Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 137 (Friday, October 27, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 137 (Friday, October 27, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11368-H11398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--IN THE MATTER OF REFUSALS TO COMPLY WITH
SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the
privileges of the House and, by direction of the Committee on
Resources, I call up a privileged report (Rept. No. 106-801).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will read the report.
The Clerk read as follows:

CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS

______

Report on the Refusals To Comply With Subpoenas Issued by the Committee
on Resources

[[Page H11369]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.001

[[Page H11370]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.002

[[Page H11371]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.003

[[Page H11372]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.004

[[Page H11373]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.005

[[Page H11374]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.006

[[Page H11375]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.007

[[Page H11376]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.008

[[Page H11377]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.009

[[Page H11378]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.010

[[Page H11379]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.011

[[Page H11380]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.012

[[Page H11381]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.013

[[Page H11382]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.014

[[Page H11383]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.015

[[Page H11384]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27OC00.016

[[Page H11385]]

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the report be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Resources, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 657) and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 657

Resolved, That pursuant to sections 102 and 104 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192
and 194), the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall
certify to the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia the report of the Committee on Resources detailing
(1) the refusal of Mr. Henry M. Banta; Mr. Keith Rutter; and
Ms. Danielle Brian Stockton to produce papers subpoenaed by
the Committee on Resources and the refusal of each to answer
questions while appearing under subpoena before the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources; (2) the refusal
of the Project on Government Oversight, a corporation
organized in the District of Columbia, to produce papers
subpoenaed by the Committee on Resources; and (3) the refusal
of Mr. Robert A. Berman to answer questions while appearing
under subpoena before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources, to the end that Mr. Henry M. Banta; Mr. Robert A.
Berman; Mr. Keith Rutter; Ms. Danielle Brian Stockton; and
the Project on Government Oversight be proceeded against in
the manner and form provided by law.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution constitutes a question of
privilege under rule IX. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I
yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Young of
Alaska:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CERTIFICATION OF REPORT REQUIRED.

Pursuant to sections 102 and 104 of the Revised Statutes of
the United States (2 U.S.C. 192 and 194), the Speaker of the
House of Representatives shall certify the report of the
Committee on Resources (House Report No. 106-801) detailing
the refusals described in section 2 to the United States
Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that each
individual referred to in section 2 be proceeded against in
the manner and form provided by law.

SEC. 2. REFUSALS DESCRIBED.

The refusals referred to in section 1 are the following:
(1) The refusal of Mr. Robert A. Berman to answer questions
while appearing under subpoena before the Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on Resources.
(2) The refusal by Mr. Henry M. Banta to answer questions
while appearing under subpoena before the Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on Resources.
(3) The refusal by Ms. Danielle Brian Stockton to answer
questions while appearing under subpoena before the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee
on Resources.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be
considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, in the event that the amendment is
agreed to, I ask that the question on adoption of the resolution be
divided within section 2 so that refusal of each of the three named
individuals will be voted on separately.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman that if
the amendment to the resolution is adopted, the question on adoption of
the resolution, as amended, under the precedents, is grammatically and
substantively divisible among the three paragraphs of section 2. There
would then be an opportunity for a separate vote on the certification
of each individual. The question will be so divided at the appropriate
time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I filed a supplemental report
yesterday. It changes only a technical error on the cover page of
Report 106-801 filed by me on July 27, 2000.
Digressing from my statement. My colleagues in this body, this is a
very serious time, and I hope that Members will take the time to listen
to both sides of this argument and make a decision by voting favorably
on this resolution.
The resolution now before the House reports the refusal of three
subpoenaed witnesses to answer questions at hearings of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on
Resources, chaired by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin). The
questions were critical to the committee's oversight.
Every Member of this House, Democrat, Republican and Independent,
should support this resolution. If not, we undercut the future
capability of this Congress and future Congresses to get information we
will need to do our job required by Article One of the Constitution.
The resolution is about whether the authority of a subpoena from a
House committee means anything or whether it can be ignored. If Members
think a subpoena means something, then they will vote for this
substitute resolution. If they think committees, in their oversight
roles, not the witnesses, should define the questions at a hearing,
then they will vote in favor of reporting the facts relating to the
refusal of Ms. Brian, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Banta to answer questions
posed by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) and her
subcommittee.
On institutional grounds alone, every Member, Democrat, Independent,
Republican, should support this contempt resolution. Every Member
should also support the report on the merits as well.
Mr. Speaker, this all started 18 months ago, when the gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) and I read alarming press reports. These
reports detailed government employees within the departments we oversee
being paid and using proceeds from a whistleblower lawsuit called
Johnson and Shell.
That successful whistleblower suit is now basically settled. It
returned over $400 million to the U.S. Treasury. But serious questions
about the payments to Federal employees from the whistleblower share of
the Johnson and Shell settlements forced us to launch an oversight
review in the process. We issued document requests and, as we learned
more about the payments, we scheduled hearings.
In those hearings, the gentlewoman from Wyoming exposed details of a
secret plan hatched years earlier by a group called POGO, the Project
on Government Oversight. The plan was to pay two government oil royalty
experts huge, and I mean huge, sums of money from the Johnson and Shell
settlement.
POGO used the Federal employees to learn information about the court-
sealed Johnson and Shell lawsuit. I repeat, the court-sealed Johnson
and Shell lawsuit. And then POGO filed its own suit making the same
allegation on top of the Johnson and Shell lawsuit.

{time} 1030

Settlement proceeds from POGO's share were then funneled to the
government insiders.
The gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) and her subcommittee
discovered how POGO had already split nearly a million dollars from
Federal employees. She discovered their written agreements. She
discovered their plans to take $7 million in total from the
whistleblowers' lawful reward. She discovered their plan split the
bounty with the Federal Government employees. She discovered how the
Department of Justice told POGO not to make the payments. May I stress
that again. She discovered how the Department of Justice told POGO not
to make those payments.
The Committee experienced major, major stonewalling from those cited
in

[[Page H11386]]

this resolution while inquiring about the scheme. The culprits say that
they, not Congress, determine what the American people will know about
the largest payoffs ever accepted by Federal employees. That
stonewalling probably constitutes a Federal misdemeanor known as
contempt of Congress. A vote by the House is required to begin
enforcement and condemn the payoffs, which is why we consider the
report and resolution today.
That oversight review included examining whether the two federal
insiders, Robert A. Berman of Interior or Robert A. Speir of Energy,
sold Government secrets or exercised influence to favor those who paid
them.
The Committee on Resources, under its rules, authorized me to issue
subpoenas on this manner. After it became clear that the key players
would not provide good-faith cooperation to the subcommittee of the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), I issued subpoenas for important
documents. Later, the participants refused requests for voluntary
interviews. So I issued subpoenas for witnesses to appear before the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources chaired by the gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
Those subpoenas did not mean much to the key players in this scandal.
They were denied. The gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) and the
subcommittee were very fair. Her subcommittee's oversight, as far as it
could go, was an excellent example, I believe, of responsible
Government.
Under the statute, if the House adopts this report, the Speaker is
authorized to present the facts to the United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia.
Consistent with the constitutional separation of powers, we do not
weigh the evidence of refusal to comply with subpoenas against the
reasonable doubt standard of proof.
Our obligation is to report the facts as we know them. To fail to
make this report will surrender authority over oversight to witnesses
rather than reserving it to the House as placed by the Constitution.
To put it simply, these parties have left no choice for the Congress.
They refuse to comply.
May I remind Members on both sides of the aisle, if they do not adopt
this resolution, if they do not adopt this report, if they do not adopt
what I am asking today, future Congresses will be thumbed at and told
to forget their role as oversight.
These people offered and accepted the largest payoffs ever made by
Federal bureaucrats. But they claim the arrogant, self-serving
privilege to tell the United States that they may not ask certain
questions about their agreement, what they knew, and how they knew it.
They say to us, we will not tell you how we used Government insiders
to learn information. We will not tell you how we used Government
employees to leach settlements from the true whistleblowers in the
Johnson suit. They say, we will not tell you about our secret
agreements to make payments to Federal oil policy insiders who helped
them.
To protect our mandate as Members of the House, our mandate to gather
information and facts needed by the people to legislate and oversee
Federal agencies, as I have said before, we, as a Congress, must adopt
this resolution. We must stand up for the people's right to know what
happened in this payoff.
The substitute resolution I have offered will authorize the Speaker
to certify to the U.S. Attorney only the refusal of Henry M. Banta,
Robert A. Berman, and Danielle Brian Stockton to answer questions while
appearing under subpoena before the Committee. This is done in light of
new evidence suggesting that POGO and Banta paid Berman for influencing
regulations. And that documentation is in the report. This is a very
serious felony.
There is no longer an interest in grouping Mr. Rutter and the other
officers or directors of the corporation known as POGO with serious
felons. Nor does the Committee on Resources wish to needlessly compound
the charges by having Banta and Stockton face two misdemeanor counts
each along with the serious charges which now seem certain.
My colleagues will hear that this is all about big oil, it is about a
so-called whistleblower. This is nothing to do with the whistleblower.
In fact, the whistleblower testified before our committee that the suit
was filed on top of his so they could gather the money to be paid to
these Federal employees.
It is probably one the most corrupt actions by Federal employees
under a sealed document where they issued information that was
confidential to, in fact, receive reimbursement.
This is about this Congress and the next Congress and the Congresses
in the future. If we do not adopt this resolution, then we have said to
ourselves that this Congress no longer counts in seeking the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this matter this morning is a serious matter because
potentially for three citizens of the United States criminal liability
may attach. But as serious as this matter is for those three
individuals, this matter is not about what the chairman of my committee
just said it is about.
This is about three or four individuals that blew the whistle on a
plan by 15 oil companies to deny the American taxpayers of the revenues
that they were entitled to through the royalty program for oil taken
off of the public lands that are owned by the people of the United
States.
Since that whistle has been blown and that program was discovered and
the intentions were made known, this committee served not a single
subpoena on those oil companies, this committee sent not a single
letter to those oil companies asking them how they could defraud the
Government of the United States.
Instead, this committee rounded up four individuals and started
badgering them in a hearing that had no definition, no parameters, and
changed direction numerous times.
But the core finding is clear and convincing. Fifteen oil companies
settled for almost half a billion dollars, settled. How much more of
American taxpayer has been denied we will not know because of that
settlement. This is about what happens to an American citizen when the
full force and effect of the Federal Government and the Congress of the
United States comes down on their head because this was not a situation
where these citizens have been charged with anything, indicted of
anything, tried for anything, or convicted of anything. There is a
notion in the majority's head that these people somehow are involved in
criminal activity. So far, the only showing of any of that will be if
the suggestion is that some criminal liability attaches for failing to
answer the question.
But, mind you, the Supreme Court of the United States is very, very
cognizant of the force and the effect of the United States Government
when it comes down on a private citizen; and it says that, when it asks
a citizen a question in a hearing like this, it must do something that
is very important, it must show that citizen, because that citizen must
make a snap decision because liability attaches as to whether or not
they are going to ask that question over and over, the Supreme Court
has told this Congress of the United States that it must show them that
that question is pertinent to the investigation.
Now, the questions that they asked these individuals were questions
where they were wandering around in side-bar litigation that had
nothing to do with the writing of the regulations. And these witnesses,
while they provided thousands and thousands of documents, while they
have answered hundreds and hundreds of hours of questions in
depositions and elsewhere, where the committee, in fact, had the
evidence that they were seeking in the depositions in the other case,
they have now decided that they are going to make victims of these four
people.
The victims here are the taxpayers of the United States who were
defrauded of half a billion dollars or more by 15 oil companies.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the good
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), the chairman of the subcommittee
that conducted most of the hearings.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I have a solemn duty to

