U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

45–672 CC WASHINGTON : 1998

INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RULES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H. RES. 167

PROVIDING SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES FOR THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

June 18, 1997

Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules

(

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402
ii

COMMITTEE ON RULES

GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New York, Chairman

DAVID DREIER, California

PORTER GOSS, Florida

JOHN LINDER, Georgia

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio

LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado

DOC HASTINGS, Washington

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina

JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY, Massachusetts

MARTIN FROST, Texas

TONY P. HALL, Ohio

LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER, New York

WILLIAM D. CROSBY, Chief Counsel

DANIEL J. KENIRY, Staff Director

GEORGE C. CRAWFORD, Minority Staff Director

BRYAN H. ROTH, Office and Systems Manager

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AND BUDGET PROCESS

PORTER GOSS, Florida, Chairman

JOHN LINDER, Georgia

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio

DOC HASTINGS, Washington

GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New York

MARTIN FROST, Texas

JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY, Massachusetts

WENDY SELIG, Counsel

KRISTI WALSETH, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES AND ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE

DAVID DREIER, California, Chairman

LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina

GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New York

TONY P. HALL, Ohio

LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER, New York

VINCENT RANDAZZO, Counsel

MICHAEL GESSEL, Minority Staff Director

(II)
iii

C O N T E N T S

Page

JUNE 18, 1997

Opening statement of the Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon, Chairman of the Committee on Rules 01

Statement of:

Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana (prepared statement p. 08) ................................................................... 03

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 12

Information Submitted:

Letter submitted by Rep. Waxman from Rep. Hamilton .............................. 20

Summaries of Past Deposition Authority in the House ................................ 35

(III)
(1)

H. RES. 167, PROVIDING SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES FOR THE COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

Wednesday, June 18, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON RULES,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 6 p.m. in Room H–313,

The Capitol, Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon [Chairman of the committee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Solomon, Dreier, Goss, Linder, Pryce,

McInnis, Hastings, Myrick, Moakley, Frost, Hall, and Slaughter.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burton is here.

Where is Mr. Waxman?

Mr. BURTON. I believe he will be here in just a few minutes, Mr.

Chairman.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Can we take a break a minute, or you don’t

want to?

The CHAIRMAN. We are kind of under the gun because of some

commitments on your side over here.

Mr. BURTON. Would you like me to go ahead and start?

The CHAIRMAN. Would you mind if we go ahead and start?

Mr. MOAKLEY. No. I think we could start without Mr. Waxman.

The CHAIRMAN. I have an opening statement anyway.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I don’t want the opening statement to go without

Mr. Waxman.

The CHAIRMAN. That may take some time.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Make your opening statement and closing statement, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. This meeting will come to order.

We are here to consider House Resolution 167, providing special

investigative authorities for the Committee on Government Reform

and Oversight.

The matter before us is an original jurisdiction hearing of the

Rules Committee on this resolution providing special investigative

authorities. I have a brief statement, and then I will yield to my

good friend, Mr. Moakley, should he care to respond.

At the outset, I would like to commend Chairman Burton. He has

one of the toughest jobs in the Congress, and all Members should

take note of the institutional importance of this investigation that

is taking place. Having served in the Minority in this body myself,

I most certainly commend Chairman Burton’s Ranking Minority
2

Member, Henry Waxman, and I wish he were here to hear me commend him for his diligence and hard work. He is noted for it.

The Members are well aware of my long-standing concerns about

the scandal which the Committee on Government Reform and

Oversight is investigating today. The campaign finance improprieties in the executive branch are serious enough, but I am truly

alarmed at the flood of daily revelations in the media which lead

me to conclude our national security may have been compromised

by individuals serving in the Clinton administration.

For this reason and due to the attempts by some to obstruct this

inquiry, it is necessary for the House to consider a resolution giving

the committee the tools it needs to adequately conduct this legitimate constitutional function.

The granting of special investigative authorities to committees,

including staff deposition authority, is not a matter the Rules Committee considers lightly. As a matter of fact, I have been very hesitant to grant this kind of authority on different occasions.

For this reason, this committee insisted that the Government Reform and Oversight Committee adopt committee rules in advance

which specify the right of the Minority to participate in staff depositions, protections for witnesses, provisions for notice, among other

things.

I understand, Mr. Burton, that your committee has accomplished

this task today. We have also insisted that a special resolution

from this committee be consistent with past precedents, be consistent with House rules, and that the committee rule be consistent

with House rules.

All of these requirements have clearly been met, and I have personally gone over that committee rule myself.

The staff deposition authority provided by this House Resolution

167 which I introduced 2 days ago is consistent with 10 House

precedents in major congressional investigations dating back to

1974 and addressing investigations of Republican and Democrat

administrations. The limited ability to seek evidence overseas also

contained in this resolution conforms with at least eight provisions

in previous congressional investigations dating back to 1975.

Because of the reluctance of some to cooperate in this perfectly

legitimate probe and the outright refusal of others to testify, the

committee needs staff deposition authority to swiftly and confidentially receive evidence.

Because certain potential witnesses may have left the United

States, the committee needs the ability to gather evidence on an

international basis. Certain campaign contributions originated

overseas as well, and this presents a problem for those seeking evidence.

It was my belief in crafting this resolution that any resolution

granting special investigative authority to Chairman Burton’s committee should take some recognition of the fact that this is an

international scandal. The resolution is consistent with the precedents and entirely appropriate given the nature of the scandal. The

rights of the Minority have also been protected, and we have seen

to it in the development of this resolution.

I believe we should hear the testimony today to ensure Members

on both sides that they are satisfied and we can move to markup
3

tomorrow, which, incidentally, Mr. Moakley had requested that we

not have a markup on the same day that we held the hearing, and

that is why we will be meeting tomorrow at 1 o’clock to mark up

this resolution and then bring it to the floor some time soon.

With that, I would yield to my good friend, Mr. Moakley, for any

statement that he might have.

Mr. MOAKLEY. No, I don’t have any opening statement. The only

thing, when you say the Minority is protected, the only story—and

I am not on the committee and I don’t know, but the issuing of subpoenas without consulting with the Minority, if that is so, it doesn’t

seem to me the Minority is being protected, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, there is nothing in this resolution that

doesn’t follow precedents from both Democrat and Republican Majorities in this House over the last 25 years, and I have seen to

that. Not once do we fall away from those precedents.

So why don’t we take the testimony.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Could I just ask one more question? Can you inform me of one investigation where the Majority issued subpoenas

without consulting with the Minority?

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just refer to it—okay?—which I will be

glad to do if I can find it in our reports here.

President Nixon impeachment proceedings, 1974; Koreagate,

1977; Abscam, 1981; Judge Hastings, 1987; House Assassinations

Inquiry, 1977; Iran-Contra Committee, 1987; October Surprise

Task Force, 1991; White House Travel Office, 1996; Bosnia Select

Committee, 1996; and it goes on and on and on.

Mr. MOAKLEY. You are not answering my question, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I will let Mr. Burton answer.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Do you know anywhere the Chairman issued a

subpoena without—I am not talking about depositions, I am talking about where they issued a subpoena—without consulting with

the Minority?

The CHAIRMAN. It is allowed under the rules of the House, yes.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Do you know, yourself?

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. BURTON. Before I go into my prepared statement, let me say

we have issued no subpoenas, not one, without consulting with or

advising the Minority. Mr. Waxman has been informed. He is given

24 hours notice before we issue any subpoenas. We ask for his

input. He has given us input on certain occasions, but most occasions he has not. Any letters we send out requesting documents, we

give the Minority at least 24 hours notice. We consider that consulting with.

We may not take their advice, but the fact of the matter is, he

does have an opportunity to call me. We have talked on occasion.

He is informed before I ever send a subpoena out. That will continue to be the practice.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I haven’t talked to him. Just what I was getting

in the newspapers.

Mr. BURTON. That is not correct.
4

Mr. MOAKLEY. Fine.

The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute, Dan. I just want to read to you

from the rules of the House. It is rule XI. The power to authorize

and issue subpoenas under subparagraph 1(b) may be delegated to

the Chairman of the committee pursuant to such rulings and under

such limitations as the committee may prescribe.

And it goes on and on.

Mr. BURTON. That is right. That is correct. But as a practice, we

have informed the Minority of every subpoena that has been sent

out. We made that a practice, even though we had the authority

to do otherwise. We wanted them to know what was going on.

