Education and Workforce Committee is 
     no more authorized by the House to seek tax records than the 
     Government Reform Committee.
     Enemies list subpoenas
       In the Sanchez-Dornan investigation led by the House 
     Oversight Committee, Republicans approved 42 highly 
     burdensome subpoenas to a wide variety of individuals and 
     entities that Mr. Dornan identified: Catholic Charities, a 
     local community college (Rancho Santiago Community College), 
     the Lou Correa for Assembly campaign, the Laborers Union and 
     the Carpenter's Union. All the financial records of the 
     Catholic Charities and their affiliates were subpoenaed. The 
     community college was asked to produce the private, personal 
     files of more than 22,000 students who had taken ``English as 
     Second Language'' classes; it was an attempt, ultimately 
     futile, to find illegal aliens who had voted. Republicans 
     issued overly broad subpoenas asking for sensitive political 
     information from the Sanchez campaign and others without 
     agreeing on a protocol for its use and distribution.
       Initially, Mr. Dornan issued subpoenas in his own name.\53\ 
     The United States District Court ordered their recall \54\ as 
     ``irregular on their face.'' Among other documents, Mr. 
     Dornan wanted student records protected by the Privacy Act 
     from a Florida company hired by the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service to conduct citizenship classes. Mr. 
     Dornan altered one of the recalled subpoenas to make it 
     appear as if it had been signed by a Florida judge. He then 
     used the altered subpoena to convince the company to turn 
     over the private records. Despite written promises to keep 
     the records sealed, Mr. Dornan opened the records and made 
     them public.
       On May 1, 1997, Congresswoman Sanchez and her attorneys 
     filed objections with the House Oversight Committee based on 
     Mr. Dornan's use of the altered subpoena. The Committee 
     refused to consider her objections. In fact, the Committee 
     approved 24 new subpoenas issued by Mr. Dornan by ordering 
     the individuals to comply.
     Overly broad subpoenas
       To be legitimate, a subpoena calls only for pertinent and 
     admissible information with a fair degree of specificity.
       Many of the subpoenas issued by the Republicans have been 
     overly broad and burdensome. The Education and the Workforce 
     Committee subpoenaed all the minutes of every Board meeting 
     of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters for the past 
     seven years and virtually all of its financial records for 
     the period 1991 through 1997. The documents requested include 
     all sorts of matters (discussions of collective bargaining 
     strategies, etc.) unrelated to the investigation of the 1996 
     Teamsters elections. The Teamsters estimated that the 
     original subpoena would require them to produce between one 
     and five million pages of documents in order to comply. They 
     were given 14 days to comply. Then the committee had to 
     revoke the original subpoena, because Republican staff had 
     altered it after the committee had voted. The second subpoena 
     was identical but gave the Teamsters only one week to comply. 
     When the Teamsters sought to negotiate the scope of document 
     demands, Education and the Workforce counsel first threatened 
     them with contempt.\55\ Only within the last week have 
     Republicans begun to discuss limiting their demand.
       In the same fashion, Education and the Workforce subpoenaed 
     from the Democratic National Committee all records of 
     fundraising phone calls to labor leaders from January 1`995 
     through December 1997. The subpoena asks for phone calls to 
     all labor leaders; it is not confined to the Teamsters who 
     are under investigation. Recently, Republicans agreed to 
     limit phone calls to the AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFSCME and Teamsters.

[[Page H5321]]

     But the subpoena still demands information about all 
     fundraising calls, not limited to the Carey campaign, and not 
     even limited to the 1996 election cycle.
       The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight followed 
     the same model when it subpoenaed the Democratic National 
     Committee on March 4, 1997 with an astonishingly broad 
     demand. It called for all DNC records relating to its senior 
     staff (including memos dealing with internal budgeting, 
     campaign strategies, media buys, issue and advertising 
     strategies, and other political activities totally unrelated 
     to the matters of fund-raising that the Committee is 
     investigating) and for all DNC phone records from January 20, 
     1993 forward, again without even limiting the scope to 
     matters related to fund-raising.\56\
       The purpose here is obvious: to cast a wide enough fishing 
     net to capture all sorts of interesting but irrelevant 
     tidbits (like campaign strategies) and to force the 
     Democratic National Committee to devote its resources to 
     comply (or to fight) the overly broad subpoena.
       Chairman Burton also subpoenaed the White House for all 
     phone records from Air Force One and Air Force Two and all 
     records of visitors to the White House since 1993.\57\ These 
     demands for documents were not limited to matters related to 
     fund-raising or matters relevant to the committee's 
     investigation; moreover, in making the demand, there was no 
     consideration given to national security or the Clinton 
     family's privacy.
       The Resource Committee follows the Republican script on 
     overly broad subpoenas. Chairman Young of the Resources 
     Committee has repeatedly made document demands from the 
     Interior and Agriculture Departments which are aimed at 
     intimidating those departments and coercing them into making 
     decisions which are advantageous to their Republican 
     constituency. In its investigation of Forest Service timber 
     sales, the Committee demanded documents from the Forest 
     Service indicating every agency contact with 
     environmentalists and subpoenaed records of all contacts by 
     the white House Council on Environmental Quality. The 
     Committee also issued overly broad subpoenas in its Grande 
     Escalante Monument investigation, demanding even those 
     documents that reflect advice to and policy deliberations of 
     the President, Vice President and their senior advisors. In 
     the Tucson Rod and Gun Club investigation, the Committee 
     issued six recess subpoenas to the Forest Service again 
     asking for extensive information beyond the scope of the 
     investigation.
       These subpoenas intentionally overwhelm the agency staffs 
     required to respond to these multiple unfocused 
     investigations, depriving them of the time necessary to carry 
     out their other duties. They also do great damage to the 
     right of confidentiality and security of their conversations, 
     meetings, and decisions.
     Contempt of Congress
       A person who has been subpoenaed to produce documents and 
     fails to do so may be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a 
     fine of up to $1,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year.\58\ 
     This is contempt of Congress and it is a serious criminal 
     offense.
       Because it is a serious criminal offense, the courts have 
     been asked to review criminal convictions. Committees do not 
     have to accord all the protections the court must but certain 
     standards have to be met before a contempt citation will be 
     sustained.
       Federal courts have held that to prove contempt requires 
     Congress to show that the subpoenaed documents are pertinent. 
     The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 
     explained the term ``pertinent'': ``two separate elements 
     must appear before pertinency is established: (1) that the 
     material sought or answers requested are related to a 
     legislative purpose which Congress could constitutionally 
     entertain; and (2) that such material or answers fell within 
     the grant of authority actually made by Congress to the 
     investigating committee. . . '' \59\
       The last element is significant and has been amplified. The 
     fact that a committee is engaged in an investigation within 
     the committee's jurisdiction does not make valid a specific 
     subpoena issued by the committee. As the Supreme Court 
     stated: ``Validation of the broad subject matter under 
     investigation does not necessarily carry with it automatic 
     and wholesale validation of all individual questions, 
     subpoenas, and document demands.'' \60\
       And the courts have also ruled that before a committee can 
     properly adopt a contempt resolution, the committee must hear 
     the objections--including the claim that the subpoena is 
     overly broad and asks for material that is not pertinent to 
     the investigation--and must formally dispose of the 
     objections.
       The committees have been a little quick on the trigger to 
     threaten criminal contempt. In the Education and the 
     Workforce investigations, subpoenas issued to the Teamsters 
     and the DNC demanded massive amounts of documents to be 
     produced within one week. Before the Republicans negotiated 
     either the scope or timing of the subpoenas, they threatened 
     to cite the organizations with contempt of Congress if they 
     failed to comply in full.
       Chairman Hoekstra showed he was also quick to threaten 
     contempt in the American Workers Project investigation in 
     which his staff had requested meetings with several Labor 
     Department officials. The Labor Department people asked that 
     Democratic staff be included in the meeting. Chairman 
     Hoekstra promptly wrote to the Secretary of Labor, reminding 
     her that: ``An agency has a legal obligation to comply with 
     the chairman's oversight request. Under 18 U.S.C. 1505: 
     `Whoever . . . obstructs, or impedes . . . the due and proper 
     exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or 
     investigation is being had by either House, or any committee 
     of either House . . . shall be fined not more than $5,000 or 
     imprisoned not more than five years, or both.' ''
       The Resources Committee found a creative way to use the 
     holiday calendar to constrict further the 10 days they gave 
     the Democratic National Committee to comply with broad 
     subpoenas in the Hudson casino investigation. It had the feel 
     of setting up a contempt citation. On Thursday, December 18, 
     1997, Resources Committee Chairman Don Young (R-AK), issued 
     broad subpoenas for document production to eight individuals: 
     Roy Romer, DNC Chairman; Don Fowler, former DNC Chairman; 
     Eric Kleinfeld, Clinton-Gore '96; and five people at the law 
     firm of O'Connor and Hannan. The Committee made no prior 
     effort to obtain the documents voluntarily by letter request 
     but simply issued the subpoenas. Document delivery was 
     demanded immediately after the holiday weekend, on Monday, 
     December 29 at noon.


