[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6754-H6766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY FOR THE COMMITTEE ON 
                      EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 507 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 507

       Resolved, 

     SECTION 1. APPLICATION.

       This resolution shall apply to the investigation by the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce into the 
     administration of labor laws by Government agencies, 
     including the Departments of Labor and Justice, concerning 
     the International Brotherhood of the Teamsters, and other 
     related matters.

     SEC. 2. HANDLING OF INFORMATION.

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

     SEC. 3. DISPOSITION AND INTERROGATORIES.

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


                          Committee Amendment

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the committee 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Committee amendment:

[[Page H6755]]

       Page 2, line 16, strike ``, staff, or contractor'' and 
     insert ``or staff''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
half-hour of time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for 
purposes of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, this resolution providing special investigative 
authority for the Committee on Education and the Workforce was 
introduced on July 21, 1998, by our good chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Bill Goodling), and the members of the Subcommittee 
on Oversight and Investigations.
  The resolution applies its authority only to the investigation by the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce into the administration of 
labor laws by government agencies, including the Departments of Labor 
and Justice, concerning the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and 
other related matters; let me repeat that, ``and other related 
matters,'' not ``other matters,'' but ``other related matters.''
  This resolution allows the chairman of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, after consultation with the ranking minority member, to 
order the taking of depositions or interrogatories anywhere within the 
United States under oath and pursuant to notice of subpoena.
  Madam Speaker, the resolution further allows the chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, after consultation with the 
ranking minority member, to designate a single member or staff of the 
committee to conduct depositions.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, the resolution considers information taken 
under this new authority as taken in executive session by the Committee 
on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Madam Speaker, as the Members are aware, clause 2(h)(1) of House Rule 
XI requires two members to be present to take testimony or receive 
evidence in a committee. In order to allow a single member or staff 
designated by the chairman to receive evidence, it is necessary for the 
House to approve a resolution of this nature.
  Madam Speaker, the Committee on Rules is generally hesitant to depart 
from the House rules, which properly assigns responsibility to Members 
of the House to take testimony and receive evidence. That is the normal 
rule of the House. However, extenuating circumstances dictate the need 
for this resolution today.
  Madam Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce has indicated that some 40 witnesses must be deposed, and 
there are a scant few legislative days remaining in this session. As we 
know, a week from tomorrow we go off on a 4-week break for a work 
period back home in our districts, and then we return around September 
9, and will be in session for about 10 or 12 more legislative days 
before we adjourn sine die for the year.
  Madam Speaker, the chairman of that committee and several active 
members of the subcommittee conducting the investigation have testified 
before the Committee on Rules that they are encountering resistance to 
their legitimate inquiry from some potential targets of the 
investigation.

                              {time}  1315

  Madam Speaker, attorneys for the Teamsters, and other potential 
witnesses as well in this investigation, have written to the 
subcommittee and indicated their refusal to comply with requests for 
voluntary interviews. In order then to understand the context of the 
documents already received by the subcommittee, it is necessary to 
depose these individuals.
  So, Madam Speaker, this resolution is consistent with precedents from 
former Democrat and Republican control of the House, and a number of 
important safeguards have been included. The Committee on Education and 
the Workforce has adopted a new committee rule, which we insisted on 
before we gave them this new deposition authority, which sets forth 
appropriate procedures for how the staff depositions will be conducted, 
including provisions for notice, minority protections, and the rights 
of witnesses.
  Madam Speaker, I would also note for the record that the information 
obtained under the authority of this resolution is considered as taken 
in executive session by the committee. That is very important. In order 
to release such information, again under normal rules of the House, 
clause 2(K)(7) of House Rule XI says that a committee vote is required.
  Madam Speaker, the Committee on Rules believes that the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce has demonstrated a compelling need for the 
authority provided by this resolution, and it is my belief that they 
will exercise it judiciously. We have a great deal of faith and a great 
deal of respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) 
of the full committee, and I know that he and his committee, and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Hoekstra) of the subcommittee, will 
certainly act in a judicious manner, and we trust them to do that. So, 
I urge support for the resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this 
time. As my colleague has said and explained, this resolution will give 
authority to the staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
to take depositions in connection with the committee's investigation 
into the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
  Madam Speaker, I must oppose this resolution, because it grants 
unnecessary authority for an investigation of questionable necessity. 
The standing rules of the House give deposition authority to committees 
as long as two Members are present. And since the rule was enacted in 
1955, until the beginning of the 104th Congress, it has been the 
practice not to grant additional authority, except in cases of grave 
importance to the Nation. If we pass this resolution, it will be the 
third exception since 1996.
  There is a question whether this authority is needed at all for the 
committee to obtain documents and testimony for the investigation. The 
Teamsters have already supplied the committee more than 50,000 
documents. They have expressed in writing that they are willing to 
participate fully in public hearings of the committee, even without the 
force of subpoena. However, they do have grave and justified concerns 
with secret, behind-closed-doors witness interviews.
  There is a question whether this whole investigation is needed. The 
Teamsters are already the subject of a full investigation by the U.S. 
Justice Department. That is their job. They already have the staff and 
the resources and the authority in place. I am disturbed that the 
committee has already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this 
investigation instead of on other, much higher priority concerns within 
the jurisdiction of the committee, such as the education of our 
children.
  There is a question about whether this is an appropriate delegation 
of responsibility to staff. We, the Members of the House, are the 
elected officials entrusted with the authority to conduct 
investigations. This is not an authority we should delegate so quickly.
  Finally, there is a question whether this authority creates 
opportunity for abuse of the powers of Congress to meddle in the 
matters of private individuals and organizations. Let us remember that 
the standing House rule on investigations was enacted to curb the 
abuses of the McCarthy era.
  The Committee on Education and the Workforce requested this 
authority, saying it would be easier to obtain testimony and documents. 
The purpose of the House rules should not be to make our jobs easier. 
The House rules should promote democracy, preserve individual freedom, 
and keep the long arm of the government from stifling liberty.
  Madam Speaker, I have too many questions about this resolution. I 
urge my colleagues to vote no on the resolution and vote no on granting 
unnecessary powers for unnecessary investigations.

[[Page H6756]]

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me just recall to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall), my good friend, that giving this temporary exception to the 
rules is not to make jobs easier or life easier for Members of 
Congress. Rather, it is to get the job done. It is to follow through 
with due diligence. That is why we are very careful to give out this 
kind of authority.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from York, 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the person we are placing our trust in and 
who I hope is going to visit me up in Saratoga during the month of 
August.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) for yielding me this time, and I want to echo what the 
gentleman, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, just said. We really 
owe it to the rank and file of the Teamsters to complete this as 
expeditiously as we possibly can, and therefore need this deposition 
authority in order to do that.
  The Committee on Education and the Workforce is examining the failed 
1996 election of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and related 
matters, including financial mismanagement at the union and possible 
manipulation of its pension fund.
  Although the subcommittee's investigation has established a good 
foundation, its progress is increasingly slowed by obstructionist 
tactics of the IBT, including the refusal to allow interviews of 
relevant witnesses. We have been forced to issue subpoenas for 
documents to 14 organizations, most of whom refused to voluntarily 
provide information to the subcommittee at direction of the IBT. 
Subpoenas have also been issued to seven witnesses to secure their 
testimony at the subcommittee's public hearing.
  Furthermore, the IBT has steadfastly refused on numerous occasions 
over the last 4 months to allow subcommittee investigators to interview 
current IBT employees and employees of its actuarial and accounting 
firms. IBT has even objected to the subcommittee interviewing former 
IBT employees.
  To thoroughly and professionally examine outstanding issues, the 
investigation needs the authority to have designated staff conduct 
depositions. There are more than three dozen witnesses whose testimony 
would substantially further the investigation and who may have to be 
deposed. Much of this would be lengthy, detailed questioning which is 
not possible in a committee hearing. Some of it would also be very 
technical. Some of the depositions may have to be conducted after 
Congress adjourns for the year. All of it is needed if the 
investigation is to continue and make progress.
  I want to ensure my colleagues that the authority granted through 
this resolution has safeguards to ensure that it is used appropriately. 
First, the authority is granted to the chairman of the full committee 
and can be used only in connection with the Teamsters investigation.
  Second, information obtained under deposition authority is considered 
as having been taken in executive session by the subcommittee. That 
makes the information confidential and subject to the protocol under 
which the investigation is being conducted, a protocol which was agreed 
to by the minority.
  Madam Speaker, the Committee on Education and the Workforce has 
judiciously adopted rules to assure proper use of deposition authority. 
We will provide for bipartisan participation in depositions. The 
ranking minority member will receive 3 business days' written notice 
before any deposition is taken, no matter where he may be, and all 
Members will receive 3 business days' written notice that a deposition 
has been scheduled. Finally, our proposed committee rules provide for 
various rights for witnesses, including the right to counsel.
  This resolution is well planned and will be implemented with care. 
Deposition authority is a tool that will enable the Teamsters 
investigation to unravel the improprieties associated with the 1996 IBT 
election so they do not recur. It will also shed light on mismanagement 
and financial improprieties so that the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters can become more responsive to its members.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support rank-and-file 
Teamsters Union members and join me in voting for H. Res. 507.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking minority member on the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) 
for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the proposed 
change in rules and regulations and procedures. In my estimation, a 
decision to grant deposition authority to the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce would be unwise, unwarranted, and a radical break 
with House tradition and practices, and a very real threat to the civil 
liberties and privacy rights of American citizens.
  The new deposition authority is virtually unlimited in scope and 
duration. It permits the majority to engage in an unprecedented fishing 
expedition, even during the summer recess of this House.
  The chairman is seeking to acquire an extraordinary array of powers. 
With the stroke of a pen, he could summon to this Congress any American 
citizen for secret, under oath, behind-closed-doors interrogation. I am 
sure that the confidential testimony that our chairman just described 
will then either be officially, or through leaks, made public.
  Any citizen who is not frightened by this scenario should be, 
particularly given the very clear record of investigatory abuse by the 
Republican majority in this House. To place the Republicans' proposal 
in a fair historical context, I would remind the Members of this House 
that such a sweeping power has been assumed by this body or by the 
Senate very rarely and only under the most compelling of circumstances. 
Only when faced with grave accusations of government wrongdoing or with 
threats to our national security has this body deemed it necessary to 
assume a power which traditionally resides in the judicial branch of 
government.
  Madam Speaker, there is no compelling reasons for this authority. I 
ask why is it necessary to depose 40 witnesses in secret session? Not 
one Teamster has refused a subpoena before this committee. Not one 
Teamster has refused to come before the committee and testify under 
oath and in public. There is nothing concerning fraudulent pension 
matters that has surfaced before this committee. And if there were, 
this committee does not have the expertise or the resources or the 
commitment to do anything about it.
  Madam Speaker, I tell my colleagues that in this instance it is 
difficult to view the majority's proposal as anything other than a 
cynical power grab, a partisan fishing expedition, a concerted attack 
on organized labor, and an invitation to abuse innocent American 
citizens.
  This investigation, which has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars 
and dragged on for nearly a year, has been a shameful waste of time and 
money and an embarrassment to this institution. It is simply 
disingenuous for Republicans on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce to claim that their failure to produce any new or relevant 
information regarding the 1996 Teamsters election is due to a lack of 
authority.
  The problem is that the story they wish to tell, one of widespread, 
systematic corruption throughout the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters, is one of fiction. No amount of snooping, interrogating, or 
wishful thinking will make it otherwise. This is simply too awesome a 
power, especially when considering that the chairman of the committee 
already has unilateral authority to issue subpoenas.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate Chairman Goodling's words of assurance 
that committee Democrats will be involved in the deposition process and 
that other safeguards will be constructed around the proceedings. But 
with all due respect to my good friend, the past record of Republicans 
ignoring the rights of the minority on this committee does not speak 
well for such assurances.
  We were given the same guarantees regarding consultation and notice 
when the chairman appropriated the power to unilaterally issue 
subpoenas.