Mr. Chairman, I have about a 10- or 12-page statement, and I

was trying to cross out things that I think—so I could get through

this more quickly—but I think it is important for the committee to

hear all of the reasons why that is important. So if you will please

bear with me, I apologize for taking so much of your valuable time.

I appreciate the opportunity to come before this esteemed panel

today to discuss the Government Reform and Oversight’s needs for

certain investigative tools so that we can proceed with our investigation into various matters of great concern.

Among other things, the Government Reform Committee is investigating reports of improper political fund-raising, misuse of official resources, alleged interference and obstruction of ongoing Government investigations, and other potential illegal acts which fall

within our committee’s jurisdiction.

Because of the serious matters under investigation by my committee, I am here today to request that this panel favorably report

to the full House a resolution which will empower the Government

Reform and Oversight Committee with authority to conduct discovery at home and abroad.

Mr. Chairman, the issues that my committee is investigating go

to the heart of our free society. Our Constitution, painstakingly

drafted by men who feared the tyranny of despots, devised a political and social system around which American lives are ordered.

At its core, our investigation is about the possible abuse of power

and authority by those trusted to safeguard our national security,

and this may be about the largest systematic and coordinated effort

to funnel illegal funds into our national elections.

We have begun and, with your help, will continue to get answers

concerning whether the fundamental integrity of our Government

has been abused, exploited, compromised, or jeopardized. The

American people have the right to know whether our system of free

and fair elections, revered throughout the world, was infiltrated by

possible foreign sources.

Did the Communist Chinese Government or individuals associated with the People’s Republic of China attempt to influence the

1996 Presidential election?

Was the Democrat National Committee a willing participant in

a scheme to receive laundered foreign money, or was it merely

grossly negligent in taking millions of dollars of illegal campaign

contributions from foreign elements?

Was the United States national security compromised or endangered in any way by the infamous Mr. John Huang, who apparently had access to top secret briefings and information before and
5

after he became a deputy assistant secretary of Commerce and

then Vice Chairman of Finance at the DNC?

Did the President’s friends, acquaintances, and benefactors work

to secure former Associate Attorney General and best friend of

President Clinton, Web Hubbell, his silence, by providing him lucrative consulting jobs, including a $100,000 or more payment from

the Lippo Group, the huge Indonesian conglomerate and employer

of John Huang?

Did the Immigration and Naturalization Service radically change

its naturalization policy in order to boost Democrat voter rolls even

though some were convicted felons?

Did White House officials use Government funds for political pur- poses when it spent over $1 million of taxpayers’ money on the

White House database?

Why have so many of the subjects of our investigation taken the

5th Amendment or fled the country, even though the American

people have been told that no wrongs have been committed?

These are just a few of the important questions the American

people have a right to have answered.

In order to fully investigate these and other important issues, the

Government Reform and Oversight Committee requires the ability

to engage in the discovery process both here and abroad.

You should know that nothing in the resolution before you, as

you said, is unprecedented. All of the investigative tools contained

in the resolution have been utilized by Democrats in preceding

Congresses.

In major wide-ranging congressional investigations such as this,

the White House has historically provided deposition authority to

facilitate the fact-finding process. You may recall that the chairmen

of various investigative committees were authorized by House resolutions to subpoena, as the Chairman said, witnesses to take part

in depositions, staff depositions in the Nixon impeachment proceedings, the assassinations investigations, Koreagate, Iran-Contra,

and October Surprise. In fact, the chief counsel of the Iran-Contra

and October Surprise Committees were empowered to issue deposition notices.

I can assure this committee that will not be the case in our investigation, and I will remain accountable and will personally issue

all subpoenas in this investigation.

Staff depositions are an intricate part of our effort to uncover the

truth. The committee has received thousands of pages of documents

and has begun to piece together the intricate web of potential fundraising illegalities.

The committee is at a point where it requires sworn testimony

which will be taken in executive session of those with firsthand

knowledge of schemes to funnel conduit payments to politicians

and national party organizations.

Because of the potential political and criminal implications, few

have voluntarily come forward to assist with our inquiry. The committee must be able—must be able—to obtain the testimony of

those who would not otherwise be inclined to volunteer.

Also, there have been numerous inconsistencies between and

among witnesses on a number of key matters under investigation.

Providing a format of sworn deposition testimony allows the com-
6

mittee to best evaluate the veracity of various witnesses and clarify

the events in question.

Because of the wide-ranging and ever expanding scandal, we may

need to depose hundreds of witnesses, and I mean hundreds. Needless to say, it is impractical and unrealistic to expect members will

be able to be present and engage in time-consuming deposition

preparation as well as the depositions themselves.

We polled our committee, I might tell you, and asked how many

would be willing to sit through the hundreds of hours involved in

the depositions, and very few were willing to commit to that. It is

a long and arduous process which has been used in numerous

House investigations to uncover the facts.

The deposition authority contained in the resolution will assist

the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in obtaining

sworn testimony quickly and confidentially without the need for

lengthy and unproductive hearings.

One of the things I want to point out is, before we can get to our

hearings—and the Chairman of the Senate committee is finding

the same problem—we have to depose a number of witnesses so we

are prepared for the hearings. We are not at that point yet.

I also want to assure that the Minority will be adequately protected. Therefore, my committee today passed new committee rules

in anticipation of your efforts and final passage of the resolution

on the floor. I will consult with the Ranking Minority Member, as

I said to the Ranking Minority Member of this committee, on any

depositions we are about to take, and I will make sure all members

know at least 3 days in advance that a deposition is scheduled.

Such a provision was never etched in the rules of either IranContra or October Surprise. They didn’t have the 3-day rule. It will

afford the Minority and witnesses ample time to prepare for the

deposition.

Furthermore, all the evidence received pursuant to the resolution

will be taken in executive session.

Similar to the authority to conduct depositions, the committee is

seeking the authority to engage through official Government channels extraterritorial discovery. Because we think evidence we need

may be in countries like Indonesia, China, Thailand, and other

countries, the committee requires authority to seek out physical

and testimonial evidence from persons or entities in other countries. This is usually done through judicial and international discovery devices known as letters rogatory or commissions.

The Iran-Contra and October Surprise committees were granted

these authorities, and various other special investigative committees used some or all of these international discovery devices.

A few countries, under certain circumstances, allow depositions

to be conducted by U.S. officials in the same manner they are conducted in the U.S. However, most civil law countries do not allow

this type of compulsory and broad discovery conducted by foreigners, particularly if the person being deposed is not a U.S. citizen.

Thus, successful international discovery is obtained through commissions or letters rogatory. I will not go into great detail on this

subject, because I understand you received a briefing from the Congressional Research Service on this subject last week. However, I

would like to summarize the issues.
7

For those of you who are not attorneys, a commission is a warrant or authority issued from the executive branch or court empowering the commissioners to exercise jurisdiction or perform certain

official acts such as conducting depositions in a foreign country.

The commissioners, who are the people asking the questions, are

usually consular officers or appropriate officers of the foreign government in which the questioning will take place. Such questioning

is usually done pursuant to the law of the sovereign. However,

where the United States has entered into bilateral treaties and

international evidence conventions with a given country, the rules

of the treaty or convention apply.

When the foreign country prohibits the taking of depositions regardless of voluntary cooperation of the witness, the evidence must

be obtained pursuant to a letter rogatory. A letter rogatory is a request from a court in the U.S. addressed to a foreign court which

sometimes passes through diplomatic channels, such as the Department of State, to perform some judicial acts, such as the taking of

evidence or serving a summons or subpoena. These international

devices are similar to depositions which are used domestically.

They may be critical in obtaining information from entities outside

of the U.S.

Mr. Chairman, in summary—and I am sure you are glad to hear

this—in summary, let me again thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify on this important issue. I appreciate your assistance and the help of the entire Rules Committee in passing an equitable resolution, modeled after resolutions which have been

passed in preceding Congresses, that will allow the Government

Reform and Oversight Committee to conduct a fair and thorough

investigation.

I want to publicly thank the staff of the Rules Committee, the

Office of the Parliamentarian, the Office of Legislative Counsel, the

Congressional Research Service, and my staff for working together

to draft this critically needed and fair resolution.

This is an important issue, and your work here today will help

move our investigation forward so that we can learn the truth surrounding the continuing allegations of campaign finance improprieties and possible violations of law.