                      Targeting Political Enemies

       ``If Organized Labor launches a $35 million campaign 
     against you, you're not going to lay down and play dead.'' 
     \62\--House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
       ``I'm after him [President Clinton].'' \63\--House 
     Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton 
     (R-Ind.)
       ``This is a matter of consequence when that contractor is a 
     substantial contributor to the Democratic party. These things 
     need to be investigated and people need to come through.'' 
     \64\--House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.)
       ``The focus has got to be on the crimes that are being 
     committed at the White House,'' one lawmaker quoted Gingrich 
     as saying, ``I want you to forget the word `scandals' and 
     start using the word `crimes.'' \65\
       ``Unlike Thompson, who sought a degree of evenhandedness, 
     the more partisan House is looking almost exclusively at 
     Democratic abuses, avoiding inquiries into questionable 
     practices employed by Republicans to raise record-shattering 
     amounts of money in 1996.'' \66\
     Molten metal
       The textbook example of Republicans targeting a political 
     opponent has to be the Commerce Committee's ongoing 
     harassment of Peter Knight. Knight was picked because he is a 
     friend of and former chief aid to Vice President Al Gore, and 
     a campaign manager of the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign. 
     Republicans on the Commerce Committee tried to smear Knight 
     first through an investigation of a company called Molten 
     Metal Technology, and then through an investigation into the 
     decision to move the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
     into the Portals Building in southwest Washington, D.C.
       Molten Metal Technology Inc. hired Peter Knight, along with 
     several other lobbyists from both political parties, for 
     strategic advice in obtaining government contracts. Knight 
     drew the attention of Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), the chair of 
     the Commerce Committee's oversight subcommittee, because 
     Knight had previously worked with Thomas Grumbly. Grumbly was 
     the Department of Energy (DOE) Assistant Secretary for 
     Environmental Management during part of the time of the 
     Molten Metal contract. Years before, Grumbly had served as 
     staff director for a subcommittee of the House Science 
     Committee when then-Representative Gore had been chairman 
     (and Peter Knight, Gore's chief of staff) and this 
     ``coincidence'' seemed suspicious to the Republican members 
     of the subcommittee.
       DOE is required to dispose of wastes it has been gathering, 
     and spends over $1 billion on cleanup and cleanup 
     technologies. Molten Metal Technology had a unique process 
     for disposal and won a contract from DOE and, over the years, 
     the contract was expanded. Ironically, the DOE made its first 
     contract with Molten Metal under the Bush Administration. 
     Nonetheless, the subcommittee decided to investigate whether 
     Department of Energy decisions with respect to the Molten 
     Metal Technology contract were influenced by Mr. Knight and 
     Democratic campaign contributions.
       The most cowardly aspect of this whole affair was the 
     Republican decision to hold hearings--even after the 
     investigation failed to produce evidence of wrongdoing--in 
     order to make Knight deny in public the allegations the 
     subcommittee knew it couldn't prove. The basis for the 
     subcommittee's craven decision is on the record. The 
     subcommittee counsels (chief counsel Mark Paoletta and 
     counsel Tom DiLenge) wrote an internal memorandum ``to set 
     forth the key findings from our investigation of Molten Metal 
     Technology (`MMT') relationship and contracts with the 
     Department of Energy (`DOE') and to lay out our 
     recommendation that the Subcommittee hold a hearing on this 
     matter on October 30.'' \67\ In summing up the major 
     findings, the counsels state: ``many of the DOE career people 
     gave signed statements to the DOE Inspector General's Office, 
     swearing that nothing improper occurred with regard to the 
     MMT contract'' \68\ and ``most of the career people who were 
     directly involved in the handling of this contract . . . 
     believed that CEP [Catalytic Extraction Processing, a 
     technology used to treat and recycle radioactively-
     contaminated scrap metal] was a promising technology for 
     certain mixed wastes and worth investing in.'' \69\

[[Page H5322]]

