[House Report 105-658]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 105-658
_______________________________________________________________________
PROVIDING SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY FOR THE COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
_______
July 29, 1998.--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. 507]
The Committee on Rules, to whom was referred the resolution
(H. Res. 507) providing special investigative authority for the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend
that the resolution as amended be agreed to.
The amendment (stated in terms of the page and line number
of the introduced resolution) is as follows:
Page 2, line 16, strike ``, staff, or contractor'' and
insert ``or staff''.
PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION
The purpose of H. Res. 507 is to provide special
investigative authority for the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
SUMMARY OF THE RESOLUTION
H. Res. 507 applies to the investigation by the Committee
on Education and the Workforce into the administration of labor
laws by government agencies, including the Departments of Labor
and Justice, concerning the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters and other related matters. The resolution states that
information obtained under the authority of this resolution,
shall be considered as taken by the Committee on Education and
the Workforce in the District of Columbia, as well as the
location actually taken, and that the information shall be
considered as taken in executive session by the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
The resolution also authorizes the chairman, after
consultation with the ranking minority member, to order the
taking of depositions or interrogatories anywhere within the
United States under oath and pursuant to notice or subpoena,
and to designate a member, staff, or contractor of the
committee to conduct any such proceeding.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
H. Res. 507 was introduced by Education and the Workforce
Committee Chairman Goodling on July 21, and referred to the
Committee on Rules.
On Friday, July 24, the Committee held a hearing on H. Res.
507 and received testimony from: Hon. Bill Goodling, Chairman
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; Hon. Bill
Clay, Ranking Minority member of the Committee; Hon. Patsy
Mink, Ranking Minority member of the Subcommittee; and Hon.
Mike Parker.
On Tuesday, July 28, the Committee on Rules held a mark-up
of the resolution. The Committee favorably reported H. Res. 507
by a voice vote. During the mark-up, one amendment to H. Res.
507 was agreed to by voice vote.
BACKGROUND ON THE INVESTIGATION
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce is investigating the
failed 1996 election of officers at the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), as well as several related
matters, such as financial mismanagement and possible pension
fund manipulation. A great number of financial, disciplinary,
and election-related questions still remain to be answered by
this inquiry. In addition, the lack of cooperation by the
current leadership of the Teamsters has unnecessarily delayed
the Subcommittee's investigation.
The vast majority of the current IBT officers were elected
with Ron Carey in the fraudulent 1996 election and were allowed
to take office, even though the election could not be certified
as fair and must be rerun. This leadership has blocked the
Subcommittee's attempts to received information through
document requests, hearings, and interviews. The Subcommittee,
and the Chairman of the full Committee, have been forced to
issue subpoenas for documents to fourteen organizations, most
of whom refused to voluntarily provide information to the
Subcommittee at the direction of the IBT. Subpoenas have also
been issued to seven witnesses to secure their testimony at the
Subcommittee's public hearings. Furthermore, the IBT
steadfastly refused, on numerous occasions over the last four
months, to allow Subcommittee investigators to interview
current IBT employees and employees of two companies that work
for the IBT: the Segal Company, an actuarial firm, and Grant
Thorton, LLP, an accounting firm. The IBT has even objected to
the Subcommittee interviewing former IBT employees.
In 1988, the Justice Department filed suit against the IBT
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The government and the IBT settled the suit in 1989 by agreeing
to a Consent Decree, recognizing that its primary purpose was
to ensure ``that the IBT * * * be maintained democratically,
with integrity and for the sole benefit of its members and
without unlawful outside influence.'' The Consent Decree
provided the framework for supervision of the IBT and its
operations by the Government and its agents ``that was far more
extensive than that provided by federal statute or case law.''
The Consent Decree also establish direct elections for
International union offices.
Federal supervision of the IBT was divided into two phases.
The first phase required strong, proactive government
involvement in the IBT's activities to rid the IBT of corrupt
influence and pave the way for its first-ever democratic
election in 1991. To achieve these goals, the Consent Decree
provided for the appointment of three officers: the Independent
Administrator, Election Officer, and Investigative Officer. The
Investigative Officer had the authority to investigate
corruption within the IBT and recommend charges to the
Independent Administrator. The Independent Administrator had
the authority to mete out appropriate punishment, including
expulsion from the union, and to veto any IBT financial
transaction that would further, or constitute, racketeering
activity. The Elections Officer had the authority to supervise
the 1991 election and to take step necessary to ensure that it
was conducted in a free and fair manner. The second phase of
the Consent decree relegated the Government to a more reactive
position, turning disciplinary and other activities back to the
control of the IBT upon certification of the 1991 election. For
the second phase of the Consent Decree, a three member
Independent Review Board (IRB) would take over the disciplinary
role of the Independent Administrator and the office of
Investigations Officer would cease to exist as a proactive
force. The IRB does not have the authority to veto financial
transactions. During the second phase, the government has the
option of having an Election Officer supervise the 1996 and
subsequent elections.
