H 1810 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE special counsel-without granting immunity to those who testify-and without crossing the line that separates the ople's priorities from party politics. believe we will reach such an agree at, in good faith and with due speed. Then we can get back and now we should 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, not of a handful of would-be prosecutors, but of the good people we were elected to serve, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. cles were placed in his way. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. LEACH) has brought dignity, intelligence, and fair ness to the process for which we are indebted to him. Mr. Speaker. I include with my remarks a list of the number of congressional investigations that have taken place since 1981. as follows: CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS 1981: William Casey, CIA. 1982 EPA. Superfund: EPA. private meetings. 1983: John Fedders, SEC; OSHA, Office of VP. 1984: Hugh Reilly, NLRB: Charles Wick, USIA. 1985: Victor Thompson, Synthetic Fuels Charles Wick. USIA "Blacklist". Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker. I yield Corporation. Synthetic Fuels Corporation; 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 committes funding resolution to provide for an investigation and hold appropriate hearings on Whitewater. But after discussions this morning in the Speaker's office, we agreed on this resolution 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 he public's right to know the gs of its Government. This is Le 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. Berious allegations have been raised about the potential misuse of Government funds in various Federal programs as well as other ethical improprieties. The New York Times in the Sunday edition stated the case well: 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 its 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 nis job and not ours. These congres sional hearings are not about criminal iability but about the proper. legitinate role of Congress is oversight. And may I say, finally, that we all we a deep debt of gratitude to one of ur own Members, the gentleman from own Mr. LEACH), our ranking member mmittee on Banking, Finance a Affairs, who has done so pursue the constitutional duty { congressional oversight when no one as interested and when many obsta 1906: HUD Influence Peddling ΕΡΑ. Superfund: Walter Lenaham, Textile Imports: Robert Buford, BLM: Iran Contra 1987: Michael Deaver, Joseph Wright. OMB; Iran Contra. Me, DOJ. 1988: Ambassador Faith Whittlesey: Edwin 1989. June Koch, HUD. 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 hearings that would be reasonable with regard to this matter. O 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 reaolution like this involves issues where there are some conflicting crosscur rents. The most important conflicting lic to know and the obligation of Mr. crosscurrents are the right of the pubFlake to conduct a full and fair inves 1900. Wedtech Corporation; Silverado tigation. And those do conflict at Banking. 1982 October Surprise: Competitiveness Council: Columbus Quincentenary Commision. 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 RTC oversight hearing that is man dated by law? Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? times, not just on the issue of immunity which the resolution handles, but as any prosecutor can tell you, he cer tainly 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 conflict here, and that is the public's certain right, a right which we all support, to find out what is going on. But at the same time, the conflict Mr. MICHEL. I yield to the gen- being the political overtones to this tleman from Missouri. where the motives of both sides are Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, the doubted. And I think this resolution answer is yes. deals with those two conflicts very Mr. MICHEL. Do we have any idea of well. when that might be scheduled? Mr. GEPHARDT. I would say to the gentleman that it would be scheduled as soon as practicable, in consultation with all of the people on the commit tee, and the chairman of the committee, and the ranking member and the Members on both sides. Mr. MICHEL. And it is my under standing from previous conversations that we have had that the minority will be allowed a day of witnesses as 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. So I would salute the majority leader and the minority leader and the House Mr. MICHEL. I thank the distin- leadership on both sides of the aisle for guished majority leader. 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 Field 3 minutes to the distinguished genItleman from Iowa [Mr. LEACH). Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker. I thank the distinguished leader for yielding me 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 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 Flake. So 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 hearing That was all it was. And it was only after that request was turned down that this issue escalated in magrude What this represents today is the first bipartisan commitment to a tipartisan beamng. And that is all the any requested One The tra traumas of this asce 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. 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 witnesses, letting the public draw what conclusions it may wish, and then we are through CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE Let me conclude by noting that the minority is very sensitive to the rights of potential witnesses. We have no de stre whatsoever to put people through ■ more difficult process than that which would be understandable and reasonable under the circumstance. I would also say the retortty has beat over backwards to be sensitive to the legitimate concerns of the special conmsel. We have provided him witness lists in advance. We have provided him a great deal of material We have no intent ner pewer 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 piedges to do everything possible to be respectful of the operation of the special counsel's office. The current Whitewater affairs has clearly raised serious questions which need to be considered by the Congress and that go beyond frankly Whitewater For example, through my position as ranking Republican on the Committee on Government Operations. Arnis principal cversight committee of the Congress. I have been reviewing some disturbing circumstances surreading 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 tmproper 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 new also mention what I real ly believe to be a dangerous patter I see emerging wherein the executive branch has increasingly denied infor mation to Republican Members of Congress conducting legitimate oversight responsibilities. In turn seater congresstonal 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 to secessary. 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_commits us to a pattern that it will see that our job is done and effective over Mr. MICHEL, Mr. Speaker. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Fem-sight is carried out. sylvania (Mr. CLINGER), the detinguished ranking member on our Committee on Government Operations, a committee which aise has furisdiction in this regard. Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I Field 3 minutes to the distinguhked rontleman from Louisiana Dr. Levavegrow), a member of the Committee on Appropriations. r. LIVINGSTON asired and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks) 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 Dr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am out this accommodation in recognition grateful we are here. but I am at a loss that we do as a Congress have a con-understand what the controversy stitutional duty to conduct effective, aggressive oversight of the executive branch. Under the committee funding rese tion which will be before today, literally millions of ta dollars are being allocated to the Lone compressional oversight tees for the express parpoor ing overnight of those acti despite the acceptance of has been about over these last several A resolution like this should have Bus anfortunately with the sowalling of the adrefnistration and the majority party. It has become one. The mere oversight of the Madison Savings and and Loan should have been routine, t so the oversight of Net! Beck and the Silverado Saving and Lear was There is no difference. except that be cause of the constant real by the White House and the Democrams to investigate threw 100 extrameons issues to the surface. ave not been perhaps is regard as we should be bringto closure an owe that has kept the country involved for way too many weeks H1811 like suggestions of shredding of docu. nant administration counsel wo 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 arm to which the First Lady belonged, possibly for billing American taxpayers too much Re 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 quali fed herself in court as a Federal employee, but neglected to put her assets te 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 pasive director in a fadled savings-andloss prompted congressional hearings. and so should Madison Savings and Loan, for it is all that the Bush deal vas and an very much more. We should have full disclosure and full hearings, and we should not complete those hearings until every single question has born Amewered. M. CEPHARDE. Mr. Speaker. 1 reserve my time. We have a adettiera.l spanker remaking, and I would Lire to have thes aker closs. Mr. MICHEL Mc. Spealser. I rield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Jerses (bers. ROUKEMA] to preyound savezal questiana. Min BOUKEMA I thank the geatleman from Hlinaia for yielding to me. I want to say 3 want to ask these questions as a member of the Committes en 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 prosedures 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 responfufifties of the special prosecutor. I want to be sure there is nothing here that has an inferens se to that, but since, as I understand tt-I was not in the negotiation or I understand it from this discussion, there are DOW proposals for this resofation that comft this House to twe hearings, that that is an iron-cied commitment; that at least one hearing or a series of hear H 1810 special counsel-without granting immunity to those who testify-and without crossing the line that separates the ople's priorities from party politics. believe we will reach such an agreeat, in good faith and with due speed. Then we can get back and now we should 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, not of a handful of would-be prosecutors, but of the good people wo were elected to serve, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. cles were placed in his way. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. LEACH) has brought dignity, intelligence, and fair ness to the process for which we are indebted to him. Mr. Speaker. I include with my remarks a list of the number of congressional investigations that have taken place since 1981, as follows: CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS 1981: William Casey, CLA 1982: EPA. Superfund; EPA, private meetings. 1983: John Fedders, SEC; OSHA, Office of VP. 1904: Hugh Reilly. NLRB: Charles Wick. USIA. 1985: Victor Thompson, Synthetic Fuels Mr. MICHEL Mr. Speaker. I yield Corporation. Synthetic Fuels Corporation; myself such time as I may consume. Charles Wick. USIA "Blacklist". (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 committee funding resolution to provide for an investigation and hold appropriate hearings on Whitewater. But after discussions this morning in the Speaker's office, we agreed on this resolution 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 he public's right to know the gs of its Government. This is e 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. The New York Times in the Sunday edition stated the case well: 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 its 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 nis job and not ours. These congres sional hearings are not about criminal iability but about the proper. legitinate role of Congress is oversight. And may I say, finally, that we all we a deep debt of gratitude to one of ur own Members, the gentleman from owa (Mr. LEACH), our ranking member nmittee on Banking, Finance a Affairs, who has done so 13CL - pursue the constitutional duty { congressional oversight when no one as interested and when many obsta 1905: HUD Influence Peddling: EPA. Superfund: Walter Lenaham. Textile Imports: Robert Buford, BLM: Iran Contra 1987: Michael Deaver, Joseph Wright, OMB; Iran Contra. 1988: Ambassador Faith Whittlesey: Edwin Me, DOJ. 1989: June Koch, HUD. 1883: October Surprise: Competitiveness Council; Columbus Quincentenary Commission. March 22, 1994 that is our commitment. Our commitment is to in good faith try to find a way to have the kind of hearings 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 crosscurrenta. The most important conflicting crosscurrents are the right of the publie to know and the obligation of Mr. Fiske to conduct a full and fair inves 1900: Wedtech Corporation: Silverado tigation. And those do conflict at Banking. times, not just on the issue of immunity which the resolution handles, but as any prosecutor can tell you, he cer tainly 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 conflict here, and that is the public's certain right, a right which we all support, to find out what is going on. 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 RTC oversight hearing that is mandated by law? Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MICHEL. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri. But at the same time, the conflict being the political overtones to this where the motives of both sides are Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, the doubted. And I think this resolution answer is yes. deals with those two conflicts very Mr. MICHEL. Do we have any idea of well. when that might be scheduled? Mr. GEPHARDT. I would say to the gentleman that it would be scheduled as soon as practicable, in consultation with all of the people on the committee, and the chairman of the committee, and the ranking member and the 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 as 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. So I would salute the majority leader and the minority leader and the House Mr. MICHEL. I thank the distin- leadership on both sides of the aisle for guished majority leader. 