Once again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you have any

questions, I will be glad to answer them.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burton follows:]
8
9
10
11
12

The CHAIRMAN. Dan, thank you very, very much.

We will go to Mr. Waxman.

Henry, I had some flattering things to say about you before you

arrived.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Not many, Henry.

The CHAIRMAN. They were pretty flattering. We have great respect for you.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much.

I apologize, Mr. Chairman and members, for being late. We just

got out of our long marathon meeting today on this very issue.

The CHAIRMAN. Your entire statement will appear in the record,

without objection. Go ahead.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman—and the other members will not

mind—I wanted to particularly address my comments to you. For

years when you were in the Minority, you were one of the most eloquent of members in insisting on Minority rights.

I must tell you that what happened today in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee is an abomination and should not

be permitted. Let me first describe how the committee’s investigation has been proceeding this year, and I will start with subpoenas

for documents.

When the Chairman’s staff wants a subpoena issued, they urge

the Chairman to do so. When he agrees, the Minority receives 24-

hour notice that a subpoena will be issued. We can voice our objection to the Chairman if we disagree. But if he disagrees with our

objections, the subpoena is issued nonetheless.

That is why Craig Livingstone, who has nothing to do with this

year’s investigation, was issued a subpoena, and it is why the bank

records of the history professor with an Asian name were subpoenaed despite the fact that he has done nothing wrong and is not

even remotely involved in this committee’s investigation. With

Craig Livingstone, his legal fund was subpoenaed—the records.

Under the current rules, the Majority never has to justify or

make any public demonstration of the need for specific subpoenas.

There are no institutional restraints of any kind. When the Minority wants a subpoena issued, we are required to make a request of

the Chairman.

And we appreciate the Chairman’s decision to issue 8 of the 38

subpoenas we asked for, but when the Chairman says no, as he did

for the Minority’s Haley Barbour subpoena request, that is the end

of the process, notwithstanding the fact that we now know, according to the former president of the National Policy Forum, that

Haley Barbour had a fascination with foreign money.

We have no opportunity to appeal the Chairman’s decision and

debate it with all the committee members. In short, the committee

has delegated all its authority to the Chairman and his staff. That

is completely unprecedented.

When we debated this issue in April, the Chairman could only

cite four instances where a previous Chairman of any committee
13

unilaterally issued subpoenas for documents. That precedent was

Chairman Clinger in 1996.

Today in committee we debated a different issue, issuing subpoenas for depositions. In this area, there isn’t a single time that a

Chairman of any committee ever unilaterally issued a subpoena for

depositions.

The committee Democrats argued today that we ought to continue that to be the case, where a Chairman doesn’t have that single-handed power to issue the subpoenas for depositions.

The Government Reform and Oversight Committee has only been

given deposition authority once, once in all the time I have been

here, and even before, since 1970, as far as our records go. That

was last year in the Travel Office investigation. And in that case,

Chairman Clinger proposed and adopted a rule that provided that

subpoenas for depositions would only be issued if the Minority concurred or if there was a vote of the committee if there was a disagreement.

In adopting that rule, Chairman Clinger noted that, ′′This new

rule memorializes the long-standing practice of this committee to

seek a consensus on the issuance of a subpoena.′′

Today the Minority proposes to follow that precedent, which was

adopted just last year, for the current investigation. We lost, and

the Majority gave Chairman Burton the unilateral authority to

issue subpoenas for depositions.

Chairman Burton argued that he was following the precedent set

by Representative Lee Hamilton in two other investigations. But

Representative Hamilton informed us that he never issued a subpoena unilaterally and he interpreted ′′consultation′′ to mean all

decisions would be made on a bipartisan basis.

I have a letter from Representative Hamilton and ask that it be

made part of the record.

The Minority wouldn’t have a problem if Chairman Burton committed to following that interpretation. We asked him to do so in

our committee meeting, and he refused. Instead, the Chairman has

made it clear he wants to use the Hamilton wording but not the

Hamilton meaning. That doesn’t wash here any more than it did

when military dictatorships called their regimes democrats but provided no democratic safeguards. Actions mattered more than semantics.

In effect, the committee has now delegated all its authority to

subpoena documents, subpoena individuals, and release confidential information to the Chairman and his staff. That is a combination of powers no Chairman, no American, has ever had before. It

is a dangerous and terrible precedent, and it should not be allowed

to stand.

The committee also rejected an amendment by Representative

Condit that would have required our committee to at least consult

with the Senate before taking depositions from the same people the

Senate had already questioned. The amendment would have saved

us money, spared witnesses from unnecessary intrusion, and prevented waste and redundancy. That amendment was defeated.

Perhaps most incomprehensible of all, the committee voted to

change the Clinger precedent of alternating rounds, where we
14

would have questions by the Majority for an hour and then questions by the Minority for an hour.

Please keep in mind that the only precedent our committee has

for depositions is last year’s Clinger investigation. The committee

actions today mean that a witness who arrives at a deposition at

9 a.m. and must leave by 5 p.m. could be questioned by the Majority for 5 hours, 7 hours, or the entire day. There is no provision

that the Minority will ever be able to ask questions because there

may only be time for one round, and that is true if that deposition

takes several days.

This is one of the most unfair and outrageous procedures that I

could imagine. It violates every rule for how we do our work and

every precedent we have. I only ask that the Chairman consider

how he would feel if he were in the Minority and this rule were

adopted. We are making a tragic mistake by transforming what

should be a serious investigation into a partisan side show.

We all know the old expression that if it looks like a duck, walks

like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. The same is true

of partisanship. In the committee’s investigation, it feels, looks, and

sounds partisan.

Three years ago, Newt Gingrich said that if the Republicans

wanted control of the House, they would aggressively use subpoena

power, and he predicted: ′′Washington just can’t imagine a world in

which Republicans have subpoena power′′, end quote.

Last year, the Republican leadership sent a memo to all committees, instructing them to focus their activities on investigating the

Clinton administration, and in fact that is exactly what happened.

This committee deposed 72 people for over 240 hours of questioning

in the Travel Office investigation.

By the way, they did that under the Clinger rules which are now

being thrown aside.

Last week, Speaker Gingrich told CNN that he was personally

overseeing this committee’s investigation. Let’s look at what we are

investigating. Today, the Chairman issued 282 subpoenas or requests for information from Democratic sources. He issued only 10

subpoenas or information requests from Republican sources. The

Chairman has obtained 320,000 pages of documents from Democratic sources and has complained that those sources haven’t been

sufficiently cooperative.

In contrast, the Chairman has obtained 15 pages of documents

from Republican sources and, upon receiving them, released a press

release praising the cooperation he had been given.

Imagine what would be happening if we had discovered that Don

Fowler, the former cochair of the DNC, had personally solicited foreign contributions, arranged to launder the contribution, forced the

foreign contributor to default on a loan, and was described as being

fascinated with foreign money. Can you imagine the outrage that

would bring on the Majority side? Can you imagine the numbers

of subpoenas that would be issued and the accusations that would

be made? But when it is Haley Barbour, not done. Mr. Fowler, in

that situation, we only hear silence.

Mr. Chairman, we are spending millions of dollars in an investigation that has already lost credibility. Mr. Chairman, I started

my remarks by saying I wanted to address them particularly to
15

you. I know that there is a tendency when Democrats complain

about partisan treatment to recite the crimes that the Democrats

committed, and to some extent you are right to do so. But at some

point we should stop keeping score and simply do what is right.

What we did today would offend you deeply if you were in the Minority.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that you deny our committee subpoena authority until our committee rules comport with fair procedures and

House precedent, until they comport with the rulings that have

been binding for every committee investigation from Watergate to

Whitewater, Senator Thompson’s committee, and every other investigation that has ever taken place.

We don’t need to toss out all the rules under which we have operated to give the Chairman this kind of power. It is offensive, it is

partisan, and it is going to come back to haunt all of you if you

go ahead down that path. I urge you to defeat this proposal.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burton and Mr. Waxman, first of all, we are

here, this is a hearing, not on your committee rule. This is a hearing on House Resolution 167, and I don’t know if you had a chance

to look at it. That is what you are here to testify on.

But what this does is give staff deposition authority. It cites that

we designate a member of the committee or an attorney on the

staff, and I insisted that it be an attorney on the staff, because people that are not attorneys, like myself, probably are not aware of

all of the nuances in the law, and therefore I think it should be

an attorney on the staff.