Ron Carey won the IBT's General Presidency in the 1991
election, and candidates on the Carey slate captured all but
one slot on the IBT's eighteen-member General Executive Board
(GEB). Due to a continuing decline in the IBT's net worth, the
GEB invoked a provision of the IBT Constitution in May 1994.
The provision requires all IBT locals to pay an additional $1
per member per month emergency tax to the union when the IBT's
net worth falls below $20 million. The provision remains in
effect today and brings an additional $17 million per year into
the union's treasury.
The government exercised its option to supervise the 1996
election, and Ron Carey was a candidate for re-election. Carey
won a narrow victory, but the Election Officer refused to
certify the results after concluding that widespread
fundraising abuses may have allowed Carey to win the election.
The Election Officer alleged that Carey's campaign consultants
and officials of the IBT funneled money from the union's
treasury through several organizations to Carey's reelection
campaign.
The IBT gave $150,000 to the AFL-CIO; the AFL-CIO, in turn,
gave $150,000 to Citizen Action (a nonprofit advocacy
organization); Citizen Action then gave $100,000 to the
November Group, which used the funds to mail campaign
literature to Teamsters on Carey's behalf.
The IBT gave $475,000 directly to Citizen Action, $175,000
to Project Vote (a get-out-the-vote organization), and $85,000
to the National Council of Senior Citizens. In exchange, Carey
campaign operatives persuaded perspective donors to those
organizations to contribute instead to the Carey campaign.
The Carey campaign attempted to raise funds from possible
donors to the Democratic National Committee in exchange for
larger than expected political contributions from the IBT to
state Democratic parties.
In addition, the Carey campaign received contributions from
labor lawyers, union officials, and campaign vendors, even
though these contributions were prohibited under the election
rules.
As a result of these transactions, the Election Officer
ordered a rerun election. After she resigned, the next Election
Officer disqualified Carey from the rerun election because of
his participation in these fundraising schemes. Carey took an
unpaid leave of absence. The IRB charged Carey with bringing
reproach upon the union. The Justice Department and the IBT
agreed to create the position of Independent Financial
Administrator for the IBT, a position with veto authority
similar to that of the Independent Administrator of the first
phase of the Consent Decree. Three of Carey's campaign
consultants have entered guilty pleas in federal court and are
cooperating with persecutors. The IBT's former PAC director,
William Hamilton, has been indicted. Nevertheless, the
Secretary-Treasurer and the International Vice Presidents
elected on the Carey slate in 1996 continues to hold office,
run the union's operations, and most are candidates in the
rerun election.
summary of the investigation to date
The Subcommittee's public hearings and analysis of evidence
have explored problems in the IBT in addition to these
fundraising schemes and have identified a number of flaws in
federal oversight of the union. Testimony in the Subcommittee's
hearings has generated further investigation, document
requests, and subpoenas.
On October 14, 1997, two rank-and-file members of the IBT
testified that they had been beaten by Carey supporters for
trying to speak in meetings of their local unions, and that no
one had been punished as a result. Two IBT organizers testified
that they had campaigned on Carey's behalf on union time at the
direction of their supervisor. These organizers and an IBT
International Representative testified that they were pressured
to donate to the Carey campaign and that they did so, for fear
of losing their jobs. A former supervisor at the IBT's
Political Action Committee provided the Subcommittee with a
great deal of detailed information regarding the illegal
contributions discussed above. The Subcommittee is
investigating more of these allegations of misuse of union
resources, including some that are ongoing at the IBT
headquarters.
The Subcommittee is continuing to investigate the
fundraising swaps from the IBT election. On October 15, 1997,
the Election Officers for the 1991 and 1996 elections testified
on the methods, results, and costs associated with their
oversight. The 1996 Election Officer testified that there was
no way for her to detect Carey's fundraising swaps prior to the
election, as the events occurred at the last minute. She also
testified that she completed her investigation of the 1996
election during the Teamsters strike against United Parcel
Service, but that she withheld her decision to order a new
election in order to prevent influencing the strike. The
Subcommittee is continuing to monitor the effectiveness of the
new Election Officer.