[[Page H6757]]

                              {time}  1330

  Those promises have been consistently, routinely and casually broken. 
Perhaps most disturbing is the majority's proposal to allow staff who 
are not attorneys to conduct sworn depositions. The very thought is 
mind-boggling, American citizens being drugged into this little star 
chamber to be interrogated under oath in secret by staff who are not 
bound by or trained in the Code of Legal Ethics. This is an open 
invitation for abuse and for the violation of legitimate legal and 
constitutional rights.
  Legal proceedings should be conducted by those trained in the law, 
not by laymen. Testimony before Congress should be in a public arena 
for American citizens to judge guilt or innocence for themselves. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this unwise and dangerous amendment to the 
rules of the House.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just like to point out to the previous speaker, who is the 
ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, that 
the Committee on Rules has the responsibility of assigning the 
responsibilities and jurisdiction of committees.
  We all know that the Committee on the Judiciary is primarily involved 
in looking into the legal code and the criminal law of the land. The 
Committee on Education and the Workforce has primary responsibility to 
look into labor issues and has oversight of the laws particularly as 
they pertain to pensions.
  I know, I have worked for many years on the Social Security issue and 
the abuses that take place in the fiduciary accounts in Social 
Security. But here we have rank and file members of the Teamsters 
Union, and they want to know where their money went to and what 
happened.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Parker).
  Mr. PARKER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 507, 
which would provide for deposition authority for the Teamsters 
investigation.
  I am the newest member of the committee, and one reason I joined this 
committee was because of my interest in the investigation. I was 
appalled that the 1996 election of the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters had to be invalidated. I have a keen interest in ensuring a 
fair rerun election.
  To protect the rank and file members of the Union, we have to have a 
thorough accounting of what went wrong with the 1996 election. It is 
also in their interest and that of other American taxpayers that 
financial mismanagement at the Union be cleaned up.
  I was shocked to learn, when I joined the committee, that the 
investigation does not have deposition authority. It was evident to me 
from the beginning of my involvement that that is a critical 
investigative tool without which the investigation will have little 
chance of success.
  Over the past few weeks alone, we have had instance after instance of 
the Teamsters Union refusing to make critical witnesses available for 
interviews. The lawyers for the Union do not want us to talk to current 
or former employees of the Union or to employees of the Union's 
actuarial and accounting firms.
  As just one example, on July 9, we received a letter from an attorney 
for the Teamsters' accounting firm informing us that the Union refuses 
to allow such interviews. It is evident to me that the officials of the 
Union are deliberately impeding the investigation and are trying to run 
out the clock on this Congress.
  It is completely unrealistic to expect that Members of Congress will 
make themselves available to hold hearings to interview the more than 
three dozen witnesses from whom we need information. Unless the 
investigation receives deposition authority through the committee 
chairman, we are basically telling the Union officials that they have 
won, that they need not account for their actions either to their own 
membership or to the American public.
  Madam Speaker, this authority will not be taken lightly. It will be 
used carefully. I understand what may be the reluctance of some Members 
of the House to provide extraordinary authority, but these are 
extraordinary circumstances which call for appropriate measures.
  Madam Speaker, I urge approval of H. Res. 507.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 
507.
  I serve, Madam Speaker, as the ranking member on the subcommittee 
that has responsibility for oversight and investigation in the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce. This investigation on the 
Teamsters Union election, which was set aside because of the illegal 
swapping of funds, began last October, and it has sort of limped along.
  The majority members have a full staff of, I do not know quite how 
many individuals there are now on board, but I am told that there are 
at least five or six attorneys that have been engaged to work on this 
particular investigation. I have tried to be diligent in paying 
attention to the agenda, to the hearings that have been called and to 
all of the communications that have emanated from the majority chair of 
this subcommittee.
  So I rise with great amazement today to hear that there is any 
justification whatsoever in asking this House for these extraordinary 
powers that invade the privacy of many individuals. We are going to 
put, because of some whim on the majority side, many individuals whose 
names are not even known to even myself as the ranking minority member 
of this subcommittee, who these persons are who have been reluctant to 
come before their staff for questioning or for discussions. Certainly I 
do not know of any Teamster member who has been asked for an interview 
who has not come before the subcommittee under subpoena to testify.
  In every instance the Teamster members who declined these personal, 
closed-door discussions invited the subpoenas because what they wanted 
and what is their right in these United States is to come before bodies 
that are accusing them of misconduct to have their testimony taken in 
public.
  What is so offensive about this rule today is an authority which is 
going to be granted to a very small number of individuals. These 
depositions could be held without one single Member of Congress 
present, because that is how the resolution reads. No Member needs to 
be there because of the word ``or,'' member or staff.
  Sure, I could be notified 3 days in advance that a deposition is 
going to take place during our district recess period when I am in 
Hawaii. I fully intend to do everything I can to be there, but I cannot 
guarantee that protection to these individual witnesses who are going 
to be deposed in this way, not by attorneys who know the rule of law, 
who know the rule of evidence, who respect the rights of privacy and 
privilege in this country, but by staff, who I do not say are going to 
have any ill temper or ill will but who might mistakenly invade into 
the high privileges which every Member of this Congress has sworn under 
oath to preserve. That is what is our constitutional right here.
  I respect the millions of members in the Teamsters Union, and I want 
to do what is right for them. But I have not heard one single 
allegation of a reluctant witness who is not willing to come before the 
public, take an oath and testify to any question that this committee 
wants to put to them.
  I believe that that is a right which is precious and should be 
protected by this House, and that is why the rule says we cannot depose 
unless the whole House agrees to it.
  So I ask the Members today to search the record. There is no evidence 
of reluctant witnesses who have refused to come before the committee to 
testify. I think that that is the most important grounds upon which any 
such rule like this has to be premised.
  I know most Members of the majority party are very much committed to 
the preservation of individual rights and democracy and freedom and 
civil liberties. What we are doing today is to trash all of that 
because of a political agenda.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

[[Page H6758]]

  If my colleagues want to see an example of deposition authority and 
power being abused, look no further than what this Congress has done in 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. People are subpoenaed 
for depositions. They are forced to come against their will, hire 
lawyers at $300 an hour.
  I just want Members to know this is not theoretical. I have seen 
people have to go hire lawyers, take time off from work, prepare for 
these depositions, go through the anxiety of it all to be questioned by 
staff people.
  Just a couple days ago, we had a deposition in Los Angeles of one of 
these four people that we gave immunity to. It started at 1:00. It went 
until 8:30. This witness had almost nothing to say.
  We have had staff people ask witnesses about their personal lives, 
whether they have ever been tested for drug abuse. We had one witness 
in a deposition who was asked whether they could tell about a 
colleague, whether that colleague had done something illegal.
  This power can be abused. If there are hearings, at least the public 
will know what is asked. But if they are depositions, it is a staff 
person who can abuse that power, run roughshod over the rights of 
Americans by allowing them to, in closed door session, be asked any 
kind of question.
  Be wary whenever we give deposition authority. In some cases, it is 
appropriate, but we know it can be abused because we have seen it 
abused in this Congress already.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I know that all Members on the 
majority are always very cognizant of their responsibilities to protect 
individual rights. They are firm against big government coming in and 
intruding in this way, so I am personally shocked at this reckless 
venture into the invasion of these individuals. Forty people whose 
names I do not even know, and I am the ranking member, I do not know of 
any abuse with regard to the pension funds that has come to the 
attention of our subcommittee.
  This is really a fishing expedition, reckless disregard of 
individuals who are going to have to hire attorneys at tremendous cost 
to themselves. We are not prepared to pay for it. I want to see the 
individual rights of this Union protected; and, if we really believe in 
their democracy and their individual rights to run their Union, by 
golly, we ought to allow them to have an election for their leadership.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I will just say to the gentlewoman that, 
yes, the rights of the Union should be protected; but, even more so, so 
should the individual rights of the individual rank and file members of 
that Union.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood), who has never won a green jacket in the Masters but has won 
my deep respect for the job he has done as a Congressman.
  Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, let us take a look at the record. Let us 
take a look at the judge who has had supervision of the consent decree 
for the last 9 years, since 1989. How does he feel about the Teamsters 
and Teamster leadership in 1998? Here is what he said to the Teamster 
lawyers in court on Tuesday:
  ``I believe it is time for the good members of this Union to rise up 
in revolt. This Union has been run by a small group for their own 
benefit. I want to hear what the membership thinks. It is time for the 
good members to rise up and revolt against the self-serving, little men 
in charge.''
  To the attorney, ``You don't really speak for the Union. You speak 
for a small minority,'' Edelstein told Weich. ``I can understand the 
wrath of Congress. They don't trust the Teamsters because of the 
Union's history of squandering taxpayer money. I'm going to get to the 
root of this evil. And if you don't have Sever here by noon, I will 
send the marshals for him.''