So we designate a member of the committee or an attorney on

the staff of the committee to conduct any such proceeding, okay?

That is number one. That is what this resolution before us does.

Number 2: It allows the taking of depositions and other testimony under oath anywhere outside the United States. That is important for information gathering. That is what this resolution is

all about.

Number 3: It makes application for issuance of letters rogatory

and requests, through appropriate channels, other means of international assistance, as appropriate.

I don’t have to explain to you what letters rogatory is. It means

we can either go through the State Department trying to intervene

in foreign courts or go through our own courts trying to intervene

in foreign courts to obtain evidence. Those are the three things that

resolution before us today gives.

In terms of subpoenas, the committee has the same authority it

had in the 103rd Congress under Mr. Conyers; it has exactly what

the committee had in the 104th Congress under the Republican

chairman Mr. Clinger; and it is exactly what the committee adopted earlier this year in February.

Now, let me just cite to you, we do nothing in H.Res. 167 about

the issuance of subpoenas. Before you arrived, I cited rule XI which

states that the power to authorize and issue subpoenas under subparagraph 1(b) may be delegated to the chairman of the committee

pursuant to such rules and under such limitations as the committee may prescribe. And it goes on.

But in two previous Congresses and the current Congress, the

authority to authorize and issue subpoenas was provided in House
16

rules to the committee, which further allows the committee to delegate the authority to the chairman by a committee rule.

Now, when Mr. Burton approached this committee about giving

him this kind of staff deposition authority and this kind of information-gathering authority and the letters rogatory, I told Dan, and

so did other members of this committee, that his committee resolution must conform with House rules. It cannot vary, because we

will not allow variations.

And we had many discussions on this, because Mr. Burton and

I feel very strongly about this. As a matter of fact, I get extremely

upset when I find out that there is someone that has been in the

employ of our State Department who has been given unbelievable

clearances without any investigation whatsoever. And then I find

out that that individual has been taking classified information, at

the Commerce Department and at the State Department and at the

White House, and immediately thereafter contacting a foreign organization, a foreign corporation by the name of Lippo, which is an

Indonesian incorporated company, and then passing that information on directly to the Chinese Embassy.

I think that is outrageous. And we are going to get to the bottom

of it. However, in doing so, we are not going to give your committee

anything beyond what they have had before, and we are insisting

that whatever you do in your own committee resolution complies

with House rules.

Those are the facts. That is what we are here today to consider.

I would like to have your comments on this resolution before us

today.

Mr. WAXMAN. I will give you my comments. That resolution is

premised on the committee’s rules under which they are going to

consider these subpoenas and the deposition authority. And every

instance you cited where you have given subpoena authority for

deposition purposes to our committee was done on a bipartisan

basis. And the rules under which we operated were the rules that

Chairman Clinger proposed and were adopted by the committee.

Cardiss Collins, the Ranking Member at that time, came before

you. We all went to the House floor together on a bipartisan basis

to seek the authority under those rules.

I don’t think you ought to give deposition authority unless we

have rules that are the Clinger rules that were fair. I don’t think

this ought to be done on a partisan basis.

And knowing what we did today, by your giving deposition authority, you are, in effect, giving deposition authority to Mr. Burton, and Mr. Burton alone, and his staff, because the committee,

on a partisan basis, delegated all that authority to him. If that is

what you want to do, it is your decision. But I think it is offensive

in terms of process, I think it is offensive in terms of doing a serious investigation.

Mr. WAXMAN. [Continuing.] I want a serious investigation. I

called for an independent investigator on the White House. They

weren’t happy about that. But I said, let’s get to the bottom of campaign finance abuses on both sides of the aisle. Let’s do this job in

a way that has credibility.

And I look at what is happening now and it is a partisan food

fight.
17

We can continue down that road, and the American people will

look at this investigation with the credibility it deserves, zero.

The CHAIRMAN. Henry, let me just respond briefly. You know

House rules, and that committee rule you passed today, which I

read before you passed it and compared it to make sure that it did

not exceed precedent—in other words, demands that the Minority

be present at any of this.

So whatever problems you have to work out with your Chairman

and with the other members of your committee you can do so, as

long as they comply with House rules. That is what we insist on

doing.

Mr. Burton?

Mr. BURTON. Real briefly, Mr. Chairman, rule 7.1 in both the

Iran-Contra and October Surprise is consistent with what we did

today regarding deposition authority. There is no difference whatsoever.

I don’t understand the dismay of my colleague. I will just tell you

there is precedent for this, and we are not doing anything that

hasn’t been done before.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Moakley?

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Burton, according to the Washington Times

today, it said you plan to seek 150 to 200 depositions from witnesses. Do you intend to issue subpoenas in all these matters?

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Hamilton, who Mr. Waxman alluded to a moment ago, had this same subpoena authority that we have, but he

didn’t have to use the subpoena authority because the people he

wanted to depose knew that they were going to be subpoenaed if

they did not come in voluntarily. I would assume the same thing

will happen with us.

I will assume that when people are asked to come in, there will

probably be more than 200, I think almost all of them will come

in without the issuance of a subpoena. If we have to issue a subpoena, we will, but I don’t think it will be necessary.

Mr. WAXMAN. May I respond to that?

Mr. BURTON. Sure.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Hamilton’s committee on Iran-Contra issued

loads of subpoenas. You would get the impression they didn’t have

to issue subpoenas because everybody knew they had subpoena authority and, therefore, the witnesses complied. They issued lots of

subpoenas; I don’t have the exact number, but no subpoena was

issued without its being done on a bipartisan basis with concurrence of the Minority.

We are not asking for veto authority. That is not the way any

committee has ever operated. If there is a disagreement, you can

go to the committee.

Now, this is a Majority Republican committee, and if they want

to vote us down on a partisan basis, they can do it. But at least

you have the chance to make a public argument why somebody

shouldn’t be subpoenaed or why somebody should be subpoenaed,

and let the Members decide.

Instead, the Members are being denied that opportunity. There

is no concurrence that is going to be required, even though that

was the spirit under which Chairman Hamilton operated the IranContra investigation.
18

Mr. BURTON. Can I just speak? I think it is important to make

this point.

We are probably going to depose anywhere from 150 to 300 or

400 people. Now, if we have to come before the committee every

single time we have to get a subpoena, I can tell you we had a 6-

hour meeting today, we had a 6-hour meeting on our protocol, and

every single time that we want to get a subpoena where the Minority doesn’t want us to, we will be there for 6 hours. You multiply

6 hours times 300 or 400 subpoenas, and we are never going to get

to the bottom of this investigation.

That is the problem that Mr. Waxman is not going to address,

the continued resistance to us getting to the bottom of this investigation. They fought us every step of the way, as has the White

House, and we had to even threaten a contempt citation on the

President’s Chief Counsel before we could get documents out of the

White House.

So all I am saying is, as a matter of expediency, if we are going

to get to the bottom of this investigation and get through it, we are

going to have to do the job. We can’t be arguing over every single

subpoena before the committee. It just isn’t workable.

Mr. WAXMAN. If the rules were the Clinger rules—that is, under

which we operated last year at a time when Democrats were at it

with Republicans at each other’s throats, yet we had ground rules

to follow.

Sometimes you don’t go to the expediency, you go to follow the

rules that protect everybody, and then you go through with the

rules. And the committee did its investigation on the Travel Office

and the committee did its investigation on the FBI files, and we followed the rules that Chairman Clinger put in place, and they

worked well. No one cited a single instance where they didn’t work

so that we had to dump them and give Chairman Burton all of this

authority.

My argument is, don’t give subpoena authority unless we have

got the Clinger rules in place. Those were fair then, they are fair

now, and you shouldn’t let them be removed from the committee’s

jurisdiction.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I still have the time?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Dan, am I getting the opinion you are just not

going to be bothered to have meetings to issue subpoenas, that you

have to get on with the work? You think the meetings to get the

subpoenas just get in your way?

Mr. BURTON. My good friend, Mr. Moakley, let me just tell you

that we are talking about hundreds of depositions before this is

over. Every single day, we find more people that may have been

involved or have knowledge about illegal foreign contributions.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I can imagine that.