On March 26, 1998, two former International Trustees
testified that, after they discovered improper expenditures and
accounting discrepancies, Carey, General Secretary-Treasurer
Tom Sever, and IBT employees refused to provide them with
financial information necessary to perform their
constitutionally-mandated biannual audit of the IBT. They were
also unable to interview IBT employees about the union's
financial practices and were barred from General Executive
Board meetings. A former International Vice President testified
that the Carey administration used the disciplinary process,
the abolition and creation of subordinate union bodies, and the
emergency dues assessment to centralize power at the
international level. The Secretary-Treasurer of an IBT local
testified that the IBT leadership's decision to freeze
contributions to the Teamsters Affiliates Pension Plan (TAPP),
which pays benefits to local union employees, was designed to
continue the emergency dues assessment and to gather additional
financial resources for IBT headquarters. The Subcommittee's
Forensic Auditor testified that there was a large increase in
payroll, travel expenses, professional fees, legal fees, and
contributions for civic betterment in 1996, even as the union's
net worth continued its decline. The Subcommittee is continuing
to investigate the lack of internal financial controls at the
IBT, misuse of IBT disciplinary and trusteeship procedures, and
manipulations of the Teamsters Affiliated Pension Plan.
On April 29, 1998, the Independent Financial Administrator
and the Election Officer testified regarding their oversight of
the IBT. The Independent Financial Administrator testified that
he does not have the authority to question the business purpose
of any IBT expenditure or to review IBT legal bills or pension
funds. The Election Officer testified that he is investigating
the use of IBT resources for campaign purposes in the 1996
election and the rerun election. He also stated that his plan
for overseeing the rerun election will be more vigorous than
the 1996 election, including placing monitors in campaign
offices during the final weeks of the campaign. Both witnesses
were also question about a post-election memorandum to Carey
from his campaign manager listing over 30 IBT employees and
their work on behalf of the campaign--on union time. The
Subcommittee is continuing to monitor the performance of the
Independent Financial Administrator and the Election Officer.
On April 30, 1998, the President of the AFL-CIO, John
Sweeney, testified regarding the labor federation's role in the
fundraising schemes. The AFL-CIO's Secretary-Treasurer, Richard
Trumka, is allegedly responsible for the AFL-CIO's
participation in the fundraising swap among the IBT, Citizen
Action, and the Carey campaign, but declined to appear before
the Subcommittee, citing his Fifth Amendment rights. Sweeney
testified that he does not believe Trumka has done anything
improper and that he is not investigating the matter further.
The Subcommittee is continuing to investigate these issues.
On May 19, 1998, the IBT's General Secretary-Treasurer and
Acting President, Tom Sever, testified that he is not
investigating evidence that at least 30 IBT employees were
involved in using union resources for the Carey campaign. Sever
also pledged to cooperate with all ongoing investigations, but
after the hearing was over, he has continued to refuse to allow
interviews of IBT staff and to produce relevant documents. The
Subcommittee is continuing its investigation of Sever's role in
controlling the union's finances and is very interested in
questioning key employees cited by Carey's campaign manager as
being active in Carey's campaign.
On June 15, 1998, Stephen Lesser, a partner in the
Teamsters' accounting firm, Grant Thornton, LLP, testified that
he was not aware of a subordinate's memorandum discussing IBT
general treasury expenditures for election activity and that he
was not a party to discussions of whether IBT should include
such information in its files. A Donald Morgan, a partner in
the Teamsters' actuarial firm, the Segal Company, testified
that he participated in a conference call between IBT officers
and trustees of Teamsters Affiliated Pension Plan. The purpose
of the call was to determine the effect actuarial changes to
the TAPP--in particular, a discount rate used in calculating
the required IBT contribution to TAPP--would have upon the net
worth of the IBT. During the call, it became clear that the IBT
official were interested in setting the discount rate at a
level that would allow the IBT to continue its emergency dues
assessment. This rate change was also not reported correctly in
the pension plan's audited financial statement for the
following year. The Subcommittee is continuing to investigate
these improper political contributions and pension fund
manipulations.
On June 16, 1998, five witnesses from the Department of
Labor testified regarding their oversight, investigations, and
audits of the IBT. While DOL oversight the IBT's financial
1activities and conditions has been minimal since the establishment of
the Consent Decree, it has begun two investigations this spring. The
Subcommittee is continuing to monitor the effectiveness of DOL
oversight.
Throughout the Subcommittee's investigation, the current
International Brotherhood of Teamsters leadership has attempted
to obstruct the Subcommittee's work. The IBT has withheld
subpoenaed documents, instead asserting broad and inapplicable
claims of privilege. The IBT has directed its law firms, its
accounting firm, its actuarial firm, and its pollster to
withhold subpoenaed documents, again asserting broad and
inapplicable privilege claims. Most recently, after the
Subcommittee subpoenaed the audio tapes of all IBT General
Executive Board meetings from 1991-1997, the IBT instead
provided all of them to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York, who had requested only some of the tapes.
And on numerous occasions, the IBT has refused to allow
Subcommittee staff to interview employees of the IBT, Grant
Thornton, and the Segal Company.
