[House Report 104-472]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-472
_______________________________________________________________________


 
PROVIDING SPECIAL AUTHORITIES TO THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT TO OBTAIN TESTIMONY ON THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL OFFICE MATTER

                                _______


   March 6, 1996.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________


   Mr. Solomon, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                       [To accompany H. Res. 369]

    The Committee on Rules, to whom was referred the resolution 
(H. Res. 369) to provide to the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight special authorities to obtain testimony for 
purposes of investigation and study of the White House Travel 
Office matter, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommend that the resolution be 
agreed to.

                       PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION

    The purpose of H. Res. 369 is to provide the Government 
Reform and Oversight Committee with special authorities to 
obtain testimony in its investigation and study of matters 
surrounding the White House Travel Office matter.

                       SUMMARY OF THE RESOLUTION

    H. Res. 369 authorizes the chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, for purposes of its 
investigation and study of the White House Travel Office 
matter, upon consultation with the ranking minority member of 
the committee, to authorize the taking of affidavits, and of 
depositions, pursuant to notice or subpoena, by a member or 
staff of the committee designated by the chairman, or require 
the furnishing of information by interrogatory, under oath 
administered by a person otherwise authorized by law to 
administer oaths.
    The resolution deems all such testimony to be taken in 
executive session of the committee in Washington, D.C.
    Furthermore, the resolution requires such testimony to be 
considered as nonpublic until received by the committee, but 
permits it to be used by members of the committee in open 
session unless otherwise directed by the committee.

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    H. Res. 369 was introduced by Rep. William Clinger, 
Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
on February 29, 1996, and referred to the Committee on Rules.
    On Tuesday, March 5, 1996, the Committee on Rules held a 
hearing on H. Res. 369 and received testimony from the Hon. 
William Clinger, Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight, and the Hon. Cardiss Collins, Ranking Minority 
Member of the committee.
    Immediately following the hearing, the Committee met to 
mark-up H. Res. 369. The Committee favorably reported H. Res. 
369 by a nonrecord vote. During the mark-up, no amendments to 
H. Res. 369 were agreed to.