       The final two conclusions of the counsels are most damning: 
     ``Despite the incredible coincidence of MMT's political 
     contributions and favorable DOE contract actions, all parties 
     denied there was any link, and everyone at DOE (including 
     Grumbly) said there were no discussions about MMT's 
     contributions at all; there also is no documentary evidence 
     to contradict these assertions.
       ``Finally, and not surprisingly, we have not uncovered any 
     intervention or interference on the part of the Vice 
     President (or his office) with regard to MMT's DOE 
     contracts.'' \70\
       After they confess their failure to prove any wrongdoing, 
     they move to the question of whether the subcommittee should 
     hold hearings. ``The pros of holding such a hearing are . . . 
     (ii) it forces the key players to deny allegations of 
     misconduct under oath . . . and (v) will likely generate 
     enormous press coverage . . .  The cons of holding such a 
     hearing are (i) there is no smoking gun, which opens us up to 
     partisan criticism for engaging in a witchhunt or smear of 
     Democrat[ic] official, lobbyists, and fundraising practices . 
     . . and (iv) there are documents and witnesses that undercut 
     our case against Grumbly, Knight and MMT which the minority 
     (and the well-prepared witnesses) certainly will raise.'' 
     \71\
       Peter Knight testified well into the night on November 5, 
     1997.
       Chairman Barton recently wrote to certain government 
     witnesses asking questions for the official record, saying 
     ``it will be necessary for you to provide your written 
     responses in the form of a sworn affidavit,'' even though 
     there is no House requirement that written responses for a 
     hearing record be in the form of a sworn affidavit.\72\
       The Molten Metal hearings brought bad press on a Democratic 
     campaign manager (Peter Knight) with ties to the Vice 
     President (Al Gore) and drove into bankruptcy a company that 
     was developing technology to clean the environment (Molten 
     Metal Technology). From the Republicans' perspective, it was 
     a triple win. And they ``accomplished'' so much with an 
     allegation they knew they couldn't prove and for which they 
     acknowledged the exculpatory evidence was very strong.
       Plus, the subcommittee has already begun another smear job 
     on Knight. The General Services Administration, again under 
     the Bush Administration, recommended the relocation of the 
     FCC to the Portals location. Republicans have discovered that 
     Peter Knight received a payment from Franklin Haney, the 
     owner of the Portals Building, and this fact somehow raised 
     suspicions at the subcommittee. The subcommittee has 
     authorized eight subpoenas to individuals and several have 
     been issued. But despite Democratic requests, Republicans 
     have refused to hold a public hearing to get all the facts 
     out.
     Campaign finance
       The Government Reform and Oversight Committee's campaign 
     finance hearings are another clear example of partisan 
     targeting.\73\ Of the 1,063 information requests that 
     Chairman Burton has made, 1,051 (or 99%) have been to 
     investigate alleged Democratic abuses. Seventeen subpoenas 
     were issued to the Democratic National Committee, only one 
     was issued to the Republican National Committee. Of the 1.5 
     million pages of documents received to date by the Committee, 
     less than 2% were in response to requests about Republican 
     fund-raising abuses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \73\ The list of allegations against Democrats is well-
     rehearsed in the Government Reform Committee. For the list of 
     serious Republican abuses see letters from Ranking Member 
     Waxman to Chairman Burton of March 17, 1997, April 29, 1997, 
     May 8, 1997, May 15, 1997, June 10, 1997, August 29, 1997, 
     and January 13, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Several other House committees also demanded massive 
     numbers of documents from the DNC and many of these, of 
     course, duplicated requests made by Senate investigators. By 
     deluging the Democratic National Committee with demands for 
     documents, Republicans forced the DNC to hire 22 new 
     employees--including 10 attorneys--to respond. The DNC has 
     produced over 450,000 pages of documents (and had to search 
     through more than 10 million pages to find responsive 
     documents) just in response to Chairman Burton's requests. It 
     cost $5.7 million just to produce these documents. Another 
     $7.5 million was spent on legal fees. That was $13.2 million 
     not spent on voter education or ``get out the vote'' efforts, 
     activities that are the purpose of the DNC.
       Chairman Burton has also targeted state Democratic parties. 
     In February and March, 1998, the Chairman subpoenaed 14 state 
     Democratic parties: Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, 
     Illinois, Kansas,\74\ Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, New 
     Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
       The Committee asked for all documents relating to certain 
     individuals. Yet despite the fact that some of the named 
     individuals (e.g., Kenneth Wynn) contributed to state 
     Republican campaigns, Chairman Burton has not requested any 
     information from state Republican parties nor issued a single 
     subpoena to a state Republican party.
       Most of the information being sought from Democratic state 
     parties is readily available through public sources such as 
     state campaign finance reporting agencies. The subpoenas 
     impose unnecessary burdens and tie up Democratic state 
     resources, making Democrats in those states less 
     competitive in the next election.
       Chairman Burton has been quite vocal about who he is out to 
     get. Speaking of President Clinton, he said, ``This guy's a 
     scumbag. That's why I'm after him.'' \75\ He announced his 
     targeting of Democrats at a GOPAC luncheon in 1997: ``Brashly 
     acknowledging his own partisan motives during this closed 
     meeting of political allies, Burton tells the GOPAC crowd 
     that the current fundraising scandal will turn out to be the 
     Democrats' Watergate, resulting in a new gain of `twenty to 
     twenty-four seats' for the GOP in next year's congressional 
     elections. `It's over,' he hollers.'' \76\
       Chairman Burton's chief counsel, John P. Rowley III, 
     resigned on July 1, 1997 and was interviewed in the 
     Washington times.\77\ Mr. Rowley commented on the role of the 
     investigative coordinator, David Bossie, (who resigned in 
     May, 1998 following the Hubbell tapes fiasco) saying Bossie 
     ``was trying to `slime' the Democrats while Mr. Rowley wanted 
     to `follow where the evidence leads.' ''
     Mena Airport
       In 1995, the Banking Committee began an inquiry into 
     allegations of illegal activities in areas of rural Arkansas 
     around Mena Airport. It had been rumored that this area of 
     rural Arkansas had been a center for money laundering, drug 
     trafficking, and gun running to the Nicaraguan Contras, 
     operations associated with DEA informant Barry Seal with the 
     complicity of the CIA. The Banking Committee inquiry was 
     described as ``tangential'' to Whitewater, and was supposed 
     to focus on money laundering. The events occurred during Gov. 
     Clinton's term. They had been thoroughly examined by two 
     grand juries that decided against issuing any indictments.
       there is little pretense in any of this investigation--
     either through the people interviewed, the facts gathered, or 
     the numerous contacts with the agencies--to suggest it was 
     targeted at money laundering.
       Money-laundering was merely a committee hook to carry on 
     the investigation. The investigation was clearly aimed at the 
     role of then-Governor Clinton and the political activities of 
     the people surrounding him. It was part of a pattern of 
     looking and re-looking at every aspect of Governor Clinton 
     and his associates. The final report from the majority staff 
     is still pending.
     Ethnic groups
       An extremely disturbing form of targeting has been aimed at 
     certain ethnic groups. Republicans on the House Oversight 
     Committee targeted Latino voters in the Sanchez-Dornan 
     election probe, and many of the House and Senate campaign 
     finance investigations have focused on Asian-Americans. 
     According to the Wall Street Journal, ``nearly 300 people 
     with Asian-sounding names'' were subpoenaed.\78\ In many 
     cases, committees were careless about identifying the right 
     person with the Asian-sounding name. The Government Reform 
     and Oversight Committee in October 1997 subpoenaed the phone 
     records of Mrs. LiPing Chen Hudson \79\, though the committee 
     was interested in a different LiPing Chen. In fact, the 
     Hudsons had not been involved in any political campaign this 
     decade. The carelessness caused some to wonder if Asian-
     Americans were being targeted in order to chill their 
     political participation.\80\


                      Abuse of Individual's Rights

       ``You wake up with a knot in your stomach, and you wonder 
     what your kid's friends say to him. My wife obsesses about 
     it.'' \81\.--Peter Knight
       ``This is unbelievable . . . I have no idea why they have 
     my name.'' \82\--Professor Wang
       In testimony before the House Rules Committee last 
     year,\83\ Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) described what a 
     congressional investigation is like from the perspective of 
     the witness: ``I don't know how many in this room have 
     participated in congressional investigations, but they are a 
     rather scary event. You [the witness] are up there very much 
     alone. You may have a counsel present, but that counsel can 
     only advise you as to your rights. He can't defend you. And 
     the rights that you have in an appearance before a 
     congressional committee are far less, far less, than the 
     rights that you have when you appear in court. A Member of 
     Congress under the Speech and Debate clause can say almost 
     anything he want to you. He can abuse you. He can make some 
     of the most scandalous and outrageous charges. He can deny 
     you the real right to respond to the questions and answer 
     charges that are made in his comments to you, about you. It 
     is terrifying and it is oftentimes a demeaning experience.'' 
     Despite this testimony. Republicans repealed a long-standing 
     right of subpoenaed witnesses before congressional 
     committees--a right installed in House rules in response to 
     the excesses of the McCarthy era--the right to turn off the 
     TV cameras. When they took away one of the few rights left to 
     witnesses, Republicans indicated how reckless they may be 
     with the reputations of the individuals they call up before 
     congressional committees.
       They proved it in the Commerce Committee campaign against 
     Peter Knight and Molten Metal Technology (MMT). The 
     Subcommittee on Oversight and investigations decided to 
     conduct a public hearing just so that Knights and MMT would 
     be compelled to deny the unproved charges under oath and 
     before the press. The bullying behavior of committees 
     obviously wastes taxpayer dollars, diverts committee 
     resources away from legitimate oversight, but it also 
     unfairly harms the reputations of individuals and businesses.

[[Page H5323]]