On March 17, 1998, Chairman Hoekstra wrote to Joseph
Selsavage, the IBT's Director of Accounting, Robert
Muehlenkamp, the IBT's Director of Organizing, and Aaron Belk,
the former Executive Assistant to the President, to request
interviews. The Subcommittee needed to interview Mr. Selsavage
and Mr. Belk regarding their knowledge of IBT expenditures in
1996, the contribution swaps, the changes to the Teamsters
Affiliates Pension Plan, and the use of IBT disciplinary
procedures. The Subcommittee also needed to interview Mr.
Muehlenkamp, as evidence indicates that he may have turned over
the entire IBT Organizing Department to the Carey campaign. On
the same day, Chairman Hoekstra wrote to Marc Gary and David
Crane of Mayer, Brown, and Platt, counsel for Grant Thornton,
requesting an interview of the partner in charge of the audit
of the IBT. Grant Thornton should have knowledge related to the
IBT's financial practices, its potentially illegal political
contributions, and the changes the IBT made to the Teamsters
Affiliates Pension Plan.
On March 20, 1998, counsel for the IBT (William W. Taylor
III and Leslie Berger Kiernan of Zuckerman, Spaeder, Goldstein,
Taylor, & Kolker, LLP) replied to the Chairman's letters. They
stated that ``it is not reasonable to think that there will be
informal interviews until we can meet to discuss, and hopefully
agree on, the matters previously raised with respect to the
IBT's legitimate objections'' to the Subcommittee's subpoena.
On May 28, 1998, Subcommittee staff wrote to Alvaro Anillo
of Groom & Nordberg, counsel for the Segal Company, requesting
an interview of A. Donald Morgan, who was responsible for the
work performed for the IBT. The Subcommittee requested the
interview to discuss changes made to the TAPP and to the IBT
Retirement and Family Protection Plan (a pension plan for IBT
International Officers and employees).
On June 1, 1998, Subcommittee staff wrote again to David
Crane requesting an interview of Stephen Leser of Grant
Thornton regarding his knowledge of IBT internal financial
controls, specific expenditures, TAPP and the IBT Retirement
and Family Protection Plan, and IBT financial reporting to the
Department of Labor.
On June 3, 1998, Mr. Crane declined the request to
interview Stephen Leser, stating that the IBT objected to his
appearance outside of a Congressional hearing, and that,
accordingly, Grant Thorton had an ethical obligation to do as
directed by the IBT.
On June 4, 1998, Leslie Berger Kiernan, counsel for the
IBT, responded to the Subcommittee's request, stating that the
IBT would not agree to interviews of Joe Selsavage, Jim Bosley
(Sever's Executive Assistant), or representatives of Grant
Thornton and the Segal Company outside of a Congressional
hearing.
On June 5, 1998, Chairman Hoekstra wrote to Tom Sever,
stating that the Subcommittee requested these interviews ``as
part of the Subcommittee's continuing investigation and were to
help us gather facts in preparation for upcoming public
hearings regarding the financial condition of the Teamsters
Union.'' After citing eight statements from Mr. Sever's
previous testimony pledging to cooperate with all
investigations of the IBT, Chairman Hoekstra again asked to
interview Joe Selsavage, Jim Bosley, and representatives of
Grant Thornton and the Segal Company.
On June 24, 1998, Subcommittee staff wrote again to Ms.
Kiernan. In order to alleviate the IBT's concern that a non-
public interview by Subcommittee staff might lead to factual
misunderstanding as to what might be said in these interviews,
Subcommittee staff proposed to interview IBT employees on-the-
record, with minority staff and IBT counsel present, and with
transcripts available to the public.
On June 30, 1998, Ms. Kiernan responded to the
Subcommittee's proposal by stating that she would discuss the
matter with the IBT.
On July 2, 1998, Subcommittee staff wrote to David Crane
requesting interviews with three Grant Thornton employees:
Kevin Madden, Rebecca Lundgren, and Susan Vowell. In his
testimony on June 15, Leser had identified these individuals as
those having knowledge of the IBT's potentially illegal
political contributions.
On July 9, 1998, Mr. Craine replied, stating that ``we have
been informed by IBT Counsel that the IBT does not consent to
such interviews.''
On July 14, 1998, Ms. Kiernan wrote to Subcommittee staff.
The text of the letter reads: ``We have information that the
Subcommittee's counsel, directly and through others, have had
contacts with present and former employees of the IBT without
notice and in the absence of IBT's counsel. Such contacts are
clear violations of ethics provisions barring contacts with
employees of represented parties. Please advise what contacts
have occurred and whether such contacts will stop
immediately.''