                 BACKGROUND ON THE TRAVEL OFFICE MATTER

    At approximately 10:00 a.m., on May 19, 1993, all seven 
members of the White House Travel Office staff were fired and 
the five Travel Office employees present in the White House 
that day were ordered to vacate the White House compound within 
two hours. Returning to the Travel Office by 10:30 a.m., the 
fired Travel Office employees found their desks already 
occupied by employees of World Wide Travel, the Arkansas travel 
agency which arranged for press charters during the Clinton 
presidential campaign, Catherine Cornelius and others.
    Two White House Travel Office employees were out of the 
White House Travel office on May 19, 1993, one on a White House 
advance trip to South Korea, the other on vacation. They 
learned of their firings, respectively, via CNN telecast and a 
son who saw Tom Brokaw announce the firings on network news 
that night. The seven White House Travel Office employees had 
served from 9 to 32 years in the White House Travel Office.
    The five Travel Office employees who were present in the 
White House for their firings ultimately were given additional 
time to complete their White House outprocessing. By early 
afternoon, they heard then-White House Press Secretary Dee Dee 
Myers announce at a press briefing that they were subject of an 
FBI criminal investigation. They had been given no such 
indication at the time of their dismissals. After completing 
out-processing, the five Travel Office employees present on May 
19, 1993 were driven out of the White House compound in a panel 
van with no passenger seats. They were seated on the floor and 
wheel wells of the van along with boxes of their gathered 
personal effects.
    While the Travel Office employees served at the pleasure of 
the President, their precipitous firings and replacement by the 
Clinton campaign's primary travel agency immediately raised a 
storm of criticism. Administration claims that it had acted in 
order to save the press and taxpayers money were met with 
skepticism by a White House press corps which responded with a 
litany of complaints of over billing and undocumented billings 
by World Wide itself throughout the 1992 campaign. In addition, 
the Clinton Administration's announcement that an FBI criminal 
investigation had been launched was highly improper and, in 
fact, questionable when it was announced. Furthermore, White 
House contacts with the FBI in the days leading up to and 
immediately following the Travel Office firings also were 
considered improperly handled by Attorney General Janet Reno, 
who publicly admonished the Administration for them.
    Members of the House and the Senate immediately raised 
concerns about the manner in which the Travel Office firings 
took place. In the face of press, public and Congressional 
outcry, the White House placed five of the seven Travel Office 
employees on administrative leave with pay on May 25, 1993, and 
announced that it would conduct a White House Management Review 
of the Travel Office and the Administration's role in the 
Travel Office firings. The fired Travel Office director and 
deputy director retired.
    On June 1, 1993, William F. Clinger, Jr., the then-ranking 
member of the House Government Operations Committee, requested 
that then Chairman John Conyers, Jr., hold hearings on the 
White House Travel Office firings.
    Then-White House Chief of Staff Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty 
and then-Office of Management and Budget Director Leon Panetta 
released the White House Travel Office Management Review on 
July 2, 1993 and announced the reprimands of four White House 
staffers. Reprimanded were: Associate Counsel to the President, 
William H. Kennedy, III; Assistant to the President for 
Management and Administration, David Watkins; former Special 
Assistant to the President for Management and Administration, 
Catherine A. Cornelius; and Deputy Assistant to the President 
and Director of Media Affairs, Jeff Eller. At least three of 
the four first learned of the ``reprimands'' during their 
televised announcement. None of the reprimands were documented 
in the personnel files of any of the four.
    Also on July 2, 1993, the Supplemental Appropriations Act 
of 1993 (P.L. 103-50) required the United States General 
Accounting Office (GAO) to ``conduct a review of the action 
taken with respect to the White House Travel Office.''
    In addition to the White House Management Review and the 
GAO Report entitled White House Travel Office Operations 
(Released on May 2, 1994), four other reports were prepared 
concerning various aspects of the White House Travel Office 
firings. These reports were prepared by: the Office of 
Professional Responsibility (OPR) of the United States 
Department of Justice (dated March 18, 1994 and released by the 
Committee on October 24, 1995); a Federal Bureau of 
Investigation Internal Review of FBI Contacts with the White 
House (dated June 1, 1993), the IRS Inspection Service Report, 
``Allegation of Misuse of IRS RE: ULTRAIR'' (dated June 11, 
1993); and the Department of the Treasury Inspector General 
Report (dated March 31, 1994).
    On September 23, 1993, after consultations with majority 
staff of the Government Operations Committee, Mr. Clinger 
withdrew his request for Committee hearings on the White House 
Travel Office firings, ``contingent upon the adequacy of the 
GAO effort'' which had been mandated by Congress through P.L. 
103-50.
    Individually and collectively, the five reports prepared 
concerning the White House Travel Office left many questions 
unanswered and, in fact, raised many more. Several Members of 
Congress, including Mr. Clinger, sought to have these questions 
answered through further investigation and Congressional 
hearings. In a letter dated October 7, 1994, Mr. Clinger and 16 
other House Members again requested Congressional hearings on 
the White House Travel Office in order to ``address serious 
questions arising from, or unanswered by, the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) Report to Congress, White House Travel 
Office Operations (GAO/GGD-94-132).''
    Mr. Clinger's request was accompanied by a 71-page minority 
analysis of issues unaddressed by any of the previous five 
reports. This analysis reviewed contradictions concerning: 
memoranda drafted by Catherine Cornelius outlining its new 
organizational structure and placing her in charge; activities 
of Harry Thomason and Darnell Martens; mismanagement by David 
Watkins; White House reasons justifying the Travel Office 
firings; contacts between Dee Dee Myers and Darnell Martens; 
public disclosure of the FBI investigation; possible influence 
on the FBI; the integrity of Travel Office records, the role of 
the President; the reprimands; and inaccuracies and 
insufficiencies in the GAO report on the White House Travel 
Office.
    Soon after the November 1994 Congressional elections, Mr. 
Clinger, Chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee of the 104th Congress, announced that he would hold 
hearings on the White House Travel Office firings. In December, 
1994, the Public Integrity Division of the United States 
Department of Justice indicted former White House Travel Office 
Director Billy R. Dale on one charge of embezzlement and one 