       Knight found his picture in the paper beside allegations of 
     misconduct and illegal influence. ``You wake up with a knot 
     in your stomach, and you wonder what your kids's friends say 
     to him. My wife obsesses about it.'' \84\ Peter Knight now 
     says. And Knights young son, Zachary, was sucked into the 
     investigation because the chairman of Molten Metal 
     Technology, William Hanley II, had given a gift of stock to 
     the boy. Readily available documents proved the Molten Metal 
     executive gave similar gifts to family members of other 
     associates of Molten Metal. ``At week's end the Republican 
     staff on the House Commerce Committee set a new low in 
     scandal-mongering by activating a youth crimes division, 
     smearing Knight's 13-year old son.'' \85\
       The harm to Molten Metal Technology was devastating. Molten 
     Metal was demonstrating its technology at Oak Ridge; the 
     company was setting up three wastes-disposal plants in Texas 
     and Tennessee. The growing pains left the company cash poor. 
     Other private companies interested in the environmental 
     cleanup business, such as Westinghouse, Fluor Daniel and 
     Lockheed Martin, were discussing joint ventures with MIT. 
     ``The Republicans began leaking their allegations about 
     Knight and Molten Metal just as the company was trying to 
     attract investors. With the investigation in full swing, 
     the investors grew skittish.'' \86\
       Unable to attract investors while the smear campaign was 
     swirling, the company was cash starved. Molten Metal 
     Technology filed for bankruptcy in December. MMT was forced 
     to lay off 221 employees, including half of its workforce in 
     Waltham and Fall River, Massachusetts, and 45 workers in 
     Texas. The promising new technology and the new waste-
     disposal plants (like the $70 million site planned for Bay 
     City, Texas) are on hold. The human costs are impossible to 
     quantify.
     Carelessness
       Some committees in the House have besmirched reputations by 
     accident. In some cases, careless and mistaken subpoenas were 
     served at the place of employment causing embarrassment and 
     other consequences. In September 1997, a U.S. marshal served 
     a subpoena on a Brian Kim, a mail carrier from Downey, 
     California, at his place of work, the U.S. Post Office. 
     Unfortunately, Brian Kim the mail carrier was the wrong Brian 
     Kim. His supervisor was convinced that Kim had done something 
     wrong. Kim contacted the Committee by telephone and was told 
     to write a letter proving he was the wrong person. Kim wrote 
     the letter but the committee never apologized to Kim and 
     never cleared up the confusion with his supervisor.
       Instead of gathering information from a Los Angeles DNC 
     contributor, Chi Ruan Wang, the Government Reform and 
     Oversight Committee subpoenaed the bank records of a 
     respected Georgetown University history professor, Chi 
     Wang.\87\ Eventually, the Committee withdrew the subpoena. 
     However, the Committee never apologized to Professor Wang 
     and, in fact, compounded its error by denying they made a 
     mistake to the press, leaving the impression that Professor 
     Wan may not be the wrong person. When asked directly if the 
     subpoena was a mistake by the Los Angeles Times, a Republican 
     spokesman was quoted as saying: ``We're not sure we made one 
     . . . Whether he deserves a subpoena or not, we haven't 
     decided. We've put it on hold.'' \88\
       A Department of Agriculture employee was the unfortunate 
     victim of carelessness. Justice Department filings in 
     prosecutions of four Agriculture employees for misdemeanor 
     election law violations identified three and referred to the 
     fourth only as a ``political appointee.'' Investigators from 
     the Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Operations, 
     Nutrition, and Foreign Agriculture decided to guess which 
     individual at the Department was the ``political appointee.'' 
     They guessed wrong.
       On September 5, 1996, the political appointee they guessed 
     was subpoenaed to appear before the subcommittee and a list 
     of the subpoenaed individuals, including his name, was made 
     public. After the subcommittee investigator learned he had 
     guessed the wrong person, the subcommittee met again on 
     September 12 to reissue the subpoenas and subsequently 
     released a second list with the ``correctly'' identified 
     individual's name substituted. The subcommittee made no 
     effort to explain or apologize for its mistake or to clear 
     the reputation of the erroneously subpoenaed individual.
     Depositions
       It is intimidating to be called to appear before a 
     congressional panel. Most people are deposed by Members or 
     staff before a decision is made to call them as witness. Even 
     if you are not called back to testify at a hearing, the 
     deposition can be costly. Travel costs, missed work, 
     preparation time, and legal representation are all costs that 
     may be shouldered by the individual. These costs run as high 
     as $10,000 per day of deposition.
       People can be asked anything at a deposition; they can be 
     bullied and badgered. Marsha Scott, deputy director of the 
     White House Office of Personnel, had been a cooperative 
     witness. Scott gave over 18 hours of deposition testimony 
     before the Senate investigation and then was deposed by the 
     House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. She was 
     deposed for three more full days at the House committee and 
     the majority insisted a fourth day would be required just to 
     go over her conversations with White House counsel's office 
     about a memo she had written. She offered instead to provide 
     the Committee with a sworn affidavit about the conversation 
     but her offer was rejected. She appeared for the fourth day 
     but when the Committee chose to ask about everything except 
     the conversation, on the advice of counsel, Scott ended the 
     deposition. Hours later, Rep. David McIntosh (R-IN), chair of 
     a Government Reform and Oversight subcommittee, called a 
     hearing for 8:00 p.m. that night and Chairman Burton 
     subpoenaed Marsha Scott to appear. The rules of the House 
     require seven days notice, except in extraordinary cases, 
     before a public hearing can be held.
       In a deposition, staff may pursue questions far removed 
     from the scope of the fund-raising investigation, often 
     prying into people's private lives. Yusaf Kharpa, a former 
     White House intern, was asked for the name of his girlfriend. 
     Karen Hancox, an employee in the White House Office of 
     Political Affairs, was asked ``Did you ever receive a drug 
     test?'' At times the questions are so far afield, they seem 
     absurd. Janice Enright, special assistant to deputy chief of 
     staff Harold Ickes, was asked to describe the type of car she 
     drives.\89\ Dick Morris was asked about others at the White 
     House including these two questions: ``You hail from New York 
     as Mr. Ickes does. Are you familiar with his--do you have any 
     personal knowledge about any legal problems in his 
     background? \90\
       ``Did there come a time when Mr. Stephanopoulus told you 
     about the discovery of life on Mars? \91\
       Here is a Member deposing a former Interior Department 
     official:
       ``Member: One of your sentences was, ``I don't believe 
     there is a shred of evidence that Mr. Ickes ever called the 
     Secretary.'' Is that correct?
       Witness: Yes.
       Member: Was that because it had been shredded. . . .?
       Witness: No.
       Member: You are not aware of that?
       Witness: No.
       Member: And you did not do any?
       Witness: No.
       Member: Or did you?''\92\


                               Conclusion

       The Republican Congress has diverted significant amounts of 
     time and money away from the important issues before the 
     United States Congress into an endless politically-motivated 
     investigations.
       It is certainly the case that some of the investigations 
     detailed in this report involve serious allegations of 
     wrongdoing. But what the Republicans leading the House 
     committees should be doing is initiating fair-minded, serious 
     inquiries, not politically-motivated smear campaigns, 
     manipulated by party leaders and designed to create multiple 
     press opportunities rather than to get out the facts.
       Speaker Gingrich complained, shortly after Chairman Burton 
     released doctored transcripts of the Hubbell tapes, about too 
     much attention being paid to the committees, ``to those who 
     seek the truth'' in Speaker Gingrich's words. His 
     characterization begs the question: are the investigating 
     committees seeking the truth?
       Truth is not sought when the political leaders who 
     instigate these investigations make up their minds in advance 
     of the evidence and when they make their intentions obvious 
     by telling the committee chairmen. The objectivity of these 
     investigations must be questioned when those in charge of 
     finding the truth tell us to ``forget the word `scandals' and 
     start using the word `crimes',''\93\ in the words of Newt 
     Gingrich. Or, in the words of House Government Reform and 
     Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton, speaking about 
     President Clinton, ``This guy's a scumbag. That's why I'm 
     after him.''\94\
       These investigations are not about finding the truth. They 
     are about suppressing voices. They are about harassing labor 
     unions, environmental groups, even the Catholic Charities. 
     They are about draining the resources of Democratic national 
     and state-wide campaign organizations. They are about 
     intimidating Asian-Americans from participating in politics. 
     They are about frightening Latino voters from registering or 
     entering the polls. They are about carelessly investigating 
     the wrong people and never apologizing, unconcerned about the 
     damage to their reputations. They are about helping friends 
     of the Republicans, subpoenaing legally protected documents 
     and leaking them to friendly private litigants.
       And finally, they are about wasting taxpayer dollars and 
     abusing the vast investigative powers of congressional 
     committees to run the biggest negative smear campaign in the 
     history of the United States.
       Joe McCarthy would have been proud of this Republican 
     Congress.


