[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.

                                
