[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.
____________________