                               footnotes

     \1\ Quoted in James Hamilton, ``The Power to Probe: A study 
     of Congressional Investigations'' (New York: Random House, 
     1976) page xii.
     \2\ Los Angeles Times, March 15, 1998.
     \3\ ``Gingrich Foresees Corruption Probe By a GOP House,'' 
     Washington Post, October 14, 1994.
     \4\ Washington Post, October 14, 1994.
     \5\ The power of Congress to investigate is never expressly 
     stated in the Constitution. Nonetheless, congressional 
     committees are granted extraordinary powers to compel 
     testimony, to force the production of documents and other 
     evidence, and to punish contempt, and these powers have time 
     and again been sustained by the Courts, because the power to 
     investigate is ``inherent in the power to make laws.'' 
     (Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 
     (1975)).

[[Page H5324]]

     \6\ Republicans have also been in charge of the two 
     investigations that have brought the most discredit to the 
     House: the McCarthy hearings of 1953 and 1954 and an 1861 
     joint committee investigation into the on-going conduct of 
     the Civil War.
     \7\ Before McCarthy, historians point to a Republican joint 
     committee that attacked President Lincoln's conduct of the 
     war as the worst of congressional investigations. See Guide 
     to Congress, Congressional Quarterly, 4th edition, 1991. The 
     chapter entitled ``Major Investigations: History in Brief'' 
     includes the following passage: ``The Joint Committee on the 
     Conduct of the War compiled what was widely considered--at 
     least until the McCarthy era of the 1950's--the worst record 
     of any congressional investigating unit. It was a political 
     vehicle for Radical Republicans opposed to President Lincoln, 
     as its far-reaching inquiries were used for intensely 
     partisan purposes. It harassed conservative and Democratic 
     generals., particularly Gen. George McClellan . . . Committee 
     sessions were supposed to be closed to the press but 
     information often would be made public if it suited the 
     purpose of the Radicals. As a result, Confederate General 
     Robert E. Lee was moved to observe that the committee was 
     worth about two divisions of Confederate troops.''
     \8\ Wall Street Journal, March 24, 1997.
     \9\ Wall Street Journal, December 14, 1997.
     \10\ Cost attributable to: Salaries of five professional 
     staff working on the investigation, July-August, 1996.
     \11\ Cost attributable to: Salaries of professional committee 
     staff and GAO investigators.
     \12\ Cost attributable to: Salaries of professional staff 
     working on Whitewater investigation, 1995-96: $1.6 million. 
     Salaries and travel costs of professional staff working on 
     Mena Airport investigation, 1997-98: $650,000.
     \13\ Cost attributable to: Salaries of professional staff 
     working part-time on the two investigations, 1997-present.
     \14\ Includes $750,000 from leadership slush fund for 
     Teamsters investigation, $1.4 million from slush fund for 
     American Worker project, $300,000 from committee funds for 
     diGenova and Toensing contracts, and $80,000 for additional 
     investigator consultant contracts.
     \15\ Includes $1.8 million from leadership slush fund. This 
     amount only covers for staff, equipment, and travel. It does 
     not include court reporters that have transcribed 600 hours 
     of depositions, xeroxing, and printing. More importantly, it 
     only includes those costs relating to campaign finance 
     related investigations in 1997 and 1998.
     \16\ Includes salaries, consultant fees, and reimbursement 
     requests from both parties to the contested election. The 
     Federal Contested Election Act authorizes the Committee to 
     reimburse the parties for such costs. These reimbursement 
     requests are currently pending before the committee. This 
     figure does not include the cost of travel, computers, or 
     paper.
     \17\ Includes $1,300,000 from leadership slush fund, and 
     $145,000 in professional staff salary costs for Waco 
     investigation in summer of 1995.
     \18\ Includes only salaries of investigative staff and does 
     not include other administrative costs.
     \19\ Cost attributable: Salary of professional staff member 
     working on investigations.
     \20\ Congressional Quarterly, March 21, 1998.
     \21\ Letter from ranking minority member Waxman to Speaker 
     Gingrich, July 7, 1997.
     \22\ Majority counsel responded that Mr. Intriago could not 
     assert his Fifth Amendment privilege and threatened contempt 
     if Mr. Intriago did not appear. ``Burton Team Threatens 
     Contempt for Witness'' The Hill, February 25, 1998.
     \23\ Wall Street Journal, March 27, 1998.
     \24\ Washington Post, March 19, 1998.
     \25\ Floyd Brown, chairman of Citizens United, host of a 
     conservative radio call-in show in Seattle on the firing of 
     David Bossie, Chairman Burton's top aide, Washington Post, 
     May 7, 1998.
     \26\ April 23, 1996 Memo ``To: All House Full and 
     Subcommittee Chairmen, From: Bob Walker and Jim Nussle, 
     Subject: Request for Information--URGENT''.
     \27\ Congressional Quarterly, March 21, 1998.
     \28\ Washington Post, March 19, 1998.
     \29\ National Journal Congress Daily, April 30, 1998, page 4.
     \30\ Dear Colleague, March 28, 1996.
     \31\ Subcommittee on Crime report, ``The Administration's 
     Efforts Against the Influence of Organized Crime in the 
     Laborers' International Union of North America'' U.S. House 
     of Representatives, 104th Cong., 2d session, page 4.
     \32\ CNN's Inside Politics, June 4, 1997.
     \33\ ``Four Picked to Watch Over Burton's Probe,'' Roll Call, 
     June 6, 1997, page 1.
     \34\ ``Burton's Glass House: Does He Have the Probity of a 
     Prime-Time Prosecutor? Newt Seems to Have Doubts,'' Time, May 
     26, 1997.
     \35\ Salt Lake Tribune, November 11, 1997.
     \36\ Northwest Mining Association v. Bruce Babbitt (C.A. No. 
     97-1013-JLG).
     \37\ Rocky Mountain States Legal Foundation also represents 
     Chairman Young and three other Republican members of the 
     Resources Committee (Representatives Chenowith, Pombo and 
     Schaefer) in federal court litigation seeking to block the 
     President's American Heritage Rivers initiative.
     \38\ June 9, 1997 Freedom of Information Act Request letter 
     to the Director, Office of Administrative Services, U.S. 
     Department of Interior.
     \39\ November 13, 1997 letter to the Director, Office of 
     Administrative Services, U.S. Department of Interior.
     \40\ April 3, 1998 Letter from Melanie Beiler, Assistant to 
     the Secretary and Director of Congressional and Legislative 
     Affairs, Department of the Interior to Chairman Barbara 
     Cubin, Chair.
     \41\ Government Reform committee subpoena to the Executive 
     Office of the President, January 28, 1998.
     \42\ ``Burton Subpoenas Hillary on Filegate,'' The Hill, 
     February 13, 1998.