                              {time}  1345

  The same type of stonewalling that this union leadership is imposing 
in New York in the Federal court is the same pattern of stonewalling 
that they are doing to this congressional committee, and the shame of 
it is we have funded this union and we have spent approximately $20 
million and this is their thank you to the American taxpayer.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I rise in strong 
support of H. Res. 507. I would say to my friend from California when 
it comes to being abused perhaps that we ought to be concerned a minute 
or two about the taxpayers of this country that have been abused to the 
tune of $20 million. Maybe we ought to be concerned about the members 
of the Teamsters Union that have been abused to the point where their 
treasury reduced from $155 million down to less than $1 million. There 
are all kind of things and people we ought to be concerned about in 
their abuse and our point of view in the oversight committee and our 
job in the oversight committee is to find out what went wrong in these 
illegal elections.
  The Committee on Education and the Workforce needs deposition 
authority because the Carey administration at the Teamsters is 
stonewalling our investigation. It is just sort of that simple. Now, 
that is an unfortunate situation, but Congress has a duty, a 
constitutional duty to investigate a union that tramples its members' 
rights and flouts the very laws we have passed in this body.
  Our investigation has been going on for almost a year now. We are 
starting to get the picture of how this union has been run. Frankly, 
Madam Speaker, it is not very pretty. The most recent development, of 
course, is that the president of the Teamsters, Ron Carey, has been 
barred from the union for life as has his former government affairs 
director William Hamilton. That is not fiction. In an election that 
cost the American taxpayers almost $20 million, Carey took his members' 
dues to pay for his reelection campaign. Clearly he was more interested 
in keeping his job than protecting the rank-and-file Teamster.
  The record of evidence compiled by the subcommittee thus far 
indicates that the Carey administration also may have manipulated the 
union's pension funds. That is serious stuff. Notice I said ``may 
have.'' We need to know for sure whether we are right or wrong. And may 
have made political contributions with their members' dues, which is 
very illegal. Obviously we need to interview all of the Teamsters 
employees and contractors involved in these matters to find out the 
extent of these problems and do our duty.
  Do the people running the Teamsters Union now, who were elected in a 
sham election, want us to get to the bottom of this? No. No, 
unfortunately not. They will not allow us to interview their employees, 
their accountants or their actuaries about the financial shenanigans 
that did go on. What are they trying to hide?
  I will say this about the unelected people in charge of the Teamsters 
today. They do have a lot of gall. Not only do they refuse to let this 
Congress do its job by performing an oversight investigation, but they 
turn around and say, ``You've got to pay for the next election.'' They 
will not let Congress find out how the election went wrong, but they 
will come to us and demand that we kick in another $10 million so they 
can have another election.
  I for one frankly have had enough of this, of the Carey 
administration's stonewalling. We need to pass this resolution today so 
that Congress can find out what they are trying to hide from. Union 
officials that misuse the hard-earned dues money of their members 
should not be allowed to thumb their nose at this Congress.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, first I would like to insert in the Record 
the transcript later in that proceedings where Mr. Sever did appear in 
court and the judge indicated that he could not order the IBT to pay 
for the election.

       United States District Court Southern District of New York


                        united states of america

                               Plaintiff

                                   v.


            International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al.,

                               Defendants

                                            July 29, 1998, 12 p.m.
       (Hearing resumed)

[[Page H6759]]

       (In open court)
       The Court: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
       The first item I will discuss is my request for a 
     referendum. When I made that request, I had in mind that it 
     was completely for the benefit of IBT. I call your attention 
     to an item in their memorandum, which is very convincing and 
     persuasive. The GEB's decision is consistent with the Court's 
     statement on the record on June 29, 1998 that voluntary 
     payment by IBT officers of the costs of supervision would be 
     a ``breach of a fiduciary relationship and something that is 
     forbidden actually to do by law.''
       The thought occurred to me that the union could send a 
     message to the IBT hierarchy that they would agree and it 
     would not be considered by them a breach of a fiduciary 
     relationship if they were voluntarily to agree to contribute 
     some money to a rerun election. However, the memorandum is 
     very persuasive that the cost and the effort involved in such 
     an undertaking would be futile. So my good intention has come 
     practically to naught.
       I did say that voluntary contributions by the IBT in light 
     of the decision by the Court of Appeals, dissent noted, would 
     be a violation of their trust. Again, I repeat ad nauseam 
     that it occurred to me that if they had a word from the 
     membership that they would not be held to such an account 
     they could then go ahead and make voluntary payments. So my 
     request for a referendum is no longer in order. I am sorry it 
     did not work out the way I thought it might.
       I still am of the opinion, although I am not sure that I 
     have the authority to order it, that instead of a referendum 
     a poll of a very small but vital universe of 500 would give 
     some indication to the hierarchy whether contributions could 
     be made without being in default of their duty. I leave that 
     to the entire discretion of the union itself.
       Now let me address some verities. I think we all know that 
     of all the many cases that are filed in this court and, 
     indeed, in all the courts in all the land, if all those cases 
     were to go to trial, the system would come to a creaking 
     halt. Certainly it is not new news for you as practicing 
     lawyers to know that compromises and agreements occur even 
     after verdicts for a plaintiff and a defendant. And it also 
     is not great news for you to understand that when one files 
     an appeal, every effort is made by an instrument of that 
     court to resolve the issue before the need of the decision.
       I think common sense ought to be considered here. Is it 
     your view that an unsupervised election does not have to put 
     in place any assurance, any guarantee, any rules 
     to demonstrate that a nonsupervised election will still be 
     a democratic election, a free election, and that every 
     effort will be made in a nonsupervised election, of which 
     there have been many in the history of this union, that 
     such an election should not raise any concern or fears 
     that corruption would become the order of the day?
       That is my concern. As I said, an unsupervised election 
     sounds more fearsome than it can actually be. And what I want 
     here today, and I took the liberty of asking Mr. Sever, a 
     member of the executive team, to come and see if I can employ 
     reason and amicability and some stability to a problem that 
     should be settled, does this unsupervised election, and I am 
     intending to go ahead with that, mean that I have to be 
     concerned with chaos?
       Mr. Weich: Your Honor, I'm quite confident that an 
     unsupervised election would not be chaotic. Almost every 
     union in the country conducts an unsupervised election under 
     federal labor law. And, of course, this union is additionally 
     bound by the consent decree and its own constitution. I am 
     very confident that safeguards would be in place to insure 
     that corruption does not occur and that the election is 
     carried out in an open and democratic manner.
       The Court: Would a supervised election give more assurance 
     of orderly procedure? Would it relieve us of certain, perhaps 
     unrealistic, apprehensions that the election would go forward 
     in a more orderly process?
       Mr. Weich: It's a very difficult question to answer under 
     current circumstances. I can only say, your Honor, that the 
     IBT supports the supervision process. We have said in every 
     public statement and reiterate again today that we would like 
     to see supervision. We insist, though, that the United States 
     be made to meet its obligations under the consent decree to 
     pay for that supervision if it is to occur.
       The Court: Do you understand my reason for a referendum?
       Mr. Weich: I do understand.
       The Court: I was trying to relieve you of the danger of 
     irresponsibility in the event you voluntarily agreed to make 
     contribution.
       Mr. Weich: I do understand that, your Honor.
       The Court: And I thought the only way I could deal with 
     that problem on your behalf and somewhat on the Court's 
     behalf was to have the voice of the union say no, you will 
     not be guilty of any betrayal of a fiduciary relationship if 
     you make a voluntary contribution. That was my reason.
       Mr. Weich: I understand that.
       The Court: And now that you have convinced me that there is 
     no point to it, I withdraw that request.
       Let's go on.
       Ms. Konigsberg: Your Honor--
       The Court: You say order the Congress to do something, in 
     this case, to provide funds. Think about this clearly and 
     analyze it. Here is this district court judge telling the 
     mighty sovereign Congress, Do something. And if they say no, 
     what is my next step? Dealing with an old truism, that no 
     court should enter an order which ends up in futility, am I 
     to say I am going to hold the entire Congress in contempt? To 
     think about it shows it is absurd.
       The same thing holds true, as I said, if I say to the 
     government, Pay. It is your obligation. And if they say, We 
     cannot, what do I do? Hold the United States of America in 
     contempt? I do not think I could possibly survive that.
       Now the focus here is, Oh, the Attorney General is not 
     inhibited by anything that the committees have said about 
     inhibiting the use of the funds. That is your interpretation. 
     But if I were the Attorney General, I would want more to rely 
     upon than an interpretation. It is not a matter of what we 
     think the inhibition proscribes or what the Court may think 
     or even what the government may think. But before I, as an 
     Attorney General, would be free to do ahead and make my 
     interpretation that the government is free to use certain 
     funds, I would want more assurance than that, than face 
     possible contempt by the House Appropriations Committee.
       I implore you, why can't we be reasonable about this? Why 
     can't we continue to have a supervised election by some 
     contribution?
       Mr. Weich: Your Honor, we continue----
       The Court: Am I off the wall when I say probably in your 
     own experience that you have entered into compromises even 
     when a verdict has been in your favor?
       Mr. Weich: Yes, your Honor, that's certainly true. I can 
     only observe that we still await word from the United States 
     whether it is prepared to put any money into this process. It 
     strikes me that on this record, given the union's history of 
     being willing to compromise in the past, it's the decision 
     that the Court of Appeals handed down that at this time would 
     be appropriate for the government to state whether it has any 
     money before the question is put to the union.
       The Court: You mean money that is absolutely free and clear 
     and under no restrictions?
       Mr. Weich: Yes. Well, your Honor, you know our position, 
     that there is money that the Court could order the government 
     to pay. Our position there is not an extraordinary one. It's 
     often the case that a government agency tells a federal court 
     that it believes it doesn't have authority to do something or 
     doesn't believe it's required to do something, the Court 
     orders that agency to do it. And, as always, the United 
     States complies.
       But my point, in response----
       The Court: Let's assume you are right, and I do not see how 
     your logic can stand up, I say to the government, Pay, and 
     they say, We cannot, we do not have the funds, whether under 
     restrictions or not. What do I do, hold the United States in 
     contempt? Well, what do I do? I have issued an order. I have 
     said to the government, Pay, and they have said, We cannot. 
     What do I do? Where does that lead us?
       Mr. Weich: The first place it would lead us----
       The Court: Did you ever hear of sovereign immunity?
       Mr. Weich: Yes, I have.
       The Court: Do you know what that means?
       Mr. Weich: Yes, I do.
       The Court: Who would I hold in contempt? U.S. of America, 
     you are held in contempt. Oh? Either you comply or I will 
     send you to jail. Who will I send to jail, the U.S. of 
     America? Isn't that what a lawyer is supposed to unravel in 
     his thinking when he makes an argument? Is that order that I 
     make now silly? Who would I hold in contempt?
       Mr. Weich: Your Honor, I----
       The Court: Who would I drag into court? Uncle Sam, who is 
     the symbol of America? Who would I hold in contempt? The 
     Appropriations Committee? The subcommittee? The entire House 
     of Representatives? The entire Senate? Whom would I hold in 
     contempt? Do I fill the jailhouse with all these dignified 
     representatives of their constituents?
       You know, thought is a very important process. It is easy 
     enough to embark on ideas that are grandiose and win favor 
     with a constituency, but you have got to parse it and analyze 
     it. No court is supposed to enter an order which is futile.
       I have been dealing with this specter. Maybe the symbol of 
     America is Uncle Sam and I will have Uncle Sam, I will even 
     have his beard trimmed for television purposes, and I will 
     put Uncle Sam in jail. The more you think of it, the less 
     appealing it becomes. So unappealing that it is not even 
     worth all the discussion and thought and sleepless nights I 
     have given to this.
       I have no hesitation where contempt is proper, and again I 
     must remind you that contempt must be by trial to another 
     judge. Do you know that?
       Mr. Weich: Yes, your Honor.
       The Court: I am sure my colleagues would applaud my effort 
     to ask them to try a case of contempt against the United 
     States of America. I think that should convince you that 
     it is an idea whose time has now come.
       Now, can't we deal with this the way lawyers do all the 
     time? Try to reach some understanding and agreement. I have 
     had many cases resolved after a verdict by 12 men and women, 
     good and tried, who found in a civil