[[Page H11387]]

inform the House of the investigation which I, as the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals, was assigned to lead.
I am very saddened by the remarks of the previous speaker because he
knows very well that is not what this case is about.
I rise today to uphold this body's constitutional right to conduct
lawful and thorough investigative oversight hearings on issues that are
important to the American people. This is not something that we choose
to do. This is something that we swear we will do when we raise our
hand and take the oath that we will support the Constitution and the
laws of this body.
This issue actually stems from the filing of a False Claims Act
lawsuit in a Federal courthouse in Texas by two whistleblowers who
uncovered royalty underpayments by major oil companies to States, local
governments, and to the Federal Government.
The fact is these two whistleblowers are named Benjamin Johnson and
John Martinek. These are the good guys. These are the private citizens
who exposed the major oil companies' underpayment of royalties. They
are responsible for getting an additional $400 million for Federal,
State, and local governments, in other words for American citizens.
Johnson and Martinek should be commended for their efforts in
stopping this illegal practice. There is no question in anyone's mind
that the oil companies should pay every single penny that they owe in
royalties. That is in everyone's best interest. It is the law and it
must be done.
But the problem in this case is that the whistleblowers case was
sealed in the Eastern District of Texas, and what that means is no
details of the suit could be released outside the courthouse but the
very existence of the suit could not be established either. The
existence had to be kept secret.
However, somebody leaked the details of that secret lawsuit to the
Project on Government Oversight (POGO). That insider information
allowed POGO to file a nearly identical lawsuit in the same court in
Eastern Texas.
Now, could that be a coincidence? No, when we consider there are 91
Federal courts in the United States.
The Committee on Resources investigation focused on two Federal
employees, Robert Speir and Robert Berman. Mr. Spear is with the
Department of Energy. Mr. Berman is currently an employee with the
Department of Interior. They are suspected of leaking the details of
that lawsuit to POGO.
Again, the whistleblowers are the ones who filed the original suit.
Well, POGO had been lobbying looking for a lawsuit to file, and they
also had been lobbying for changing oil valuation rules. These two
employees' rewards for doing what they did, for releasing the
information and for assisting in changing oil valuation rules, were
rewarded $383,000 each already. They had a signed agreement that they
would be awarded that amount of money and, if the agreement had been
adhered to, they would have received another $4 million between them.
Just a few days ago, the Committee obtained from the Department of
Justice the smoking gun, which establishes that at the very time POGO
and the two Federal employees were conducting this arrangement, that
Robert Berman, the Interior employee, was actively engaged in drafting
a new regulation dealing with the collection of oil royalties.
These regulations were being sought by POGO. The regulations
indirectly benefit POGO chairman and directly benefit his clients, who
are in the business of collecting oil royalties.
The key players in the investigation were issued subpoenas, as was
stated by the chairman of the Committee on Resources, but they refused
to answer questions. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
asked Danielle Brian Stockton, the executive director of POGO; Henry
Banta, the chairman of the POGO board; and Bob Berman questions.
Let me tell my colleagues the question that they were asked, direct
questions about how POGO and the Federal employees learned about this
sealed lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas.
This is a quote from the Record.
Mr. Banta: ``I believe that issue is not pertinent to the inquiry of
this Committee.''

{time} 1045

Ms. Brian: ``I will not answer that question because of my
pertinence.''
Mr. Berman stated another answer to another question: ``I will not
answer this subcommittee's questions.''
In other words, these people were saying they would determine what
were pertinent questions for them to be asked in our investigation.
They were saying they would decide what questions could be asked and be
made pertinent.
Ask yourself, how well would the American people have been served if
the tobacco company executives refused to answer the questions that
they were asked?
Ask yourself, will Firestone and Ford Motor Company executives have
to answer questions put to them by committees when the committees are
trying to protect the safety and the very lives of American people?
The Constitution and the rules of the House of Representatives are
clear on this point. The House must conduct oversight hearings, and the
House and only the House is the judge of what answers they need to
questions in a thorough oversight review.
I have to remind you, we are not here today to vote on the guilt or
the innocence of the three people who are cited in this resolution.
That is up to the Department of Justice, which at this very time is
conducting an investigation into all of the activities having to do
with the payments and the proceeds of the lawsuit. Our job is to vote
on the resolution to adopt this report, saying that the Speaker is
authorized to present the facts of this report to the United States
Attorney for the District of Columbia. The United States Attorney will
then place the matter before a grand jury. The grand jury, not the
House, will decide whether any or all of these parties will be found
with contempt. The people cited in this report have defied this body's
constitutional right to ask the why and the how about the largest
payoffs ever accepted by Federal employees. The American people have a
right to know. That is the nature of today's resolution.
I hope that everyone will vote in support of the authority of the
Congress of the House of Representatives.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the esteemed chairman said earlier this is
a question about whether Congress no longer counts in seeking the
truth. The question is bigger than that. The question is does Congress
count in seeking the whole truth? This is a scandal of huge
proportions. A smaller scandal during the Harding administration,
Teapot Dome, rocked Washington and the country, brought down powerful
figures.
The American people were defrauded of $438 million, at least, by Big
Oil. And who is our committee pursuing? A few individuals and a
nonprofit. The chairman talked about the huge payments these folks got.
Guess what? There may have been some improprieties. It is being
investigated. But their huge payments are less than one-tenth of 1
percent of the money of the fraud that was committed by the largest oil
companies in the world against the American people, the American public
and the Americans' resources. I would be willing to pay one-tenth of 1
percent to uncover these sorts of corruption and underpayment. These
are the same companies, of course, that today are ripping off the
American consumers. Their earnings have doubled. Number one, of course
in doubling of earnings is Exxon Mobil, $58.8 billion. Not bad. They
were number three here in defrauding the American public.
Now, how much time has the committee spent subpoenaing the very well-
paid CEOs and highly paid executives of these companies? None. Zero.
None. Not one second has been spent by the majority in investigating
what Big Oil did to defraud the American public and whether that fraud
is still going on today, because these huge profits are coming from
somewhere. We know they are coming from the American taxpayers'
pockets. Is it also coming from our precious natural resources? Are
they still underpaying? We do not know. Because the committee has no
time for that. But it can relentlessly

[[Page H11388]]

pursue a couple of low-ranking government officials who uncovered this
fraud.
This is a fraud on the American people. This whole process is a fraud
on the American people.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), a member of the committee that really
sat in on this program.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this request of
the body.
Mr. Speaker, because of the activities of some other committees in
this Congress, the investigation power, the oversight responsibilities
of the Congress and its committees has come into some disrepute. There
is no question about that. And anytime you do oversight and
investigation, you are bound to have the kinds of emotional responses
such as we just heard, because there are very real issues involved,
fraud, deception, misrepresentation, et cetera.
I am sorry to say that the character and the tenor of some of the
investigation activities has resulted in, I will not say contempt for
but certainly suspicion of any activities by any congressional
committee with respect to its investigation and oversight
responsibilities. This goes all the way back to the time of the un-
American activities and un-American activities committees, all their
notorious investigations which had as their object I think by general
conclusion of history at least the humiliation of other people and the
pursuit of partisan purposes which had very little to do with the
ostensible investigatory objectives which were announced when these
investigations and inquiries began.
But, Mr. Speaker, I have concluded that this particular investigation
and the manner in which it has been conducted, regardless of whether it
should have been broader or should have been deeper, gone into other
things, those are legitimate questions that could be raised and the
chairman can answer it or not answer it as he will. But with respect to
the activities that are cited in this resolution, I think we have to
uphold not only the right but the obligation of the committee to pursue
it. There is enough information here to convince me that a serious
breach of public trust may have occurred. The grand jury must be given
the tools it needs follow this investigation wherever it leads, and
this report is one of those tools. Congress has an oversight
responsibility, no matter which party is in the majority. If I refuse
to support this report, this resolution, I believe I am undermining the
authority of future Congresses, including ones with Democratic
majorities, to exercise their oversight responsibilities.
I cannot answer for other people's motives. If you want to insist
that the Republicans are doing something for partisan reasons or the
Democrats are responding for partisan reasons, you can do it. I cannot
be responsible for those kinds of things. I can only answer for my own.
I have seven pages of bills that I have been associated with, including
committee responsibility in the area of minerals and oil and royalties
where I think I can stand on my record.
So I want to refer then to what I think are the compelling reasons
here. The power of future Congresses to exercise oversight of Federal
agencies and to uncover waste, fraud and abuse by using its
constitutional authority to compel testimony and evidence will be
severely harmed if the report is not adopted. This Congress must pursue
this matter and seek sanctions for the refusal to answer questions
about it. And, finally, the U.S. Attorney may not act unless the House
passes this resolution. That action cannot be deferred because the
underlying subpoenas expire with the 106th Congress, so a Federal grand
jury impaneled in the District of Columbia needs to receive it. Voting
for the report does not constitute a verdict or an indictment. The
report if passed will allow the grand jury to do its work.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this
resolution in the strongest possible terms. This highly-partisan,
misguided resolution has absolutely no business being on the floor of
the House today in the final hours of this session.
As many of my colleagues know, I have been involved for years working
on issues related to Federal oil royalties and I have worked tirelessly
in a bipartisan way along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn)
of the Committee on Government Reform. What we looked into, put simply,
is that we discovered that the oil industry is required, of course, to
pay royalties to the Federal Government based on the value of the oil
taken out of the Federal land that is owned by the people of this
country. But what we found is that they were paying prices to the
government that was much lower than the price that they were paying
themselves. They were keeping two sets of books, one for themselves and
one for the people of America. And guess who was making the record
profits? The oil companies.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and I issued several
reports; and as a result of our hearings and investigations by GAO that
documented the underpayment, there has been a change in the way that
the oil companies now pay the Federal Government. They now pay market
price. That is what is fair. When you look at these settlements, POGO
has been part of lawsuits that have resulted in $438 million coming
back into the Federal Treasury. That is a lot of teachers, that is a
lot of roads, that is a lot of police officers. They did good work in
uncovering fraud and abuse. $438 million. And because of the change in
the formula now, OMB projects there will be 66 additional million
dollars coming into the Federal Treasury because the oil companies will
be paying market price.
Yet instead of looking at the systemic underpayment, and they
uncovered seven different ways that they underpaid the government, yet
this committee did not have one hearing on the systemic underpayment by
the oil companies. And here they are. Why do we not have some hearings
on this? As my colleague pointed out, there is an article today in the
Washington Post and it reports that the highest energy prices since the
1990 Persian Gulf crisis have produced a financial bonanza for the
Nation's three largest oil companies which yesterday reported quarterly
profits totaling a record $7 billion, double last year's earnings.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record other editorials that have
appeared around this country.

[From the Casper Star-Tribune, July 28, 2000]

Cubin Goes Astray With Attack on Whistleblowers

Wyoming's lone representative in Congress, Barbara Cubin,
seems to have lost her way. Cubin has been using her House
Energy subcommittee to launch an attack on the nonprofit
watchdog group, Project on Government Oversight (POGO). POGO
investigates whistleblower allegations that certain mineral
industries are cheating the American public by not paying
royalty payments when taking mineral resources found on
federal land--as required by law.
Recently, a number of oil companies settled a lawsuit filed
by POGO that alleged that they systematically underpaid
royalties on oil produced. POGO gave a portion of that
settlement as public service awards to two federal employees
who helped POGO make its case against the oil companies.
Under Cubin's direction, her subcommittee is investigating
those service awards, instead of those companies accused of
cheating the American taxpayers by underpaying on federal
royalties.
We take no position on whether POGO broke the law by
offering the awards or whether the federal employees did by
accepting them. However, fairness demands that if two
employees working to uncover royalty fraud should be victims
of a politically motivated investigation, then surely the
subcommittee's attention should be directed at the oil
companies that have settled lawsuits alleging that they
cheated the public out of vast amounts of money over the
years.
One doesn't fix the system by attacking those who are
trying to ferret out fraud. Cubin should turn her attention
to the problem of royalty underpayment, which would be a more
legitimate exercise of the power of her subcommittee.
The direction Cubin has taken with her subcommittee makes
one wonder whether her loyalties lie with the American
taxpayer or with the extractive industries that contribute so
much to her campaign fund.