     \43\ Ibid.
     \44\ Letter from Karen Maloy Sprecher, Department of 
     Interior, to Chairman Burton, January 1, 1998.
     \45\ Deposition of David Mercer, Day 2, August 26, 1998, at 
     150.
     \46\ Roll Call, November 25, 1996.
     \47\ 26 U.S.C. 7216 prohibits anyone ``in the business of 
     preparing . . . [tax] returns'' from actions to ``disclose 
     any information furnished to him for, or in connection with, 
     the preparation of any such return.'' An accountant who 
     violates the statute is subject to criminal penalties (a fine 
     and/or imprisonment).
     \48\ For example, letter to Chairman Burton from Mark 
     MacDougall, et al., February 13, 1998.
     \49\ On January 30, 1998, Chairman Burton subpoenaed 
     accountant Donald Lam for tax preparation material relating 
     to Ted Sioeng, his family, or their business. Mr. Sioeng 
     objected to release of the accountant's materials. On 
     February 13, 1998, Chairman Burton was informed by letter 
     that federal law prevented Mr. Lam from providing the 
     materials. On February 20, 1998, by letter, Chairman Burton 
     issued his threat of contempt of Congress for failure to 
     provide the information.
     \50\ Committees other than the tax committees are prohibited, 
     by 26 U.S.C. 6103, from trying to obtain tax records except 
     by special order of the House. There was no special 
     authorization from the House for these subpoenas.
     \51\ Draft resolution. See appendix.
     \52\ April 3, 1998 letter from Chris Donesa, subcommittee 
     Republican counsel, to Leslie Berger Kieman, counsel to the 
     Teamsters.
     \53\ February 13, 1997.
     \54\ March 7, 1997.
     \55\ The Detroit News, May 6, 1998.
     \56\ Eventually, an agreement was reached to narrow the scope 
     of what is sought by the Committee.
     \57\ Government Reform Committee subpoena to the Executive 
     Office of the President, March 4, 1997.
     \58\ 2 U.S.C. 192.
     \59\ United States v. Orman, 207 F.2d 148 (3rd Cir. 1953).
     \60\ Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 
     372 U.S. 539, 545 (1963).
     \61\ December 8, 1997 letter to Secretary Herman, Department 
     of Labor, from Chairman Hoekstra, subcommittee on Oversight 
     and Investigations.
     \62\ House Judiciary Committee transcript, May 18, 1996.
     \63\ Indianapolis Star, April 16, 1998.
     \64\ Majority Leader Armey speaking on the export of 
     commercial satellites by Loral to China, Washington Post, May 
     6, 1998, page A4.
     \65\ ``Burton Apologizes to GOP'' Washington Post, May 7, 
     1998.
     \66\ Congressional Quarterly, April 5, 1997.
     \67\ Committee on Commerce, Internal Memorandum to Chairman 
     Barton, Re: Hearing on Molten Metal Technology's Contracts 
     with the Department of Energy, October 20, 1997.
     \68\ Ibid.
     \69\ Ibid.
     \70\ Ibid.
     \71\ Ibid.
     \72\ Chairman Barton's letter of February 11, 1998 responding 
     to Ranking Member Klink's letter of January 12, 1998.
     \73\ The list of allegations against Democrats is well-
     rehearsed in the Government Reform Committee. For the list of 
     serious Republican abuses see letters from Ranking Member 
     Waxman to Chairman Burton of March 17, 1997, April 29, 1997, 
     May 8, 1997, May 15, 1997, June 10, 1997, August 29, 1997, 
     and January 13, 1998.
     \74\ 14 separate subpoenas were sent to the Kansas State 
     Democratic party and prominent Kansas Democrats and a number 
     of Kansas party officials were deposed.
     \75\ Indianapolis Star, April 16, 1998.
     \76\ ``All the President's Menaces,'' Esquire, August 1997.
     \77\ Washington Times, July 3, 1997.
     \78\ Wall Street Journal, November 5, 1997.
     \79\ Government Reform Committee subpoena to Bell Atlantic-
     Virginia, Inc. (LiPing Chen Hudson), September 19, 1997.
     \80\ Letter from Rep. Moran to Chairman Burton, October 28, 
     1997. See also Wall Street Journal, November 5, 1997 ``House 
     Panel's Campaign-Finance Probe Promises to be More Militant 
     than Senate's Investigation.''
     \81\ Peter Knight quoted in Jonathan Broder's piece ``How a 
     Republican Smear Campaign Against Al Gore Undid a Promising 
     Boston-Area Company,'' Boston Magazine, February 1998.
     \82\ Los Angeles Times, April 15, 1997.
     \83\ House Committee on Rules print, ``Hearing Before the 
     Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, 105th Congress, 
     1st session, on House Resolution 298, a resolution amending 
     the rules of the House of Representatives to repeal the rule 
     allowing subpoenaed witnesses to choose not to be 
     photographed at committee hearings'' November 4, 1997.
     \84\ Peter Knight quoted in Jonathan Broder's piece ``How a 
     Republican Smear Campaign Against Al Gore Undid a Promising 
     Boston-Area Company,'' Boston Magazine, February 1998.
     \85\ ``Anatomy of a Smear'' Thomas Oliphant, Boston Globe, 
     September 23, 1997.
     \86\ ``How a Republican Smear Campaign Against Al Gore Undid 
     a Promising Boston-Areas Company,'' Boston Magazine, February 
     1998.
     \87\ April 3, 1997, subpoenas to Chevy Chase F.S.B. and 
     National Capital Bank of Washington.
     \88\ ``Investigators Issue Subpoena to Wrong DNC Donor,'' Los 
     Angeles Times, April 15, 1997.
     \89\ The last three examples are cited in letter from Ranking 
     Member Waxman to Chairman Burton, September 8, 1997.
     \90\ Deposition of Dick Morris by Government Reform staff, 
     August 21, 1997, at 152-3.
     \91\ Deposition of Dick Morris by Government Reform staff, 
     August 21, 1997, at 174.
     \92\ Los Angeles Times, March 15, 1998.
     \93\ Ibid.
     \94\ ``Chairman Burton, quoted in The Indianapolis Star, 
     April 16, 1998.
  Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, which is 
otherwise a good bill, contains another $8 million for replenishing the 
Republican investigation slush fund. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) came to the Committee on Rules yesterday with an amendment which 
would prohibit the expenditure of any of these funds in the new fiscal 
year that begins on October 1. His amendment would not have deleted 
these funds. It would have merely prohibited their disbursement without 
a vote of the House. Mr. Speaker, this is a sensible amendment and it 
is one that should be debated.
  The Committee on Rules has otherwise reported a fair rule for the 
consideration of this bill, but the Hoyer amendment is one that matters 
a great deal to the Democratic Members of this House. We have seen far 
too many partisan witch-hunts in this body in the past year and a half. 
We would hope in a new Congress that Democrats and Republicans could 
decide in a less highly charged atmosphere if it is in the best 
interests of the House to continue to use a slush fund for committee 
investigations. The Democrats on the Committee on Rules have asked our 
Republican colleagues to consider the requests for further funding by 
committees in the regular legislative process, requiring a vote of the 
full House.