Mr. BURTON. The reason I am prefacing my remarks is by saying, I can tell you, because of what has happened so far in our

hearings and our investigation, that we would probably have to

fight over a majority of the subpoenas; and we simply don’t have

the time or the luxury of time to do that and get to the bottom of

the investigation.
19

It is not that I wouldn’t like to have these hearings; it is just that

I think it is going to be a dilatory tactic employed to keep us from

getting to the bottom of it.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I think that is a basic individual right to have a

meeting on every subpoena you issue. I would hate to be someone

who gets a subpoena issued by a Chairman who just didn’t have

time to go to the committee and explain why he was getting a subpoena.

Mr. BURTON. It is not a question of just having the time. It is

a question of dilatory tactics being employed to keep us from doing

our job.

I do not issue subpoenas indiscriminately. We give every single

subpoena a lot of thought. I notify Mr. Waxman at least 24 hours—

he is going to get 3 days’ notice, 3 days’ notice before we issue a

subpoena regarding a witness coming in for deposition.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am in receipt of a letter sent by

Lee Hamilton to Henry Waxman dated June 16, 1997. I would like

to read from it and then submit the rest of it for the record.

′′I am concerned that the term ‘consultation’ has come to mean

less than it should over time, both as it applies to the ExecutiveLegislative discussions on foreign policy and with respect to discussions between majority and minority in the legislative branch in

the context of investigations. It is my view that, used appropriately, consultation provides the foundation for a credible bipartisan investigation, and in the context of relations with the Executive, makes better and more enduring U.S. foreign policy.′′

′′I want it to be very clear about how I view the practice of consultation for both Iran-Contra and October Surprise investigations.

As a matter of practice in the Iran-Contra investigation, the four

Congressional leaders of the Select Committee—Senators Inouye

and Rudman, Representative Cheney and I—made decisions jointly

on all matter of procedural issues, including the issuing of subpoenas and the taking of depositions. I do not recall a single instance

in which the majority acted unilaterally. In fact, I do not recall a

single instance in which our decisions were not unanimous. With

respect to the October Surprise Task Force, I followed a similar approach with Henry Hyde. The Chairman and Ranking Member

often were briefed together by the majority and minority counsel of

the task force. Again, I do not recall issuing a single deposition notice without Henry’s concurrence.′′

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to put this entire letter

in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

[The information follows:]
20
21
22

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to respond. I am somewhat surprised to see that letter from Lee Hamilton, who I have a great

deal of respect for. I am citing from the Iran-Contra rule 7.1, which

Mr. Hamilton requested before this committee, and it states,

′′Unless otherwise determined by the Select Committee, the Chairman upon consultation.′′ Mr. Lee Hamilton is complaining about

the word ′′consultation,′′ yet he asked for it.

Let me continue. ′′The Chairman, upon consultation with the

Ranking Minority Member or the Select Committee, may authorize

the taking of affidavits,′′ and it goes on. It was done not only then,

but October Surprise and regularly on all of these investigations.

I think the gentleman protests too much. I would like to see us

move on with this.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hamilton viewed consultation

as concurrence. Wait a minute. He—

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to use Webster’s dictionary.

Mr. MOAKLEY. He never once used the consultation.

The CHAIRMAN. I would hope Mr. Burton wouldn’t either, except

we happen to deal with investigations that we have 6 known people

that have left the country to avoid a subpoena and avoid testifying.

We have another 12 who are now taking the Fifth. You know what

happens when you take the Fifth; it means there is a smoking gun

someplace.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I don’t drink.

The CHAIRMAN. You don’t drink. I don’t drink either.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I just think every person has a right to at least

feel that there has been a hearing on whether the subpoena should

be issued or not.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Moakley, let me tell you something. I recall

sitting with Dan Burton on the first day he arrived in Washington,

a number of years ago down in the gymnasium, and he sat down

next to me, and I talked with him and we talked for about 45 minutes, and I said to myself, you know, he sounds just like Jerry Solomon. He is a guy that wants to get out there and get the job done.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Now I know I am in trouble.

The CHAIRMAN. Ever since that time, he has been conducting

himself just like Jerry Solomon, and I am proud of it.

Mr. BURTON. And I am not even a Marine.

The CHAIRMAN. I take exception to the criticism.

Any further questions?

Mr. MOAKLEY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Your time is almost up. I will certainly treat you

with great respect.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Thank you. In fact, as you may recall, when I was

Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I never limited your time. We went on

for hours and hours into the night listening to your criticism of the

tyrannical way I ran the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you believed in setting a precedent, and I

don’t believe in that. I think we have to stick to precedent.

Mr. MOAKLEY. All right.

Dan, last year’s investigation, all information received by your

committee was obtained in informal interviews; not one single sub-
23

poena was issued. Have you asked anyone at the White House to

submit an informal interview yet?

Mr. BURTON. Before we ask anybody to come before the committee or sit for a deposition, we will ask them. We will not issue a

subpoena until they have showed a reluctance to appear voluntarily.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Now, last year during the Travelgate hearings,

my Chairman, Mr. Solomon, stated that the Rules Committee

would only grant authority for staff to take sworn depositions—I

am quoting here—′′in very special circumstances where there is a

compelling need for such authority.′′

Chairman Clinger argued that it was needed at that time, because of the reluctance or even the refusal of certain potential witnesses to voluntarily cooperate in submitting to staff interviews.

I would like to hear from you, Dan and Mr. Waxman, if witnesses up to date have refused to provide interviews for the committee staff. If not, what is the compelling need for new authority?

Mr. BURTON. Let me just say that Chairman Solomon has pointed out that Mr. Middleton, Mr. Hubbell, Mr. Huang—I want you

to listen to this—Mr. Middleton, Mr. Hubbell and Mr. Huang have

all taken the Fifth Amendment. Mr. Trie, Ms. Kanchanalak and

the Riadys have all fled the country.

So I think that it is pretty evident that we are going to find a

reluctance on the part of some to testify.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, at this time I don’t want to take

up all the time now. I would like to let you go on with other people,

but I would like to go back to Mr. Waxman later.

The CHAIRMAN. You will reserve your time.

Mr. WAXMAN. I do want to respond, and I will address this to the

Republicans. I am simply asking that the committee follow the

rules that Chairman Clinger put in place for deposition authority,

for subpoenas. That was the only time our committee in its history

ever held a deposition, they had subpoenas for depositions. We followed those rules. I know of no problems with it—or we followed

the rules that Chairman Hamilton had where he called for consultation, but the interpretation of ′′consultation′′ was that the interpretation that almost all committees have used—in fact, all committees have used where they get concurrence because it is much

better to do any investigation on a bipartisan basis.

Republicans have always argued rightfully, you don’t want big

government intruding in people’s private lives. You know what it

means to be subpoenaed to come in to give a deposition where some

staff lawyer can ask about your sexual preferences, your drug use,

your political beliefs, your business dealings, your tax records, anything in the world? Nothing can be more intrusive than that. And

you have to hire a lawyer as soon as you get a subpoena. You have

to give up your working time to be there.

This is really big government, and at least if you are going to

have something like that where it is necessary, it ought to have

some checks and balances and restraints and follow the precedents,

and the precedents were the precedents that Mr. Clinger put in

place in our committee. That was our precedent. It is now being

put aside.
24

The CHAIRMAN. Let me recognize Mr. Goss and ask him to take

over. I have to go in the next room and try to resolve the DOD rule.

We were going to come back here at 8 o’clock. I think we better

delay that to 8:30. I know you have family, but at any rate, Mr.

Goss, if and when they do finish here, if you would just recess subject to the call of the Chair around 8:30.

Mr. GOSS. Any other witnesses?

The CHAIRMAN. No, just these two, but there are questions, and

I will be back.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOSS. [Presiding.] I, in fact, have other questions, but I think

I will continue yielding. In the rotation it is Ms. Pryce.

Ms. PRYCE. I have no questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I didn’t hear. Are

we going to stay in until 8:30 or come back?

Mr. GOSS. No, we are not. We are going to finish up with these

two witnesses, and then we are going to recess subject to the call

of the Chair, and we expect the Chair to call us at 8:30.

Mr. HALL. Okay. Well, maybe I wasn’t listening, but I didn’t

know how you answered Mr. Burton when Mr. Waxman said, is

there going to be any consultation on the subpoenas that are going

to be issued? Are you going to be talking together about this?

Mr. BURTON. My staff thinks I am forgetting. Mr. Hall, let me

just tell you, we have sent every single subpoena and every single

letter where we were asking for information to Mr. Waxman at

least 24 hours before we did anything.