[[Page H11389]]

____
[From the Anchorage Daily News, May 16, 2000]

Young Forgets Whistle-blowers' Value, Risk

(By Stan Stephens, Walter Parker and Billie Garde)

Recently, a subcommittee of Chairman Don Young's House
Resources Committee began to hold hearings on the activities
of a watchdog group, the Project On Government Oversight.
Those activities included a lawsuit filed by POGO that
alleged that oil companies were shortchanging the government
on royalty payments for oil leases on federal land. POGO
filed the lawsuit under the False Claims Act, which allows a
group or individual to sue a private company they believe is
defrauding the government. The act also grants them a
percentage of any fine levied as a result.
Young took umbrage with the fact that POGO, upon being
awarded a $1.1 million settlement in the case, paid two
whistle-blowers $380,000 each for their decadelong work in
bringing these abuses to light.
Never mind that the oil industry settled the case for more
than $300 million, all but admitting that it indeed had been
stealing from the federal government for years. That
apparently didn't phase Young in the slightest. By the way,
it should be mentioned that the two whistle-blowers are
federal employees, one of whom works for the Interior
Department--certainly not Young's favorite agency.
It is unfortunate that Young has paid attention solely to
the issue of the payments made to the whistle-blowers.
Ignored in this entire affair is the fact that two whistle-
blowers saved the American people hundreds of millions of
dollars. Now they are being retaliated against in the most
draconian manner by Young.
Unfortunately, this conforms to the pattern that so many
whistle-blowers have seen before. Instead of having their
allegations investigated, they find themselves the target of
investigations and in most cases outright harassment and
intimidation.
Last February, Young issued subpoenas to POGO asking for,
among other things, copies of the executive director's home
telephone records. It is remarkably odd that Alaska's
congressman, who prides himself on his patriotism and strict
adherence to the Bill of Rights, would so invade the privacy
of a U.S. citizen.
Would that the Interior Department issue a subpoena asking
for Don Young's home telephone records! The resulting outcry
from the ``congressman for all Alaska'' would resound from
Washington, D.C., to Fort Yukon and back again. Twice.
The recent actions of the House Resources Committee bring
to mind an incident in the early 1990s that many Alaskans are
sure to remember. After the Exxon Valdez spill, Alyeska
Pipeline Service Co. enlisted its security firm, the
Wackenhut Corp., to investigate a number of environmental
activists hoping to ferret out a whistle-blower. Wackenhut
proceeded to place taps on telephone lines, sift through
trash bins and even set up a phony environmental law firm
hoping to gain the trust of key individuals.
When these actions were exposed, a congressional inquiry
was held with committee hearings that included Young.
Congress rigorously denounced the actions of both Wackenhut
and Alyeska.
Young agreed, though some people would say with little
enthusiasm, that whistle-blowers who risk their careers and
in some cases their personal safety should not suffer
retaliation, harassment or intimidation but should instead
have their allegations properly investigated. One must wonder
if Young has forgotten those events of only a few years ago
now that his actions so closely resemble the very whistle-
blower retaliation he admonished.
Further inquiry into the POGO matter reveals that indeed
Young's allegations are baseless. He condemns the payments to
the whistle-blowers yet ignores that POGO sought professional
legal and accounting advice on how to report the payments to
the IRS. He also ignores the fact that POGO informed the
Justice Department of its intention to make the payments
before it did so.
Whistle-blowers are a unique and integral part of exposing
fraud, deceit and malfeasance in industry and government.
Very often, they are risking ostracism from their colleagues,
unjust firings or transfers, and other forms of reprisal.
They deserve our support in their efforts to make
workplaces safer, the environment cleaner and both industry
and government less riddled with graft and corruption. It
seems that our congressman needs once again to be reminded of
that.
____

[From the New York Times, Oct. 27, 2000]

House Mulls Rare Contempt Citation

Washington (AP).--Despite the rush toward adjournment, the
House is pressing ahead on criminal contempt charges against
a small, private watchdog group called POGO--the first such
proceeding in nearly two decades.
Capitol Hill supporters of the group, the Project on
Government Oversight, maintain the contempt citation was
retribution by some lawmakers for POGO's campaign against
major oil companies that have been accused of shortchanging
the government of millions of dollars in royalty payments.
The contempt case has been pursued most vigorously by two
oil-state lawmakers--Republican Reps. Don Young of Alaska and
Billy Tauzin of Louisiana.
They denied any retribution and said POGO's executive
director and a board member were being charged with contempt
of Congress because they refused to answer several questions
at a hearing earlier this year on the group's involvement in
the oil royalty cases.
If found in contempt, the two officials--Danielle Brian and
Henry Banta--could face up to a year in prison and a stiff
fine, although the decision would be subject to appeal in the
courts.
Some Democrats accused Young of pursuing the case as a
favor to the oil companies stung by POGO's successful pursuit
of the royalty underpayments.
Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said Thursday that while
Young has aggressively pursued POGO, the House Resources
Committee has held no hearings on the oil royalty abuses
themselves.
Instead, Miller, the committee's senior Democrat, said
Republicans were seeking to ``punish a small nonprofit
organization for exposing illegal actions.''
``It's revenge on this government watchdog that had the
nerve to stand up and make Big Oil pay,'' said Rep. Carolyn
Maloney, D-N.Y., who has been among the most vocal critics of
the federal royalty payment system.
Republican House leaders decided Thursday to bring the
contempt resolution up for a floor vote Friday on what could
well be the last day of the 106th Congress.
The last criminal contempt resolution to be brought to the
House floor occurred in 1983. Its target was Rita Lavelle,
then head of the Superfund program at the Environmental
Protection Agency, who had refused to appear before a House
committee.
In 1997, POGO joined a Texas lawsuit against nearly a dozen
major oil companies accused of underpaying the government on
royalties. The case has produced nearly $500 million in
settlements. POGO did not benefit from most of those
settlements, but was awarded $1.2 million from one of the
earlier cases.
When the group decided to share $700,000 of the money with
two government workers who had been trying to correct the
royalty abuses it caught the attention of Republican
lawmakers. The House Resources Committee that Young chairs
began an investigation into whether there was an improper
payoff.
No evidence of such has surfaced, although the Justice
Department continues to investigate.
In an interview, Brian said she and Banta had answered
questions about the settlement but that the committee sought
details about the litigation still under way in Texas against
the oil companies.
``They started asking questions that had nothing to do with
our decision to turn money over to the whistleblowers,'' she
said Thursday.
____

[From the New York Times, May 24, 2000]

See Don Jump, Jump, Don, Jump

Any public servant should be glad to see a vast taxpayer
rip-off exposed and set right.
Not representative Don Young, chairman of the House
Committee on Resources. He's harassing independent watchdogs
at the Project on Government oversight.
POGO's offense? Pursuing investigations and lawsuits that
helped the Treasury recovery some $300 million . . . from
Young's generous political patron, the oil industry.
Mobil, Chevron, Texaco and other settled out of court, all
but admitting that they cheated U.S. citizens out of money
owed for oil pumped from public lands. Exxon, Unocal, Shell
and other face a trial in September on the same charge.
Federal law allowed POGO and other watchdogs to share a
fraction of the recovered money as a reward. POGO divided its
share with two whistleblowers who risked their government
jobs to expose the rip-off.
This generosity gave Don Young a pretext, and last year he
launched an investigation of POGO, with recent hearings in
Washington.
The only thing revealed so far--Young's willingness to
abuse his power. His subpoenas are over-reaching. Committee
members and staff have badgered and berated witnesses, who
are barred from making opening statements on their own
behalf.
``This is not a committee in search of the truth, this is a
committee meant to punish,'' says POGO Director Danielle
Brian.
``This committee has been used time and again on behalf of
special interests who find themselves on the wrong side of
the law,'' says Representative George Miller. He calls the
hearings ``a witch hunt,'' noting Young has never held
hearings on the oil companies' malfeasance.
See how money in politics works? It can lead ``public''
servants to jump to the aid of their cash constituents, the
public interest be damned.
See Don jump, Jump, Don, Jump.
____

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 15, 2000]

U.S. Announces a New Royalty System for Oil From Federal Land

(By Dan Morgan)

After a four-year battle with the oil industry and its
supporters in Congress, the Clinton administration announced
yesterday a new system for collecting an additional $67.3
million a year in royalties on crude oil pumped from federal
land and leased off-shore tracts.
The new pricing system, which will take effect June 1, was
a victory for state governments, public interest groups and
members

[[Page H11390]]

of Congress who have long contended that the royalties were
leased on an artificially low valuation for the oil.
In the future, prices will be pegged closer to the spot, or
fair market prices, instead of to an arbitrary value at the
wellhead.
Oil industry officials were sharply critical and said they
were keeping open the option of asking the courts to review
the new federal rule, pending a closer study of the complex
provisions unveiled by the Interior Department's Minerals
Management Service.
``We're disappointed. The agency missed an opportunity to
take a complex system and make it less complicated and
fairer,'' said Ken Leonard, a senior manager at the American
Petroleum Institute. He predicted that disputes over pricing
would continue, with more litigation and costs to taxpayers.
But Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), who had pressed for
the change, hailed yesterday's announcement as one that would
``bring to an end the decades-old scam that has permitted big
oil companies to rip off the American taxpayer.''
Exxon Corp., Chevron Corp. and Shell Oil Co. are among the
companies affected by the new pricing mechanism.
Companies have paid about $300 million to settle claims of
past royalty underpayments. But industry allies, led by Sen.
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), stalled a new pricing
mechanism until last fall, when Republicans and the
administration finally reached a deal.
Under the new system, nine states will receive about $2.4
million in new revenue annually out of the larger royalty
payments to the federal government. The amounts involved are
small compared with the $1.2 billion that the federal
government was paid in 1998 for oil produced on public land
and off-shore tracts.
A government watchdog group, the Project on Government
Oversight, has been pressing for a revamping of the royalty
system since 1993 and took credit yesterday for focusing
public attention on the issue.
But its activism has itself draw fire from Republicans in
Congress. On Feb. 17, the House Resources Committee issued a
subpoena for the organization's phone records, as part of an
investigation of its payments by whistle-blowers who revealed
royalty underpayments for oil pumped from federal land.
Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union told the
House panel in a letter that the subpoena threatens freedom
of speech and could chill efforts by citizens groups to root
out waste, fraud and abuse.