[[Page H6760]]

     case by a preponderance, in a criminal case beyond a 
     reasonable doubt, some negotiation. Why can't we do that 
     here? Is there a motive why there is so much obstinacy here 
     and obdurateness about coming to any understanding or 
     realization?
       Mr. Weich. Your Honor, I ask again that you put the 
     question to the United States if there is money.
       The Court. What do I do if they say no? You beg the 
     question. You are a lawyer. I have asked you a question. Give 
     me some help. Who do I hold in contempt?
       Mr. Weich. I'm confident that if you put the question to 
     Ms. Konigsberg whether the United States would obey a lawful 
     order of this Court her answer would be yes, therefore 
     contempt would be unnecessary. If contempt were necessary----
       The Court. Is there a danger that I ought to consider 
     sanctions against any lawyer who tries to bring an action or 
     a cause that is absolutely absurd in its very, very root? 
     Again, I have asked you ten times: Whom do I ask another 
     judge to hold in contempt?
       Mr. Weich. If contempt were necessary----
       The Court. Contempt is always necessary if an order is not 
     obeyed.
       Mr. Weich. Yes. If contempt were necessary, your Honor, 
     there are officers of the United States who stand in for the 
     United States----
       The Court. All the officers of the United States?
       Mr. Weich. No. Ms. Konigsberg----
       The Court. Aren't you a little bit ashamed of your begging 
     the question?
       Mr. Weich. No, your Honor.
       The Court. All right. That would be quite a newspaper item, 
     having all the 50 states and their senators and 
     representatives hauled to court and put to jail. That would 
     be novel. Instead of history of the law, it would be the 
     hysterics of the law.
       Again, can I bring you to the peace table?
       Mr. Weich. Your Honor, we've been at the peace table. We 
     ask whether the United States is intending to come to the 
     peace table.
       The Court. I want to hear from the United States. Shall I 
     hold you in contempt?
       Ms. Konigsberg. No, your Honor.
       The Court. As long as we are in the amusement circle, let 
     me tell you my own personal experience, without much name. At 
     one time in my career I was special assistant to the Attorney 
     General of the United States, a rather important job. There 
     was a case before a very distinguished justice and he wanted 
     the government to produce certain documents. I told the judge 
     I did not have these documents, I did not have control of 
     them, I had never seen them, that they were exclusively in 
     the possession of the Attorney General, who resided in 
     Washington.
       The judge gave me a brief period of time to produce those 
     documents or to be held in contempt and possibly jailed.
       I spoke to the Attorney General. I have never seen the 
     documents. I did not know their relevance. I did not even 
     know that they would lead to relevant evidence, and he said, 
     You may not have them. And you must go before the court and 
     say that I will not release them.
       And then he said, with a broad Texas drawl, David, jail is 
     not too bad at all. They feed you three meals a day.
       Fortunately, the judge had some generosity and heart and 
     did not hold me in contempt, which would certainly have hurt 
     my career. He certainly did not jail me, but the documents 
     were never produced and there was really nothing that he 
     could do. That was my own personal experience.
       I am, as the record will show, a very reluctant judge when 
     it comes to dealing either with sanctions or with contempt 
     because that has the very treacherous danger of doing 
     substantial irreparable harm to a lawyer who might be more 
     zealous than smart.
       Ms. Konigsberg. Good afternoon, your Honor.
       Let me first address the issue about whether or not it 
     could be perceived as a breach of fiduciary duty for the 
     union's leadership to agree to pay the costs, some of the 
     costs, of the rerun election. It, in the government's view, 
     would not be a breach of fiduciary duty and though the 
     government supports the Court's idea of having a referendum, 
     it would not take a referendum in order to reach that 
     conclusion.
       The Court.Wouldn't a poll do just as well? I have had some 
     experience in that area. A poll could be done. A universe of 
     500 is sufficient. It could be done in two or three days.
       Ms. Konigsberg. That is possible.
       The Court. By telephone.
       Ms. Konigsberg. That is possible, your Honor. But whether--
     irrespective of any referendum and irrespective of any poll, 
     it cannot be considered a breach of the union's fiduciary 
     duty to pay these costs, and let me explain why. Though I 
     know the Court mentioned that at the prior hearing, I don't 
     consider that a finding by this Court; that was not a matter 
     that was briefed. The union indisputably is going to have to 
     bear the cost anyway of an unsupervised election.
       The Court. Has anybody an estimate of what that cost would 
     be?
       Ms. Konigsberg. I would like to know from the IBT what they 
     project that cost to be. I mean, I would suspect it is at 
     least the same amount of money, if not more so, than the 
     amount of money that the union would pay if they share the 
     costs of the election. I think it would be helpful if the 
     Court, if we, could inquire of the IBT what that would cost. 
     But I would suspect it is, at a minimum, $4 million for them 
     to have to pay in any event if they have to conduct their own 
     election.
       Second of all, it is in the interests of the union 
     membership to have a fair election and to have a supervised 
     election. The union has said itself that they are in favor of 
     a supervised election, and everybody here agrees that the 
     best way to insure a fair, free, democratic election, that 
     all the members and all the public can have confidence in, is 
     to have election officer supervision. So regardless of the 
     relative costs of an unsupervised election versus what they 
     would contribute, the union leadership can decide that this 
     is something that's in the members' interests to have an 
     independent, court-appointed election officer supervise this 
     so that the union membership can be assured of having a fair, 
     free, democratic election.
       Really what this can be, I suppose, likened to is, is the 
     union saying that it would refuse, in effect, if the 
     government is able to secure the agreement of Congress to pay 
     $4 million, or plus, toward the cost of this rerun election 
     supervised by an election officer, is the union saying that 
     it would refuse to accept the government's money in order to 
     be able to have a supervised election? Because we all agree 
     that they're going to have to pay these costs anyway in an 
     unsupervised election, and we all agree that the election 
     officer supervision is necessary.
       I mean, I would submit to the Court there is at least a 
     question whether it could be perceived as a breach of 
     fiduciary duty not to agree to pay the costs in order to have 
     a supervised election. So, I think it would be helpful to 
     take the question of a breach of fiduciary duty off the table 
     here. I don't think there is any question that the union 
     leadership can agree to pay this. What the Second Circuit's 
     decision was about was whether the union could be obligated 
     to pay.
       The Court. The Second Circuit decision completely ignores 
     the very powerful dissent, and although that dissent did 
     not carry the day, it sends a powerful message. Nobody 
     even refers to that. That is bad argument. The dissent did 
     not carry the day. It did not persuade the majority. But 
     it is a very powerful message and should not be ignored.
       Ms. Konigsberg. We agree, your Honor. But even accepting 
     the majority's opinion, which, of course, we accept, all it 
     says is that the union cannot be compelled----
       The Court. That's right.
       Ms. Konigsberg [continuing]. Based on the misconduct. It 
     does not say that the union voluntarily cannot agree. It also 
     does not say the government is required to continue 
     supervision. But it does not say that they cannot voluntarily 
     agree. And it is clearly in the union members' interests, as 
     the IBT has conceded, to have a supervised rerun election, so 
     that it would not be a breach of fiduciary duty.
       The Court. I brought you here, Mr. Sever, to lend a helping 
     hand based on your long experience to resolve this problem. 
     Maybe your lawyer will feel a little freer if he has some 
     notion from you that you are willing to help.
       Mr. Sever. Your Honor----
       The Court. You are no longer with the Mets, are you?
       Mr. Sever. Your Honor----
       Mr. Weich. It's Tom Sever, your Honor, not Tom Seaver.
       Mr. Sever. Your Honor, in due respect, you know, I must 
     indicate that we do have a decision by the Second Circuit of 
     the court. In light of that decision, I did proceed on to the 
     general executive board on July the 20th, and the general 
     executive board rejected to pay for any costs in light of 
     that decision, and, you know, I believe that we ought to--I 
     believe in the judicial system, your Honor. And I believe 
     that we ought to abide by the courts and follow the 
     appropriate procedures of appeal, if necessary. But certainly 
     that's where we stand at this point, your Honor.
       The Court. All right. But I am asking you: Can you not 
     consider that there may be some room for compromise and 
     negotiations?
       Mr. Sever. If there would be any room for compromise, your 
     Honor, I would be more than happy to take that back to our 
     general executive board.
       The Court. Will you do that, please.
       Mr. Sever. I would take a poll with the board. I would do 
     that if we could have a compromise.
       The Court. And will you also say it is my----
       Mr. Sever. Would you repeat.
       The Court. It is my passionate desire to see that this 
     matter be resolved.
       Mr. Sever. It would--I would like to see it resolved, your 
     Honor. However, you know, with respect to my fiduciary 
     responsibility as the general secretary-treasurer, and with 
     the due respect of the cost that may be associated, I believe 
     that, you know, if there could be some kind of a compromise, 
     such as maybe sending out the ballots, that I might be able 
     to recommend that. And that cost would be somewhere around $2 
     million. I might be able to recommend that to the general 
     executive board.
       The Court. All right. That is something.
       Mr. Sever. Thank you, your Honor.
       The Court. Did you want to say anything? Did you want to 
     say anything?
       Mr. Weich. No your Honor.
       The Court. I want this election to go forward. We have had 
     some delays and I think it is time to fish or cut bait.
       Now, in anticipation that we are going to have an 
     unsupervised election, will you please give me some details 
     of how you plan this election to go. I think my inherent 
     power in terms of my need to manage my own caseload suggests 
     that I can require you to give me some view of your plans.