charge of conversion.
    The Committee investigative staff conducted interviews and 
gathered documents from various participants in the Travel 
Office matter on a voluntary basis throughout the spring and 
summer of 1995. White House document production, however, 
proved problematic and led to numerous meetings and phone 
conversations with Clinton administration representatives in 
the White House Counsel's Office, the Department of Justice, 
Department of the Treasury as well as the General Accounting 
Office. Witness interviews also provided problematic as key 
witnesses refused requests for informal interviews and refused 
requests for depositions under oath. More documentation mounted 
throughout the investigation that demonstrated that this was a 
unique situation where a number of prior interviews and 
statements under oath have been provided and key witnesses have 
provided misleading information and/or omitted material 
information.
    In the fall of 1995, Chairman Clinger scheduled the 
Committee's first hearing on the White House Travel Office for 
October 24, 1995. The hearing focused on the accuracy and 
completeness of the five White House Travel Office reports and 
to consider whether further hearings were required to address 
unanswered issues. The panel at the October 24, 1995, hearing 
included authors of each of five reports, respectively. This 
hearing purposely avoided all areas that might have impacted 
upon the trial of former Travel Office Director Billy R. Dale 
which was to commence on October 26, 1995.
    The Committee reviewed which of seven key Travel Office 
issues each report addressed. These issues are: the 
completeness of the review of references to ``Highest Levels'' 
involvement at the White House in the Travel Office firings; 
whether any assessment of White House Standards of Conduct was 
performed and whether Administration staffers had violated 
those standards; whether inquiries were made into the role of 
Hollywood producer Harry Thomason in the firings; the role of 
Mr. Thomason's and his firm, Thomason, Richland and Martens 
(TRM) in seeking contracts involving the GSA's Interagency 
Committee on Aviation Policy (ICAP); whether the issue of 
competitive bidding by the White House Travel Office and by the 
White House itself in dealing with the Travel Office was 
reviewed; and whether thorough investigations into FBI and IRS 
actions and reactions to the White House inquiries had been 
undertaken.
    The hearing made clear that, given limitations on their 
scope, none of the reports had addressed fully the issues 
raised by the Travel Office firings. The IRS Inspection Service 
Report redactions made it impossible to determine whether the 
IRS addressed any of the seven issues. The OPR and FBI reports 
only partially addressed two issues, ``FBI actions'' and 
references to ``Highest Levels of the White House'' and never 
addressed the other five. Despite its far greater understanding 
of the participants and circumstances leading to the Travel 
Office firings, the White House Travel Office Management Review 
only briefly and superficially addressed Harry Thomason's role, 
FBI actions and references to ``Highest Levels'' of the White 
House while ignoring competitive bidding, IRS action, standards 
of conduct and ICAP contracts. Similarly, the GAO relied on the 
White House Management Review in its report on Mr. Thomason's 
role and only partially addressed FBI actions and ``Highest 
Levels'' while leaving ICAP, competitive bidding and standards 
of conduct unaddressed. IRS disclosure laws prevented the GAO 
from publicly addressing IRS actions.
    The October 24, 1995, hearing also made clear that the GAO 
and OPR reports, the most independent of the five, were hobbled 
by what their respective authors referred to as an 
unprecedented lack of cooperation by the White House in their 
investigations. It was determined in the hearing that the White 
House had denied both GAO and OPR documents which were critical 
to their investigations. Accordingly, both GAO and OPR never 
received many of the documents subsequently produced by the 
White House to the Committee.
    The criminal trial of former Travel Office Director Billy 
R. Dale began on October 26, 1995 and concluded on November 17, 
1995 with Mr. Dale's acquittal of both charges. After the 
acquittal was announced, Chairman Clinger requested that the 
Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice turn over 
all documents related to the criminal prosecution for review by 
the Committee.
    At year-end 1995, the Committee planned hearings on: the 
role of Mr. David Watkins in the Travel Office firings; the 
experiences of the fired seven Travel Office employees; the 
role of Mr. Harry Thomason; and the role of the FBI and IRS. In 
January 1996, the Committee subpoenaed all of Mr. Thomason's 
documents related to the Travel Office and filed a ``6103 
Waiver'' with the IRS in which representatives of UltrAir 
authorized the IRS, Department of Treasury and others to 
release all relevant documents concerning the IRS audit of 
UltrAir in the wake of the Travel Office firings. The 
Department of the Treasury had promised prompt delivery of all 
documents pending receipt of the expanded 6103 waiver.
    As of year-end 1995, the Clinton Administration continued 
to prove most uncooperative in Travel Office document 
productions. The Department of the Treasury failed to turn over 
the documents previously promised. The threat of further 
subpoenas to compel Executive Branch compliance with the 
ongoing Congressional investigation loomed.
    On January 3, 1996, the White House released to the 
Committee a 9-page memo by David Watkins in which Mr. Watkins 
stated he was writing the memo as a ``soul cleansing'' as he 
had been ``vague and protective'' in speaking with 
investigators about the White House Travel Office matter. 
Watkins also stated that ``pressures for action originated 
outside my Office'' led to the firings and that ``failure to 
take immediate action in this case would have been directly 
contrary to the wishes of the First Lady.'' The General 
Accounting Office conducted a congressionally mandated 
investigation of the Travel Office firings in which it 
interviewed Mr. Watkins as well as numerous other White House 
officials. The Watkins memo did not appear consistent with the 
statements provided in Mr. Watkins' GAO statement. In sworn 
testimony before the Government Reform and Oversight Committee 
on January 17, 1996, Mr. Watkins reaffirmed the accuracy of the 
``soul cleansing'' memo released on January 3, 1996.
    Subsequently, the General Accounting Office on February 13, 
1996, forwarded a criminal referral on Mr. Watkins to U.S. 
Attorney Eric H. Holder, Jr., asking Mr. Holder to determine 
whether Mr. Watkins violated the federal false statements law. 
The U.S. Attorney referred it back to the Attorney General who 
in turn referred the matter to Independent Counsel Ken Starr.
    The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has served 
36 subpoenas on the White House, Department of Justice and 
current and former White House staffers. The Committee has yet 
to receive full compliance from the White House and Justice 
Department as well as a number of personal subpoenas.