It is clear the IBT will continue to delay a legitimate
Congressional investigation by refusing to consent to
interviews. The Subcommittee must depose at least three Grant
Thornton employees and several IBT employees, possibly as many
as three dozen. In addition, the Subcommittee may need to
depose employees and officials of the Segal Company, the
NovemberGroup, the Share Group, the Democratic National
Committee, the AFL-CIO, Project Vote, Citizen Action, the National
Council of Senior Citizens, the American Federation of State, County,
and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International
Union (SEIU), and several IBT contractors and vendors.
background and need for the resolution
In furtherance of Congress' legitimate investigative
function, the standing rules of the House provide its
committees with the general authority and tools needed to carry
out most investigations of matters that properly fall within
their jurisdiction.
The specific provisions governing committees' investigative
procedures can be found in House rule XI.
Clause 2(h)(1) establishes a minimum quorum of two members
for taking testimony or receiving evidence in a committee.
Clause 2(k) outlines procedures for the conduct of
investigative hearings designed to balance the interests of the
committee in gathering necessary testimony and evidence while
carefully safeguarding certain procedural rights of witnesses.
These procedures include: announcement by the chairman of
the subject of the investigation; provision of the committee's
rules and the relevant House rules to each witness; allowance
for witnesses to be accompanied by counsel; authority for the
chairman to appropriately punish accompanying counsel for
breaches of order, decorum or professional ethics; guidelines
for taking testimony or evidence in executive session when it
is asserted that such testimony or evidence may tend to defame,
degrade or incriminate any person; restrictions on the release
of evidence or testimony taken in executive session; discretion
for the committee to determine the pertinence of testimony and
evidence; and means for a witness to obtain a transcript of
testimony given in public or executive session.
Clause 2(m)(1)(A) authorizes committees and subcommittees
to sit and act (including holding hearings) within the United
States whether the House is in session, has recessed or
adjourned.
Clause 2(m)(1)(B) authorizes committees and subcommittees
to require by subpoena or otherwise the production of documents
or the testimony of witnesses. It further authorizes the
chairman of the committee, or any member of the committee
designated by the chairman, to administer oaths to any witness.
Clause 2(m)(2) specifies that subpoenas necessary for the
conduct of an investigation must be authorized by a majority
vote of the committee's (or subcommittee's) members, a majority
being present. However, this rule allows a committee to adopt
written rules delegating to its chairman the authority to issue
subpoenas in connection with an ongoing investigation.
The Rules Committee continues to believe that these rules
have served the House of Representatives well, and have served
the public interest when the House conducts investigations.
However, the Rules Committee is occasionally asked to
provide committees with additional tools, beyond those
expressly conferred by House rules, for a specific
investigation. The Committee is generally reluctant to depart
from House rules which assign the proper responsibility to
Members to take testimony and receive evidence.
The Rules Committee understands that the Education and the
Workforce Committee has assembled significant documentary
evidence in its ongoing inquiry of the IBT. The Rules Committee
appreciates that documents only tell a portion of the story,
and in order for Congress to have a through understanding of
potential wrongdoing and possible legislative improvements to
current law, committees have to ask people questions. In order
to obtain the context for these documents, the Education and
the Workforce Committee has sought informational interviews on
a voluntary basis.
The Rules Committee is aware that the subjects of this
investigation have refused to provide information on a
voluntary basis to the Education and the Workforce Committee.
Due to this refusal, the Committee is in need of a mechanism to
receive evidence swiftly and confidentially. The Rules
Committee believes that H. Res. 507 provides measured and
appropriate authority for the Education and the Workforce
Committee to further the House's understanding of exactly what
occurred during the Teamsters election.
As Chairman Goodling stated at the Rules Committee hearing
on H. Res. 507, ``Deposition authority is a tool that will
enable the Teamsters investigation to unravel improprieties
associated with the 1996 election so they do not recur. It will
also help shed light on mismanagement and financial
improprieties so that the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters can become more responsive to its members.''
The Rules Committee notes that the authority granted by H.
Res. 507 is specific to the Teamsters investigation by the
Committee on Education and the Workforce. It further considers
the information obtained under authority of the resolution as
taken in executive session by the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
The Rules Committee notes that clause 2(k)(7) of rule XI
requires a committee vote to release evidence or testimony
taken in executive session prior to release or use in public
sessions.
According to the Education and the Workforce Committee, at
this time there are at least 40 witnesses still left to be
deposed, and with only a minimal number of legislative days
remaining in the session, the Rules Committee believes that the
Education and the Workforce Committee has demonstrated a
compelling need for the special investigative authority
provided by H. Res 507, and will exercise this authority
judiciously.
The Rules Committee agrees with the assessment of Chairman
Goodling, who noted during the Committee's hearing on this
matter, ``The rank and file Teamsters should gain some
knowledge from what it is this investigation is doing so that
the election does not again occur and be a fraudulent election
using millions of dollars of Federal money.'' The authority
granted by this resolution will help answer the question of
whether Teamsters' pension funds were unnecessarily jeopardized
during the course of the 1996 election.
section-by-section analysis of the resolution
Chairman Goodling introduced H. Res. 507 on July 21, 1998.