[[Page H6761]]

       I also think that hope does spring eternal. I think that 
     perhaps the Senate, by its appropriate committees and 
     their wisdom, might decide to allow the Attorney General 
     some freedom in the use of funds. I just do not know how 
     we can urge them to come forward with a yes-or-no answer, 
     but perhaps they will.
       Is there anything else?
       Ms. Konigsberg: Yes, your Honor.
       As the government set forth in its papers, the government 
     believes that the Court has the authority to set a plan for 
     this election, particularly given that the IBT----
       The Court: You know their argument about the plan that you 
     suggested, that this is just a disguise, using rhetoric, but 
     to accomplish exactly the same thing that would occur in the 
     hands of the supervised election.
       Isn't that your argument?
       Mr. Weich: Yes, your Honor.
       Ms. Konigsberg: I'm aware of their argument, your Honor.
       The Court: You have a chance to answer. I think your date 
     is Monday.
       Ms. Konigsberg: That's right, and we will respond to that 
     on Monday, your Honor.
       The Court: But the IBT makes a very persuasive argument 
     that this is merely a camouflage and that the Court does not 
     have inherent power to do anything by way of accepting a 
     substitute monitored election.
       Ms. Konigsberg: We will address that. We disagree.
       The Court: That is the problem with appointing a special 
     master.
       Ms. Konigsberg: Your Honor, the government disagrees very 
     strongly with that characterization; that is to say, that 
     there can be no court-appointed election officer in the 
     absence of a supervised election doesn't mean that you throw 
     the baby out with the bath water and that all of the learning 
     under the consent decree about how to have a democratic 
     election----
       The Court: I will read your papers and I will study your 
     papers, and I hope to get another version of how an 
     unsupervised election will proceed.
       Ms. Konigsberg: Thank you, your Honor.
       Mr. Cherkasky: Your Honor, just very briefly, if I might. 
     We also feel strongly that any----
       The Court: Keep your voice up. Everybody wants to hear you.
       Mr. Cherkasky [continuing]. That any contribution that 
     would be made by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
     would not be a breach of their fiduciary duty.
       The Court: Would not be what?
       Mr. Cherkasky: A breach of their fiduciary duty. I think 
     all the parties agree----
       The Court: I was trying to give you some assurance that 
     under no circumstances would they be crucified on the cross 
     for the sustaining of the fiduciary relationship.
       Mr. Cherkasky: I understand that, Judge. Certainly, it's--I 
     think they've taken out of context your remarks at previous 
     hearings. They have said previously that they would 
     contribute some sums, so they didn't feel it was a breach of 
     their fiduciary duty or they wouldn't have agreed to 
     contribute anything.
       Secondly, we would think that, we firmly believe that the 
     Teamsters union, as was indicated yesterday, is a union that 
     has every right to have a fair and free election as quickly 
     as possible and that the membership, we believe, demand that. 
     We also believe there are ways to do polling, ways that you 
     could do polling going to each of the different locals and 
     have a weighting voting process which could be done very 
     quickly, very efficiently, and very inexpensively, so that in 
     fact we could have a very quick read of what in fact the 
     union felt as to the proposition of their making a 
     contribution or not.
       Finally, as unpleasant as it may be for us, we have to face 
     the fact that this may be an unsupervised election and, your 
     Honor, we will in fact be filing with your Honor a proposal 
     of how to would wind down the matters of the election 
     office. We, in fact, are continuing to spend money, 
     continuing to do work. We have a number of very 
     significant protest matters before us which, in fact, we 
     think urgently need to be completed, and we would in fact 
     by next Monday have a proposal for you if in fact it's 
     necessary, if the draconian happens, how to wind down the 
     election office.
       The Court: I have a note from my worthy staff:
       ``You need to give the IBT a timetable for giving more 
     definite statements for unsupervised election.''
       Thank you. What would I do without you?
       What timetable do you need?
       Mr. Weich: Respectfully, your Honor, it seems to us 
     premature when the government has not, to date, withdrawn its 
     election to supervise to order the IBT to do more than it has 
     done, which is to set forth with a fair bit of specificity 
     how it would conduct an unsupervised election in accordance 
     with federal labor law, the IBT constitution and the consent 
     decree. I really think that as a matter of logic and timing, 
     the United States should conclude its efforts and say, 
     finally, that it does not intend to supervise, if indeed 
     that's the conclusion it reaches, despite our view that it 
     should not be permitted to withdraw that.
       The Court: If public relations and goodwill have any strong 
     reason, and believe me they do, you cannot possibly estimate 
     the goodwill and public relations game for the IBT to come 
     forward generously to make some contribution.
       I repeat this ad nauseam: In the ten years that I have been 
     on this case, the union has spent millions upon millions of 
     dollars fighting every single revision of this decree. 
     Millions. Some of it so silly that it has been a mockery and 
     a telltale at cocktail parties. The quarreling over my order 
     for the IBT to provide a $50 secondhand cabinet file, in one 
     matter where there were just a number of limited appearances, 
     one law firm garnered $6 million in fees. I think from my 
     point of view a forthcoming spirit of generosity does not 
     have to wait for Christmas.
       Yes. Go on.
       Ms. Konigsberg: Your Honor, because there is such a strong 
     interest in having a prompt rerun election, we believe that 
     there should be a schedule set for the IBT to submit a plan 
     that these two things can occur at the same time and we think 
     that would make sense to do. In addition, I wonder if the IBT 
     has an estimate of what they think it would cost them to 
     conduct an unsupervised election.
       Mr. Weich: Your Honor, we're prepared to submit additional 
     details about how we would conduct additional details about 
     how we would conduct an unsupervised election next Wednesday, 
     August 5.
       The Court: Can you give us an estimate of what the cost 
     would be?
       Mr. Weich: We will do our best.
       The Court: You will do that?
       Mr. Weich: Yes, your Honor.
       The Court: Is there anything else?
       Ms. Konigsberg: That's it, your Honor.
       The Court: Nothing else?
       Mr. Weich: No, your Honor.
       The Court: Please come up with something. I think after ten 
     years on this case I deserve a break. And I think we have 
     done one tremendous job of ridding this union of a lot of 
     corruption and we are still on it.

