March 22, 1994

where a couple of those amendments would literally have no time at all for debate.

Mr. KILDEE. If the gentleman will continue to yield. I would ask the gentleman if he would be willing to have 1 hour of debate on each amendment?

Mr. WALKER. I wish the gentleman would withhold the request until we have had a chance to check that out with the Members who offered the various amendments. It may well be that when we come back into session the next time, we could agree to that and agree to a time limitation at that point. I am concerned that we do not understand at this point whether or not that would be sufficient time for various Members to debate their amendments

Mr. KILDEE. We may very well not come back until after the Easter recess. The gentleman understands that?

Mr. WALKER. However, at that point. certainly, the gentleman at that time could raise a time limit request that would have been thoroughly talked through with the Members who have potential amendments on the floor.

Mr KILDEE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, my only point would be that it would be easier to go back to the floor if we know how much time was to be consumed so the leadership could make plans accordingly.

1510 ם

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, as I would understand it, you could in fact get permission in the full House at some other time to do that kind of time limitation. once it is agreed to. But as far as I know, we have not consulted with the Members on our side of the aisle as to whether or not an hour

of time would be sufficient for them. It may well be in some cases that is more than enough time. But I do not know that to be the case and so, therefore, at this time I would have to object.

Mr. KILDEE. I understand.

birth to low birthweight intants, compared to indiana's average of 6.7 percent of berths being low birthweight. The savings to the Med card system from this program are estimated at over $4 million. In addition, these teens are more likely to stay in school while pregnant and return to school after they give birth, gav ing them a better chance of obtaining a job that would make them sell-sufficient

We cannot ignore the fact that teen preg nancy is a senous problem in our country. However, it can be addressed constructively by improving their chances of having healthy babes, staying in school and becoming contributing members of society. Everyone benefits from programs such as this and I am pleased to support the inclusion of programs like "Have a Healthy Baby" in H.R. 6. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman. I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. DE LA GARZA) having assumed the chair. Mr. DARDEN, Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6) to extend for 6

years the authorizations of appropriations for the programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and for certain other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION ΤΟ CONDUCT OVERSIGHT OF MATTERS RELATING TO OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 394) to express the sense of the House that Congress has a constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of matters relating to the operations of the Government. The Clerk read as follows:

H. Br. 394

Resolved. That it is the Sense of the House

The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. DAR- of Representatives that DEN). Objection is heard.

Ms. LONG. Mr. Chairman, we are all aware of the link between education and earning potential-the more you learn, the more you eam. In order to increase the potential that the youth of our Nation complete high school, we need to take preventive steps to ensure that those most at-risk of dropping out-pregnant teens-are given the support they need to stay in school

A program currently operating in Indians has successfully addressed the needs of preg nant teens and, as a result, has increased the birthweight of their babies and improves the potential that they will return to high school after they give birth. This program, the "Have a Healthy Baby program, focuses on prenatal nuthton and wise lifestyle choices for preg nant teens and adults. It is taught in 138 high schools in Indians and is designed to address the issues of daily nutritional choices and the relationship of life-style choices, such as drugs, alcohol and smoking, which affect the hearth of the baby. Only 2.6 percent of the 1,716 females enrolled in the program gave

(a) Congress has a Constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of matters relating to the operations of the government, including matters related to any governmental investigations which may, from time to time, be undertaken.

(b) The Speaker. Majority and Minority Leaders should meet to determine the appro priate timetable, procedures, and forum for

appropriate Congressional oversight, including bearings on all matters related to "Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association

(MGS&L), Whitewater Development Corporation and Capital Management Services Inc. ("CMS")."

(c) No witness called to testify at these bearings shall be granted immunity under

sections 8002 and 8005 of Title 18, United States Code, over the objection of Special

Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

(d) The hearings should be structured and sequenced in such a manner that in the judgment of the Leaders they would not interfere with the ongoing investigation of Special Counsel Robert B. Piske, Jr.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. GEPHARDT) will be recog

H 1809

nized for 20 minutes. and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr MICHEL) will be recognized for 20 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. GEPHARDT).

Mr. GEPHARDT Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker. this is a resolution presented by the gentleman from Dlinois [Mr. MICHEL) and myself. It is a sense of the House resolution. It says that the Congress has a constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of matters relating to the operations of the Government, including matters relating to any governmental investigations which may from time to time be undertaken. It states that the Speaker, the majority and the minority leader should meet to determine the appropriate timetable, procedures, and forum for appropriate congressional oversight. including bearings on all matters related to Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, Whitewater Development Corp., and Capital Management Services, Inc.