The Education and the Workforce Committee also, on July 22,
adopted a new committee rule by a vote of 19-17 to specify the
procedures to be employed by the Committee should the House
adopt H. Res. 507. This committee rule contains procedures for
conducting depositions, notice requirements, and the rights of
witnesses. Chairman Goodling then wrote to Rules Chairman
Solomon asking the Committee to consider H. Res. 507 in order
that the House might consider it expeditiously.
Section 1 applies the authorities granted by H. Res. 507
solely to the investigation by the Committee on Education and
the Workforce into the administration of labor laws by
Government agencies, including the Departments of Labor and
Justice, concerning the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
and other related matters.
Section 2 considers information obtained under authority of
the resolution as taken by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce in the District of Columbia, as well as the location
actually taken; and considers information obtained under
authority of the resolution as taken in executive session by
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Section 3 authorizes the chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, after consultation with the
ranking minority member of the committee, to order the taking
of depositions or interrogatories anywhere within the United
States, under oath and pursuant to subpoena; and to designate a
Member, staff, or contractor of the Committee to conduct any
such proceeding. The Rules Committee understands that the
Education and the Workforce Committee has hired several
consultants through an appropriate process which includes
approval by the Committee and further approval by the House
Oversight Committee. The Chairman of the Education and the
Workforce Committee may designate the staff of the Committee
authorized to conduct depositions. Such staff may include
consultants or contractors, such as forensic auditors, hired by
the Committee.
matters required under the rules of the house
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 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if the cost estimate is
timely submitted. No cost estimate was received from 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 oversight findings of
the Committee are reflected in the body of this report.
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 two day opportunity for members of the committee to file
additional, minority, or dissenting views and to include the
views in its report. Although this requirement does not apply
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
This is the third time since the beginning of the 104th
Congress that this Committee has been asked to grant this
extraordinary staff deposition authority to a standing
committee. And, for the third time we question the need as well
as the urgency for such a resolution.
First and foremost, we do not believe this resolution is
necessary at all. There is no convincing evidence that the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) has failed to
provide requested documentation or that they have refused to
testify before the Education and the Workforce Committee. In
fact, IBT has produced over 50,000 documents to date for the
Committee covering all areas that the Republicans have
requested. They have stated, in a June 4, 1998 letter to the
Committee, that although they will not allow nonpublic pre-
interviews, they ``will do all that is necessary to facilitate
the presentation of witnesses at public hearings, even without
subpoenas.'' We include the letter in its entirety for the
record. Furthermore, it is important for members of the House
to know that the activities of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters are being fully investigated and, where appropriate,
prosecuted by the Justice Department. That is their
responsibility and their job and it is being carried out
appropriately. The job of the Education and the Workforce
Subcommittee on Oversight is to conduct ``oversight'' on this
matter, not necessarily a duplicative and costly full-scale
investigation. We question whether the committee's scarce
resources should be diverted to this investigation at the
expense of other important priorities such as education.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Washington, DC, June 12, 1998.
Hon. Pete Hoekstra,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on
Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am in receipt of your letters dated
June 5, 1998 and June 11, 1998 to me, the Election Officer, the
Independent Review Board (IRB) and the United States Attorneys
Office.
I am at a loss to understand how you can accuse the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) of failing to
cooperate with your Subcommittee. In the last three months, the
IBT has produced to the Subcommittee more than 75,000 pages of
documents. The IBT staff and outside counsel have spent
thousands of hours responding to requests for information from
the Subcommittee. In order to respond to a demand on a Monday
for thousands of pages of documents by the following Friday,
the IBT pulled twenty-seven employees from their regular duties
so that they could locate and photocopy the requested records.
The IBT has made available to the Subcommittee the workpapers
of its outside accountants, Grant Thornton, for the period
1991-97. The IBT has agreed to have an independent third party
listen to the audiotapes of the IBT's General Executive Board
meetings for the past seven years. I appeared voluntarily
before the Subcommittee and answered every one of the
Subcommittee's questions. The IBT has agreed to produce
voluntarily as witnesses at the hearings next week Messrs.
Bosley and Selsavage as well as Grant Thornton and the IBT's
outside actuary, Segal Company.