  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution and 
particularly the portion of the resolution which allows nonattorneys to 
conduct depositions behind closed doors and without any member of the 
committee present. That authority is virtually unprecedented. The 
authority of having a nonattorney staff conduct the depositions was not 
given to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight where we 
heard abuses even with attorneys doing it. The House did grant that 
authority in the committee on the transfer of technology to China, a 
select committee on which I sit, but it was understood by the members 
of the select committee and the Members of the whole House that an 
issue of that magnitude required swift but thorough investigation, 
staffed with personnel skilled with the nuances of deposing witnesses 
with sensitive and potentially classified material. We also recognized 
that some of the material and witnesses sought for that investigation 
would require travel to China and experienced staff must be allowed to 
pursue those matters when Members' schedules might preclude their 
attendance. The staff members hired for that purpose, the 6-month 
duration of the committee, will obviously be hired with the appropriate 
skills for taking depositions. In contrast, this investigation into the 
1996 Teamsters election will not address matters of national security 
but the members of the subcommittee must apply equal vigilance to the 
rights of witnesses and the appropriate conduct of the investigation. 
Already the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has come very 
close to interfering with an ongoing investigation by the U.S. 
Attorney's office into the Teamsters election, and we experienced a 
potentially damaging incident concerning the shocking modification of 
subpoenas without the approval of the committee. All of this occurred 
under the watchful eye of the consultants to the committee, whose 
professional credentials cannot be challenged.
  In fact, the committee hired these consultants for the majority 
because the majority stated that it did not have qualified staff with 
the background, knowledge or experience to conduct the investigation. 
Now these consultants have given notice that they will be leaving the 
investigation, so I hesitate to think what will happen when staff who 
are not attorneys, not experienced in deposing witnesses and who are 
not required to abide by any codes of professional responsibility are 
allowed to continue where the consultants left off.
  This subcommittee must be vigilant in its investigation into the 
Teamsters election. The rules of conduct must not allow the reckless 
endangerment of a process designed to prevent another failed election. 
In the end we must be responsible not only to the Teamsters but also to 
the taxpayers who paid for the 1996 election and who continue to pay 
for this investigation. We should not allow nonattorneys who have 
already been labeled by the majority as

[[Page H6762]]

incapable of conducting the investigation to be granted the exceptional 
power to conduct depositions behind closed doors.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I think it is appropriate for the committee of the Congress to do 
an investigation. I think it is important to get to the bottom of the 
issues at stake. I also think in theory it is sometimes appropriate to 
have deposition authority. But when you look how this authority has 
been abused by the Republican majority in this very Congress, I think 
you have to step back and ask whether this is a wise thing to do.
  If a committee is doing an investigation and they want to hear from a 
witness, bring a witness before the committee. If the witness will not 
come, subpoena the witness to come before the committee. Let members in 
an open session ask questions. But when you give deposition authority, 
it allows staff to bring in these people, behind closed doors, without 
the public even knowing what questions are being asked, and to abuse 
those people by making them hire attorneys, making them take time off 
from work, making them answer questions over and over and over again 
while the clock is ticking away and the costs are going up.
  I can tell Members that in the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, the staff has deposed 158 individuals. One-third of these 
people were compelled to give testimony under this threat of being held 
in contempt of Congress. Of these 158 depositions, 650 hours of 
testimony was taken. This is burdensome on people. It is a power that 
can and has been abused.
  We have come now to a point where it is simply a partisan fishing 
expedition. Of 158 witnesses, 156 have only been asked about Democratic 
fund-raising abuses while the committee has ignored substantial 
evidence of Republican campaign finance abuses. It becomes a partisan 
witch-hunt without any accountability to the American people.
  Accountability is important. When you are in an open session, you 
have to be accountable because the public can see what you are doing. 
But when it is a deposition, behind closed doors, there is too much 
power and that power can be abused.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I hesitate to get involved in this at this time, but the 
gentleman is complaining that the committees were only investigating 
Democrat abuses on campaign finance. This gets under my skin a little 
bit, because no Republican has ever been accused of selling out our 
country. No Republican has ever been accused of accepting campaign 
money and then giving away the strategic interests of our country. Now 
that we have more than 18 intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at 
America, we ought to get to the bottom of it.
  Never before have we ever had an administration, whether Democrat or 
Republican and I go all the way back to Harry Truman's day when I was a 
Marine guard in this town never have we had a President, either 
Republican or Democrat, who deliberately withheld information and did 
not try to level with the American people. That is why we have had to 
have staff depositions in the past.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Just to 
clarify some of the remarks from my colleague who sits on the 
subcommittee. ``Close to impairing an investigation.'' Give me a break. 
We went through negotiations and discussions with the Southern District 
in New York. We never came close to impairing an investigation. We went 
through that process. We went through that process with them in a very 
diligent way and never even came close to impairing that investigation.
  Talking about these amateurs that are going to interrogate witnesses. 
The minority knows very well the kind of people that we need to have 
interviews and discussions with. What are we taking a look at? We are 
taking a look at very technical information. Where did $150 million of 
net worth from the Teamsters go over a period of 5 years? Rank-and-file 
Teamsters would like to know. We would like to know. How did they 
launder $1 million? How did they manipulate pension funds? We have got 
a specialist who was hired to do exactly that. It is a forensic 
auditor. We want a forensic auditor to go through it in detail. The 
forensic auditor and the staff needs to go through piles and piles of 
data, very technical data so that we can move forward.
  We had a hearing where the IBT and Grant Thornton and the auditors 
brought in their people. They would not allow us to talk to them before 
the hearing. They came in and they had wonderful answers. ``Oh, you 
were interested in that kind of information? Boy, you really ought to 
talk to so and so. I can't answer that question.'' The end result is 
they delay and they set back our progress at getting to this kind of 
information.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I just want to 
point out the statement made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) was completely irresponsible. No one has evidence to 
substantiate an accusation that the Administration sold out national 
security for campaign contributions. But we can substantiate the 
following: The Republicans have taken foreign money. We can 
substantiate the allegations that they have used illegal conduit 
payments, that money has been raised on government property.

                              {time}  1400

  And today is the anniversary of the Trent Lott-Newt Gingrich $50 
billion tax break for the tobacco companies snuck into a bill in the 
middle of the night after they received millions of dollars of campaign 
contributions from the tobacco industry.
  Why are we not investigating those issues? Because the Republican 
Congress is on a partisan witch-hunt.
  Do not do the same thing in this committee that we are seeing on the 
Burton committee: a one-sided, partisan witch-hunt where Republican 
abuses are ignored and Democrat abuses are blown out of all proportion, 
where the evidence does not lend credibility to the conclusions that 
are stated.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Clay) to respond.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I just want to challenge the statement about 
whether the forensic auditor is paid. He is a paid consultant of that 
committee, and he made a statement about fraud, pension fraud, that the 
Department of Labor has challenged and criticized him, and the 
independent auditors of the Teamsters have challenged him. And there is 
no evidence of any pension fraud, and my colleague ought to stop saying 
it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a member of the subcommittee 
not only to oppose this resolution but also to express my severe 
disappointment in the way this process has been conducted and also to 
indicate that I think that, by giving this unprecedented power to the 
subcommittee, we may end up doing more harm than good under the 
circumstances.
  I am a former prosecutor. I know a little bit about conducting 
investigations. Subpoena power can be extremely useful in getting at 
the truth and uncovering the facts in a particular matter, if it is 
necessary and if it is done right.
  But as member of the subcommittee, I do not see the necessity in it. 
I do not see this great conspiracy of obstruction and reluctance of 
Teamster members to appear before the committee. In fact, our 
subcommittee chair referenced Mr. Sever and stonewalling that he 
apparently was committing when, in fact, he had appeared before our 
committee May of this year, was subjected to our numerous questions 
from across both aisles, and unless there is other information that 
they are not sharing with us, I do not see the stonewalling tactic 
taking place. Also, if it is done right, Madam Speaker.
  Now, giving deposition power or authority to Members who do not have

[[Page H6763]]

training on how to conduct a proper deposition is very dangerous. There 
is no easier thing to do if you are not trained than to muck up a 
deposition in a transcript, especially with witnesses who may be under 
some other criminal investigation, and that exactly was being proposed 
in this resolution: for nonattorneys to come in behind closed doors 
with witnesses and to subject them to an array of questioning when they 
do not know whether to ask a leading question or an open-ended 
question, when it is appropriate, they do not know how to give proper 
documents into evidence as part of the transcript, and this is just a 
recipe for disaster.
  But perhaps my greatest concern about this resolution today, Madam 
Speaker, is the fact that we may be impeding upon an ongoing criminal 
investigation in the Southern District of New York, the U.S. Attorney's 
Office. This is an issue that I have repeatedly raised in committee. As 
a former prosecutor, there was no greater fear for me when I was 
conducting an investigation than for outside forces to come in and 
start messing around with the conduct and the process of the criminal 
investigation and to start interfering with what we are trying do 
accomplish.
  Madam Speaker, I just conclude by urging my colleagues to oppose this 
resolution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Again, Madam Speaker, the gentleman spoke about the fact that staff 
deposition authority is unprecedented. I think he said it three times; 
I wrote down three times. And I know he was not a Member of this Body 
when the Democrats controlled it for 40 years, but I would advise him 
to go back and do a little study about how many times the Democrats 
gave staff deposition authority.
  And he also mentioned stonewalling four times. He ought to read his 
hometown newspapers and that of the New York Times and the Washington 
Post and all the other papers across the country; they will headline 
who has been stonewalling all of these investigations.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Holland, 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding this time to me.
  I would like to just insert for the Record a July 23, 1998, letter 
from Anthony Sutin, who is the Acting Assistant Attorney General, who 
highlights in his letter that we have not jeopardized investigations. 
As a matter of fact, his quote:

       We appreciate the subcommittee's cooperation in 
     accommodating our law enforcement interests in the conduct of 
     this oversight investigation.