Regarding the deposition authority, he is going to have 3 days’

notice before we issue a subpoena for deposition, and we welcome

his input. That does not mean that we are going to give him veto

power on whether or not we issue the subpoena, but we welcome

his input.

Regarding the Young brothers, who laundered money, we believe,

through a shell corporation to the RNC, Republican National Committee, in Miami, the Young brothers we subpoenaed, and we held

up the subpoenas for a number of days because we wanted Mr.

Waxman to have time to review them and his staff and to give us

input, and he did.

But we held them up for an inordinate amount of time because

we were waiting for his reply and response. Yes, we have consulted, and we will continue to.

Mr. HALL. What is taking so long to get this thing started? I

mean, there has been an unprecedented amount of money that has

been appropriated to this committee. It is unbelievable the amount

of money that you have at your disposal, and the fact is this is now

the third week in June, we haven’t had one hearing on this yet.

Why is that?

Mr. BURTON. I will be very happy to explain why it has taken

so long. Mr. Moakley might even be interested in this.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I would be.

Mr. GOSS. Sorry, I was conferring with Mr. Moakley.

Mr. BURTON. That is all right. We have been trying for months

to get the White House to give us documents that were relevant to

the investigation, and we were told that the only way we could get
25

those documents was to have our staff go down to the White House

and sit there and go through these documents, and then if we needed more information, we would have to go back there a second time

and a third time and a fourth time. And so we were in a confrontation with Mr. Ruff and the White House staff in trying to get documents for some time.

And I had to confer with my staff, I had to confer with leadership

before we started to move a contempt citation, and that took time.

We could be much further along with the investigation if we had

not had that kind of impediment to deal with. Once we finally convinced Mr. Ruff that we were serious about a contempt citation, he

gave us 10,000 pages of documents that we are reviewing so that

we could go ahead and conduct the rest of our investigation. That

was the first phase of our investigation. Now that we are past that,

the next step is to start deposing witnesses that we have found

needed to be deposed from those documents.

Once you start going through the documents, you find people

that may have been involved in illegal fund-raising and illegal

laundering of money. When we find those people through looking

at the documents we got from the White House and other sources,

then we start asking those people to come in for depositions. That

is the next step, and that is what we are doing right now.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Hall, I just wanted to point out that Mr. Burton and his staff got 320,000 pages of documents from Democratic

sources. They got 15 pages from Republican sources. The subpoenas he indicated to you, consultation on the Young brothers, was

at our request.

Mr. BURTON. That is right.

Mr. WAXMAN. And we appreciated getting some of the subpoenas,

but not all of the subpoenas we requested. Consultation as he is

interpreting it means if he feels like going along with it, he will.

After we raise an objection, or if he doesn’t want to, he won’t. All

we get to do is get notice. We ought to change the rule to say

′′notice′′ because that is all basically we get is notice, and then we

can let him know what our views are, and he will pay no attention.

Mr. HALL. Just one last question, Mr. Goss.

Dan, how do you follow up a question like that? It seems to be

pretty unfair if you get 300,000-some pages.

Mr. BURTON. 300,000? I will be glad to respond.

Mr. HALL. And 15 pages for Republicans.

Mr. BURTON. There is a very simple reason for that. First of all,

he is incorrect. The 300,000 pages of documents we have, much of

those came from sources like the telephone company where we subpoenaed telephone records, not from Democrat sources; from credit

card companies where we are subpoenaing credit card records and

other documents pertaining to the investigation. They are part of

the 300,000 pages, but a large part of them are documents that we

got from sources outside of the people we are asking at White

House.

Regarding the Young brothers, those subpoenas are not due for

another 2 weeks. We gave them an adequate amount of time to

give us the documents we wanted. And the documents from the

RNC, likewise they have given us some, and we expect more, and

the due date is not yet up. So we expect that we will probably have
26

several hundred or maybe several thousand pages of documents before the investigation is over with, but the time is not yet expired.

Mr. WAXMAN. Three hundred thousand documents relate to

Democratic targets of the investigation. The 15 relate to Republican issues or targets of an investigation. And our request for subpoenas on the Republican issues have not been complied with.

For example, we asked Mr. Burton for subpoenas with respect to

fund-raising on public property by Republicans. No response to

that. Yet he has issued many subpoenas about fund-raising by

Democrats on public property, particularly at the White House.

We are not getting a fair shake. The rules are being tossed out.

At least give the Minority a chance to come in and argue to a committee where there is a Republican Majority why we think an action ought to be taken or not ought to be taken. Instead we are

being told we can’t even make an argument to our colleagues. We

can only make it to Chairman Burton. And I think that is unfair

to have any one person have that kind of power. It is unprecedented, and it is dangerous, because people who have power sometimes start abusing it and think that what they do is worthwhile,

and therefore maybe it is not an abuse. That is called corruption

by power, and we have checks and balances in our system to keep

that from happening.

And we are dealing with people who are going to be subpoenaed

in to come in and answer questions under oath for hour after hour,

maybe day after day. I think we ought to follow the tried and true

precedent. And I am just suggesting following the precedent that

was put into place and the only time our committee ever held depositions, and that was last Congress, and the rules that were put

in place were put in place by Chairman Clinger, and we had depositions of around 80 people. We didn’t have any problems. We had

disagreements, but we all thought that we ought to have depositions of people who were appropriate to depose.

Mr. BURTON. If I might make one brief follow-up comment. Every

single letter that we have sent to Mr. Waxman, almost without exception, and almost every subpoena except for the Republicans has

been ignored. He has not chosen to respond, to give us any kind

of input whether he thinks there should be something added to it

or taken away. He assumes that we are going to go ahead and do

whatever we want to without consultation. We may go ahead and

not agree with him, but as far as us not consulting with him or not

listening to what he wants to say or have a cooperative attitude,

it just is not the case.

Mr. GOSS. I guess Mr. Hall is finished.

Mr. MOAKLEY. You must have answered his question. He left 10

minutes ago.

Mr. BURTON. Tony, where are you?

Mr. GOSS. Ms. Slaughter.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Dan, one thing in your request bothers me, and

that is government workers not having access to departmental attorneys even if they are only talking about their duties and matters

relating to their official duty, which means they have to go out and

hire their own attorneys at great expense. And since we want more

people coming forward voluntarily, wouldn’t it be better if you were

to allow them to have access to departmental attorneys so that
27

they are not facing large financial burdens—it seems to me what

you are doing makes it harder for people to come forward voluntarily.

Mr. BURTON. My staff reminds me that there is a Justice Department fund that can be used for staff to hire an outside attorney to

come in and be their consultant or attorney when we take a deposition, and that fund was specifically set up to help protect Federal

employees’ rights.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to have the departmental

attorneys?

Mr. BURTON. The problem with the departmental attorneys if

you read the Eighth Circuit report regarding the First Lady and

her appearance before the Federal grand jury that Mr. Starr was

conducting, the problem there was that they said that the attorneyclient privilege did not apply because you cannot take a tax-paid

attorney and claim that attorney-client privilege, and that is being

contested and is now before the Supreme Court.

We wonder if you have a person who has a tax-paid attorney,

and they appear before our committee, and they consult with that

attorney privately, whether or not the attorney-client privilege

might apply so you might be jeopardizing that person’s rights down

the road if we—as we believe, the Supreme Court rules against the

First Lady. We think that they probably will.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Why would they be protected if the Justice Department pays for it?

Mr. BURTON. Because it is a private attorney that is being paid

for.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. It wouldn’t be tainted by the government’s paying?

Mr. BURTON. I don’t believe it would be, ma’am. It is the same

as the Iran-Contra and October Surprise and Travelgate investigations, where they recognized the potential conflict of interest that

could arise from having government lawyers represent private individuals, and all had provisions either prohibiting the practice or allowing the Chairman to decide.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. But here we have government lawyers protecting government workers, not private individuals.

Mr. BURTON. Well, I think I explained it. I think I have covered

it. Maybe I didn’t explain it to your satisfaction.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. You think that if the departmental lawyer was

present in the room when you were deposing a Federal employee,

that the departmental lawyer would have a conflict of interest? Is

that your point?