It further states that no witness called to testify shall be granted immunity under certain sections of the United States Code over the objections of the special counsel. Robert Fiske.

Finally, it says that the hearings should be structured and sequenced in such a manner that in the judgment of the leaders, they would not interfere with the ongoing investigation of the special counsel. Mr. Piske.

Over the past days and weeks, there have been a number of allegations lodged. there has been a great deal of

speculation about the Whitewater Development Corp. and the facts sur rounding that corporation. And I might add that that speculation is not unimportant. The American people have the right to know the facts. Congress has an obligation to try to provide those facts.

But we also have an obligation to ensure that our three-branch Government does not become a three-ring circus.

We have an obligation to ensure that we find the facts without all the partisan fingerpointing that only distracts us from the real business of the people.

That is why the minority leader and I have submitted this resolution. Because while we cannot ignore Whitewater, neither can we allow it to flood this Chamber.

There is a special counsel in place. An independent, objective, and seemingly Republican-leaning special counsel.

He is doing his work, carefully and thoughtfully, and I think in quick

time.

And there is a role for congressional oversight as well. Congressional oversight that does not interfere with the special counsel's work. Congressional oversight that is vigilant about the facts, and fair in its methods.

Both parties have now agreed to sit down, and try to find the best way to structure such oversight hearingswithout compromising the work of the

83-009 0-95-14

II 1810

special counsel without granting immunity to those who testify-and without crossing the line that separates the people & priorities from party politics.

I believe we will reach such as agreement in good faith and with due speed.

Then we can get back and Dow we abowd get back to the real work we were sent here to do guaranteeing health care for all Americans: keeping our economy on the path to growth and progress and improving the general welfare. Dot of a bandful of would-be prosecutors, but of the good people we were elected to serve.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr MICHEL Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.) Mr. MICHEL Mr. Speaker, as the distinguished majority leader indicated. we are cosponsoring this resolution today. Originally I had intended to offer a motion to recommit the com

mittee funding resolution to provide

for an investigation and hold appropriate bearings on Whitewater. But after discussions this morning in the Speaker's office, we agreed on this reaolution which is in the same language as was adopted in the other body some time ago.

Today the House is expressing the need for oversight and hearings, and today the House is expressing its right and the public's right to know the workings of its Government. This is but the first step in establishing procedures and guidelines for congressional oversight hearings, but it is very meaningful that we are here at this point.

Congress has a constitutional mandate to oversee the programs that it enacts into law. Serious allegations have been raised about the potential misuse of Government funds in various Federal programs as well as other ethical improprieties.

Mr. Speaker. if I might at this time ask the distinguished majority leader several questions to be perfectly clear here, is the Democratic leadership committed to holding the previous BTC oversight hearing that is mandated by law?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

March 22, 1994

that is our commitment Our commit ment is to in good faith try to find a way to have the kind of bearings that would be reasonable with regard to this

matter.

□ 1520

Mr. MICHEL Mr. Speaker. I thank the distinguished gentleman

Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEPHARDT Mr Speaker. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr SCHUMER)

Mr. SCHUMER Mr. Speaker. I thank the majority leader for yielding me this time. and I thank the majority leader and the minority leader for working this out.

Let me just say that obviously a resolution like this involves issues where there are some conflicting crosscurrents. The most important conflicting crosscurrents are the right of the public to know and the obligation of Mr. Fiske to conduct a full and fair investigation. And those do condict at times, not just on the issue of immunity which the resolution handles, but as any prosecutor can tell you, be certainly does not want his witnesses to state their full point of view before the public before he gets a chance to present the case. examine them. et cetera. So you have that conflicting. and then you have another confict here, and that is the public's certain right, a right which we all support, to and out what is going on.

deals with those two conflicts very

Whitewater raises at least two important policy issues that fall within the oversight authority of the House and Senate Banking Committees. One involves the integrity of the banking system, the other the integrity of it regulators.

That is what congressional oversight is all about, and that is the intent here.

Let me be clear about one point. Special Prosecutor Fiske is investigating potential criminal wrongdoing. That is his job and not ours. These congressional hearings are not about criminal liability but about the proper, legitimate role of Congress is oversight.

And may I say, finally, that we all owe a deep debt of gratitude to one of our own Members, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. LEACH), our ranking member on the Committee on Banking. Finance and Urban Affairs, who has done so much to pursue the constitutional duty of congressional oversight when no one was interested and when many obsta

Members on both sides.