I would like to read one part of the editorial in the Anchorage Daily
News:
``Ignored in this entire affair is the fact that the two
whistleblowers saved the American people hundreds of millions of
dollars. Now they are being retaliated against in the most Draconian
manner.''
We should stand up for whistleblowers, not abuse them. Rather than
protecting the public, the Republicans on this committee once again are
protecting the powerful. Rather than working toward a national energy
policy, the Republicans on this committee are working for the giant oil
companies. Why are they not having some hearings on how they worked to
abuse the American people by underpaying what is due them? POGO did not
rip off the taxpayers. The oil companies ripped off the taxpayers, and
they admitted it by paying over $400 million in underpayments. Would
they be paying it if they were innocent?
Mr. Speaker, I feel this is terribly misguided. Why are we not
looking at energy policy? Why are we not investigating the
underpayments of oil to this country? Why are we abusing whistleblowers
who have come forward to help us learn how we can better make
government work for the people of this country and close abusive
loopholes like the one that existed for years where the big oil
companies kept two sets of books, one for themselves, one for the
American public and the American public lost billions and billions of
dollars?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this resolution in the strongest
possible terms. This highly partisan, misguided resolution has
absolutely no business being on the floor of the House today in the
final hours of this session.
As many of my colleagues know, I have been involved in issues
relating to Federal oil royalties for a number of years, and I have
worked tirelessly in a bipartisan fashion on these issues.
Put simply, in return for taking oil from federal lands, the oil
industry is required to pay royalties to the Federal government based
on the value of the oil they take.
In 1996, after learning that numerous major oil companies were paying
royalties based on prices that were far lower than the market value of
the oil they were buying and selling, Mr. Horn and I held a hearing
before the Government Management, Information and Technology
Subcommittee to look into this issue.
At one of those hearings, whistleblowers and oil industry experts
Robert Berman and Robert Speir testified despite considerable
resistance from their departments. Project on Government Oversight
Executive Director Danielle Brian also submitted written testimony
about Federal royalty underpayments.
These hearings and subsequent investigations by the GAO led us to
conclude that numerous major oil companies were paying royalties based
on prices that were far lower than the market value of the oil they
were buying and selling.
Our hearings showed that many of these companies were underpaying
royalties, costing the American taxpayer nearly $100 million a year.
Many companies were sued by the Federal government for deliberate
underpayment of royalties.
Most have elected to settle and, to date, over $300 million has been
collected. States and private royalty owners have collected almost $3
billion more including $17.5 million for the state of Texas and $350
million for California.
I know that these settlements are not technically admissions of
guilt, but they are the closest thing to them that you'll ever get out
of companies like Mobil, BP Amoco, and Chevron.
Finally, the Interior Department's new oil-valuation rule, which was
announced earlier this year, will save the taxpayers at least $67
million each year. Approximately $2.4 million of this revenue will be
shared with states.
This revenue will put additional teachers in the classroom and
preserve our natural resources.
I want every Member in this body to understand this history in order
to understand the context of this ill-conceived resolution.
Now, we have finally succeeded in changing the regulations to ensure
that the Federal government is fairly compensated for oil taken from
Federal lands. We have finally made this change that will return $66
million a year to the Treasury.
Now, this Congress wants to turn around and persecute and harass the
Project on Government Oversight (POGO) a small, nonprofit, government
watchdog organization, dedicated to exposing fraud and corruption. Why?
Because POGO went after major oil companies and exposed their fraud
against the taxpayer--a fraud that was costing us hundreds of millions
of dollars in unpaid oil royalties.
And now the oil companies are getting their revenge. They are out to
punish POGO and its director, Danielle Brian, for the organization's
successful efforts on behalf of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, this is completely unfair and makes absolutely no sense.
Some of my colleagues may remember the last time Congress attempted
to hold someone in contempt--it was in 1983, the case of Rita Lavelle,
the Director of the Superfund Program under EPA. Ms. Lavelle, a high
ranking government official, flat out refused to even appear before the
committee investigating her actions.
What we are doing here today in the last moments of the Congress, is
attacking a small, nonprofit organization who dared to stand up to the
big oil companies. Why didn't they answer some of the committee's
questions? Because they had absolutely nothing to do with the
committee's supposed investigation.
What really disappoints me about this entire process is that the
Resources Committee and the majority have refused to focus on the
issues that really matter--they have refused to investigate royalty
underpayments, and they have refused to look at legitimate ways to
alleviate high energy prices.
So here we are on the floor in the final hours of the 106th Congress,
and instead of talking about prescription drugs or smaller class sizes,
we are engaging in a partisan witch hunt against a small government
watchdog because they stood up to the big oil companies.
Here we are just days before one of the most important elections of
our generation.
You would think the majority would be rushing to prove to their
constituents that they care about prescription drugs, a patient's bill
of rights, small class sizes--but no. Tonight we are engaged in a
pathetic act of revenge--revenge on behalf of the oil industry.
So I would say this to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if
you represent a marginal district, and you want to go on record in
support of big oil, vote for this resolution.
If you want to go on record opposed to an organization whose sole
purpose is to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, vote for this
resolution.
If you want to follow the lead of Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney
and do whatever the oil companies want, vote for this resolution.
But if you care about fairness, if you care about good government,
oppose this resolution, stand up to big oil, and let's get on with a
debate on issues that matter to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, furthermore, I would like to say, at a time of record
high oil and gas

[[Page H11391]]

prices, as well as record profit-taking by Big Oil, Republicans in this
House have chosen, as their only course of action, to punish a
nonprofit organization for exposing illegal actions by giant oil
companies who ripped off the American taxpayer for hundreds of millions
of dollars.
Rather than protecting the public, the Republicans, once again, are
protecting the powerful.
Rather than working toward a rational energy policy, the Republicans
are working for the giant oil companies.
POGO did not rip off the taxpayer. The oil companies ripped off the
taxpayer. That has been proven in case after case where the companies
themselves have settled this issue to the tune of $438 million.
This case involves systematic, multibillion dollar underpayments of
oil and gas royalties owed to the taxpayers who own these resources.
Under prosecution by the Department of Justice, all of these oil
companies have settled their outstanding debts by agreeing to pay $438
million.
But the Resources Committee has failed to investigate those
systematic underpayments or the system that permitted them; instead,
the committee has run to the defense of the oil industry by
investigating those who exposed the underpayments while the real
perpetrators, their strong political supporters, get away free.
Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that ``The highest energy
prices since the 1990 Persian Gulf crisis have produced a financial
bonanza for the nation's three largest oil companies, which yesterday
reported quarterly profits totaling a record $7 billion, double last
year's earnings.''
The majority asserts that this Contempt Resolution is necessary to
protect the right of the House to define the target and scope of
oversight.
However, this Resolution would not be necessary IF the Majority had
adequately and properly defined the target and scope of oversight.
This has not been the case in this investigation. Witnesses were not
allowed to make opening statements. The necessary quorum was not
present at the time the committee charged the cited individuals with
contempt. They prevented Members from asking questions of witnesses.
They prevented witnesses from making opening statements or defending
themselves.
All but one of the Democrats present at the committee meeting voted
against the Resolution because ``the Republican Majority's unilateral
conduct of the investigation . . . has been biased, procedurally flawed
and abusive of the rights of witnesses and Members.'' We also noted
that the Majority's case was incredibly weak and ``will not survive
balanced judicial review.''
We do not dispute the right of the committee to investigate the POGO
payments.
We do not dispute the essential facts surrounding the POGO payments.
In November 1998, POGO got about $1.2 million, or 2 percent, from the
settlement and it paid Mr. Berman and Mr. Speir $383,600 apiece out of
its share.
The Majority suspects but has not proved foul play in POGO's decision
to make those payments.
POGO characterizes the payments as ``awards'' for the two men's
``decade-long public-spirited work to expose and stop the oil
companies' underpayment of royalties for the production of crude oil on
federal and Indian lands.''
Since December 1998, the matter has been under investigation by the
Inspector General of the Department of the Interior and the Public
Integrity Section of the Department of Justice--as it should be.
The appearance of impropriety created by the payments warrants
investigation, but by the proper authorities and we supported the
Majority's motion adopted by the Committee on Resources to release to
them relevant committee records.
It is for the appropriate law enforcement agencies and, ultimately,
the courts, to decide if any laws were broken.
This is particularly the case where, as here, the targets of the
Resources Committee's investigation are not senior policy officials,
but private citizens or low-ranking civil servants, and where, as here,
the committee has shown a strong bias against the targets of its probe.
This contempt resolution is a weak case to present to the House,
which last sought to invoke statutory contempt powers in 1983. And even
if adopted by the House over our objections, any attempts at
prosecution based on this Resolution will not survive balanced judicial
review.
That is because the Majority's wrath, primarily directed at POGO, a
nonprofit government ``watchdog'' group--has skewed their objectivity.
The Majority has conducted this investigation in a manner that serves
the interests of lawyers for oil and gas companies involved in pending
royalty underpayment litigation as well as those who are currently
challenging in federal court royalty valuation regulations recently
issued by the Department of the Interior to curb royalty payment
abuses.
The Majority is confusing the DOJ criminal investigation (i.e.,
whether there were illegalities in POGO's arrangement to share the
proceeds of the False Claims Act settlement with the two employees)
with the Contempt of Congress issues. The issue that should be before
the House in the contempt resolution is whether the committee's
investigation was properly conducted under the Rules and the questions
at issue asked with adequate foundation to be deemed ``pertinent''
under the contempt statute, as strictly construed by the judiciary, all
the elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the case
with any criminal statute. We argue in the dissenting views that they
abused the rules and rights of witnesses and failed to establish, as
required by the Supreme Court, that the questions were ``pertinent'' at
the time they were asked.

{time} 1100

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is not about the whistleblowers. These were people
that divulged information; they were not the whistleblowers, and this
constant smoke screen actually disturbs me, because nobody read the
report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady), who also sat on the committee that had these oversight
hearings.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain the section of the
report dealing with one of our government employees, Mr. Robert Berman,
and how he failed to comply with the subpoena for testimony before the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on July 11 of this year.
Let me tell you though why we are not here today. We are not here,
even though, as I see it, evidence shows that a special interest group
paid two of our government officials, who illegally and unethically
used their insider information gained from their position of public
trust to line their pockets and that of a special interest group. That
is corruption, and it is wrong. But that is not for Congress to decide;
that is for the courts to decide.
We are here for something even more important than that. It is to
ensure that when Congress seeks the truth for the American public, when
we ask a fair question on a serious matter, that we receive an honest,
timely answer. It is the authority Congress needed to get to the truth
behind Watergate. It is the authority Congress has needed to question
industries who deny that they sell their products to young minors. It
is the authority we require to expose the IRS when they break their own
rules to harass taxpayers. It is the authority we require to hold
companies accountable when they sell unsafe products; when the
government reaches agreements to sell nuclear weapons to rogue nations.
It is the authority of Congress to seek the truth, and while we may not
like doing it, it is our obligation.
Let me tell you, in each of those cases, you heard the same
compliant: it is a witch hunt; we are being manipulated; this is Big
Oil; this is Big Something; we are the good guys. But the fact of the
matter is, with these two government insiders and this special interest
group, they are not the good guys. We are simply seeking the truth.
First, for the record, let me tell you, Mr. Berman is an employee of
the U.S. Department of Interior who received a large amount of money in
return for access and information. He was responsible for analyzing
developing oil royalty policy for the Interior Department.
All the available evidence, even POGO, the special interest group's
own statements, suggest Mr. Berman was paid as a government insider
because he agreed with these groups and had the access and information
to provide them. That is against the law. He knows it was wrong. He
knows that Congress has every right to ask him about that.
Think about this: if someone comes to you at your job and says,
``Look, do not tell your boss this, but you are working on a key
project for us. We would like to make you part of a lawsuit so that
when we receive dollars in settlement from this, we can pay you for
that information. Now, do not tell your boss, do not remove yourself
from that project, because this is how the agreement works.'' You would
know something was wrong.