Mr. BURTON. What I was saying—let’s just say that we are going

to depose somebody from the White House, and let’s say that the

Counsel’s Office—the Counsel to the President says to the person

that is about to be deposed, now we want you to take somebody

from the Counsel’s Office down there. We figured that might be an

intimidating factor and might convince those persons when they

are testifying before our committee that they may not want to tell

us everything that they want to because they are sitting there beside somebody who has been ordered to attend from the White

House’s Counsel’s Office. I think you are seeing what I am trying

to get at.
28

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I do, but I think the most inhibiting thing in the

world that has happened in Congress in the last few years is the

extraordinary legal fees that have been run up by people who work

for the government. They try to do a day’s work, and it is nothing

short of a disgrace, and I think lots of people have left here with

debt up to their eyes. It strikes me as a way of really discouraging

people from wanting to come forward. They have to go to the expense just to come in for the deposition, to have their own lawyer

at their own expense.

Mr. BURTON. First of all, let me follow up by saying there are

funds available that can be used for private attorneys.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Can you tell me what the circumstances are for

being able to use those funds?

Mr. BURTON. I will in a moment.

And secondly, any person under civil law can be sued and face

the same problems that you are talking about right now. You can

be sued by your next-door neighbor for some crazy thing that really

isn’t reasonable and would have to defend yourself in a JP court

or some court.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Would I as a Member of Congress, if I were

sued over something about my duties, would my fees be covered,

or would I have to get an outside attorney?

Mr. BURTON. Right now, ma’am, I have an outside attorney be- cause of an outside investigation, and I had to pay $25,000 for him,

so I think we are all at some risk.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Okay. But I hope you understand my point that

I think what we are doing is creating a whole system in Washington where attorneys are just making piles and piles of money, and

people who literally are just there, trying to do a day’s work, are

finding themselves burdened.

Mr. BURTON. We are just being consistent with precedents.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. If you are going to depose everybody in the city

and no limits whatever—

Mr. BURTON. We are not going to do that.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. We talked a lot about Mr. Hamilton. My understanding from Mr. Hamilton is that he interpreted the authority

that was given him as if he required concurrence from the minority. And has any Chairman in the history of the House of Representatives ever unilaterally just done what you are asking to do?

Mr. BURTON. Well, I don’t know what Mr. Hamilton’s interpretation was. I do know what the rule was, and the rule is very clear.

The rule that he asked for, as Mr. Solomon pointed out, is very

clear, and that is he did not have to have any concurrence. All he

had to do was consult, and that is all we are asking for is the same

thing that Mr. Hamilton asked for, same identical language.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. But no Chairman has ever done this before,

what you are asking?

Mr. BURTON. Well, we are asking for the same authority. I can’t

comment on every single investigation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. It hasn’t ever been used before. I looked.

Mr. BURTON. I don’t know.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. That is all.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. McInnis.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
29

First all, I would take exception with my good friend Mr. Moakley’s statement, if I heard it accurately, that Mr. Hamilton felt that

the word ′′consultation′′ was synonymous with the word ′′concurrence.′′ It is not in the dictionary.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

I know it was not in the dictionary. This was Mr. Hamilton’s expression, and he did concur on all of his subpoenas and depositions.

Mr. MCINNIS. And then, Mr. Waxman, I find I know you used

some strong words about this and that. I cannot believe that you

would demand that you be able to concur or to concur, assent, to

every subpoena requested of the other side. In my opinion, the Minority has an absolute right to be heard, but the Majority has to

rule. And what you are suggesting, as a former attorney, although

I have been inactive for a number of years, I certainly don’t remember anything that I ever had where I was required to consult

with opposing counsel before I took some kind of action, not only

just consult, but—excuse me, I take that back. I was required to

consult on hearing times, but I certainly didn’t have to have the

concurrence of the other side to step forward. And frankly, you are

in the Minority. The Majority rules. Same thing on the Floor. Can

you imagine on the Floor if we had the requirement for concurrence? Consent? We don’t. One side wins; one side loses, and so—

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me explain—

Mr. MCINNIS. I am not finished.

My position is that especially after what I have witnessed with

the White House, stall from this White House, I think that while

you may be well-intended, there are other individuals if that power

were given, equal power to both sides were given out, this thing

wouldn’t move 1 inch, not move 1 inch.

Finally, I guess you kind of got my attention earlier in the remarks when you used Craig Livingstone as an example, whose

name I saw reappear in the Tamraz pipeline, where a former security guard takes this guy out, one of the heavy hitters in the oil

industry—how that connection was ever made I don’t know—and

makes an introduction for him in the Department of Energy. You

used him as an example of a poor fellow being picked upon. It

doesn’t sell with me. And as far as I am concerned, you should be

consulted with, but you certainly should not have the authority to

force consent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Can I explain to you why I disagree? I don’t want

us to talk past each other. The way it has always worked in the

past, under Jack Brooks as Chairman, John Dingell as Chairman,

and all these others, even if the words say ′′consultation,′′ the notion was that if you go to the Minority—and I would have no reason to disagree with subpoenaing the deposition of all these cast of

characters that have been clearly part of the contributions that we

have been hearing about from the Democratic National Committee

and the Republicans. If I did disagree with it, and the Chairman

called a hearing, what would I say? I don’t think that John Huang

ought to be brought in to give a deposition because he doesn’t know

anything about it? I would look foolish to do that.

What I am suggesting to you is that the Minority have always

had the right to make a case in those rare instances where we
30

think the Chairman may be wrong in a subpoena or in those instances where we think the Chairman ought to issue subpoenas,

and then the decision is up to the Majority of the committee.

The committee is a majority Republican. If I can’t make a case

to convince some Republicans and Democrats adding up to the majority that I am right, they will outvote me. But what happens

under these proceedings, and what I am talking about, are procedures that Clinger put into place. What happens now you remove

those, I can only make the case to Dan Burton. The Minority cannot make a case to our colleagues on the committee, even if we are

going to be outvoted. We cannot request subpoenas, we cannot really object to subpoenas if Dan Burton doesn’t agree with us.

And then they adopted a rule that when we get into the deposition, the Clinger rule said that the Majority would take an hour,

and then we get an hour, and then you go back to the majority and

then we get an hour. They changed the rules to say they just get

to ask questions until they are through, even if it takes days for

them to complete their questions. If I showed up at the deposition,

and his staff attorney was asking questions, I could sit there all

day and not get a chance to ask questions, or my staff.

And so the point is, you could say the Minority is the Minority.

We are outvoted if we can’t win over people to our side. But I think

we are being put in a position where the Minority can’t even make

the case in a public setting. And you can say, well, what role is

there for us to play, and what do you need a Minority for? I think

you need a Minority in a democratic system to keep the Majority

honest and to make our arguments if we have an opportunity to

do so.

Mr. MCINNIS. Just in final conclusion, because I know everybody

would like to go to dinner, but it seems to me that the Minority

has had ample opportunity, and the best, clearest example is the

last half an hour listening to you, frankly.

Mr. WAXMAN. I am sorry to have burdened you.

Mr. MCINNIS. You have had half an hour of time.

Mr. WAXMAN. One of the few occasions that I will have an opportunity to make it.

Mr. MCINNIS. This is one of the opportunities that you have had

in the last half an hour to express very strongly in strongly-worded

language. So I don’t buy into the argument that the Minority is

going to be cut out of this. You have every right to be heard, but

you don’t have the right to rule.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

I am sure that Mr. Waxman would love to have the opportunity

in his committee that he has before us here, which he doesn’t have.

Mr. BURTON. May I make a brief comment? Mr. Waxman, like

everybody else on the committee, but especially Mr. Waxman, gets

ample time to express his views. He has never been quieted down

or shut up in any way. As a matter of fact, we did try to move the

previous question one time, and it went on for over an hour because he used dilatory tactics, which I understood, to extend the

vote. And so I learned my lesson. They hit me in the face with a

broad ax, and I learned that we don’t cut the debate off, and so

they fully debate and discuss every single issue.
31

One other thing I wanted to point out that is very important.

That is whenever a Member of Congress comes into a deposition,

whoever is doing the questioning is instructed by me, and that was

instructed today in the public hearing, that they immediately stop,

or as soon as they conclude the question they are on, they stop and

ask the Member who is there, whether it is a Democrat or Republican, if they have any questions, and they do, then we cede the

floor to that Member, and that is the way it has been, and that is

the way it will be.

Mr. WAXMAN. I will never have a chance to make my argument

to the committee because we will have vested the power to the

Chairman, and I will not be able to make a case to them, and that

seems to me is the worst thing to do to a Minority, not even to silence us and not be able to appeal to our colleagues of the other

party.

