March 22, 1994 last November was for a full and open hearing. That was all it was. And it was only after that request was turned down that this issue escalated in magnitude. What this represents today is the first bipartisan commitment to a bipartisan hearing. And that is all the minem ny thinly requested. One .. the real traumas of this .ssue is how to bring it to resolution. In this Member's view. it cannot be brought to resolution without fall public disclosure. That is what the minority is seeking, public disclosure. Then the issue can be put behind. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE I happen to/concur totally with the view of the President of the United States that this country wants to get on with the health care debate, they want to get on with the business of welfare reform, with crime legislation. The most propitious way to do that is to put this issue behind, bringing wit nesses, letting the public draw what conclusions it may wish, and then we are through Let me conclude by noting that the rainority is very sensitive to the rights of potential witnesses. We have no desire whatsoever to put people through a more difficult process than that which would be understandable and reasonable under the circumstance. I would also say the nainority has bent over backwards to be sensitive to the legitimate concerns of the special counsel. We have provided him witness lists in advance. We have provided him a great deal of material We have no intent nor power to offer mmunity, which is the issue that causes hearings to be difficult for potential prosecutors. With regard to learning the minority pledges decency of temper, it pledges a strict adherence to the rules of the House, and it pledges to do everything possible to be respectful of the operation of the special counsel's office. Mr. MICHELA Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Foamsylvania [Mr. CLINGER), the distinguished ranking member on our Committee on Government Operations, a committee which also has jurisdiction in this regard. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my leader for yielding me this time. I also wish to commend the majority and the minority leaders for working out this accommodation in recognition that we do as a Congress have & constitutional duty to conduct effective, aggressive oversight of the executive branch. Under the committee funding resolution which will be before later today, literally millions of taxpayer dollars are being allocated to the war Lous congressional oversight commit tees for the express purpose of conduct ing overnight of these activities, and despite the acceptance of these funds, ave not been perhaps as vigorous is regard as we should be in bringto closure an owe that has kest the country involved for way too many weeks. The current Whitewater affairs has clearly raised serious questions which need to be considered by the Congress and that go beyond frankly Whitewater self. For example. through my positica as ranking Republican on the Committee on Government Operations. Anh is principal cversight committee of the Congress. I have been reviewing some disturbing circumstances surrounding the investigation of Vince Foster's death. not to determine the cause of death or not even, frankly, to determine whether that death had any involvement with the Whitewater situation or not, but really to try and determine if there was in fact an improper impediment or interference with that investigation by the White House. So I think that the Committee on Government Operations may well have a vital role to play in the condues of any hearing on general Whitewater topics and should be included in the hearings called for by this resolution unless, or course, there is a select committee designated as a result of further discussions between the majority and minority. Let me now also mention what I really believe to be a dangerous patter I see emerging wherein the executive branch has increasingly dented information to Republican Members of Congress conducting legitimate oversight responsibilities. In turn, sefer congressional Democrats have need their committee positions to assist the executive in blocking effective oversight of the executive branch which it has been my observation increasingly te necessary. So. Mr. Speaker, we abandon our responsibilities and turn our backs on the Constitution when we allow this to happen. The American people expect as to do our jobs. I think this resetation commits us to a pattern that it will see that our job is done and effective oversight is carried out. Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gontleman from Louisiana Mr. Live STON), a member of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful we are here, but I am at a less to understand what the controversy has been about over these last several months. A resolution like this should have passed without discussion months ago. This really is not a partisan issue. But unfortunately with the stone walling of the administration and the majority party. it has become one. The mere oversight of the Madison Savings and Loan should have been routine, just as the oversight of Neil Buck and the Silverado Savings and Loan was. There is no difference, except that be cause of the consent refusal by the White House and the Democrses to investigate the mar traneous issues nase BOW BOC CXthe surface, H1811 We are bothered by the fact that the No. 2 and No. 3 attorneys at the Justice Department have resigned one in the wake of suggestions of questionable billings at his former law firm, the same firm to which the First Lady belonged, possibly for billing American taxpayers too much. He being one of the best friends of the President. we are concerned the case in which he is suggested to have overbilled, lists the First Lady as co-counsel. Now we hear the President may have underpaid his taxes, but that he took extraordinary writeoffs. We worry that the First Lady qualified herself in court as a Federal employee, but neglected to put her assets f a blind trust during the first 7 months of the Presidency, she being heralded as one of the most astute attorneys in the country. Mr. Speaker, Neil Bush's role as a passive director in a failed savings-andloss prompted congressional hearings. and so should Madison Savings and Loan, for it is all that the Bush deal was ant a very much more. We should have full disclosure and full hearings, and we should not complete those hearings natil every single question has been answered. Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time. We have an additional speaker remaining, and I would like to have that speaker clone. Mr. MICHEL Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (bars. ROUKEMA] to propound several questiens Mr. ROUTEMA I thank the gentleman from Blinois far yielding to me. I want to say I want to ask these questions as a member of the Committea on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and I want to preface my questions by saying that I want to be sure that there is no inference here that elther Mr. LEACH or any of us members. Republican members of the committee. had intruded on the proper procedures with our original request on these oversight hearings. There was certainly nothing in the requests made by Mr. LEACH that would violate the authority or the responsfotities of the special prosecutor. I want to be sure there is nothing here that has an inference as to that, but since, as I understand it-I was not in the negotiations- I understand it from this discussion, there are now proposals in this resolation that commit this House to two hearings, that that is an iron-clad commitment; that at least one hearing or a series of hear H 1812 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE ings that is going to be our proper oversight role as the Banking Committee oversight over both the integrity of the system as well as the integrity of the regulators, I believe was mentioned by one of the speakers, the previous speaker. Now, would the majority leader respond, please? Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentlewoman would yield, there is a commitment here to carry out as soon as practicable the legally authorized and required hearing in the Committee on Banking on oversight of the Resolution Trust Corporation. It is my understanding that that is probably a 2-day event. There is a hearing that is held by the majority, and then under rule XI, as I understand it, the minority has the right to conduct a hearing according to the rules of the House and the Banking Committee. And the commitment is as soon as practicable to have both of those hearings. Mrs. ROUKEMA. Is the gentleman thereby saying that the authority over the calling of witnesses will be separated according to majority and minority, or will it follow the normal practice of the committee? Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentlewoman would yield, it is my understanding that the witnesses in this type hearing are invited, that the minority has the ability to invite people to come. And then the questions and the appropriateess of the questions as you go through le hearings is determined by the procedures of the committee. Mrs. ROUKEMA. That is fine. And then the second part of the resolution makes a total commitment subject to further negotiations as to further hearings of either a special committee or some other committee designated by the House. It is very unclear as to the discussion thus far as to the composition of that committee. Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentlewoman would yield, she is quite right. It is unclear at this point the forum, it is unclear exactly how these could be structured, it is unclear as to exactly what would be included. These are all issues that have to be discussed and decided. But there is a commitment to make every attempt in good faith between the parties to work out those issues. We are not concerned about whether or not there are hearings; what we are concerned about, and the minority is concerned about, is how it is done, that it is done properly so that it does not interfere, as the resolution says, with what is the job and the responsibility of the special counsel. Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to remind the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. ROUKEMA] that we e operating under strict time limita18, and I have obligated my time e. I hope the answers have satisfied the gentlewoman's questions. If not, we will try as soon as we can to supply more information. Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALKER). Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me say that everybody on both sides of this question are acting in good faith and I think we just need to clarify what the situation is, because the legislative history on this resolution becomes extremely important. I have heard a number of caveats in what the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. GEPHARDT] was telling us. We are operating with an AP story here that says, after your meeting today. that the Speaker insisted he was not making a concession that hearings were going to take place. Now, in my view, it seems to met that we have conceded, for purposes of this resolution, that we do not know enough to know when these hearings are going to be held, we do not know enough to know how they are going to be held. But what I want to be assured of is that hearings are going to be held, comprehensive hearings are going to be held on Whitewater. Can the gentleman give me that Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman would yield. Mr. WALKER. I certainly do yield. Mr. GEPHARDT. What the Speaker was saying earlier today and what we are trying to say now is that there is a commitment to try in good faith to find the right, the appropriate way, to have hearings on Whitewater. Obviously implicit in that statement is the understanding that even after we both try in good faith to do that, that we may not be able to agree on how to do that. Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman would allow me to reclaim my time. Mr. GEPHARDT. Well, let me finish and I will give you more time. Let me finish. If that were to happen, obviously there is nothing that precludes the minority at that point, if that unforeseen thing happens, to come to the floor and ask for a resolution that would call for hearings under the circumstances which you would want to have the hearings. But you and all the Members of the House have a commitment that we will do everything in our power to try to work out those hearings appropriately. Mr. Speaker. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALKER] 2 additional minutes. Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate that. But from my perspective, the committees of the Congress with jurisdiction in the areas mentioned in this resolution al March 22, 1994 ready have all the powers they need to hold hearings. There is no doubt those hearings can be held. The Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs can schedule hearings tomorrow, the committee on Small Business can hold hearings tomorrow; all of the processes and procedures are in place already in the rules. We know, because during the 1980's there are literally dozens of hearings held during oversight of possible misfeasance or malfeasance in the administrations. So we know these things can take place. What we are seeking in this resolution is an assurance that, given all of those things, that we are going to have those hearings. that they are no longer going to be blocked by consultations with the administration: that these hearings are going to go ahead and be held. I have not heard that yet. I would be happy to yield. Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman would yield, there has been no attempt on this side to block hearings by the leadership of the House. What we have attempted to do is to figure out how to do this appropriately in coordination with the special counsel, now that we have a special counsel. Mr. WALKER. I would say to the gentleman that the chairman of the Committee on Banking. Finance and Urban Affairs came to the floor one day and assured this gentleman in a colloquy on the floor that there were going to be hearings held in his committee. Within a matter of hours he had backed off of that. ☐ 1540 The newspaper stories at that time said that he backed off it after consultations with the leadership on the gentleman's side. Now maybe the stories were completely wrong, but I have to assume that somewhere that kind of dialogue took place. But he backed off on what he promised this gentleman on the floor that day. Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, let me review again what I think is being committed in this resolution: First, that the hearings which the gentleman just talked about in the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs will take place as soon as practicable Mr. WALKER. No, we were going to have those hearings, and then he also promised comprehensive hearings on Whitewater would be held. Mr. GEPHARDT. I am reviewing now what is in the resolution. That is first. Second, the gentleman is right, that there are other committees that have other fragments and pieces of this fact situation that will be dealt with in other committees under their own rules. As the gentleman stated, the Committee on Small Business has already taken something with regard to a GAO report today. Finally, there is a commitment again to try to find a way to have a more comprehensive set of hearings in an ap March 22, 1994 propriate way, hopefully in one forum, but we have not addressed that question yet, but in one forum that can go forward under a time schedule and under a procedure that is agreeable, and makes sense to both sides, and makes sense to the special prosecutor. Mr. WALKER. So the gentleman is telling me that the newspaper story here is wrong, that the Speaker was not saying when he said, "a concession, that he was not making, a concession that hearings are going to take place." He is saying that that is a misstatement of the situation and that in fact this resolution is predicated on a good-faith belief that hearings will be held. Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, maybe it is a difference of interpretation. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DE LA GARZA). The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. WALKER] has expired. Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that perhaps it is a difference in interpretation of the words of the Speaker. I believe, again, the commitment is ironclad that there will be an attempt made, a very serious attempt in good faith, to try to find a way in the proper forum, at the proper time, in the proper sequencing, in coordination with the special prosecutor, to have comprehensive hearings that will ut all the facts on the table. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. GEPHARDT). Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HYDE]. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 1 minute. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this resolution, but I just want to say I regret keenly that we are giving up in this resolution the right to immunize witnesses. We should be very jealous of our prerogatives and the right of oversight by Congress rests in the constitution. It may well be to properly fulfill our constitutional duty of oversight we might have to give immunity to some witness. I hope not, and I think that can be agreed upon by people on this investigating committee. But why do we yield to Mr. Fiske whose job is to prosecute, search out, investigate and report on whether criminal activity has occurred? Our job is to oversee how this institution worked and how the people worked it, and it may be that we will need to 't immunity to somebody. . Speaker, we should be jealous of powers just as the President is jealous of executive privilege. All Presidents have resisted the War Powers Act. I say to my, colleagues, you don't CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE That may be just a slight point, but Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker. I yield Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker. I support the resolution, and I would like to make clear the basis. First, we have had two sets of accusations. Many of us felt that the first set really did not really rise to the level requiring a full investigation. We have been talking to some extent about events involving regulations of a savings and loan institution during the mid-1980's. We ought to be very clear when people talk about whether there has been any abuse within the administration, that with regard to those events, Madison Savings and Loan, Whitewater, et cetera, that no member of the Clinton administration was then holding Federal office. Any failure at that time to protect the interests of the Federal Government presumably will be laid at the door of the hearings of the people then in office, the appointees of President Reagan and, subsequently, the appointees of President Bush. I did believe that we have had in this Congress sufficient airing of those periods. If people want to go back to them later, I see no harm to it. It did seem to me that a new set of issues arose when people alleged that reach a certain level of decibel that it Now we ought to be very clear. Hear ings are not a sign that something definitely has gone wrong. I think an analogy of the independent counsel statute is important. I have always felt that was important, both to find out where there was wrongdoing' and to give the appropriate exoneration where wrongdoing was inaccurately charged, and one of the advantages of the independent counsel is that the independent counsel can give that exoneration with a degree