[[Page H11392]]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue, because it gets worse than
this.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Government Management of
the then Committee on Reform and Oversight dealt with the Minerals
Management Service for a number of months. Let me read you our
conclusion. It is titled ``Crude Oil Undervaluation, the Ineffective
Response of the Minerals Management Service.'' This was approved by the
full committee.
``The Minerals Management Service needs to review its operations to
ensure that the amounts which are owed to the Federal Government are
collected in a timely fashion. For years, oil companies were able to
use complex transactions to disguise premia the whole formulas on the
crude oil from the Federal regulators. Now that the Federal Government
has determined that there are hundreds of millions of dollars of
additional payments owed, Minerals Management must aggressively pursue
this problem to protect Federal financial interests. The Minerals
Management Service has failed to do so. There is still time to
accomplish this task. Until that happens, the crude oil undervaluation
issue is a serious hole in the Federal budget deficit that amounts to
perhaps $2 billion nationwide for crude oil leasing. This is a problem
that is preventable and requires the attention of senior management in
the administration.''
This is, frankly, one of the most fouled-up bureaucracies I have seen
in 6 years of oversight within the executive branch.
Now, I can see how some of my colleagues on other committees might be
bothered by anybody that is trying to lie before you. But the question
is, should Congress do it, or should the United States Attorney do it?
Personally, I think some of this has to do with POGO. Now, I wish we
had a few more POGOs around here that were watchdogs on the
bureaucracy, and perhaps the money that they gave is what bothers a lot
of my colleagues.
But the fact is, if that is the way we get information, fine. The
POGO operations, I do not know how they run their business, and I
really do not care. What I do care about is that we get whistleblowers
to tell us the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this contempt citation. I
think it is wrong; it should not be in this House. It should be with
the United States Attorney, and it should go before a Federal grand
jury, if that is a problem. If the lawyer gave one of the witnesses
advice and it is bad advice, such as saying take the fifth, or whatever
it is, that is another issue.
I do not think we should be cutting off whistleblowers.
There is a lot of fraud, misuse, in the amount of billions of dollars
in the executive branch.
We should encourage whistleblowers.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, the gentleman from California misstates. These
were not whistleblowers; these were Federal employees divulging
confidential information. The whistleblower himself says that they did
the wrong thing. That is not a whistleblower.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin).
(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, this matter involves two things: the first
is the facts, so let us get the facts straight. We are talking about a
whistleblower lawsuit on royalty valuations that amounted to about a
$400 million claim.
It was not brought by POGO. This whistleblower lawsuit was brought by
a whistleblower by the name of Johnson. Johnson filed suit against
Shell. Johnson was entitled, under the whistleblower statute, to 17 to
20 percent of the winnings if this whistleblower suit won.
Now, we have these things in Louisiana a lot. The oil companies fight
with our State over oil royalty and gas royalty valuations all the
time. Some are legitimate disputes; some are not so legitimate.
Johnson brought a suit claiming illegitimate royalty valuations, and
Johnson the whistleblower suddenly finds out that POGO gets in its
lawsuit and wants a share of the take. POGO in fact weasels its way
into that lawsuit and gets about a $7 million share of the take.
How did POGO get in the lawsuit? POGO got in the lawsuit, we are
told, our investigators tell us, because two Federal employees
apparently knew about this sealed lawsuit, called their friends at
POGO, got them into the lawsuit, and cut a deal to get one-third of the
take.
Two Federal employees cut a deal, apparently, with POGO, to each take
one-third of $7 million, to get POGO a share of Mr. Johnson's
whistleblower lawsuit. That is what the allegations are.
Now, the second thing we are talking about is whether this Congress,
as the watchdog of America over Federal agencies and Federal employees
who might do criminal and wrong things, has a right to get straight
answers from witnesses we call.
Now, when the two witnesses from POGO and when the Federal official
involved here come before our committee and refuse to answer the
questions that we ask them about this elicit deal, they do not take the
fifth amendment, which they could have done. They simply say, ``Hum,
Congress, we are not going to talk to you, and you can't do anything
about it.'' They are telling the American people that the eyes and ears
of their Congress, elected by the American public to watchdog Federal
agencies, have no power, have no authority. They take that power away
from us when they can snub us and say they will not answer legitimate
questions in a Federal inquiry.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
He said it right. Whether the Democrats control this House, or whether
the Republicans control this House, this is the people's House. We are
not just here voting for Americans; we are their eyes and ears too over
the Federal bureaucracies.
It is our job to make sure Federal employees deal with Americans
honestly, and when two Federal employees cut a deal to get one-third of
a whistleblower lawsuit and refuse to come and answer questions about
it before a committee of this Congress, every Member, Democrat and
Republican, ought to rise up and say, the American public, this House,
will not be shunned this way. We will not be, in the vernacular of the
young, ``dissed'' in this fashion.
The product of this investigation is critical. The product of this
investigation is to uncover criminal wrongdoing, and we ought to
proceed with this vote today.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, this House has many things to be proud of,
but this is not one of the investigations that we have to be proud of.
My colleagues on the other side have invoked the tobacco
investigations on several occasions. I do not need to remind my
colleagues who was the majority party at that point in time. I think if
these are the priorities of this Congress, the people who are watching
in America need to know why we need to change Congress.
Let me talk on a little bit of a personal note. I happen to know one
of the people who this indictment, this contempt citation, is about,
Hank Banta. Hank Banta was my first boss when I worked in Washington in
1981, 19 years ago. I know him well; I consider him a friend. He was a
counsel for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. That was where I
worked as an intern and extern for 2 years.
He knows the rules of this House well, and I would tell my
colleagues, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) and the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), one of the reasons that he did not answer
is because our rules provide that if they are not pertinent questions
to an investigation, the witness has legal right not to answer those
questions, not to answer those questions, and he enjoyed that right.
I would just question the criminal nature of this.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, that is not true.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

[[Page H11393]]

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that this institution is to
be a watchdog. In fact, this resolution asks the people's House to
become an attack dog, an attack dog for the oil and gas industry.
This is the people's House, and it is a sad day when we turn on the
people who expose the fraud to the American people and seek to punish
them.
The Watergate investigation has been inveighed as a proud moment of
Congress. If this party had been running the Watergate investigation,
you would not have subpoenaed Halderman and Ehrlichman and gone after
them. You would have investigated Frank Wills, the guy who discovered
the burglary.
You are barking up the wrong tree, and it is a sad day. I am proud of
the House of Representatives, and I want to warn Members against this
resolution for two reasons: number one, if this passes, and if this
goes to the criminal justice system, this House will be embarrassed.
I am going to tell you why: unlike many of the speakers today, I was
in these hearings, and I saw, time after time after time, the majority
party ignore the rules of the House of Representatives. When the
judicial system sees this, they will call foul; and our House will be
embarrassed by this travesty. If you want to know why these people did
not answer some of these questions, it is because they violated the
rules of the House.
I want to bring up another issue. As a person who believes privacy is
important in this Chamber, I believe in this country we should not have
certain conversations forced to be made public by the U.S. Government.
The U.S. Government should not force your discussions with your priest
to be public, the U.S. Government should not force your conversations
with your doctor to be public, and the U.S. Government should not force
your conversations with your attorney to be public.
The majority party seeks to violate those privileges, and we brought
this to their attention. These folks did not want to answer questions
about their conversations with their attorney. Those who believe that
the priest's penitent privilege and the attorney-client privileges are
sacred rights of Americans, will vote against this resolution. If you
believe in privacy and standing up and crying ``foul,'' vote against
this resolution.

{time} 1115

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Doolittle).
(Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker. This issue is about big payoffs, not big
oil. In fact, it is about the biggest payoffs ever made and accepted by
Federal bureaucrats, indeed, over $750,000 already. This resolution is
about our ability as Members of Congress to ask questions of and to get
answers from those who made the big payoffs, and those who accepted
them.
It is that simple. Members should know that there was a written
agreement to funnel $4 million to two Federal employees. Make no
mistake, those who oppose this resolution are sanctioning the ability
of people to hide the facts about what goes on in big government
agencies from the people and from congressional committees.
This resolution is about holding those who made and accepted these
big payoffs to the same standard we would hold any corporation if it
made huge payments to Federal workers.
So do not fall for the smoke screen. Big payments to Federal
Government workers are wrong. Support the resolution.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me
the time.
As a relative newcomer to this Chamber, I have been following this to
understand how the House works, how we can pick out one item for the
first time in 17 years to proceed forward with a recommendation for
criminal activity.
The U.S. Attorney is already following up on potential misconduct; so
that is not the issue here. The issue is, the dealing with the House of
Representatives.
Seventeen years ago, Rita Lavelle stonewalled Congress completely,
would not answer the phone, would not come forward, would not produce
documents.
These are people who did come forward, produced thousands of pages of
documents. This has already been deleted by the amendment of the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
We are looking at something here that looks to me like a pretty broad
sweep that is calculated not to get at the problem of misuse of oil
royalties. It is not whether or not these people are going to have
their behavior investigated. It is, it seems to me, rather a chilling
effort in terms of people who come forward and for the first time in 17
years. I think this is indeed a stretch.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
(Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources, I sat through hours and hours of an exercise which we are
led to believe involves an illegal and inappropriate activity, a
whistleblowing exercise based on insider knowledge.
We are led to believe that these individuals involved were
uncooperative and demonstrated a contempt of Congress so egregious that
it requires this very special resolution, this very heavy-handed
sanction.
What I saw instead was a conscience and deliberate attempt to
characterize these whistleblowers as criminals. What I saw was the
securing of thousands of pages of information and extensive testimony,
which provided the committee with all of the information they needed to
conclude that while some questionable activity may have occurred, which
should be and is being investigated by the Department of Justice, but
that there was also some serious underpayments by the oil companies,
but the committee did not pursue the question of the underpayments.
We were not satisfied with this information, the entire picture about
the underpayments and the whistleblowers, but instead we focused and
continued to pursue this line of questioning and inquiry.
I sat through hours and hours of an exercise which we are led to
believe involves an illegal and inappropriate activity--a
whistleblowing exercise based on inside knowledge.
We are led to believe that the three individuals involved were
uncooperative and demonstrated a contempt of Congress so egregious that
it requires this very special resolution--this heavy handed sanction.
What I saw was a conscious and deliberate attempt to characterize the
3 whistleblowers as criminals. What I saw was the securing of thousands
of pages of information and extensive testimony which provided the
Committee with all of the information they needed to conclude that some
questionable activity may have occured--which should be and is being
investigated by DOJ and that there were underpayments by the oil
companies. But we didn't pursue the question of the underpayments. But
we weren't satisfied with this information, the entire picture about
the underpayments and the whistleblowers--No--we wanted to continue to
pursue this line of questioning and inquiry--focusing on the
whistleblowers which has the net effect of shifting the attention from
the serious policy issue of underpayment of the oil companies and to
the activities of the whistleblowers. It is inevitable that we must ask
the question is the intent of the investigation to mitigate the
attention to the underpayments; was the intent of the mitigate to
derail attention--from the real problems of the underpayments? I have
to conclude that this was the case.
The prerogatives of Congress are not at stake, and today we should be
focusing on the oil companies and the fact that they endeavored to deny
revenues to the American public.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.

[[Page H11394]]