                      Background on the Resolution

    The Rules of the House grant investigative and subpoena 
powers to all standing committees and subcommittees, but they 
do not expressly authorize staff depositions. House rule XI, 
clause 2(h)(1) permits each House Committee to fix the number 
of members to constitute a quorum ``for taking testimony and 
receiving evidence which shall be not less than two.'' House 
rule XI, clause 2(m)(1) permits committees to sit and act in 
the United States, whether the House is in session or has 
adjourned, for the purpose of carrying out its functions under 
rules X and XI, to require by subpoena or otherwise the 
production of documents or the testimony of witnesses. 
Moreover, ``the chairman of the committee, or any member 
designated by such chairman, may administer oaths to any 
witness.''
    Clause 2(m)(2) of rule XI gives committees and 
subcommittees the power to authorize and issue subpoenas in the 
conduct of any investigation or series of investigations or 
activities only by a majority vote of the committee or 
subcommittee, a majority being present. However, the rule goes 
on to allow committees to delegate the authority to authorize 
and issue subpoenas to the chairman of the full committee by 
its written rules, subject to such limits as it may prescribe.
    The two-member quorum requirement for hearings was adopted 
on March 23, 1955, as part of H. Res. 151, the ``Code of Fair 
Procedures.'' The resolution was designed to grant witnesses 
certain procedural rights in connection with investigative 
hearings. Rules Committee Chairman Howard W. Smith explained at 
the time the resolution was considered on the floor that the 
two member quorum requirement ``abolishes the custom of one-man 
subcommittees''--one of the major abuses of the McCarthy era.
    The other provisions of H. Res. 151 that were incorporated 
into House Rules can be found in clause 2(k) of rule XI, 
``Investigative Hearing Procedures.'' They include such 
protections as requiring the chairman to announce the subject 
of the investigation at the outset of the hearings; to provide 
the witnesses with copies of the investigative hearings 
procedures clause; to permit the witness to be accompanied by 
counsel; to allow the committee to vote on taking the testimony 
in executive session if it is asserted that it may tend to 
defame, degrade or incriminate any person; to provide that no 
testimony taken in executive session may be released or used in 
public session without the consent of the committee; and to 
permit a witness to obtain a transcript copy of testimony given 
in public session, or when given in executive session, when 
authorized by the committee.
    Notwithstanding the two-Member quorum requirement for 
taking testimony, the House has, on occasion, granted special 
authority to standing or select committees to allow a single 
Member or designated staff to take sworn depositions as part of 
a broader resolution authorizing specified investigations. Such 
investigative authorization resolutions have been necessary 
either because they created new select committees to carry-out 
the investigations, or because they granted existing standing 
committees with special jurisdiction and/or procedures not 
available to them under the standing rules of the House.
    Some example of investigation authorization resolutions 
that have included special deposition authority are the 
following:
    President Nixon Impeachment Proceedings (93rd Congress, 
1974, H. Res. 803).--This resolution give the Judiciary 
Committee full authorization to conduct an impeachment inquiry 
into allegations against President Nixon. Among other things in 
permitted the committee to require by subpoena or otherwise the 
attendance and testimony of any person, including the taking of 
depositions by counsel to the committee.
    Assassinations Investigation (95th Congress, 1977, H. Res. 
222).--This resolution created the Select Committee on 
Assassinations, and provided it with various procedural 
authorities, including the authority to take testimony under 
oath anywhere in the United States or abroad and authorized 
designated staff of the select committee to obtain statements 
from any witness who is placed under oath by an authority who 
is authorized to administer oaths in accordance with the 
applicable laws of the U.S.
    Koreagate (95th Congress, 1977, H. Res. 252 and H. Res. 
752).--The first resolution broadened the authority of the 
House Standards Committee to investigate whether family members 
or associates of House Members, officers or employees had 
accepted anything of value from the Government of Korea or 
representatives thereof. The resolution also gave joint 
subpoena authority to the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the committee but permitted appeal to the committee if one 
objected. It also gave special counsel the right to intervene 
in any judicial proceeding relating to the inquiry. The second 
resolution authorized committee employees to take depositions, 
but required that an objection by a witness to answer a 
question could only be ruled on by a member of the committee.
    Abscam (97th Congress, 1981, H. Res. 67).--The resolution 
gave certain special authorities to the Standards Committee, 
though the investigation was confined to Members, officers and 
employees. Included in the resolution was a provision 
permitting any single member of the committee to take 
depositions.
    Iran-Contra (100th Congress, 1987, H. Res. 12).--The 
resolution authorized the creation of a select committee to 
investigate the covert arms transactions with Iran and any 
diversion of funds from the sales. Among other things, the 
resolution gave the chairman, in consultation with the ranking 
minority member, the authority to authorize any member or 
designated staff to take depositions or affidavits pursuant to 
notice or subpoena, which were to be deemed to have taken in 
executive session, but available for use by members of the 
select committee in open session.
    Judge Hastings Impeachment Proceedings (100th Congress, 
1987 H. Res. 320).--This resolution authorized counsel to the 
Judiciary Committee or its Subcommittee on Criminal Justice to 
take affidavits and depositions pursuant to notice or subpoena.
    Judge Nixon Impeachment Proceedings (100th Congress, 1988, 
H. Res. 562).--This resolution authorized Judiciary Committee 
counsel to take depositions and affidavits pursuant to notice 
and subpoena.
    October Surprise (102nd Congress, 1991, H. Res. 258).--This 
resolution established a special task force to investigate 
certain allegations regarding the holding of American hostages 
by Iran in 1980. Among other things the resolution authorized 
the chairman, in consultation with the ranking minority member, 
to authorize subpoenas and to authorize the taking of 
affidavits and depositions by any member or by designated 
staff, which were to be deemed to have been taken in 
Washington, D.C., in executive session.
    According to a report of the American Law Division of the 
Congressional Research Service:

          The Senate apparently has taken the position that 
        there is standing authority for its committees and 
        subcommittees to conduct staff depositions but 
        nevertheless has adopted a specific authorizing 
        resolution ``out of an abundance of caution.'' The 
        House has considered it necessary to expressly 
        authorize depositions by staff. (``Staff Depositions in 
        Congressional Investigations,'' by Jay Shampansky, 
        American Law Division, Congressional Research Service, 
        Aug. 31, 1995, pp. 4-5.)

    The matter in quotation remarks is from the appendix of the 
hearings of a Senate Judiciary special subcommittee created to 
investigate allegations of foreign influence peddling. The 
reference was to S. Res. 495 which authorized the staff of the 
subcommittee created to take depositions. As Sec. 3 of S. Res. 
495 noted:

          This resolution shall supplement without limiting in 
        any way the existing authority of Senate committees and 
        subcommittees to conduct examinations and depositions.

    The CRS report notes that the authority being referred to 
``was likely a reference to a 1928 Senate resolution which 
authorized the President of the Senate, `on the request of any 
of the committees of the Senate, to issue commissions to take 
testimony within the United States or elsewhere'.'' However, a 
1982 Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memorandum 
cited in the CRS report suggested that the 1928 resolution is 
``in a state of desuetude'' and denied that staff of a 
committee could be authorized by committee resolution alone to 
take depositions--particularly depositions of executive branch 
officials.
    The uncertainty of Senate committee deposition authority 
noted above may explain why the Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs is careful to get a Senate vote in each 
Congress, as part of the committee funding resolution, on staff 
authority for depositions. The most recent biennial Senate 
committee funding resolution, S. Res. 73, adopted on February 
13, 1995, provided funding authority to the Governmental 
Affairs Committee in section 13. Section 13(d)(3) authorized 
the committee, its subcommittees, or their chairmen, to 
authorize subpoenas, hold hearings, sit and act regardless of 
whether the Senate is in session, administer oaths, and ``take 
testimony, either orally or by sworn statement, or, in the case 
of staff members of the Committee and the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations, by deposition in accordance 
with the Committee Rules of Procedure.'' [emphasis added]
    The Governmental Affairs Committee's rules for the 104th 
Congress, published in the February 28, 1995, Congressional 
Record (pp. 3295-98), provide in rule 5 (``Hearings and Hearing 
Procedures''), at Part J, procedures for taking depositions. 
These include the requirement that notices for taking 
depositions are to be authorized and issued by the chairman, 
with the approval of the ranking minority member, or without 
the approval of the ranking minority member if he has not given 
his disapproval within 72 hours (excluding Saturdays and 
Sundays) of receiving notification of the deposition notice. If 
the ranking minority member disapproves, then the question must 
be voted on by the full committee. The notice must include the 
time and place of the deposition, and the name of the committee 
member or members or staff officer or officers who will take 
the deposition. Oaths at depositions must be administered by an 
individual authorized by local law to administer oaths. 
Questions are to be put orally by the members or staff. If 
objection is raised to a question, it is duly noted in the 
record, and the members or staff proceed with the deposition.
    It would be unprecedented to amend House Rules to grant a 
specified committee blanket staff deposition authority for all 
current and future investigations. As noted in this report, 
even the Senate has only granted this to one committee for no 
longer than two years at a time as part of the committee 
funding resolution as opposed to making such authority part of 
the standing rules of the Senate.
    With the exception of the two judicial impeachment 
resolutions (which were constitutionally privileged and 
therefore not reported by the Rules Committee), it is highly 
unusual, but not unprecedented, to report a resolution for the 
sole purpose of granting staff deposition authority--especially 
in the middle of an ongoing investigation. The exception and 
precedent for such a single purpose resolution being reported 
in mid-investigation by the Rules Committee was for the 
Koreagate inquiry by the Ethics Committee for which two special 
resolutions were reported and adopted--the second of which 
dealt solely with granting staff deposition authority because 
the first resolution required that a Member be present at all 
times during the taking of the deposition. As the report to 
accompany H. Res. 752 explained:


          From a practical point of view, the committee feels 
        that requiring a member to be present is a burden and 
        is time-consuming. Again, it has been the experience of 
        the committee that on many occasions when the House has 
        been in session while a deposition was in progress, 
        there have been interruptions caused by rollcalls and 
        quorum calls, which have not only significantly delayed 
        the proceedings but also impaired the quality of the 
        proceedings by the loss of continuity. (Report No. 95-
        608, 95th Congress, 1st Session)