  We have consistently made sure in our efforts that we do not 
jeopardize what is going on in the courts, and we are complementing 
that effort, not jeopardizing that effort. We have been very, very 
conscious, and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin knows that because 
he has been in some of the discussions whenever there has been a 
conflict or when the Southern District has raised a concern. I think 
the one time they raised a concern we actually sat down with the 
minority and talked about that and jointly reached a decision that we 
would not proceed along that direction.
  The letter in its entirety is as follows:
                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 1998.
     Hon. Peter Hoekstra,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, 
         Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your letter, dated July 
     15, 1998, regarding the Subcommittee's oversight 
     investigation about the International Brotherhood of 
     Teamsters (IBT) and, particularly, the Committee's subpoena 
     to the Department for tapes relating to our on-going law 
     enforcement action regarding IBT. As you know, the tapes were 
     produced late on July 9, 1998, after service of the subpoena 
     earlier on that date.
       We appreciate the Subcommittee's cooperation in 
     accommodating our law enforcement interests in the conduct of 
     this oversight investigation. We also would like to resolve 
     the apparent misunderstanding about the Department's actions 
     in response to the subpoena. The Department undertook 
     substantial efforts to assess our interests in this matter, 
     which is consistent with our usual processes in response to 
     congressional subpoenas. It is our long-standing practice to 
     consider Department interests, such as law enforcement and 
     individual privacy, among others, as well as a congressional 
     committee's needs in responding to requests for information, 
     including subpoenas. While the process in this instance 
     included consultation with the United States Attorney in the 
     Southern District of New York, the Department's response to 
     the Subcommittee was neither dictated nor delayed by that 
     Office. Indeed, the Department's same day response to the 
     subpoena could not have occurred without the significant 
     efforts of that Office.
       It also should be noted that the United States Attorney 
     obtained the tapes for law enforcement purposes and to 
     facilitate the Committee's access by producing copies of 
     them, and certainly not to thwart the Committee's access to 
     them in any way. Because the IBT was to receive a complete 
     copy of the tapes, production of the tapes to the United 
     States Attorney and the Federal Bureau of Investigation could 
     not possibly relieve the IBT of any obligation to respond to 
     the Subcommittee's subpoena.
       Congressional subpoenas are taken very seriously by the 
     Department in every instance and we recognize a committee's 
     authority to issue compulsory process when required in the 
     exercise of its legitimate oversight functions. In some 
     cases, subpoenas represent a collision of interests between 
     the executive and legislative branches. Such a collision 
     often can be mitigated through informal discussions designed 
     to accommodate the needs of both branches, predicated upon an 
     appropriate sense of comity between them. This also permits 
     their representatives to scrutinize carefully the interests 
     and needs of both branches so that satisfactory agreements 
     can be reached. We regret that this particular subpoena did 
     not permit us an opportunity to pursue such informal 
     discussions; indeed, as far as we are aware, forthwith 
     subpoenas are unprecedented in our relationship with 
     Congress. Based upon our subsequent conversations with 
     counsel, we look forward to working with the Subcommittee 
     productively as this inquiry proceeds and hope that the 
     misunderstandings of this experience can be avoided in the 
     future.
       Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like 
     additional information about this or any other matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 L. Anthony Sutin,
                                Acting Assistant Attorney General.

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, we have a situation here where they are 
requesting overwhelming, extraordinary powers, and whereas sometimes 
that might be appropriate, for example, when Oliver North in the 
basement of the White House was committing treason by disobeying the 
laws of Congress and selling weapons to an obvious enemy of America. 
Then that was time to use these kinds of powers, and I think those 
kinds of powers were assumed, and we had an appropriate investigation.
  When the savings and loan swindle was under way, we should have used 
those kinds of powers, but we did not. We had Silverado Bank in Denver, 
Colorado, where the directors told the client, ``You need $13 million, 
we'll give you $26 million, and you deposit half of that back into the 
bank so that when the auditors come it will look good.'' Not a single 
director on that bank's board went to jail, and half a trillion dollars 
the taxpayers were out of as a result of the swindle by the savings and 
loans banks. We did not use those kinds of powers.
  Here we have a situation where, yes, some wrong deeds have been 
committed. As my colleagues know, the Teamsters' elections are 
important. Irregularities in elections are not to be sneezed at. They 
are important. But we do not need these kinds of powers to deal with 
election irregularities.
  Teamsters have a long history, and there was a time when millions of 
dollars were being stolen. Dave Beck, Jimmy Hoffa--Jimmy Hoffa ended up 
being convicted and sent to jail, and later on he disappeared and it 
was assumed that he was murdered. Some terrible things have happened. 
Ron Carey came in as a result of reform that this government supported, 
and if he has done something wrong in respect to elections, he deserves 
to be punished. He does not deserve the mobilizaton of these kinds of 
overwhelming powers.
  Madam Speaker, this is a partisan grab for power because they want to 
use it in a very partisan way. They want to continue what they have 
been doing all along, trying to destroy the unions in America, the 
labor movement in America. Working families

[[Page H6764]]

have a lot to fear from this kind of abuse of power because it is going 
to be used in a very one-sided way, as it has up to now. They are not 
going to use this power to get to the bottom of the situation in an 
objective manner. We know from past history that that is not what is 
going to be happening.
  So it should be denied. We should not let these kinds of overwhelming 
powers be utilized by a committee that has already demonstrated they 
only want to use it for very bipartisan purposes. This is not Oliver 
North in the basement of the White House committing treason.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, it is a good thing that this Member of Congress is on 
his good behavior here today because I heard my former good friend--I 
better not say that--my good friend from New York (Mr. Owens) referring 
to Marine Colonel Oliver North as conducting treasonous activities. Let 
me tell the Members of this Body that there is no greater hero in this 
country than Marine Colonel Ollie North, who risked his life for my 
colleagues and I and every other American citizen. It was he and Ronald 
Reagan, our President, who stopped communism dead in its tracks in 
Central America. Otherwise, we might have the same kind of government 
there that we have in Vietnam today. We are going to be taking up a 
resolution on that in just a few minutes. Or we might have the same 
kind of a government in Central America that we have in China or North 
Korea or some of these other countries.
  So, let me sing the praises of Colonel Oliver North and thank God 
that my grandchildren will have a free, democratic country to live in.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) 
for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today serving on both of the committees, and I 
thank my leadership for these assignments as a member of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight. I serve on this oversight investigations committee and 
have had a firsthand view at how we have conducted ourselves as 
committee members and, more importantly, how the chairman of this 
subcommittee has conducted this committee.
  This Congress has spent more than 20 or close to $20 million on 50 
investigations, 50 different investigations.
  Ken Starr Dan Burton, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling); all of them have something 
in common, for they go after their political enemies. For, as we rise 
today, those on this side of the aisle, and I would hope that we would 
be joined by some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
asking simply for fairness, asking simply for us to follow the rules in 
which this Congress, and as a first-term Member I am not privy nor do I 
have practical experience in all the rules of this Body, but I do know 
my history:
  Madam Speaker, the extraordinary power our colleagues seek to grant 
this committee, we set precedent by giving it to the committee of the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) spoke so eloquently about the abuses on that committee.
  I would urge and caution my very dear friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) to pay close attention to how that committee 
conducted itself, to pay close attention to all the abuses and failures 
of that committee. We can get to the bottom of this Teamsters' 
investigation by simply following the rules.
  I concur with my dear friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) 
and all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and hopefully some 
on their side of the aisle who firmly believe that we can, indeed, do 
our job, and I might add that we have spent $2 million, and I would ask 
that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) ask the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) to provide us with the correct and accurate 
accounting of what we have spent. Then perhaps we can move from that 
point, I say to my colleagues, and make some valid and accurate 
decisions about where we go.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I hate to disagree with the chairman of the 
subcommittee, but there have been two specific witnesses who have been 
called before us where the U.S. Attorney's Office was not consulted 
with, and they are very upset that they have been called and subject to 
our questioning who are part of the criminal investigation.
  There are other examples like that, Madam Speaker. That is the 
concern that I have.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  (Mr. SCOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the 
U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, which stated 
that taking testimony from certain witnesses who had been subpoenaed 
and scheduled to testify would impede an ongoing criminal 
investigation.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                            Department of Justice,


                                Southern District of New York,

                                                   April 28, 1998.
     Re Teamsters investigation.

     Hon. Pete Hoekstra,
     Chairman, House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, 
         House of Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you as Chairman of the 
     House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (the 
     ``Subcommittee'') to request that the Subcommittee not seek 
     to question Brad Burton and Susan Mackie concerning 
     involvement by individuals affiliated with the AFL in 
     fundraising for the 1996 Ronald Carey campaign for re-
     election as general President of the International 
     Brotherhood of Teamsters (``IBT''), a subject which is under 
     criminal investigation by my Office and the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation. In my carefully considered judgment, such 
     testimony taken at this time could seriously undermine and 
     compromise this very active criminal investigation. While I 
     fully recognize the importance of your Subcommittee's 
     investigation, I respectfully urge you and your fellow 
     members to balance the harm that the proposed testimony on 
     this particular subject may cause to this important criminal 
     investigation and prospective trials against any benefits 
     that could come from the proposed examinations on this topic.
       We understand that last week the Subcommittee sent letters 
     requesting that these individuals appear to testify before 
     the Subcommittee. We have no objection to testimony being 
     taken from these witnesses, but only as to testimony 
     regarding fundraising for the Carey campaign, which is the 
     focus of the criminal investigation. At the request of 
     Majority counsel, Deputy United States Attorney Shirah Neiman 
     met with you and Congressman Norwood last week to explain, 
     from our point of view, the negative impact we believe 
     questioning these witnesses on this topic could have on the 
     criminal investigation. Ms. Neiman also offered--consistent 
     with grand jury secrecy obligations, and the integrity of the 
     criminal investigation--to brief the Subcommittee or its 
     counsel on matters of interest to the Subcommittee. Mr. 
     Neiman also outlined the matters already in the public record 
     regarding AFL involvement in the Carey campaign which might 
     be of use to you in your hearings.
       Today, the criminal investigation has resulted in felony 
     prosecutions and guilty pleas of three individuals who are 
     cooperating with the ongoing investigation and an indictment 
     yesterday against the former Director of the IBT's 
     Governmental Affairs Department. We have tried to be as 
     cooperative as possible with all ongoing Congressional 
     inquiries, Election Officer Investigations and Independent 
     Review Board investigations, while at the same time ensuring 
     the integrity of the ongoing criminal investigation and 
     prosecutions. We are making this request because we believe 
     that the criminal investigation and any potential criminal 
     trials will suffer if witnesses are forced prematurely to go 
     forward with deposition and/or public testimony. In addition, 
     should the substance of interviews or testimony become 
     public, the course of the criminal investigation could be 
     irreparably damaged. We appreciate your weighing these 
     factors in making your decision in this matter.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Respectfully,
                                                    Mary Jo White,
                                                    U.S. Attorney.