Mr. Speaker, when there is a tobacco scandal, who do we bring in
before Congress? The tobacco company executives.
When Ford and Firestone are implicated in the death of 138 Americans
and hundreds of others, who do we bring in to testify? The CEO of Ford,
the CEO of Firestone.
When the oil companies, however, are found ripping off the American
taxpayer to the tune of $438 million, with potentially billions of
additional dollars still unaccounted for, who does the Committee on
Resources bring in? They bring in the oil company executives? No. The
whistleblower. Let us investigate the whistleblowers.
Mr. Speaker, if the public is looking at this and they are wondering
what Congress is doing in the final 2 weeks, they just have to look on
the Republican side. The President deploys the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. The Republicans hold hearings, both the Senate and House
energy committees last week. What is the scandal that they are
investigating?
The price of oil was nearing $40 a barrel when the President deployed
it. It is now down to $32 a barrel. The scandal? The price of oil has
dropped. The consumers have benefitted. Gasoline prices are down. Home
heating oil prices are down. Let us have hearings on the House and
Senate side.
Now, on the final day of Congress, again, the oil industry and the
cross hairs of the American public wondering what Congress is doing
about it. Are we bringing in the executives to ask beyond that $438
billion in oil, how about natural gas? How about the other oil
companies?
Are there billions of other dollars that we could be using for
prescription drugs, that we can be using to ensure that we rebuild
schools in this country that the oil companies are not paying in taxes?
No, we do not have that hearing. The Republican majority would have us
believe that POGO, the Project on Government Oversight, is the problem,
POGO. What Walter Kelly, the old cartoonist who used to draw the Pogo
strip, he once remarked, ``We have met the enemy, and it is us.''
The enemy is the Republican Congress. They refuse to have hearings on
the issues of what the role is of the oil industry and driving up oil
prices and denying the American people the taxes, the royalties, which
they rightly deserve in order to ensure that our government programs
help the poorest people in our society. Vote no on this resolution.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution. Congress has
become background music in a doctor's office. Witnesses come before
Congress and lie every day, and Congress does nothing about it
depending upon the partisanship of the issue.
If you are a chairman and you determine there is something and you
subpoena a witness, that witness should be there; and if they are not,
the Congress should put its foot down. In America, the people govern;
and, quite frankly, we do not any more.
Congress does not govern anything. You have turned it over to the
White House, and the White House does not govern. They have turned it
over to the bureaucrats.
When our committee subpoenas somebody, they should be there; and if
they are not, they should be held in contempt. I support the gentleman
from Alaska (Chairman Young). He is doing what is best for America. Let
us take this government back to the people.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have immense power in this body. We have the power to
do things that other people only dream about. We can do some wonderful
things. We can fight for a cure of cancer. We can feed hungry children.
We can defend this country by making the resources available to do all
of those things. But every now and then in the history of this
Congress, we also have the ability to run off the tracks and to bring
down the power of this institution on an individual or an organization
or a couple of individuals and put them in such jeopardy and deny them
such rights that it is a nightmare to the average citizen of what they
would do in that situation. That is why there are rules.
There are rules to protect the American citizen against its
government. In court, in grand jury proceedings, in the Congress of the
United States, when you ask a question to a witness, the witness,
according to the Supreme Court and to our Constitution, they have a
right to know why you are asking that question and is that question
pertinent to this investigation.
Let me tell my colleagues, in the circus we were running in this
committee at that time, the members did not know what was going on in
that investigation. The members did not know why the questions were
being asked. The members did not know why information was being
subpoenaed, but the fact of the matter was these three witnesses came
before our committee. They answered numerous questions. They submitted
to depositions. They provided thousands of pages of testimony, and
today none of them have been charged with anything, other than in the
allegations of speeches by Members of Congress besmirching their
reputations.
Mr. Speaker, I happen to think, as I said at the outset of these
hearings, I think there some real bad judgment has been made and maybe
some wrongdoings that have been had, but that is not what these Members
are in liability for. These Members are in liability now because we
shifted from that hearing in the middle to questioning about whether or
not something was wrong in a lawsuit in Texas, and we were going to
adjudicate whether it was. We do not adjudicate.
We do not adjudicate. So they refused to testify, because the
committee already had the information, but it was once suggested that
maybe they could be caught for perjury. So they did not testify. They
said you have the information from another source, some of which was
sealed or not sealed.
This committee never laid out for them the pertinency of those
questions to that investigation at that time. As the Supreme Court has
recognized, when you put a person in that kind of jeopardy, the average
American, the average American who is sitting there in front of a big
committee of Congress, they have rights. They need protection, because
the government is not always right; that is why we changed the law with
respect to the Internal Revenue Service, because they made decisions
about people's guilt, about people's liabilities, hounded them and
badgered them and intimidated them with the power of the Government.
They threatened people with jail.
Mr. Speaker, that is where these three people sit today. After being
badgered and hounded, being called common thieves by members of the
committee, in spite of no evidence that that was the case, whether or
not they were involved in the regulations, the best evidence we have
today is the sworn testimony of the people from the Department of
Interior that had no impact, little involvement in those regulations.
The best evidence we have today of their involvement in the court
case in Texas was the evidence that the oil companies took from this
hearing and ran over to that court case. The judge said get out of
here. Today, they are put before this Congress with the full force and
effect.
But who is not here? As many of my colleagues pointed out, the oil
companies are not here. After admitting and settling to underpaying
plight terms, it is like we do not admit any liability, admit or deny,
you know, how you do when you settle a lawsuit. We cannot tell you
whether we are guilty or not. We are just going to put this $450
million out there out on the table because we want this to go away.
What these oil companies did to the taxpayers of the United States,
they lied to them. They cheated to them. They wrongfully withheld
payments that were entitled to each and every taxpayer of this country.
Now they settled for half a billion dollars, $438 million. It is
estimated, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) said in his
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, that
it could be as high as $2 billion to the Federal taxpayer.

{time} 1130

Many of these same oil companies settled with the State of
California. When they took the money from the

[[Page H11395]]

State of California, they took it from the schoolchildren, because the
money was destined for the schoolchildren of California. They settled
there for, I think, almost $2 billion in underpayments, maybe more. I
do not have the exact figure, but it runs to the billions.
So those companies who cheated and lied did not receive a single
question from this committee. Did not receive a letter. Did not receive
a subpoena. Did not receive a letter of inquiry. Were not asked to
testify about cheating the Federal Government. But the organization,
the people who blew the whistle and said the government is not doing
its job, and they came under a Civil War statute was to protect the
government from being ripped off by the merchants during the Civil War
by supplying us phony goods or overcharging us. They came under that
Civil War statute and they said, ``Hey, you guys are not doing your
job, they are cheating you.''
Yes, they were. And they were entitled to recovery. They may have
shared that recovery in a wrongful fashion, but to date nobody has been
charged with doing that, and the Justice Department has had this for a
year and a half, almost 2 years.
Why the imbalance? Why are we going after these people and
attributing criminal liability? This is not about our subpoena power.
These people answered the subpoenas. They came to the committee. They
turned over the documents. But when they were asked these questions,
knowing their rights under the Supreme Court decisions that have thrown
out contempt citations from this, said time and again this citizen has
not been protected from the powers of this Congress; they said that
question is not pertinent. I do not believe it is pertinent. And as the
Supreme Court says, the citizen has to sit in the chair and is
compelled to make a choice immediately.
So on advice of their counsel, they quickly said, ``I do not believe
that question is pertinent,'' and we have a right to go forward with
this process if we believe it was.
I have to say to my colleagues, nobody laid the foundation for these
citizens so they could determine what we were talking about in this
hearing, because this hearing was from hell to breakfast on subject
matter. It was all over the room. We changed the direction of this
hearing numerous times. And I do not think that we ought to attach
criminal liability to these citizens that did such an incredible
service for the taxpayers and the citizens of this country. We
certainly should not do it in the name of oversight, because if we do
it in the name of this oversight, we are doing it in the name of one-
sided oversight.
Mr. Speaker, if we are going to call POGO, if we are going to call
these three citizens, we should have called the oil companies. I am
sure we will call the trial attorneys and the tire companies in the
Firestone investigation. I am sure we will call the victims and the
tobacco companies. But here we only called one.
Do not do this to the citizens of the United States. They may end up
being tried or charged by the Justice Department under the active
investigation, but do not use and misuse the powers of this institution
against these three citizens who did the right thing and were badgered
and hounded and called names, not allowed to testify, not allowed to
give opening statements, and then placed in that kind of jeopardy. It
simply is not fair.

Contempt of Congress Resolution and Report Dissenting Views

We strongly oppose the Resolution and Report to cite four
individuals and the Projects on Government Oversight (POGO)
for Contempt of Congress, a federal statutory crime
punishable by up to one year in jail. From the outset, the
Republican Majority's unilateral conduct of the investigation
into this matter has been biased, procedurally flawed and
abusive of the rights of witnesses and Members. It is a weak
case to present to the House, which last sought to invoke
statutory contempt powers in 1983. And even if adopted by the
House over our objections, any attempt at prosecution based
on this Resolution will not survive balanced judicial review.
The Majority's wrath is primarily directed at POGO a
nonprofit government ``watchdog'' group that--among many
efforts to curb waste, fraud and abuse--has been active since
1993 in pursuing oil and gas companies that have underpaid by
hundreds of millions of dollars royalties owed to the U.S.
Treasury for operating on public lands. In November 1998,
after receiving $1.2 million of a $45 million settlement by
Mobil Oil in False Claims Act litigation for royalty
underpayments, POGO shared two-thirds ($383,600 each) with
two individuals: a Department of the Interior employee,
Robert Berman, and a former Department of Energy employee,
Robert Speir.
POGO and the Department of Justice dispute whether an
Assistant U.S. Attorney involved in the Mobil litigation
approved POGO's payments to Berman and Speir. In December
1998, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice
referred the POGO matter to the Public Integrity Section of
the Criminal Division for a review, in cooperation with the
Inspector General for the Department of the Interior, which
is ongoing. These are the proper authorities and the
appropriate forum for fairly investigating whether any
misconduct or illegalities occurred in making or receiving
the payments and we supported the motion adopted by the
Committee on Resources to release to them relevant committee
records. By contrast, all but one of the Democrats present
voted against the Majority's Contempt of Congress Resolution,
which was adopted by a 27 to 16 vote on July 19, 2000.
We oppose this Resolution because in the course of this
lengthy investigation, the Majority has stepped beyond the
bounds of legitimate inquiry. In an abusive manner, the
Majority has used the powers of subpoena and the sanction of
contempt to pursue subjects tangential to the Committee on
Resources' jurisdiction. The Majority has conducted this
investigation in a manner that serves the interests of
lawyers for oil and gas companies involved in pending royalty
underpayment litigation as well as those who are currently
challenging in federal court royalty valuation regulations
recently issued by the Department of the Interior to curb
royalty payment abuses.
It is noteworthy that the Majority has spent well over a
year investigating those who helped expose royalty cheating
and whose efforts contributed to the recovery to date by the
Untied States of $300 million from litigation settlements.
But they have done nothing to investigate whether companies
extracting oil and gas from federal lands are systematically
underpaying royalties, a subject clearly within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources and with
significant fiscal implications to taxpayers.
The Majority unilaterally drafted the lengthy Resolution
and Report and first made it available to Democratic Members
of the Committee less than 24 hours prior to the Committee on
Resources' markup on July 19th. This rush to judgment on
Contempt of Congress, a federal crime, is typical of the
strictly partisan investigation, which has been prejudiced
from the beginning with assumptions of guilt and
illegalities. Indicating all with a broad brush, the
Resolution deems each individual cited as equally guilty no
matter how trivial the alleged transgression. Moreover, by
citing the ``Project on Government Oversight,'' with
contempt, the Resolution cavalierly casts a cloud of criminal
jeopardy on the officers and the entire board of directors,
even though one such individual testified that he had been
recused from any involvement in the royalty underpayment
matters and another did not join the board until 1999.
At the July 19th Committee markup of this Resolution, the
Majority failed to provide Members with the language of the
contempt statutes. They cited no judicial standards or
precedents of the House for applying those criminal statutes
in a contempt proceeding. They did not adequately explain or
refute the legal rationale that the subpoenaed parties, based
on advice from counsel, had asserted when they declined to
answer specific questions or provide specific documents
precisely as sought by the Majority. And they neglected to
explain to Medicare that witnesses had appeared at hearings
and produced thousands of pages of documents in compliance
with multiple subpoenas (Attachment (A).

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS: ALL ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE
SHOULD BE PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

The refusal to answer a question or provide a document
demanded by a committee does not per se constitute contempt
of Congress under the statutes. William Holmes Brown, who
served as House Parliamentarian for twenty years, provides
guidance for Members regarding contempt powers and procedure
in House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and
Procedures of the House (1996): ``The statute which penalizes
the refusal to answer in response to a congressional subpoena
provides that the question must be `pertinent to the question
under inquiry.' 2 U.S.C. 192. That is, the answered requested
must 91) relate to a legislative purpose which Congress may
constitutionally entertain, and (2) fall within the grant of
authority actually made by Congress to the Committee. Desher,
Ch 15 Sec. 6. In a prosecution for contempt of Congress, it
must be established that the committee or subcommittee was
duly authorized and that its investigation was within the
scope of delegated authority. U.S. v. Seeger, C.A.N.Y. 303
F.2d 478 (1962). A clear chain of authority from the House to
its committee is an essential element of the offense. Gojack
v. U.S., 384 U.S. 702 (1996).'' House Practice at pages 427-
428.
Brown further observes that the requirement that a
committee question be pertinent