Mr. MICHEL. And it is my understanding from previous conversations that we have had that the minority will be allowed a day of witnesses 25 provided under rule XI, is that correct? Mr. GEPHARDT. The gentleman is correct.

The public will have the right to find out what goes on, and yet it will not interfere with Mr. Fiske's obligation to turn over every stone and prosecute or investigate this case to the fullest and take it where it leads.

Second, by allowing that to happen. I think we also clear the air of some of the partisan overtones that have occurred in the last few days, and really do not bring credit not only to this House but do not affirm the public's view that everything will be unveiled.

Does this resolution therefore then. I would ask the majority leader, put the House on record as being committed to holding hearings, realizing that the timing, procedure, and other matters still have to be worked out?

Mr. GEPHARDT. As the Speaker I believe stated in the meeting. and probably later in the press conference that the gentleman was able to have with him, our commitment is in good faith, and in consultation with the minority leadership and others in the minority to try to find the right way of having hearings. the right schedule. and in conjunction with Mr. Fiske. So

coming together with this resolution. as was mentioned, very similar to the Senate resolution, which does. I think. ably deal with both sets of conflicts. I urge support for it.

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. L&ACH). Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished leader for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker. I rise for several purposes. One. I would like to commend the leadership of the majority for reaching the conclusion it did.

I would stress here that the first and major request that the minority made

March 22, 1994

last November was for a full and open bearing. 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 sunority initially requested.

One of the real traumas of this issue is how to bring it to resolution. In this Member's view, it cannot be brought to resolution without full public disclosure. That is what the minority is seeking public disclosure. Then the issue can be put behind.

I happen to concur totally with the new 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 minority is very sensitive to the rights of potential witnesses. We have no de sire 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 minority 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 Immunity, 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. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (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 a constitutional duty to conduct effective, aggressive oversight of the executive branch.

Under the committee funding resolution which will be before us later today. literally millions of taxpayer dollars are being allocated to the var ious congressional oversight commit tees for the express purpose of conducting oversight of these activities, and despite the acceptance of these funds, we have not been perhaps as vigorous in this regard as we should be in bringing to closure an issue that has kept 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 itself. For example, through my position as ranking Republican on the Committee on Government Operations, which is principal oversight 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 conduct of any hearing on general Whitewater topics and should be included in the bearings 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 denied information to Republican Members of Congress conducting legitimate oversight responsibilities. In turn, senior congressional Democrats have used their committee positions to assist the executive in blocking effective oversight of the executive branch which it has been my observation increasingly is 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 us to do

our jobs. I think this resolution com

mits 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 gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. LIVINGSTON), 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 loss 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 stonewalling 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 Bush and the Silverado Savings and Loan was. There is no difference, except that because of the constant refusal by the White House and the Democrats to investigate this matter, we now see extraneous issues rising to the surface,

H 1811

like suggestions of shredding of documents. improper SBA loans sweetheart deals. withholding of information from the RTC. from the FBI. and from the IRS. sealed autopsy and death investigation documents regarding a prominent administration counsel who was alleged to have been working on pr vate affairs of the President.

☐ 1530

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 qualifiled herself in court as a Pederal employee, but neglected to put her assets in 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-andloan prompted congressional hearings. and so should Madison Savings and Loan, for it is all that the Bush deal was and so very much more.

We should have full disclosure and full hearings, and we should not complete those hearings until every single question has been answered.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker. I reserve my time. We have one additional speaker remaining, and I would like to have that speaker close.

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. ROUKEMA] to propound several questions.

Mrs. ROUKEMA. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding to me.

I want to say I want to ask these questions as a member of the Committee 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 responsibilities 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 as I understand it from this discussion, there are now proposals in this resolution 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

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 re

spond, 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 bearing that is held by the majority, and then under rule XI, as I understand it. the minority has the night 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 bearings.

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 appropriate ness of the questions as you go through the 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 composi

tion 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 bearings; 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 are operating under strict time limitations, and I have obligated my time here. 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 bearings are going to be held. comprehensive bearings 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. Obviunderstanding that even after we both ously implicit in that statement is the 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 bearings. 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 bold hearings. There is no doubt those bearings can be held. The Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs can schedule bearings tomorrow the committee on Small Business can hold bearings 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 bearings that they are no longer going to be blocked by consultations with the administration. that these bearings 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 bearings 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 door 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