                        Need for the resolution

    Since the Rules of the House do not expressly grant 
deposition authority to committee staff as a tool for 
investigative oversight, such authority must be expressly 
authorized pursuant to a House resolution to be considered part 
of the official record of a committee's investigation. The 
Committee on Rules is generally reluctant to report resolutions 
granting staff deposition authority in the middle of an ongoing 
investigation, and believes that such special investigative 
authority should not be necessary. However, there is a 
compelling necessity for the grant of such authority to the 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee with respect to the 
White House Travel Office matter. The Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee still needs to obtain testimony from some 
50 witnesses. Presently, key witnesses have refused to submit 
to any staff interviews, while some witnesses have agreed to 
informal interviews to discuss Travel Office matters but refuse 
to give information under oath. As Rep. William Clinger, 
Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
noted in a letter to the Rules Committee:
    ``* * * we have been faced with the reluctance and even 
refusal of certain potential witnesses to voluntarily submit to 
staff interviews preliminary to a hearing. This has made it 
extremely difficult to adequately prepare for a hearing and 
requires considerably more time during the course of a hearing 
to develop the same information we would otherwise obtain prior 
to the hearing.''
    The authority granted under H. Res. 369 will assist the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in obtaining sworn 
testimony in the Travel Office matter quickly and 
confidentially without the need for lengthy and possibly 
unproductive hearings. Ordinarily, such information is obtained 
in staff interviews with potential witnesses prior to a 
hearing. Some interviews are even taken as depositions, under 
oath. However, it is doubtful that such testimony could be 
considered part of the official committee hearing record given 
the two-Member quorum requirement for taking testimony.
    Given the different versions of events leading to and 
surrounding the Travel Office firings that were provided by the 
White House and a number of witnesses, the Government Reform 
and Oversight Committee has a responsibility to provide the 
most accurate format for clarifying the events in question. The 
refusal or reluctance of witnesses who are central to the 
investigation to cooperate in voluntary depositions 
necessitates H. Res. 369. Furthermore, the withholding of 
documents by the White House, the Justice Department and the 
Treasury Department also makes it necessary to seek out the 
witnesses who can provide the information first-hand and under 
oath.

                       analysis of the resolution

    H. Res. 369 authorizes the chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, for purposes of its 
investigation and study of the White House Travel Office 
matter, upon consultation with the ranking minority member of 
the committee, to authorize the taking of affidavits, and of 
depositions, pursuant to notice or subpoena, by a member or 
staff of the committee designated by the chairman, or require 
the furnishing of information by interrogatory, under oath 
administered by a person otherwise authorized by law to 
administer oaths.
    The ``White House Travel Office matter'' refers to all 
events leading to the May 19, 1993, firings of the White House 
Travel Office employees and includes:
          All information pertaining to the White House Travel 
        Office and any employees of the White House Travel 
        Office at any time from January 1, 1993, to the 
        present;
          The activities of Harry Thomason, Darnell Martens and 
        Penny Sample at the White House;
          All allegations of wrongdoing concerning the Travel 
        Office employees;
          Actions taken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
        and the Department of Justice, both prior to and after 
        the firings of the White House Travel Office employees 
        (including the actions by any field office personnel 
        and any White House involvement in the coordination of 
        or attendance at interviews), including but not limited 
        to U.S. v. Billy Ray Dale;
          All investigations and subsequent reviews of the 
        Travel Office firings by any agency including, but not 
        limited to the White House Management Review, the FBI 
        Weldon Kennedy/I.C. Smith review, the FBI OPR review, 
        the Justice Department OPR review, the IRS internal 
        review, the Treasury Inspector General review, the 
        General Accounting Office review, the proposed U.S. 
        House of Representatives ``Resolution of Inquiry'' 
        considered and voted on in the House Judiciary 
        Committee in July 1993; and
          All actions relating to or describing the criminal 
        investigations into the White House Travel Office 
        matter including any subsequent action or activities of 
        any kind as a result of the above mentioned events by 
        the White House, the Treasury Department, the Internal 
        Revenue Service, the General Services Administration, 
        the General Accounting Office, the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation and the Department of Justice up to the 
        date of this request unless otherwise limited.
    H. Res. 369 deems deposition and affidavit testimony, and 
information received by interrogatory, related to the White 
House Travel Office matter to be taken in executive session of 
the committee in Washington, D.C. The resolution also requires 
such testimony to be considered as non-public until received by 
the committee, but permits it to be used by members of the 
committee on open session unless otherwise directed by the 
committee. The Committee on Rules intends that with respect to 
the use of such testimony by members of the Government Reform 
and Oversight Committee in open session, such open sessions 
shall be related to the investigation of the White House Travel 
Office matter.
    The strict staff deposition authority granted by H. Res. 
369 is investigation-specific and not a grant of blanket 
authority for all investigations of the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee or any other committee.
    There will be maximum consultation with the minority of the 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee and the minority 
leadership that will result in preagreed upon committee rules 
governing procedures for taking depositions, provisions for 
notice, transcription of depositions, use of deposition 
testimony by members in an open session of the committee 
concerned with the particular investigation, rights of the 
witnesses, and protection of the minority to fully participate 
in such depositions if it wishes.
    Nothing in H. Res. 369 shall be construed as undermining or 
reversing procedural precedents established in the course of 
past congressional investigations. Although the Rules of the 
House do not expressly authorize formal staff depositions, the 
Committee is aware that, in the past, sworn testimony has been 
taken from witnesses in the absence of a specific resolution 
authorizing the taking of such statements. For example, in the 
104th Congress, the majority and minority staff of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services conducted a series 
of sworn depositions in connection with that Committee's 
investigation of the failure and resolution of Madison Guaranty 
Savings & Loan Association and related matters. In all, 
committee staff deposed 30 past and present employees of the 
Resolution Trust Corporation and the Department of Justice. All 
witnesses were administered the oath; all depositions were 
transcribed by official House reporters; and no Members were 
present for the depositions. The transcripts are expected to be 
made a part of the official record of the Banking Committee's 
Madison Guaranty investigation.