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 night schedule, and in conjunction with Ms Flake. 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. LEACH). 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 mag situde. What this represents today s the first bipartisan commitment to a Siparian beamng. And that is all the * requested. That traumas of this sce 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. 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 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE Let me conclude by noting that the minerity is very sensitive to the rights of potential witnesses. We have no de stre whatsoever to put people through ■ more difficult process than that which would be understandable and reasonable under the circumstance. I would also say the ratnority has beat over backwards to be sensitive to the legitimate concerns of the special cenamel. We have provided him witness lista in advance. We have provided him a great deal of material We have no intent or 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 so 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 actinguished 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 offestive, aggressive oversight of the cuecutive branch. Under the committee funding resolution which will be before m today, literally millions of p dollars are being allocated to the war ing overnight of these activ despite the acceptance of th ve not been perhaps an is regard as we should b to closure an iwe th the country involved fer way weeks. The current Whitewater affairs has clearly raised serious questions which need to be considered by the Congress and that go beyond frankly Whitewater SUT For example. through my posi0:0 as ranking Republican on the Committee on Government Operations. AT: Principal oversight committee of the Congress. I have been reviewing some disturbing circumstances reanding 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 aftuation or not, but really to try and determine if there was in fact an tmproper impedimens 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 new also mention what I really believe to be a dangerous patter I see emerging wherein the executive branch has increasingly denied taformation to Republican Members of Congress conducting legitimate oversight responsibilities. In turn, senter cengresatonal Democrats have used their committee positions to assist the executive in blocking effective oversight of the executive branch which is has been my observation increasingly secessary. So. Mr. Speaker, we abandon our responsibilities and turn our backs on the Constitution when we allow this to happen. H 1811 like suggestions of shredding of docu ments, improper SBA loads. STOL!. deals withholding of information to the RTC. from the FBI. and m IRS. sealed autopsy and death tition documents renting rant administration counsel alleged to have been working on pr.vate affairs of the President. 15.30 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 arm to which the First Lady belonged, possibly for billing American taxpayers too much. He being one of the best friends of the Presidert. we are concerned the case in which he is suggested to have overbulled. lists the First Lady as co-counsel. Now we hear the President may have underpaid mis taxes, but that he took extraordinary writeoff. We worry that the First Lady quali fled herself in court as a Federal employee, but neglected to put her assets to 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, Nell Bush's role as a passive director in a failed savings-andhas prompted congressional hearings. and so should Madison Savings and Loan, for it all that the Bush deal was and vary much more. We should have full disclosure and full hearings, and we should not complete those rings until every single question has beer answered. Mr. GEPRARDI. Mr. Spicer, 1 reserve my time. We are a additional spakker remaking, and I would like to have that speaker aloes. The American people expect is to do our jobs. I think this recoration com- Mz. MICH. Mc. Sysainer. I field mits us to a pattern that it will see such time as she may consume so the that our job is done and effective ever-gaatiomonman from New Jerses [Mrs. sight in carried out. ROUKEMA) to propound savezni questiens Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished contleman from Louisiana Mr. Leversgrow), a member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. LIVINGSTON msired 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 understand what the controversy has been about over these last several months. A resolution like this should have passed without discussion meat.he agu. This really is not a partisan issue. Bus anfortunately with the stonewalling of the adrefnietration and the majority party. It has become one. The mere oversight of the Madison Savings and Lown should have been routine, ds, so the oversight of Net? Bush and the Silverado Savings and Lou was There is no differson, except that be cause of the consent reanal by the White House ard the Democrats to favestigate thre❤ BEW 100 extraneous issues as to the surface. Mrs ROUKEMA I thank the gantleman from Elinaia 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. LEACE 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 LEACH that sponsibilities of the special prosecutor. I want to be sure there is nothing here that her an inferem as to that, but stuce, as I understand, 20-I was not in the negotiatio I understand it from this discomfen, there are now proposals for the resofation that com fs this House to two hearings, that that is an fron-ched 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 appropriate ess of the questions as you go through Je 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 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 operating under strict time limita28, and I have obligated my time .e. I hope the answers have satisfied che gentlewoman's questions. If not, we will try as soon as we can to supply more information. Mrs. ROUKEMA. If the answer concurs with what the gentleman understands. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DE LA GARZA). The Chair would advise the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. ROUKEMA) that the gentleman from Dlinois (Mr. MICHEL) has control of the time. Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. WALKER). Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. sides of this question are acting in Let me say that everybody on both 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 have hearings on Whitewater. Obvifind the right, the appropriate way, to ously 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 bearings 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. tion is an assurance that, given all of What we are seeking in this resoluthose 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 sto to assume that somewhere that kind of ries were completely wrong, but I have 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 |