[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.
____________________