             matters required under the rules of the house

Committee vote

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(2)(B) of House rule XI the results 
of each rollcall vote on an amendment or motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting for and against, are 
printed below:
            Rules Committee RollCall No. 291
    Date: March 5, 1996.
    Measure: H. Res. 369, Providing the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight with Special Authorities to Take 
Testimony.
    Motion By: Mr. Moakley.
    Summary of Motion: Add a new section setting a deadline of 
June 30, 1996 for deposition authority.
    Results: Rejected, 4 to 7.
    Vote by Members: Quillen--Nay; Goss--Nay; Pryce--Nay; Diaz-
Balart--Nay; McInnis--Nay; Waldholtz--Nay; Moakley--Yea; 
Beilenson--Yea; Frost--Yea; Hall--Yea; Solomon--Nay.
            Rules Committee RollCall No. 292
    Date: March 5, 1996.
    Measure: H. Res. 369, Providing the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight with Special Authorities to Take 
Testimony,
    Motion By: Mr. Beilenson.
    Summary of Motion: Requires the concurrence of the ranking 
minority member or a vote of the committee for taking of 
special testimony.
    Results: Rejected, 5 to 7.
    Vote by Members: Quillen--Nay; Goss--Nay; Linder--Nay; 
Pryce--Yea; Diaz-Balart--Nay; McInnis--Nay; Waldholtz--Nay; 
Moakley--Yea; Beilenson--Yea; Frost--Yea; Hall--Yea; Solomon--
Nay.
            Rules Committee RollCall No. 293
    Date: March 5, 1996.
    Measure: H. Res. 369, Providing the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight with Special authorities to Take 
Testimony.
    Motion By: Mr. Frost.
    Summary of Motion: Add report language to clarify that the 
intent of the procedure used in staff depositions is intended 
to augment the current information gathering function of a 
committee hearing.
    Results: Rejected, 4 to 9.
    Vote by Members: Quillen--Nay; Dreier--Nay; Goss--Nay; 
Linder--Nay; Pryce--Nay; Diaz-Balart--Nay; McInnis--Nay; 
Waldholtz--Nay; Moakley--Yea; Beilenson--Yea; Frost--Yea; 
Hall--Yea; Solomon--Nay.

Congressional budget office estimates

    Clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI requires each Committee to 
include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if the cost estimate is 
timely submitted. No cost estimate was received from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Oversight findings

    Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has no 
oversight findings.

Oversight findings and recommendations of the committee on government 
        reform and oversight

    Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain a summary of the oversight findings and 
recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such 
findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on Rules has 
received no such findings or recommendations from the Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight.

Views of committee members

    Clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI requires each committee to afford 
a three day opportunity for members of the committee to file 
additional, minority, or dissenting views and to include the 
views in its report. Although neither requirement applies to 
the Committee, the Committee always makes the maximum effort to 
provide its members with such an opportunity. The following 
views were submitted:
                             MINORITY VIEWS

