[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1994]
[Wednesday, March 2, 1994 (16), Para 16.10 Privileges of the House--House of Representatives Post Office]
[Pages 204-205]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Para. 16.10 privileges of the house--house of representatives post
office
Mr. GEPHARDT, rose to a question of the privileges of the House and
submitted the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 375):
Whereas the House is on notice pursuant to Rule IX that it
may soon consider a proposal to direct the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct to investigate the former
operations of the House Post Office;
Whereas matters relating to the former operations of the
House Post Office are the subject of an ongoing criminal
investigation by the United States Attorney of the District
of Columbia;
Whereas pursuant to its rules, the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct traditionally defers inquiry with respect
to a matter that is the subject of an ongoing in-
[[Page 205]]
vestigation by an appropriate law enforcement or regulatory
authority;
Whereas the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has
on several occasions agreed to defer inquiry with respect to
the former operations of the House Post Office, and has
deferred inquiry in other matters regarding current Members
where investigations by other authorities are proceeding;
Whereas by letters of November 25, 1992, September 9, 1993,
and October 26, 1993, then Assistant Attorney General Lee
Rawls, then United States Attorney J. Ramsey Johnson, and
current United States Attorney Eric Holder, respectively,
requested that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
defer any inquiry into the former operations of the House
Post Office and related matters;
Whereas on February 23, 1994, the United States Attorney of
the District of Columbia delivered the following letter to
the Speaker and the Republican Leader:
Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, February 23, 1994.
Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker, House of Representaties, Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert H. Michel,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker and Congressman Michel: I am writing to
express my concern that certain actions reportedly being
considered by the House of Representatives could
significantly damage a criminal investigation being actively
pursued by this Office. Like my two immediate predecessors as
United States Attorney for this District, Jay B. Stephens and
J. Ramsey Johnson, I urge the House to refrain from such
actions, and to affirm the paramount public interest in
permitting the grand jury to determine fairly whether the
criminal laws have been violated, whether by Members of
Congress or others. My request is all the more urgent now, as
this important investigation is in its final stages and will
be concluded in the near future.
As you know, the United States Attorney's Office, in
conjunction with a federal grand jury, has been conducting a
criminal investigation of matters that related originally to
the operation of the House Post Office. That original phase
of the investigation, which has resulted in the criminal
convictions of seven former employees of the House Post
Office and one former congressional aide, reached its most
significant point so far in July 1993, with the guilty plea
of former House Postmaster Robert V. Rota. With the
cooperation of Mr. Rota, the investigation turned to
allegations of criminal conduct by other individuals,
specifically Members of Congress who conducted certain
financial transactions through the House Post Office. This
aspect of the investigation is continuing.
As you also are aware (because of disclosures mandated by
House Rule 50) in the last few months the grand jury's
investigation has expanded to include additional allegations
of criminal misconduct beyond those tied to the House Post
Office, including matters involving the House Finance Office
and the House Office Supply Service (known as the House
Stationery Store). These relatively recent additional
developments are now fully within the purview of the grand
jury's criminal investigation.
It is my understanding, however, that despite the existence
of this active and important criminal investigation, the
House may soon be asked to vote on House Resolution 238. This
resolution would specifically direct the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct to investigate whether Members
of Congress received cash from the House Post Office.
Inquiry into these matters by a committee of the House
would pose a severe risk to the integrity of the criminal
investigation. Inevitably, any such inquiry would overlap
substantially with the grand jury's activities. Among other
concerns, the House certainly would seek to interview the
same witnesses or subjects who are central to the criminal
investigation. Such interviews could jeopardize the criminal
probe in several respects, including the dangers of
congressional immunity, of Speech-or-Debate issues, and of
unwarranted public disclosure of matters at the core of the
criminal investigation. This inherent conflict would be
greatly magnified by the fact that the House would be
investigating matters that are criminal in nature, and would
be covering essentially the same ground as the grand jury.
This Office had occasion to voice similar concerns during the
operations-and-management review of the House Post Office
that was conducted by a task force of the Committee on House
Administration; yet that review as far more limited in scope,
and far easier to separate from the criminal probe, than the
investigation required by House Resolution 238.
These threats to the grand jury investigation would not be
lessened by the portion of the resolution that would permit
the Committee to defer its inquiry as to any particular
Member, if the Department of Justice stated in writing that
that Member was being investigated. Wholly apart from the
legal issues involved in the Justice Department's identifying
individuals who are under criminal investigation, the idea of
excluding the conduct of one or more identified individuals
from the congressional inquiry does almost nothing to protect
the integrity of the overall criminal investigation. That
investigation encompasses the interrelated conduct of
numerous persons, and cannot be divided and compartmentalized
in such a manner.
I and my predecessors have acknowledged the importance to
the House of its ability to review and police the internal
operations, management, and procedures of congressional
institutions. In particular, we are sensitive to the special
responsibility of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to examine possible violations of House ethical
standards. Nevertheless, it is unquestionably the province of
the grand jury to investigate, without interference, specific
criminal allegations against particular individuals,
regardless of who they may be or to what institution of
government they may belong. Moreover, the vital public
interest in fair and effective law enforcement requires that
any such investigation be shielded vigorously from actions
that might endanger its integrity.
For these reasons, it has been the consistent position of
this Office, throughout the life of the investigation, that
the House should defer its own inquiries until the grand jury
investigation is completed. I make that request of you again
now, in the strongest possible terms. I ask the House of
Representatives to forbear from any proposed actions or
inquiries in the areas covered by the grand jury's ongoing
criminal investigation, both in order to avoid compromising
that investigation at this late stage, and in order to
further the public interest in preserving the fairness,
thoroughness, and confidentiality of the grand jury process.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
U.S. Attorney.
Whereas, the House should exercise particular caution so as
not to impede, delay, or otherwise interfere with an ongoing
criminal investigation that may involve its own Members;
Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House supports the decision of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to defer inquiry
on matters relating to the former operation of the House Post
Office; and be it
Further resolved, That the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct shall continue to consult with the United
States Attorney and continue to review its decision to defer
inquiry in this matter. At such time as the Committee
determines that a Committee inquiry would no longer interfere
with the criminal investigation, the Committee shall proceed,
pursuant to its rules, with such inquiry as it deems
appropriate.
When said resolution was considered.
After debate,
On motion of Mr. GEPHARDT, the previous question was ordered on the
resolution to its adoption or rejection.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House agree to said resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HOYER, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. ISTOOK objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not
present and not voting.
A quorum not being present,
The roll was called under clause 4, rule XV, and the call was taken by
electronic device.
Yeas
241
When there appeared
<3-line {>
Nays
184