This cooperation has been met with repeated allegations of
``stonewalling'' and accusations of misconduct, all of which
are directly contrary to the facts. There have been systematic
leaks and mischaracterizations of information to the press in
an effort to generate publicity critical of the IBT. The
conduct of the investigation to date has caused me to have
serious reservations about the fairness and integrity of the
process. It is for this reason that I cannot agree to private
off the record interviews. Contrary to your June 11 letter to
me, the IBT has not refused to allow those with knowledge of
the IBT's finances to answer questions. In fact, I have
encouraged full cooperation by these individuals. The IBT has
only objected to interviews not open to the public. The members
of the IBT and the public deserve to hear the facts directly
from the witnesses. The IBT has been clear that it will do all
that is necessary to facilitate the presentation of witnesses
at public hearings, even without subpoena.
In certain of your letters, you falsely accuse the current
leadership of the IBT of having no interest in moving forward
with an honest election. During the Bush Administration, the
United States government entered into a consent decree that
required the United States to pay for supervision of the 1996
election, if the government elected supervision. The United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that
the United States must pay for supervision of the rerun of the
1996 election. Notwithstanding the clear holding of that Court,
in a decision rendered by the Chief Judge himself, that the
United States must keep its bargain under the consent decree,
the Congress has barred the government from paying for
supervision of the election. Mr. Chairman, the only thing
standing between the members of the IBT and a prompt supervised
election is the Congress.
I have been a member of the Teamsters for almost forty
years. As Secretary-Treasurer and Acting General President of
the IBT, it is my duty to assert the constitutional and other
legal rights of the IBT in response to a Congressional subpoena
or other request. The assertion of those rights in the face of
an unlawful request is a constitutionally protected activity,
not ``stonewalling.'' Reckless attacks against the IBT or me
personally will not deter me from doing what I believe is right
for the International and its members.
Sincerely,
Tom Sever,
General Secretary-Treasurer.
Prior to the 104th Congress, the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct in ethics matters and the Judiciary Committee
for impeachment proceedings were the only standing committees
given this special authority for staff to take depositions,
under oath, from witnesses in the absence of a Member of
Congress.
We in the minority expressed a number of concerns prior to
the adoption by the Rules Committee of each of the first two
resolutions (On March 6, 1996, H. Res. 369, Providing Special
Authorities to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
to Obtain Testimony on the White House Travel Office Matter;
and on June 19, 1997, H. Res. 167, Providing Special
Investigative Authorities for the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight) as well as recommendations to help
alleviate our apprehension. Unfortunately those amendments were
denied and ultimately our worst fears were realized. The
promises for protection of the rights of the individuals
subjected to the depositions as well as the rights of the
minority in the process were ignored or deliberately denied.
With this track record, we have no reason to believe that
things will be any different or any better this time around.
So, once again, we find ourselves in the position of
attempting to modify this resolution to address our well-
founded reservations. And, not surprisingly, we are denied, on
party line votes, even the most modest of amendments to improve
this resolution.
When the Rules Committee considered H. Res. 167 (Providing
Special Investigative Authorities for the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight), the Rules majority requested
a change to require that any staff member taking a deposition
must be an attorney. During Rules Committee consideration of
that measure on June 18, 1997, Chairman Solomon stated, ``what
this [resolution] does is give staff deposition authority. It
cites that we designate a member of the committee or an
attorney on the staff, and I insisted that it be an attorney on
the staff, because people that are not attorneys, like myself,
probably are not aware of all of the nuances in the law, and
therefore I think should be.'' However, when the minority of
the Education and the Workforce Committee tried to offer this
same requirement during their rules change mark-up on July 22,
1998 they were rebuffed by the Committee majority. We offered
that amendment to this resolution and were also out voted by
the majority members of the Rules Committee. We fail to
understand how a requirement that the majority felt was so
essential in the instance of H. Res. 167 is now unnecessary.
We are very concerned about the prospect that the minority
will be treated fairly in this process, even given the July
22nd committee rule changes adopted by the Education and the
Workforce Committee. Throughout this process the majority has
not abided by its formal or informal agreements. More recently,
on April 1, 1998 the Committee changed its rules to give the
Chairman rare and controversial unilateral authority to issue
subpoenas. That rule contains a provision that states ``the
Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority Member prior to
issuing any subpoena under such authority.'' This rule has been
largely ignored by the majority, who have chosen to give notice
only after the subpoenas have been served. Given these recent
events documenting such noncompliance, we believe we are
justified in our doubts that the majority will abide with its
own committee rules requiring proper and timely minority
notification. Volumes of agreements aren't worth the paper
they're printed on unless they are followed. The majority has
all the power and sets the agenda; therefore the burden of
compliance is primarily in their hands. If they choose not to
comply with agreements or rules, there is no real recourse for
the minority.
This resolution, as with the two previous measures, does
not include clarification in either the resolution or report
regarding contempt charges against a subpoenaed individual who
refuses to be deposed by staff but is willing to testify before
the committee at a regular meeting. Absent clarifying language,
there is a danger that there could be a challenge to the long-
standing practice of 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. As in H. Res. 369
and H. Res. 167, in which we consulted with the House
Parliamentarian, we offered the following language and
requested that it be included in the report:
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
long-standing 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.