[[Page H11396]]

is an essential factor in prosecuting the witness for
contempt, that the committee has the burden of establishing
that a question is ``pertinent,'' and that the committee's
determination is ultimately subject to a strict standard of
judicial review: ``In contempt proceedings brought under the
statute, constitutional claims and other objections to House
investigatory procedures may be raised as a defense. U.S. v.
House of Representatives, 556 F Supp. 150 (1983). The courts
must accord the defendant every right `guaranteed to
defendants in all other criminal cases.' Watkins v. United
States, 354 US 178 (1957). All elements of the offense,
including willfulness, must be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. Flaxer v. United States, 358 US 147 (1958).'' House
Practice at page 428. [Emphasis added]
Accordingly, because a contempt charge must meet strict
judicial review standards, it is our recommendation that
Members of the House consider themselves as if jurors in a
criminal trial and apply the ``beyond a reasonable doubt''
standard in evaluating the conduct of those charged with
contempt under 2 U.S.C. 192. The definition of ``beyond a
reasonable doubt'' is as follows: ``The doubt that prevents
one from being firmly convinced of a defendant's guilt, or
the belief that there is a real possibility that a defendant
is not guilty. `Beyond a reasonable doubt' is the standard
used by a jury to determine whether a criminal defendant is
guilty. In deciding whether guilt has been proved beyond a
reasonable doubt, the jury must begin with the presumption
that the defendant is innocent.'' Black's Law Dictionary
(Seventh Edition, 1999) at page 1272. [Emphasis added]
The majority has failed to meet its burdens of proving the
statutory elements necessary for contempt prosecution
In construing the contempt statute, the Supreme Court has
closely scrutinized a committee's stated purpose of the
investigation to determine whether a demand is pertinent to
the question under inquiry. If the committee's own
descriptions are inconsistent with its actions or have
changed over time, such confusion ``might well have
inspired doubts as to the legal validity of the
committee's purposes.'' Gojack v. United States, 384 U.S.
702, 709 (1966).
On June 9, 1999, the Committee on Resources on a party line
vote approved a Resolution to authorize Chairman Don Young to
issue subpoenas in connection with: ``(1) policies and
practices of the Department of the Interior and Department of
Energy regarding payment of employees and former employees
from sources outside of these Departments that may be related
to the employee's past or present work within the Department,
and (2) payments from the Project on Government Oversight,
POGO, to Mr. Robert Berman, an employee of the Department of
the Interior, and Mr. Robert Speir, a former employee of the
Department of Energy . . .''.
During the debate on the June 9, 1999 resolution, Energy
Subcommittee Chairman Barbara Cubin responded to Delegate
Carlos Romero-Barcelo's concerns about the Committee acting
to intervene in a pending Department of Justice criminal
investigation by explaining that the focus would be on oil
royalty valuation legislation and regulation: ``It isn't the
intent of the committee to intervene in this procedure at
all, but we do need to know what is going on and what has
gone on because we have things in front of us as oil
valuation is concerned that are directly the purview of this
committee. We have legislation in front of us that tries to
determine a valuation method for oil. Right now, the
administration and the Minerals Management Service has some
regulation or proposed regulation that should not go into
effect about the valuation of oil because we don't know
whether this action and this payment of money has anything to
do with those new regulations. We just need to know whether
the two people involved had any influence on the MMS.''
Notwithstanding this rationale for the investigation, at
the time the Committee approved the contempt Resolution on
July 19, 2000 the Majority had sought no testimony related to
oil valuation regulations, policies, or legislation. No
witness had been called to establish a foundation for the
relevant ``policies and practices'' of the Departments of
Interior and Energy. By stark contrast, Democratic Members
were admonished by the Majority at the May 4, 2000,
Subcommittee hearing that the purpose of the investigation
did not include inquires on oil royalty valuation policies or
fraudulent oil company practices.
Simply stated, the Majority has not articulated a purpose
for obtaining the information sought by the contempt
Resolution that is within the scope of the Resources
Committee's authority as delegated by the House. The Supreme
Court has held that a clear line of authority for the
committee and the ``connective reasoning'' to the questions
is necessary to prove pertinency in statutory contempt.
Gojack v. United States, 384 U.S. 702 (1966) Instead, the
Majority has constantly shifted their explanations of what
they are investigating and why. For example, on March 6,
2000, Chairman Young wrote to POGO's attorney to explain that
broad subpoenas were necessary to ``to begin weighing the
merits of those conflicting statements'' made in civil
litigation.
The purpose and scope of the Majority's inquiries are still
not clear to Democratic Members. An investigation of oil
royalty matters in furtherance of a legislative purpose could
properly be crafted within the Committee on Resources'
jurisdiction, but the Majority has failed to do so. The
Majority established no ``connective reasoning'' or
foundation based on the committee's jurisdiction for the
pertinence of the questions asked and the documents demanded
of the witnesses at the time they were asked and demanded.
Additional hearings or ex post facto rationale cannot
reestablish a foundation for pertinency that did not exist at
time that a witness was at peril of being charged with
contempt.
The Supreme Court has held the conduct of Congress to
strict scrutiny when applying the contempt statutes: ``It is
obvious that a person compelled to make this choice [of
whether to answer] is entitled to have knowledge of the
subject to which the interrogation is deemed pertinent. That
knowledge must be available with the same degree of
explicitness and clarity that the due process clause requires
in the expression of any element of a criminal offense. the
`vice of vagueness' must be avoided here as in all other
crimes.'' Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957).
In summary, the Majority has not met the substantial burden
of proving the elements of statutory contempt beyond a
reasonable doubt. The House cannot responsibly send to the
U.S. Attorney--who already has plenty of work to do combating
serious crimes--a contempt Resolution that is so flawed that
prosecution will be futile.
The majority's investigation is procedurally flawed and
failed to comply with committee and House rules
In applying the contempt statute, the courts have required
that a committee strictly follow its own rules and those of
the House. Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109 (1962). The
conduct of the investigation related to this Contempt of
Congress Resolution is so egregious that any attempt at
prosecution will not survive judicial review. Among the
procedural deficiencies are the following:
(1) Failure to follow House Rule XI, Clause 2(k) applicable
to investigative hearing procedures. On June 9, 1999, by a
party line vote, the Committee on Resources authorized
Chairman Young to issue subpoenas related to an ``oversight
review'' of the ``policies and practices of the Department of
Interior and Energy'' and ``payments from the Project on
Government Oversight'' to Robert Berman, an employee of the
Department of the Interior, and Robert Speir, a former
employee of the Department of Energy. It was not until June
27, 2000, however, that Chairman Young authorized
Subcommittee Chairman Cubin to ``begin an investigation to
complement the oversight inquiry underway.'' This is a
meaningless effort to draw a distinction between
``investigation'' and ``oversight'' when no such distinction
exists for purposes of House Rule XI, Clause 2. Accordingly,
over the protests of Democratic Members, the Majority failed
to follow House Rules applicable to the rights of witnesses
in Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hearings held
May 4 and May 18, 2000. These flaws range from the failure to
provide witnesses with the Committee on Resources and House
Rules prior to their testimony, to the failure to go into
executive session.
(2) Failure to allow Members to question witnesses under
House Rule XI, Clause 2(j). On multiple occasions, the
Subcommittee Chair prevented Democratic Members from
exercising their rights to question witnesses, either under
the five-minute rule or time allocated to the Minority under
clause 2(j)(B).
(3) Failure to have a proper quorum under Committee on
Resources Rule 3(d). The Committee rules require a quorum of
members, yet no such quorum was present during the hearings
at the times of votes on sustaining the Subcommittee
Chairman's rulings on whether questions were ``pertinent.''
(4) Failure to allow witnesses to make an opening statement
under Committee on Resources Rule 4(b). This rule states,
``Each witness shall limit his or her oral presentation to a
five-minute summary of the written statement, unless the
Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member,
extends this time period.'' In contravention of this rule and
longstanding committee practice, the Chair refused to grant
hearing witnesses the opportunity to make opening statements.
Democrats objected that this was prejudicial to subpoenaed
witnesses in what amounted to adversarial proceedings but
were overruled by the Subcommittee Chair.
(5) Failure to hold a hearing on the contempt of Congress
issues. It is fundamentally unfair not to allow the parties
charged with contempt an opportunity to fully and fairly
detail their legal arguments for declining to answer
questions or supply specific documents in contention. The
Chair repeatedly refused the efforts of Democratic Members to
recognize legal counsel to address the Subcommittee on these
issues. The failure to provide due process in a hearing to
those accused of violating a criminal statute further weakens
the Majority's case.
The majority's investigation improperly attempts to use the
power of Congress to provide discovery for oil and gas
companies in royalty litigation against the United States
We strongly protest the Majority's transparent attempt to
use the powers of the Committee on Resources--and of the
House--to assist favored parties in pending litigation with
hundreds of millions of dollars of royalty payments at stake.
The Majority's difficulties in describing a legitimate
purpose

[[Page H11397]]