[[Page H5325]]

 We have been repeatedly denied this opportunity. We are asking that 
the Republican leadership step back and allow the House to consider 
funding for investigations on a case-by-case basis that serves the best 
interests of this institution and the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns about the reserve 
fund. However, this debate would have been more appropriate at the time 
the fund was created.
  In my mind it makes good business sense for the House to be prepared 
for the unexpected by establishing a contingency fund. It is common 
practice among businesses, and there is no reason that the House should 
not adopt sound business practices.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this fund is accountable. The 
House Committee on Oversight controls these dollars, and a vote of the 
committee is required to expend the money. It is all very public. What 
is unfortunate is that there are so many questionable activities that 
call for congressional investigation which require the use of this 
money. It is also unfortunate that we have witnessed a lack of 
cooperation in these investigations which has made them much more time 
consuming and expensive.
  The Legislative Branch bill is bipartisan. There is no reason to drag 
down this bill with politically charged debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, in my previous life as the public works commissioner for 
the city of Portland, Oregon, it was my pleasure to work with our 
community to implement programs to promote transit as has been 
encouraged for years by Federal policy.

                              {time}  1230

  These programs enjoyed widespread support from the business 
community, from private citizens, from government, and they have made a 
difference in promoting the quality of life in our city.
  When I was elected to Congress a couple years ago, I was surprised; 
no, let me say I was shocked, to find out that what the Federal 
Government had been encouraging local communities to do, what the 
Federal Government had been encouraging other people in the Washington 
metropolitan area to do, what the United States Senate had done for the 
last 6 years, I was unable to do as a Member of Congress. I could give 
free parking to everybody who worked for me, worth over $1,500 a year, 
but I could not give a partial transit subsidy for the people who 
choose not to drive to work.
  I set about trying to find out why this was and to fix it. I have 
introduced legislation, House Resolution 37 that has now been 
cosponsored by a majority of the House, indeed 230 people already, that 
would make it optional for Members to at least provide this for their 
employees who wish to do it.
  I have surveyed every one of the House agencies, there are 15 of 
them, to see if they support it, if they could afford it, if they want 
it, and I have been told unanimously that they thought it was good for 
the institution, that it was good for their employees, it was good for 
the environment.
  I am pleased to note that this bill before us today, the rule of 
which we are debating, would finally, by an amendment from the 
Committee on Appropriations, would have put this in place, and I 
commend the committee and the Members who brought it forward so that we 
can short-circuit the legislative process and get on with business.
  I appeared before the Committee on Rules, trying to protect this 
provision because I heard a rumor that somebody may object. Evidently 
that may occur. I think it would be unfortunate if the welfare of our 
employees gets caught up in some sort of jurisdictional battle.
  This has been authorized by Congress for the last half dozen years, 
and many of the employees on the Hill, as well as 100,000 Federal 
employees, already benefit from it.
  I would hope that we would find a way in our wisdom to not hold our 
employees hostage to the machinations of the House, and, as a new 
Member, I plead guilty of maybe not understanding them in their 
entirety, but when we have the second most congested area in the United 
States in metropolitan Washington, D.C., when we are crying about 
traffic congestion and parking on the Hill, when we are talking about 
throwing billions of dollars to try and repair Washington, D.C., I 
would hope that the Members of this House could somehow find it in 
their conscience or their creativity to make sure that we implement 
this little piece of Federal policy so that the Members of Congress 
will not be the only ones who deny it to their employees.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh) the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, my colleague from 
Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding time and for the hard work and, I 
believe, fair rule that was provided to us by the Committee on Rules.
  I rise in strong support of this rule and I ask my colleagues to 
support it. I want to first thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and ranking member, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for providing this 
structured rule leading to general debate on the fiscal year 1999 
legislative branch appropriations bill. I will withhold particulars of 
the legislation until we get into the general debate portion of our 
discussion today, although I may be compelled to respond to some of the 
criticism that will be leveled in a very partisan manner, I think, on 
this bill. It really is not criticism that belongs in this bill, but 
nevertheless I will be prepared to respond.
  Let me clearly state, however, that we have produced a solid 
bipartisan piece of legislation. I note that the gentleman from Texas, 
a member of the Committee on Rules, also noted that, and we had hoped 
that we could keep it that way, and I hope that when all the debate is 
over that is what this will be, a bipartisan bill, because we really 
did make an effort to reach out across the aisle and include the needs 
and concerns of all Members.
  This bill, I believe, meets the needs of the House and the 
legislative branch for the upcoming year. It is a fiscally-sound bill 
presenting only a 1.7 percent increase over last year.
  Now, under law, we are required to provide all legislative branch 
employees with a little over 3 percent increase cost of living 
allowance. So by providing that increase, and everyone who is eligible 
will receive it, the bill is still only less than a 2 percent increase 
over last year.
  We continue to downsize the legislative branch. Indeed we will have 
438 fewer employees next year than we will this year. Over the past 4 
years or 5 years, rather, we have reduced full-time equivalent 
employees by over 15 percent.
  People have said that if we are going to downsize government that the 
legislative branch should lead by example. I believe that we have. But 
we have done it in a sensitive way. We have provided the Architect and 
the Government Printing Office the opportunity to give their employees 
the option to leave and to provide them with a buyout so that the 
employees would be helped in the process and the management could 
manage this transition. I think we have really attempted to do the 
right thing.
  The rule provides for one motion to recommit, but I am hopeful that 
that will not be necessary. The subcommittee worked very hard to 
develop a balanced bill, and to the best of our ability this bill takes 
into consideration the concerns of Members on a variety of problems. 
Let us move forward now in this process and support the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Wise).
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, when I came on the floor and heard some 
previous statements about lack of cooperation from the Democrats in 
investigations, I have to respond.
  I am a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
and I have to say that this is a perfect

[[Page H5326]]

example of where taxpayer money has been wasted, and it has been 
wasted, Mr. Speaker, because the majority party, the Republican Party, 
would refuse to conduct investigations in a bipartisan manner.
  Let me give my colleagues some examples:
  If my colleagues recall, this was to be an election reform and to be 
looking at many of the areas of concern, particularly coming out of the 
1996 elections. Well, Democrats raised a lot of soft money then, and a 
lot, most, of the allegations deal with soft money. What is never 
pointed out is Republicans raised more soft money, and so we said let 
us make it fair because there are allegations about Republicans just as 
there are allegations about Democrats. Five hundred subpoenas were 
issued almost unilaterally by the chairman of the committee, which I 
might add is an unprecedented exercise of that authority, never done 
before, 500 subpoenas of which almost all, and I believe there may have 
been 12 that went to Republican targets, but almost all went to 
Democratic targets.
  We then asked, ``Well, why don't we at least have bipartisanship in 
voting for subpoenas, which has always been the practice?'' No, could 
not do that, had to be done by the chairman.
  Talk about delay. There were complaints because Democrats would not 
vote immunity for 4 witnesses, which Democrats finally did vote just 
yesterday or 2 days ago because we finally got some agreements from 
Republicans about making it fair.
  Talk about taxpayer waste. We voted to support the Republican 
majority on immunity for previous witnesses and found out that when 
they were immunized they then, the Republican majority, made such a 
hash of it that one of the witnesses now will not be able to be 
prosecuted for possible crimes that came out under that.
  Talk about taxpayers losing money and taxpayer waste. That is why a 
lot of us are concerned about this Congress that wants to be a Congress 
of investigation and not legislation, while meanwhile, I might add, 
health care bill of rights, nobody is passing that, nothing done on a 
tobacco bill, campaign reform, nothing being done.
  That is why some of us question whether this is a good use of funds.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee rose and said this is a 
bipartisan bill, and he is correct in that assertion, it is a 
bipartisan bill. Within the constraints of the funds available, the 
chairman and ranking member have tried to work a bill that responsibly 
allows the legislative branch of government to proceed and allows this 
body to maintain its responsibilities to its employees. I am sure the 
chairman and each of us that serves on this subcommittee, as well as 
our ranking member, could have made additions to this bill, had 
resources been available which we think would have enhanced this bill 
and given to the legislative branch a better ability to do its job; 
however, those constraints exist.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise, however, expressing disappointment in this rule. 
Basically the rule is one that tries to facilitate the consideration of 
this bill. I had, however, offered an amendment which I did not offer 
in subcommittee, but which I wanted to offer on the floor. That 
amendment would have provided for the increased expenditures allocated 
to various committees, for reasons presumably not anticipated at the 
time, that this House passes a funding resolution out of the Committee 
on House Oversight, on which I also serve.
  Mr. Speaker, this so-called emergency funding, very frankly, was 
included for the purposes of getting the House oversight's funding 
resolution below certain targets so that certain people on the floor of 
the House would vote for it on the contention that it was not more 
funding than occurred pursuant to their plan; which is simply to say it 
was a device to shift some $8 million out of the bill and to a fund 
that has been referred to as a slush fund, but suffice it to say a fund 
out of which nonanticipated expenditures for committees can be funded.
  Let me first of all say that is a not an unreasonable effort; that is 
to say, to provide funding for unanticipated needs. In fact, we have a 
very legitimate example of this Congress acting in the fashion that I 
think is appropriate and that would be provided for by my amendment, 
had it been allowed, and that was before the Committee on Rules. A 
hearing was held on the funding of the special committee to oversee 
China, the so-called Cox-Dicks committee. The Committee on Rules had an 
extended hearing, adopted a rule, and made a proposal, and we adopted a 
resolution on the floor by vote of the Congress, by the House of 
Representatives. There is, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion no reason why 
that should not be done for every committee.
  Now the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise) got up and was 
speaking about the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's 
hearings. Frankly, they have come to us for a number of unanticipated 
expenditures. In fact, one of the subcommittees, I think the 
expenditure was not unanticipated at all; this is the Teamsters' 
investigation and labor investigation generally. It was, however, a way 
of getting some extra funding without having it adopted on the floor of 
the House. I think that was unfortunate.
  My amendment, if allowed by this rule, would have simply provided not 
that there could not be funding but that the House of Representatives 
would have to vote on that. Now, frankly, colleagues who are now in the 
majority took over and said that they wanted to have business done in 
an open fashion, and we were going to live by the rules everybody else 
had to live by, and that we would take responsibility for those 
expenditures that we made, and frankly we were going to cut spending in 
the House of Representatives.
  Lo and behold, they created a fund that now even the Committee on 
House Oversight does not have hearings on.