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

[[Page H6765]]

  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
resolution.
  During the past two years, the American working families have 
experienced some success in defending the minimum wage increase, 
protecting Medicare/Medicaid, saved Federal job safety protections, 
threw anti-worker legislators out of office and held back the Fast 
Track proposal that would have made it easier for jobs to leave for 
overseas.
  Many of my colleagues and their corporate allies opposed every one of 
those victories for working families because they put more value on 
profits than on people. Now, it seems as though some of my Republican 
colleagues and their anti-union allies say it's payback time.
  Madam Speaker, a million dollars and one year later the Republican 
Members of the House have devised another devious plot to destroy the 
unions and the people who they represent--our Nation's working 
families.
  The Republican Members passed out of committee a resolution to allow 
the Education and Workforce Committee to take depositions behind closed 
doors, without a Member of Congress present as a part of the Teamsters 
Union investigation. Actions such as this have only been implemented 
during threats to national security.
  Madam Speaker, this resolution is duplicative in nature and is an 
abuse of congressional power that tramples the civil liberties of our 
Nation's working families.
  This is a simple backdoor attack on unions and working families. This 
is an unfair and unjustified attack on democracy; but I was told at an 
Acorn rally in Milwaukee this past week that, a people united will 
never be defeated.
  I urge that we unite on behalf of working families, I urge that we 
unite and defeat this resolution.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 
507.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our leader.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, this is just a continuation of the same 
old thing that we have seen for this whole Congress: Investigate, 
duplicate, waste taxpayers' dollars.
  Madam Speaker, close to $20 million, 17 investigations; they want to 
go through this again.
  We spent a million dollars on this investigation already; now they 
want to expand the powers. What they want to do is in secret, under 
oath, with no Member present they want to interrogate witnesses.
  It is out of control. They cannot face the reality of the issues of 
education and of health care and the things that the people care about 
in this country. This Congress is exclusively, exclusively designed to 
deal with investigations of the political enemies of the other side of 
the aisle.
  That is what this is about, make no mistake about it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this irresponsible resolution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, we have just a closing statement, so I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would simply say that this is bad legislation. It is 
certainly to me very much of a power grab. It is not necessary because 
the Justice Department is already investigating.
  I would urge a no vote, and I will ask for a vote on this particular 
resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Emerson). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, is it a rule of the House that documents 
that are to be entered in the record should be in the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House has authority by unanimous consent 
to admit those documents for printing.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, if they have asked for unanimous 
consent, should I not have access to those documents when they are 
inserted?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The documents are available with the 
Official Reporters of Debate.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, if the document has been inserted for 
the record, should the Clerk or someone have the document?
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The documents should be delivered to the 
Official Reporters of Debate.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, there was no objection raised earlier to 
any unanimous consent made before.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is merely responding to a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The documents submitted by unanimous consent are delivered to the 
Official Reporters of Debates.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, have they been delivered?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire of the Official 
Reporters.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. We have inquired, and the documents are not available.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. They should be submitted to the Official 
Reporters, or they will not appear in the record.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I would just like a copy as soon as they 
ever get delivered to the House.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, do I understand that the balance of the 
time was yielded back by my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall)?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct. The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, before recognizing our last speaker to sum up, let me 
just point out that this Congress always has its job to do in 
oversight. That is what we are attempting to do here.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  I thank the gentleman for leading the effort on this change to the 
rules. Let us just go through the process. In 1989, the IBT, because of 
massive influence by organized crime, was put under a consent decree 
with the Justice Department.
  In 1996, they held an election. In the summer of 1997, there were 
severe questions about the validity of that election. I stood up and 
said, do not certify that election until all the objections have been 
investigated. The minority did not participate.
  Shortly after that, the election was overturned. It was an election 
that cost the American taxpayer $20 million, was administered by an 
election officer under a consent decree at the same time that an 
independent review board was looking at the Teamsters. There, maybe, 
would be some questions about how, with all this oversight, could we 
not even run a fair election. But, no, the other side does not believe 
that that is an important question to ask.
  Shortly after that, in August of 1997, the election was overturned. 
At that point in time, I suggested that the winner of that election, 
the now disqualified president, maybe, should resign or remove himself 
from office. Some on the other side thought that that was a radical 
step, a witch-hunt.
  On Monday of this week, the independent review board removed that 
official, Mr. Carey, from the Teamsters for life.
  Early in 1998, one of the new improvements that was put in place was 
to make sure that the Teamsters were acting in the best interest of 
their members. Why? Because we had exposed that their net worth had 
decreased from $157 million to $700,000. Why? Because we had identified 
that, perhaps, there had been pension fraud. Why? Because there had 
been three people who had plead guilty to laundering a million dollars 
of Teamsters rank

[[Page H6766]]

and file money through the process back to benefit Mr. Carey.
  This independent financial auditor, what did we find out? We found 
out that he was not much more than a bookkeeper. Very qualified, but 
not empowered to do the kind of work that needed to be done. It only 
cost the rank and file Teamsters around $60,000 a month, I believe.
  What else do we know? What would we like to know? Have you heard 
reports that documents are being shredded at the IBT headquarters on a 
recent weekend? That was this past weekend. We have been informed that 
two IBT employees wearing green uniforms delivered an industry size 
shredder to the office of the IBT communications director, Matt Witt, 
during the week of July 13, 1998, and that the noise of the shredder 
operating in that office could be heard on Saturday, July 18, when Mr. 
Witt was in the building.
  There is no corruption going on at the Teamsters. These people are 
acting in the best interest of the rank and file. They are acting in 
the best interest of the taxpayers since we have paid for this. Sorry. 
Wrong.
  What did Mr. Edelstein say, the judge who has been watching these 
people for 9 years? He believes it is time for the good members of this 
union to rise up and revolt. Rather than aggressively going after and 
exercising our responsibilities, the minority says, no, let us not go 
too fast. This is a witch-hunt.
  This is protecting the rank and file interest of the Teamsters. The 
nice thing about this investigation is that rank and file Teamsters are 
rising up in revolt, and they are sending us documents. They are 
sending us complaints because many of them believe that the only people 
who have been acting in their best interests is this subcommittee, 
because we have been focused on rank and file, and we are not focused 
on the people in the marble palace over here who are not a rightfully 
elected leadership, but who are all part of a failed leadership, and 
they are all part of a discredited election. We are not indebted to the 
people who write the political action committee checks out of that 
building to people in this building.
  It is time for us to move forward. It is time for us to take a look 
at why all of this that has been put in place on the Teamsters, all 
this government intervention is not working the way that it should be.
  Staff deposition authority, there are all kinds of protections built 
into the rules of our committee. The witnesses will be protected. They 
will be accompanied by counsel. The counsel will have the opportunity 
to review all transcripts. The minority will be advised 3 days before 
any staff depositions are taken.
  This power is needed because, even though Mr. Severs came in and said 
I will do everything that I can to help move this investigation forward 
as quickly as possible, what does that mean that he does? It does not 
mean that he voluntarily sends people to interview with our staff prior 
to a hearing.
  He says, I will only let people come if it is in a formal hearing 
setting. No, I am not going to help you go through these piles of 
documents to find out where $157 million went. I am not going to help 
you find out how we laundered a million dollars. As a matter of fact, 
he is not helping us. He is not even helping his own rank and file.
  When we ask Mr. Severs, what investigation do you have going on? He 
said, I am not doing anything. Three people have plead guilty. His 
former bosses has been expelled from the union. This leadership is 
doing absolutely nothing. It is time for Congress to continue and let 
this committee move forward with its work.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.Res. 507. 
This resolution grants unprecedented powers to the House Education and 
Workforce Committee to take depositions behind closed doors, without a 
Member of Congress present. Prior to this Republican-led Congress, the 
power for Committee staff to take depositions in closed-door sessions 
was granted on only two occasions--to the Judiciary Committee for 
impeachment proceedings and to the nonpartisan Ethics Committee.
  Today, however, the Republican leaders of this House want to continue 
their witch hunt regarding the Teamsters presidential election. The 
Republican leaders want to use their partisan advantage to stomp on the 
civil liberties of union-associated individuals. By giving the power to 
Republican staff members of the Education and Workforce Committee to 
take depositions behind closed doors, this resolution prevents 
Democrats from having any role in this investigation. Shamefully, the 
public is shut out completely.
  The Republican leaders in this House claim that this resolution is 
need because the Teamsters Union has been uncooperative. The Teamsters 
have complied with Committee requests and have already produced more 
than 50,000 documents for the Committee to review. Further, the 
Teamsters have not refused a request to testify before the Committee. 
Why must depositions be taken behind closed doors by Republican staff? 
What do the Republicans have to hide?
  This resolution represents a back-handed attempt to circumvent an 
open process of investigation. This entire investigation has been 
duplicative and wasteful. After more than 18 months, more than a 
million taxpayer dollars have been spent on this investigation--with 
little to show for the effort. How much longer must we continue this 
partisan charade? Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this resolution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
amendment and the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment recommended 
by the Committee on Rules.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed until later today.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________