for their investigation are compounded because they appear to
be seeking information which would damage interests of the
United States both in royalty underpayment litigation and in
industry challenges to recently revised oil and gas royalty
regulations. Their interest in the pending litigation matters
has been made clear, for example, by a March 6, 2000, letter
from Don Young to POGO's attorney which states in part: ``On
November 29, 1999, an adversary of your clients' interests
in the proceedings of Johnson v. Shell litigation provided
sworn testimony in a federal court hearing which appears
to directly contradict sworn statements made by your
client, Danielle Brian. To begin weighing the merits of
those conflicting statements, Committee counsel telephoned
you and explained that I intended to subpoena records of
telephone calls between POGO or Danielle Brian and that
witness.''
Given the Majority's keen interest in this pending civil
lawsuit, it is not accidental that lawyers for the companies
involved in those proceedings have been closely monitoring
the Committee on Resources' investigation. Because the Chair
has ruled that the investigation is not restricted by
attorney-client or other privileges, the Majority has freely
sought to obtain documents and probe on matters which would
otherwise be off-limits in court.
On July 10, 2000, the law firm of Fulbright and Jaworski
filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas in ``Opposition of Defendant Shell Oil
Company to Project on Government Oversight and Henry M.
Banta's Motion for Protective Order'' (Attachment B). In that
motion, Shell Oil's lawyers argued that new evidence
developed by the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
required that the court reexamine the relevance of the
payments to Berman and Speir, asserting that ``subsequent
testimony by Mr. Banta and Ms. Brian in recent Congressional
oversight hearings demonstrate that POGO did not accurately
advise the court in its pleadings . . .''. As evidence, the
Shell lawyers cite various statements and documents used at
the Subcommittee on Energy & Mineral Resources' hearings on
May 4 and May 18, 2000.
POGO had previously argued to the court that this subject
matter was irrelevant to the issues of royalty underpayments:
``it is the law of case that the Berman/Speir matter is
unrelated to the merits of the case.'' On July 14, 2000, the
federal judge agreed and ruled the Shell's lawyers were not
allowed to ask any questions of Henry M. Banta regarding
POGO's sharing of settlement proceeds with Robert Berman and
Robert Speir. (Attachment C)
In effect, the federal judge's July 14, 2000, ruling
affirms his prior decision that how POGO distributed its
portion of the Mobile settlement is irrelevant to the central
question in the pending Johnson v. Shell litigation: did
Shell underpay royalties owed to federal government for oil
and gas obtained from public lands?
The oil and gas industry's attempt to distract attention
away from this core issue has failed thus far in the courts
and it should meet a similar fate in the Congress. Seeking to
obtain and disclose information to assist participants in
litigation is not a legitimate purpose of a committee
investigation. Having provided no adequate jurisdictional
foundation for the relevance of the Majority's questions and
document demands at issue in this Resolution, there is
accordingly no basis for the House to hold in contempt the
individuals cited or POGO.
Analysis of each citation for contempt in the resolution
A. Mr. Henry M. Banta
February 17, 2000, Subpoena Duces Tecum
(1) Redacting Records: Mr. Banta is cited for providing a
record of the February 5, 1998, POGO Board Meeting minutes
``redacted so severely as to have no meaning.'' In response
to the Chairman's June 26, 2000, letter, Mr. Banta's attorney
supplied a less redacted copy of the same record. Thus, the
charge is without merit.
Moreover, Mr. Banta, as a private attorney and in his role
as Chairman and Member of the Board of Directors of POGO, was
not the individual responsible for maintaining POGO's Board
Meeting minutes. POGO's attorney supplied the Board Meeting
minutes, including subsequent revisions to accommodate the
requirements of the subpoenas issued to POGO. Thus, Mr. Banta
should not be held in contempt for not producing such
documents.
(2) Refusing to Comply with Orders to Produce: The
Resolution cites Mr. Banta with contempt of Congress for not
providing certain documents. Mr. Banta, on advice of counsel,
has not produced such records that relate to his work as
counsel to the State of California, citing 30 U.S.C. 1733
which restricts the disclosure by states of confidential
business information provided by the Department of the
Interior in the administration of oil royalty programs. Mr.
Banta, in the course of his representation of the State of
California's Auditor, is required to keep certain information
confidential. It is not within Mr. Banta's authority to
release or produce these records for the Committee on
Resources. Mr. Banta should not be held in contempt for not
producing that which he is not authorized to release.
April 10, 2000, Subpoena Duces Tecum
(1) Failure to Comply: The Resolution charges Mr. Banta
with contempt for not producing a log of responsive records
withheld under a claim of privilege. However, Mr. Banta,
through his attorneys, did produce a record of responsive
records withheld under a claim of privilege and identified
the privilege. A log is not specifically required under the
subpoena. The subpoena required Mr. Banta to ``specify and
characterize the record so withheld and specify the objection
or constitutional privilege under which the record is
withheld.'' Consequently, when Mr. Banta's attorneys provided
additional correspondence in response to the Chairman's
rejection of the previously supplied log, and explained the
constitutional privilege under which a document was being
withheld; they complied with the terms of the subpoena. Mr.
Banta should not be held in contempt for not producing a log
that (a) he was not specifically required to produce and that
(b) he provided in material fact in correspondence.
(2) Refusal to Produce: The Resolution cites Mr. Banta with
contempt because he ``possesses but did not produce an
unredacted agenda for the February 17, 1998, POGO Board
Meeting and unredacted minutes of the October 27, 1998 POGO
Board Meeting and unredacted minutes of the October 27, 1998
POGO Board Meeting.'' To the contrary, Mr. Banta does not
possess these documents, nor was he responsible for
maintaining such documents. POGO, through its attorney, has
supplied redacted versions of these documents, including
revisions, in response to the subpoenas issued to the
corporate entity. The House should not find Mr. Banta in
contempt on these facts.
Subpoena to Appear on May 18, 2000
Refusal to Answer: On this count, the Resolution cites Mr.
Banta with contempt of Congress because during the May 18
hearing, when asked if he knew about the Johnson v. Shell
lawsuit while it was under seal, Mr. Banta, on advice of
counsel, refused to answer the question on the grounds that
it was not pertinent to the investigation. The Majority
failed to provide a proper foundation or ``connective
reasoning'' for the question to be pertinent to the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. Moreover, as
discussed above, seeking to obtain and disclose information
to assist parties in pending litigation is not a legitimate
purpose for a congressional investigation. Moreover, at the
time the Chair ruled the question ``pertinent'' and polled
the Members on the question, the Subcommittee did not have a
quorum for conducting business as required under the
Committee on Resources' rules.
B. Mr. Robert A. Berman
Subpoenas to Appear on May 18 and July 11, 2000
Refusal to Answer: On May 18, 2000, when Mr. Berman
appeared under subpoena before the Subcommittee, he objected
to testifying at a public hearing on the grounds that Members
of the Majority had defamed him during the hearing held May
4, 2000. For example, Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas had called
him a ``common thief'' during the prior hearing. On advice of
counsel, he declined to answer questions unless Members
waived their immunities from lawsuits. Mr. Berman also
demanded that the Subcommittee convene in executive session
as required under House Rule XI, Clause 2(k). Despite
objections by democratic Members, the Chair refused to apply
the House Rules on investigative hearing procedures.
After confirming that they had in fact failed to follow the
House Rules governing investigative hearings, the Majority
attempted to cure the error by subpoenaing Mr. Berman to
reappear at a second hearing on July 11, 2000. Mr. Berman, on
the advice of counsel, refused to answer certain questions in
executive session. Only after voting on a factually incorrect
motion to report Mr. Berman's responses to the Committee did
the Majority allow Mr. Berman to make a statement to the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. The Majority's
failure to follow the Committee and House Rules that protect
the rights of witnesses, their failure to establish a clear
purpose within the Committee on Resources' jurisdiction for
the investigation, and their failure to provide a proper
foundation or connective reasoning for their questions,
collectively add up to a failure to prove the elements of
criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. Under these
circumstances, Mr. Berman's conduct does not justify a
citation for contempt by the House.
C. Mr. Keith Rutter
April 10, 2000 Subpoena Duces Tecum
(1) Withholding Records: The Resolution cites Mr. Rutter
with contempt for withholding certain tax documents. Under
the subpoena, Mr. Rutter, the POGO employee in charge of
general administrative matters, was directed to produce
copies of POGO's annual IRS Form 990 and Form 1023 (relating
to tax-exempt status). The subpoena also demanded production
of POGO's original application for tax-exempt status and
subsequent correspondence with the Internal Revenue Service.
In June 1999, POGO provided the requested documents for tax
year 1998, which included revenue from the oil royalty
litigation, as well as reporting the public service awards
to Berman and Speir. On July 11, 2000, POGO, through its
attorneys, provided the Committee with an amended tax
return for 1998. In a letter dated April 21, 2000, POGO's
attorney notified the Committee that they would not
produce the additional

[[Page H11398]]

tax documents on the grounds that the Chair's demand for
the other tax documents unrelated to the payments to
Berman and Speir were not pertinent to the stated purpose
of the Committee's investigation and, additionally,
further inquiry into POGO's tax status was outside the
Committee's jurisdiction. Ironically, POGO's tax returns,
including those subpoenaed by the Majority, are publicly
available. The House should not find Mr. Rutter in
contempt for not producing material which is not pertinent
and which the Majority could have accessed through widely
available means.
(2) Failure to Produce: The Resolution cites Mr. Rutter
with contempt for failure to produce a log of the responsive
records withheld by him under a claim of privilege. A log is
not specifically required under the subpoena. The subpoena
required Mr. Rutter to ``specify and characterize the record
so withheld and specify the objection or constitutional
privilege under which the record is withheld.'' As is
evidenced by the Majority's own exhibit, this requirement has
been met. Therefore, the House should not find Mr. Rutter in
contempt on these grounds.
D. Ms. Danielle Brian Stockton
June 18, 1999 Subpoena Duces Tecum
(1) Redacting Records: The Resolution cites Ms. Brian with
contempt for withholding minutes of two POGO Board Meetings.
Ms. Brian has asserted that she does not hold or possess
these or any other documents not previously supplied to the
Committee under her subpoena. She was not responsible for
maintaining these documents. In addition, POGO, through its
attorney, has supplied redacted versions of these documents,
including revisions, in response to the subpoena issued to
the corporate entity. The House should not find Ms. Brian in
contempt for not producing records that which she does not
possess.
(2) Withholding Records: Under this citation, the
Resolution charges Ms. Brian with contempt for not producing
agendas and minutes from POGO Board Meetings that occurred on
January 5, 1995; December 9, 1996; April 26, 1999; and
September 9, 1999. POGO produced these records, through its
attorney as required by the subpoena issued to POGO. Ms.
Brian has asserted that she does not possess these documents
and was not responsible for maintaining the documents. As Ms.
Brian does not have such records within her possession, she
could not produce them. Instead, the documents were provided
to the Committee by POGO's attorney in response to the
subpoena of POGO. The House should not hold Ms. Brian in
contempt for not producing documents that she does not have
in her possession and which have been provided to the
Committee under the proper subpoena.
February 17, 2000 Subpoena Duces Tecum
(1) Failure to Comply: The Resolution cites Danielle Brian
with contempt for not producing unredacted telephone records
from her office and personal residence for a period covering
eighteen months. Ms. Brian offered to provide a redacted
version of the phone records under this subpoena. However,
the Majority insisted that they be allowed to review all
phone records--personal and professional--from the 18-month
period and then decide which ones to copy for their files.
POGO is an organization that works extensively with
whistleblowers from a wide array of areas, including defense
contractor and health care fraud and they have asserted a
First Amendment privilege against allowing unfettered access
to these. Since Ms. Brian was willing to provide redacted
versions of these records, and the Majority refused to
negotiate a reasonable alternative, the House should not find
Ms. Brian in contempt on this charge.
Subpoena to Appear on May 18, 2000
Failure to Reply: The Resolution charges Ms. Brian with
contempt for her refusal to answer a question relating to the
extent, if any, of her knowledge of Johnson v. Shell
litigation while it was under seal. As discussed above, Ms.
Brian should not be held in contempt for declining to answer
a question related to the Johnson v. Shell litigation. The
Majority has failed to provide either the connective
reasoning or build a foundation to justify this question as
pertinent to the investigation. Gojack v. United States, 384
U.S. 702 (1966). As stated above, it is not a legitimate
purpose for a congressional investigation to seek to obtain
and disclose information to assist parities in pending.
Moreover, at the time the Subcommittee Chair ruled the
question ``pertinent'' during the hearing and polled the
Members on the question, there was no quorum present as
required under the Committee on Resources' rules.
Accordingly, the House should not cite Ms. Brian for contempt
in this instance.
E. Project on Government Oversight
February 17, 2000 Subpoena Duces Tecum
(1) Refusal to Produce Records: The Resolution cites POGO,
a nonprofit corporate entity, with contempt for not producing
records showing the names and office addresses of POGO
Directors responsible for POGO's oil royalty effort from
its inception in 1993 through the present. In
correspondence dated February 28, 2000, POGO's attorneys
stated that POGO had not withheld records with current
Board Members' names and addresses. They gave these
records to the Committee in 1999 when POGO provided its
1998 nonprofit 501(c) corporate tax forms, which included
that information. On pertinency grounds, POGO has declined
to provide the names and addresses of those Board Members
(if any) that were on the Board in 1994 and have left
since that time. They have provided the name and address
of one Board Member who joined in 1999.
Secondly, the Resolution cites POGO for contempt for not
producing records concerning payments to Messrs. Berman and
Speir discussed by POGO since January 1, 1999. To the
contrary, POGO, through its attorneys, has provided the
documents to the Committee. Accordingly, the House should not
find POGO in contempt on these grounds. Moreover, even if the
House was to find POGO in contempt, it is unclear who the
U.S. Attorney would be compelled to prosecute as the Majority
has not specified which of the officers of board of directors
would be the responsible parties. At least one of the board
members, Chuck Hamel, testified that he had been recused from
all matters dealing with the royalty underpayment litigation.
(2) Refusing to Comply: The Resolution cites POGO for
refusing to provide a log of responsive records withheld from
production under this subpoena. POGO, through its attorneys,
has asserted that they have produced all responsive records.
In those instances where they have declined to provide a
document, they have, as required under the subpoena, provided
a written explanation. A log is not specifically required
under the subpoena. The subpoena required POGO to ``specify
and characterize the record so withheld and specify the
objection or constitutional privilege under which the record
is withheld.'' This requirement has been met. Therefore, the
House should not find POGO in contempt. Again, even if the
House were to find this nonprofit corporate entity in
contempt, it is unclear who the U.S. Attorney would be
compelled to prosecute, as the Resolution does not specify
which of the officers or board of directors are to be
prosecuted.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we asked. To the attorney for the
special interest group we asked, ``Did you have knowledge of this
lawsuit that was under seal, that was held confidential by the Court?''
All he had to do was answer, ``No, of course not. I am a private
citizen. Why would I know of a sealed document?''
Of the two government employees, we wanted to ask, ``What service did
you provide to receive three-quarters of a million dollars?'' Because
one does not get something for nothing in this world.
We could never get these basic pertinent questions answered. That is
the truth we were seeking.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today, and I would just like to
clarify some of the things that were said. The rules of this House, the
Supreme Court say the committee can judge what is pertinent, not the
witness. That is the rules and that is the Supreme Court. We told all
three of these parties that was the case, and they still declined to
answer.
Let us make it perfectly clear that POGO is not the whistleblower.
Neither are the gentlemen or ladies that are involved in these contempt
citations the whistleblowers. The whistleblower, Johnson, was filed on
top of for money. POGO now is under criminal investigation as I stand
here and speak.
Mr. Speaker, I know that this is such a serious debate, that we have
to have more debate. So I ask unanimous consent, pursuant to clause 2
of rule XVI, to withdraw the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to clause 2 of rule
XVI, and the precedent of the House of April 8, 1964, the gentleman
does not require unanimous consent. The gentleman may by right withdraw
the resolution at this point.
The resolution was withdrawn.

____________________