    Congress has an affirmative duty to oversee and investigate 
the executive branch. There is no intention on the part of the 
minority to hinder or otherwise undermine this or any other 
legitimate investigation. However, we are concerned about the 
potential abuse of this responsibility. In the past, only the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for ethics matters 
and the Judiciary Committee for impeachment proceedings have 
been given this special type of subpoena power for deposing of 
witnesses. No other standing committees have been granted this 
extraordinary power. The only other times that such special 
authority has been granted by the full House were for specially 
created and appointed Select Committees and task forces for a 
single investigatory purpose and for a specified period of 
time.
    While this resolution follows the basic outline from 
previous investigatory rules, we have several concerns we would 
like to outline in these views.
Unilateral authority of the chairman to authorize subpoenas for staff 
        depositions
    We are concerned that this resolution grants the Chairman 
of the Committee unilateral authority to authorize staff to 
take affidavits and depositions on behalf of the committee. In 
the investigations of ABSCAM and Koreagate, both of which were 
conducted by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
under direction by the full House, the Chair could act only 
with the support of the ranking minority member or by direction 
of the entire committee. We offered an amendment in full 
committee markup which would have allowed the Chairman with the 
concurrence of the ranking minority member, or by vote of the 
committee, to authorize the staff to take affidavits and 
depositions. Testimony in the Rules Committee indicated that 
the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member will be working 
together to create a bipartisan internal committee process for 
issuance of such subpoenas and taking of staff depositions. 
Because of this cooperative effort, we believe it is unlikely 
that the full committee would need to meet to vote in most, if 
not all, instances. We believed this was a very reasonable and 
modest request for this resolution which gives such 
considerable and unprecedented power to a standing committee of 
the House. This amendment would help ensure that minority 
rights are protected in this process and that the Chairman does 
not abuse the considerable power granted to him under this 
unusual authority. Unfortunately our amendment was defeated by 
a 5 to 7 vote with only one Republican member voting in favor 
of the amendment.
Open-ended resolution with no expiration date
    The report language for this resolution states that the 
authority granted under H. Res. 369 will assist the Government 
Reform Committee in obtaining sworn testimony ``quickly and 
confidentially.'' A deadline for completion of the deposition 
process would seem to be an effective tool in expediting the 
process for compilation of these materials for use by the full 
committee. However, the resolution does not contain any 
language to provide for sunsetting this unilateral staff 
deposition authority. The measure is open ended and has no cut-
off date. In previous resolutions of this type, whether in a 
special committee or task force or in a standing committee, 
there has generally been specific language to provide for such 
closure. We are particularly concerned because this staff level 
investigation could continue on into the summer and fall. If 
the committee finds that it needs additional time to complete 
the staff depositions, the date can be extended, as it was in 
the past for the October Surprise Task Force as well as in the 
Judiciary Committee for certain impeachment proceedings. We 
offered an amendment in the Rules Committee markup that would 
have provided an expiration date of June 30, 1996 for the 
taking of affidavits or depositions. This would have given the 
committee more than three and a half months to complete their 
task, certainly a more than adequate amount of time. Again, our 
amendment was defeated, this time on a party line vote.
Use of intra-committee rules to carry out the subpoena and deposition 
        process
    We are supportive of the ongoing effort by the majority and 
minority of the Government Reform Committee to reach a 
bipartisan agreement on the procedure that will be followed to 
carry out H. Res. 369. However, we are apprehensive that this 
process will not be part of the resolution itself. The current 
committee leadership, on both sides of the aisle, may develop 
rules that will allow for an orderly process that is fair to 
both those who will be called as witnesses and the committee 
minority. The need for rules and an orderly process are equally 
important to the preservation of the integrity and reputation 
of the House. However, this intra-committee agreement is not 
binding and may not be honored by all those involved in this 
process. We sincerely hope that all sides will work to ensure 
that any agreed upon rules are strictly adhered to and that 
partisan differences will not abrogate what will hopefully be a 
bipartisan process. This is important now and in the future 
should this resolution continue for any length of time.
Lack of clarification regarding citation of witness for contempt
    We are particularly troubled that there is lack of clarity 
in the Rules Committee report with regard to the issuance of a 
contempt citation against witnesses who refuse to comply with 
the subpoena for staff deposition. We hope that this grant of 
authority is not intended to change any of the longstanding 
practices of the House in this area. Absent clarifying 
language, there is a danger that there could be a challenge to 
the longstanding practice in the House which holds that there 
are no grounds for a contempt citation if a witness refuses to 
appear before or to answer questions in a staff deposition 
provided that the witness responds fully at a duly called 
hearing of the committee with a quorum of members present. 
After consultation with the House Parliamentarian on this 
matter, we offered the following amendment in committee that 
would have called for the inclusion of report language to 
address this issue.

          The procedure used in this resolution which 
        authorizes the deposition of witnesses by staff is 
        meant to augment and not replace the current 
        information gathering function of a committee hearing. 
        Nothing in this resolution is intended to change the 
        longstanding precedent that there are no grounds for a 
        contempt citation if a witness refuses to appear before 
        or to answer questions in a staff deposition provided 
        that the witness responds fully at a duly called 
        hearing of the committee with a quorum of members 
        present.

    The amendment was defeated on a straight party line vote. 
We think this is an extremely shortsighted move on the part of 
the majority and could lead to unintended consequences that 
would undermine the rights of witnesses under rule XI of the 
House Rules. The integrity of the House and the manner in which 
it conducts its business are too important for this matter to 
go unaddressed in this resolution or its accompanying report.
    The granting of authority to staff to take depositions from 
witnesses who are under oath in executive session, with no 
members present, is an extraordinary situation that should only 
occur when no workable alternative is available. We recognize 
that there are instances when it may be appropriate. However, 
it is imperative that the objective of the committee is solely 
for the gathering of information for use by the committee in a 
formal hearing setting. The membership of the committee must be 
extremely cautious in proceeding with this process. It must 
exercise strong oversight of this procedure and of those who 
are assigned to carry out this task. Congress has an obligation 
to undertake its duties and responsibilities in a manner that 
is effective, but scrupulously fair to the process and those 
affected by it.

                                   Joe Moakley.
                                   Tony Beilenson.
                                   Martin Frost.
                                   Tony P. Hall.

                                