For the third time, this modest amendment was rejected by
the majority.
We are elected by the people of the United States to
represent them in the House of Representatives. Our staff is
not. They are here to assist us in that representation, not to
do our job. We must be absolutely certain that any activities
undertaken by them are fully in compliance with the House rules
and are done so with our full knowledge and under our
direction. Allowing staff unfettered ability to question and
interrogate witnesses without our presence should be done only
when absolutely necessary and with extreme caution. The people
who will be subjected to such scrutiny by staff have rights and
all members of this body, especially the Education and the
Workforce Committee, must guarantee that those rights are
scrupulously protected. This must be done regardless of the
political affiliation or the personal beliefs of those
individuals. To do any less is to disobey the oath that all of
us took on opening day of this Congress.
We do not support this resolution, but we also cannot
prevent its implementation. Therefore, we implore the
Leadership of this House to take heed of our apprehensions and
made certain that the resolution is carried out in a fair and
responsible manner.
Joe Moakley.
Tony P. Hall.
Martin Frost.
Louise McIntosh Slaughter.
A P P E N D I X
----------
Text of Education and the Workforce Committee rule adopted
on July 22, 1998:
rule 25.--interrogatories and depositions
Pursuant to an appropriate House Resolution, the Chairman,
after consultation with the ranking minority member, may order
the taking of interrogatories or depositions. Notices for the
taking of depositions shall specify the date, time, and place
of examination. Answers to interrogatories shall be answered
fully in writing under oath, and depositions shall be taken
under oath administered by a member or a person otherwise
authorized by law to administer oaths. Consultation with the
ranking minority member shall include three business days
written notice before any deposition is taken. All members
shall also receive three business days written notice that a
deposition has been scheduled.
The committee shall not initiate contempt proceedings based
on the failure of a witness to appear at a deposition unless
the deposition notice was accompanied by a committee subpoena
issued by the chairman.
Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel to
advise them of their rights. No one may be present at
depositions except members, committee staff, or committee
contractors designated by the chairman or the ranking minority
member, an official reporter, the witness, and the witness's
counsel. Observers or counsel for other persons or for agencies
under investigation may not attend.
A deposition shall be conducted by any member, committee
staff or committee contractor designated by the chairman or
ranking minority member. When depositions are conducted by
committee staff or committee contractors there shall be no more
than two committee staff or committee contractors permitted to
question a witness per round. One of the committee staff or
committee contractors shall be designated by the chairman and
the other shall be designated by the ranking minority member.
Other committee staff designated by the chairman or the ranking
minority member may attend, but are not permitted to pose a
question to the witness.
Questions in the deposition will be propounded in rounds. A
round shall include as much time as it is necessary to ask all
pending questions. In each round, a member, or committee staff
or committee contractor designated by the chairman shall ask
questions first, and the member, committee staff or committee
contractor designated by the ranking minority member shall ask
questions second.
An objection by the witness as to the form of a question
shall be noted for the record. If a witness objects to a
question and refuses to answer, the member, committee staff or
committee contractor may proceed with the deposition, or may
obtain, at that time or a subsequent time, a ruling on the
objection by telephone or otherwise from the chairman or a
member designated chairman. The committee shall not initiate
procedures leading to contempt proceedings based on a refusal
to answer a question at a deposition unless the witness refuses
to testify after an objection of the witness has been overruled
and after the witness has been ordered by the chairman or a
member designated by the chairman to answer the question.
Overruled objections shall be preserved for committee
consideration within the meaning of clause 2(k)(8) of House
Rule 11.
Committee staff shall insure that the testimony is either
transcribed or electronically recorded, or both. If a witness's
testimony is transcribed, the witness or the witness's counsel
shall be afforded an opportunity to review a copy. No later
than five calendar days thereafter, the witness may submit
suggested changes to the chairman. Committee staff may make any
typographical and technical changes requested by the witness.
Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or
amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by the
witness must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes
and a statement of the witness's reasons for each proposed
change. A letter requesting any substantive changes,
modifications, clarifications, or amendments must be signed by
the witness. Any substantive changes, modifications,
clarifications, or amendments shall be included as an appendix
to the transcript conditioned upon the witness signing the
transcript.
The individual administering the oath, if other than a
member, shall certify on the transcript that the witness was
duly sworn. Transcription and recording services shall be
provided through the House Office of the Official Reporters.
A witness shall not be required to testify unless the
witness has been provided with a copy of the committee's rules.
This rule is applicable to the committee's investigation
into the administration of labor laws by government agencies,
including the Departments of Labor and Justice, concerning the
International Brotherhood of the Teamsters and other related
matters.