of credibility that the President's own party could not give. I regard hearings now as a similar opportunity. I welcome the chance to have hearings. Frankly we have heard even on the floor today references to two people resigning in the Justice Department when obviously one has nothing to do with anything remotely comparable here. An innuendo. an inference perhaps, because of billing practices that happened because the First Lady was in the same firm. I welcome the chance to set these straight but I do think we H1813 have to talk about the role of the special counsel. Many of us believe that there was not a sufficient legal basis to trigger the appointment of a special counsel. but the administration. I think sensibly to lean over backwards, appointed one at the request of the Republican leadership, and now the special counsel. a Repointee of Republican administrations. publican, an appointee, a would-be aphaving said, "It will interfere with the investigation you asked me to have if think we are on to that, and I would you have a certain kind of hearing": I differ with my friend, the gentleman from Пlinois. We appointed the special counsel. The President asked that a special counsel be appointed because the Republicans asked that we have him. To interfere now with the special counsel to do things that the special counsel said would be an interference with his ability to do his job lays down the groundwork later on for discrediting the special counsel. Having asked for one, having gotten one, it seems to me that consistency and fairness require that the special counsel be allowed to do his job without any interference. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I agree perfectly with everything the gentleman from Massachusetts said. I just formally do not like to yield a prerogative that is ours. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge what the gentleman from Illinois said, He might not disagree in a specific instance, but let me say to my friend, by making that tion on which we vote I don't think we decision about immunity in a resolugive away any of our prerogatives. I don't think we're suggesting we give them to anybody else, and I gather we do agree in the given instance given the circumstances of the appointment of this special counsel to do things which he said would interfere, and, as we know, it's not just immunity that can interfere, but it is witnesses hearing what other witnesses say, it is having things done in public which ought to be done in private, it is having interviews at one level when they are being conducted privately at another. I do think that it is very important, given the circumstances of this special counsel when he was appointed, that we not be interfering with what the special counsel does, and, therefore, I think it is appropriate that the resolution says we will work together, both sides, in good faith to come up with a format for hearings that will not interfere with the special counsel because, having appointed him, having led to having put pressure on to appoint him. having seen his appointment, now to undercut him now I think would be an illegitimate action. Therefore, the resolution seems to Heller me to be appropriately done. Finally, let me say that people who ay that the chairman of the Banking Committee was somehow under the direction of the leadership have appar ently never worked with the chairman of the Banking Committee. We may disagree with him, but his integrity and his commitment to fairness, as he sees fit, and his independence ought not to be things that anyone would question. Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Hetuer Hinober Hobeca Hekstra Hoke Holden McDate Bestore Schaefer Schroeder Sensenbreaper Serrano Schi McNulty Mechan Hochbrueckner Sharp Michel Shaw Hora Houghton Hoyer Haster Hutchinson Hutto Hyde The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. DE LA GARZA). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Inst Missouri (Mr. GEPHARDT] that the Istook House suspend the rules and agree to. the resolution, H. Res. 394. The question was taken. Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I object Johnso to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 408, nays 15, not voting 10, as follows: Mollobas Montgomery Moran Skarys Skelton Blattery Slaughter Morella Murphy Smith (NJ) YEAS 408 Peterson (FL) Thiers Calvert Camp Emerson Engel Peterson (MN) Petri Pickett Pickle Lambert Pembo Lancaster Pomeroy Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House in accordance with this primary expense resolution not more than the amount specified in section 2 for investigations and studies by sach committee named in such section, including expenses→→→ (1) in the case of a committee named in section 3, for procurement of consultant services under section 212(1) of the Legisla Live Reorganization Act of 1948; and (2) in the case of a committee named in section 4. for provision of assistance for members of professional staff in obtaining specialized training under section 202(1) of such Act. SEC. 2. The committees and amounts referred to in the first section are: Committee on Agriculture, $2.257 337; Committee on Armed Services, $2.689.197: Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, 34,188,650, Committee on the District of Columbia, $342,035; Committee on Education and Labor, $4,238,064; Committee on Energy and Commerce, 38,808,907: Committee on Foreign Affairs, $4,145,214: Committee on Goverament Operations, $3,282,875; Committee on House Administration, $1,994,288; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, $104,500, Committee on the Judiciary. $2,734,853; Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, $2,395,679; Committee on Natural Resources, $2,243,085; Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, $1,889,736; Committee on Public Works and Transportation. $3.170.885; Committee on Rules, 5722.479. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, $2,950,438; Committee on Small Business, $1,073,000; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $100,000; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $827.034; and Committee on Ways and Means, $5,070,000. SEC. 3. (a) of the amounts provided for in section 2, each 'committee named in subsection (b) may use not more than the amount specified in such subsection for consultant services under paragraph (1) of the first section. (b) The committees and amounts referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $12,000; Committee on Armed Services, $40,000, Committee on the District of Columbia, $8,000, Confrmittee on Education |