                              {time}  1245

  Because our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) says 
in fact this is a Speaker's decision. We just perform a ministerial 
function, which is to say we are a pass-through. So I tell my friends 
on both sides of the aisle, currently that $8 million is decided by one 
person.
  Now, if that is the way you think this House ought to be run, if that 
is the way you think the taxpayers' money ought to be spent, so be it. 
But if you believe that the taxpayers' money, that we all talk so much 
about, ought to be appropriated and expended pursuant to a vote of the 
representatives of those people who pay those taxes, then I would 
suggest to you that you would defeat this rule and allow the amendment 
to go forward, which does not preclude the expenditure at all, but 
simply says that it must be voted on by all the Members of the House.
  Is that such an unreasonable proposal? Is that such a divergence from 
regular order that the Committee on Rules would decide not to allow 
that, I think reasonable and common sense rule, to be considered by the 
House?
  I regret that I must oppose this rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman, there is nothing secret 
about these allocations. There is nothing out of order. Reading from 
the guidelines for allocation from the reserve fund, I will read part 
three in total of these procedures:
  Committee on House Oversight consideration, number 1, open debate 
will occur on the request; number 2, budget submissions will become 
public; number 3, committee vote will determine, A, allocation of the 
funds; B, amount of the allocation; and, C, scope of the projects.
  There a vote, it is public, everything is above board and open.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will engage in a colloquy 
to answer a question, the gentlewoman heard my representation. The 
chairman of the Committee on House Oversight, which you say is public, 
has indicated ours is simply a ministerial function; that the vote 
essentially is taken,

[[Page H5327]]

that is true, and, because this committee is a 2 to 1 committee, the 
majority party always prevails.
  Is the gentlewoman aware of the fact that apparently the chairman 
believes this is a decision of the Speaker, and has articulated that on 
the record, and that the vote is simply a pro forma?
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. No, I am not aware of that. I am not aware that is 
necessarily the case, because the rules of the committee state 
otherwise. The rules of the committee state this is a public process, 
that there is a vote on it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman is 
absolutely correct. That is what the rules say. But the chairman said 
it is pro forma, which is why we do not have the chairman come before 
the committee and explain these expenditures, unlike every other 
expenditure they want to make. They do not come before the committee.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield eight minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, one of the real success stories of the 
environment in America has been the increased understanding of people 
across this country of the importance of recycling. From young 
students, to retirees, to small businesses, to very large multi-
national companies--all participate in recycling across this country.
  When I go home to my hometown of Austin, Texas, there will be the 
blue recycling containers in front of each house with bottles and paper 
and other goods. When I go by the Texas State Capitol complex, I find a 
program in which some 30,000 State employees are participating in 
recycling.
  Another example of the success we have had is something that was 
originally started in Austin called Texas Recycles. Last year that 
program proved so successful that it became America Recycles, and it 
was celebrated right here in our Nation's Capital and across the 
country. We honored a number of businesses that recognize it is a good 
business practice to recycle, not only for the environment, but because 
it can be a profit center in eliminating waste.
  I noticed in the Washington Post from last November two retirees from 
Silver Spring who were honored in a ``Rewarding Week for Good 
Recyclers'' as a part of this America Recycles program. The same story 
reported that now the national recycling rate is 27 percent of eligible 
trash.
  What a contrast, unfortunately, and the real focus of my remarks 
today, is this House of Representatives with the rest of the country. 
Instead of being a national leader on this important environmental 
issue that every American can understand, simply recycling instead of 
filling up more landfill and garbage, the recycling rate here in the 
House borders on zero percent.
  The recycling program in the U.S. House of Representatives, instead 
of being a national leader, is indeed a national disgrace. It is a 
sharp contrast with the efforts of retirees and students. I think of 
the many elementary students that get honored each year by Keep Austin 
Beautiful, a program like many around the country. I can tell you there 
is not an elementary school classroom in Austin that is participating 
in the Keep Austin Beautiful program, that could not do a better job 
than this House Republican leadership with our recycling program.
  Let me tell you a little bit about the failings and disgraceful 
nature of this program. It is very, very difficult to determine whether 
the source of these problems is shear incompetence or total 
indifference. I tend to view it as probably more a problem of total 
indifference and insensitivity to our environment, that has 
characterized so many of the other attacks on clean air and clean water 
on the floor of this House.
  But what has happened during the course of this House Republican 
leadership, which is now entering, I guess it is on about the second 
half of its fourth year, is that for three years of this three-and-a-
half year administration there has been no recycling coordinator in the 
House. They managed to hire a woman to serve as recycling coordinator 
for almost six months, but she was a little too honest for the job, so 
she is no longer involved in the program.
  In December of 1996, concerned about the lack of a recycling 
coordinator, I met face-to-face in my office with Superintendent Miley. 
He assured me it was a high priority to hire a recycling coordinator 
and make this program work. Well, it only took another 10 months before 
they hired the woman who stayed here for less time than they posted her 
job.
  Of course, the Superintendent, like the other people here in the 
House, can only establish the priorities and follow the emphasis of the 
House Republican leadership, and that emphasis on recycling is right 
down there in last place, zero percent.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that the Subcommittee 
on Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations has made this a 
priority, and that, in fact I believe the gentleman mentioned the 
figure of about 20 percent as being recycled in his home community, and 
that is admirable; in my home community it was closer to 40.
  Mr. DOGGETT. That was the national average, 27 percent. It is much 
higher in Austin.
  Mr. WALSH. We are recycling about 10,000 tons of material each year, 
and our percentage in the waste stream, it is in the neighborhood of 
about 25 to 26 percent.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman 
pointed that out, because the kind of indifference and disinterest in 
this subject I am talking about has not always been true in the House. 
When the Democrats controlled the House, bottle collection since that 
time and recycling has dropped 83 percent. Can collections have only 
dropped 73 percent. Statistics on paper recycling have not been 
completely available, because when the House attempted to recycle four 
million pounds of paper, almost 90 percent of it was cluttered with 
garbage and the recyclers refused to take it.
  I am aware of the gentleman's support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr); that there are some people, 
including the gentleman who is asking the questions, who are of good 
faith and concerned about this. But to spend 3.5 years and have 3 of 
that without any recycling coordinator, to come into my office in the 
past week and be told the recycling program is suspended, is truly 
outrageous. To have this report which the recycling coordinator 
prepared, by an honest Pat Dollar, who was hired here very briefly, 
prepared, hidden, secreted, covered up and not released by the 
Superintendent's Office despite months of requests there, and to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), to not release this information 
is a disgrace.
  That secret report, never formally released, points up that there is 
so much confusion around here in the corridors of these House buildings 
because many people do not think there is a recycling program, because 
they see so much garbage cluttering the floor out there. And when 
someone has to go through the recycling, it is pretty clear that 
effective recycling is not being done.
  The Farr amendment, which I understand the gentleman supports, is a 
step in the right direction, but it is a very modest step. Just 
devoting some money to this is not going to solve the problem. There 
has to be interest. There has to be leadership. There has to be a total 
and complete change to adopt the attitude of the schoolchildren in 
Austin, Texas, instead of the attitude of the House Republican 
leadership, which has been unwilling to have this Congress lead the way 
on recycling.
  Let me just say that I believe there are businesses and 
schoolchildren and citizens all over this country that realize that 
recycling papers, cans, bottles, anything that will tear, is a win-win 
proposition. It is true of numerous Federal agencies right down the 
Mall that recycle, and actually earn thousands of dollars a year from 
their recycling program.
  It is not true of this House. Despite the fact that out here every 
day we have more recycled rhetoric about the

[[Page H5328]]

environment and more recycled old bad legislative proposals, when it 
comes to the simple matter of doing something about all the trees that 
get chopped down for the tons of paper that come through these halls, 
just simply seeing they do not end up in a landfill, that they get 
recycled, that very simple thing that so many American families are 
able to do, this family, this House, has not done, is not doing, is not 
going to do until there is a total change of attitude and some emphasis 
on and direction from the House Republican leadership to get the job 
done.

                          ____________________