Mr. GOSS. I wanted to make a couple of observations in the time

we have here. We are not here talking about subpoenas. We are

talking about the resolution that the Rules Committee is trying to

evolve to put on the floor for the conduct of this matter.

And the facts seem to be that some of the most important individuals that your committee would like to talk to have fled the

country, or have left the country, or are no longer available in U.S.

jurisdiction, and that not only that, they are hostile witnesses. Consequently you have an extraordinarily difficult task, and we are

trying to look into pressing the rules of the House to find out what

tools would be appropriate for you to have in the legislative branch

of government for the oversight responsibilities that we have for

legislative, investigative and oversight hearings.

I think that we have done our homework quite well, and I think

we have come up with a resolution that is entirely responsible that

deals with two out of the three facets of it, that deal with overseas

matters, taking depositions overseas, and one has to do with a balanced guaranteed opportunity for taking depositions by staff in the

domestic United States. It seems to me that is pretty fair machinery that we are giving, and I fail to see any problem with it.

And I think the rest of this discussion that has gone on is somewhat colored by other matters which really are not properly before

us.

I would add a couple of observations on my own to sum up the

matters that have taken place. I happened to serve on the October

Surprise investigation as one of the Members in the Minority. I

have tremendous respect for Mr. Hamilton, but there was no question Mr. Hamilton was running that operation. That was a very

weird investigation because it was a very weird story that Mr. Sick

came up with, which was glommed onto presumably for partisan

reasons and proved to be a total figment of somebody’s imagination. It cost us a lot of money, but I think we had an exercise of

appropriate mechanics, which are the same mechanics we are presenting you with, as far as I understand.

The second problem I have with this one, and please don’t interpret these as partisan remarks because they are not, I have been

badly misled by the White House on some matters involving

Filegate personally, involving the GAO board that Mr. Clinger participated in under the Clinger rules as well as Mr. Wolf, and we
32

were led astray, and, in fact, the GAO may very well have been led

astray by the White House.

And that is why I take a little exception about your testimony,

Mr. Waxman, about Craig Livingstone. I would like to talk to Craig

Livingstone. I would like to ask him how that all came to pass,

that even the GAO investigators couldn’t seem to get it right in response to a very legitimate complaint where we thought we were

getting the right facts under rules that we felt were appropriate

that Mr. Clinger had. So I think we have been misled, and I gather

′′Once burned, my fault; twice burned, watch out,′′ is a little bit the

way I feel on that one. So I personally would like to see Mr. Livingstone, and if you subpoenaed him, I think you may be on the right

track. I would be glad to supply a question or two.

Mr. WAXMAN. Before you leave Craig Livingstone, he was deposed for 30 hours before our committee under the Clinger rules.

The Minority never objected to having him deposed. He was a key

figure in that investigation.

Mr. GOSS. The reason I would like to talk to him is I would like

to know point blank how he can square off some of the testimony

we now have from the White House and from the GAO report that

I am not sure was included in some of that 30 hours’ worth. In

other words, what has happened is that the trail has unwound

here. We find there is new information, and we find out that maybe

we have been further misled. Every day that we go by, we get new

information that was true yesterday; gee, that was true yesterday,

but there is something new today that doesn’t quite square. And

I think you have a huge task trying to make all of this line itself

up; 300,000 documents or 350,000 documents doesn’t impress me

one bit. I just got through a case where people threw rooms full of

documents at me that didn’t mean beans. I needed a few good documents that I didn’t get.

That kind of is a problem. So don’t measure documents in terms

of volume of boxes. Measure them in relevance to your question

and honesty of response. I think that is very important. And I am

satisfied we are trying to give you tools so that the opportunity to

do that is there.

The other thing that bothers me very much about this, and this

comes from my other responsibilities on the Intelligence Committee, I think that we have gone beyond the ′′Everybody Does It′′ defense. I think we have gone beyond the ′′Washington Beltway

Sleaze′′ defense. I think we are right out there in some serious

questions about national security at this time. I frankly wish that

we had an independent counsel investigation going on. I believe

that is the right way to have done this.

Since that opportunity is apparently not available for this investigation being conducted, I think that it would be inexcusable if we

didn’t exercise our oversight, and I think that is trying to be done

in a forthright manner. I know partisan politics and charges are

going to come in on this. That is the name of the game, and in this

atmosphere there is no chance that is not going to happen. We

know that. But I want to be certain that the machinery is in place

to be operated fairly. The public will determine whether it is or is

not when this thing is said and done, but we have to give you the

right machinery, and that is what this resolution is about, nothing
33

more and nothing less. That is my view of where we are. So I hope

you would agree that at least our resolution is on the right track.

Mr. WAXMAN. You are asking me? Because I don’t think it is.

Mr. GOSS. Tell me what you would do with our resolution.

Mr. WAXMAN. I don’t think you ought to give a committee the

power that that resolution gives us.

Mr. GOSS. What aspects specifically?

Mr. WAXMAN. Unless you know that that power is going to be exercised responsibly, and I feel that the rules that our committee

has adopted are not going to lead to a fair investigation. We needed

a bipartisan, fair investigation where both of us are working together to get to the truth of all of these issues, and particularly

when it comes to foreign contributions to campaigns, whether it be

Democrat or Republican campaigns.

Mr. GOSS. Henry, we are not going to micromanage another committee’s jurisdiction. We are going to pass a resolution that is

under the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee, which is what we

are trying to do. We do not go into other committees and tell them

how to conduct themselves. I do not tell chairmen of other committees how to run their business, nor should I. We give them the

rules. We let them do it.

Mr. WAXMAN. If we had good rules, I wouldn’t disagree with you.

Mr. GOSS. What is wrong with the resolution? You are talking

about your committee? You are not talking about my resolution or

this committee’s resolution? I am addressing myself to this committee’s resolution.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Burton, according to the Washington Times

today, your staff says you are considering using ′′act of production

immunity′′ to obtain documents from key witnesses. This is a very

difficult area of case law. Even the Supreme Court has said that

you have to be very careful about using it. In Braswell v. United

States, they state that ′′a grant of ’act of production immunity’ can

have very serious consequences.′′ It is very hard to separate the

document from the person. In any case where you want to leave

open the possibility of prosecuting the person who turns over the

documents, this kind of limited immunity can jeopardize that prosecution.

The Supreme Court decisions on this must give Justice Department prosecutors real concern, so I was wondering have you talked

with the Justice investigative team about this, or Ken Starr, or

anyone on your staff on these investigations, thought through the

consequences? Are you comfortable with that kind of immunity?

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Moakley, I agree with you 100 percent. Before

we would even consider granting production immunity, we would

talk to the other people conducting investigations. The Justice Department. I have already talked to Ken Starr, and I told him before

we even talked about any kind of immunity, production immunity,

document production immunity or others, we would certainly consult with him, because we don’t want to impede in any way any

of the other investigations or jeopardize our own.

Mr. MOAKLEY. That is good, Mr. Chairman.

Solomon is not here, but he referred to the Rules Committee

gave special subpoena authority to Chairman Conyers in the 103rd

Congress; it never happened.
34

Mr. GOSS. Then we should ask the Chairman of the 103rd.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Anyway, I would like to put in the record the nine

different occasions where the committee has had to have consultation on Bosnia, travel office, October Surprise, it showed the practice was more concurrence than just consultation. Without objection, Mr. Chairman?

[The information follows:]
35
36
37
38

Mr. GOSS. Without objection.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I have other questions, but I think we have probably been over this. Do you have anything else, Mr. Hall?

Mr. HALL. No more questions.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Are you sure?

Mr. HALL. Positive.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Hastings, you didn’t get a shot.

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was in the other

room. But I would just say as a relatively new Member of this

body, and a Member that goes home rather frequently and hears

constantly, I guess, a sense of, for the lack of a better word, distrust that is going with us, elected Representatives, that there has

to be some sort of method to get to the bottom of what it is all

about, and I think this is one of the means. It is not the end, but

I think this is part of it, and from my perspective, my understanding of it is that this is consistent with the rules that we have had

before. What we are doing, I am very much in favor of that. And

I think that—wish that we could get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible. That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOSS. Thank you very much. Since there is nothing further,

we will be adjourned until the call of the Chair at approximately—

in recess until approximately 8:30.

[Whereupon at 7:30 p.m. the Committee recessed to be reconvened subject to the call of the Chair.]

Æ