[Page: H331]
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 303, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 258) creating a task force of members of the Foreign Affairs Committee to investigate certain allegations concerning the holding of Americans as hostages by Iran in 1980, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against House Resolution 258 on grounds that it is in violation of clause 5(a) of House rule XI, and I ask to be heard on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. McEWEN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, House rule XI, clause 5(a) provides that whenever a committee, commission or other entity is to be granted authorization for the payment from the contingent fund of the House of its expenses in any year, `such authorization initially shall be procured by one primary expense resolution for the committee, commission or other entity.'
The rule goes on to require that `any such primary expense resolution reported to the House shall not be considered in the House unless a printed report on that resolution' shall `state the total amount of the funds to be provided to the committee, commission or other entity under the primary expense resolution for all anticipated activities and programs * * *.'
Mr. Speaker, it is my assumption that this resolution, which was reported by the House Administration and authorizes the payment of expenses from the contingent fund, is the primary expense resolution for the task force. And yet the committee report on this resolution, House Report 102-296, part II, does not `state the total amount of funds to be provided' as required by rule XI, clause 5(a).
If, on the other hand, it is argued that House Resolution 258 is not a primary expense resolution, then it is not in order since House rule XI, clause 5(a) requires that whenever any entity such as this task force is to be granted authorization for the payment of expenses from the contingent fund, and I quote, `such authorization initially shall be procured by one primary expense resolution for the committee, commission or other entity.' In other words, this resolution is not in order until after a primary expense resolution has been adopted by this House.
I urge that my point of order be sustained.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from South Carolina desire to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, under clause 5(c), the funds will be provided to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and they will, in turn, provide the funds to the subcommittee, I mean to the committee that we are establishing.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, does Chairman Whitten share that view?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to be heard further on the point of order?
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to read clause 5(c) on page 482 of the House Rules Manual. I would be glad to read that for you.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, do I understand the gentleman to say that the money is coming from the Committee on Foreign Affairs funds; is that what he is saying?
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, the House Administration Committee, in its forthcoming resolution, will provide funds to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and they will provide it to the committee that is being established. And this authority is provided under 5(c).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman desire to be heard further on the point of order?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me as though the gentleman from South Carolina is contending that the money is previously authorized under the House Administration's budget and so therefore the money is allocated there. When the House Administration Committee's budget was put into place, there was absolutely nothing in the House Administration budget which indicated that this task force was going to be formed. The new entity being created under the rules is the entity of the task force. It is that entity to which the gentleman from Ohio has referred, it is that
entity to which the House rules speak. Either the House rules are going to apply to this or we are going to completely abandon any pretense that the House rules have meaning with regard to spending. This is very much of a spending issue because if in fact we do not obey House rules there, we have open ended the fund for this task force for as far out into the future as we can see.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey).[H05FE2-P1]{H331}Obey). The Chair is prepared to rule unless the gentleman from Ohio wishes to be heard further on his point of order.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I would only say as a member of the Committee on Rules, reading the rules, it says that if we are going to spend money, it has to be authorized under a resolution. It is not before us. There is no rule that permits us to proceed at this time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The gentleman from Ohio, in a point of order, suggests to the House that under rule XI, clause 5(a), there needs to be a total amount stated in the report of the Committee on House Administration for funding of the task force, and the Chair would simply point out that the primary expense resolution for the Committee on Foreign Affairs and all other committees will be reported to the House later this year.
As the gentleman from South Carolina has attempted to point out to the House, clause 5(c) of rule XI reads as follows:
[Page: H332]
The preceding provisions of this clause do not apply to--
(1) any resolution providing for the payment from the contingent fund of the House of sums necessary to pay compensation for staff services performed for, or to pay other expenses of, any committee, commission or other entity at any time from and after the beginning of any year and before the date of adoption by the House of the primary expense resolution providing funds to pay the expenses of that committee, commission or other entity for that year;
[TIME: 1910]
It is the ruling of the Chair at this time that the task force comes under that exception. The task force is a subunit of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and not a separate entity.
The point of order is, therefore, overruled.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] appeals the ruling of the Chair.
The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Derrick moves to lay on the table the appeal by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] on the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick].
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Walker) there were--ayes 19, noes 29.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, nays 150, not voting 57, as follows:
[TIME: 1936]
Mr. GEJDENSON changed his vote from `nay' to `yea.'
So the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry is that the Chair in its ruling on the previous point of order indicated, and I think the video record of the House will confirm this, that the reason for the ruling was that the entity being created is a subunit of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Is that not what the Chair ruled?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has ruled on the basis that clause 5(c) of rule XI simply provides an applicable exception, and the Chair has ruled on that basis.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry. My understanding of the Chair was that 5(c) applied because this was a subunit of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Chair specifically mentioned the Foreign Affairs Committee in his ruling. It is now my understanding, after further consultation, that that is not the case, and so, therefore, the Chair's ruling was based upon an understanding which does not exist under section 5(c).
Would the Chair clarify for the House the entity we are about to create?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the resolution, the task force consists of members of and reports to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. But in any event, the Chair has ruled that the clause (c) exception applies to the task force. This is the first example, since the rule cited the creation of an entity and its funding at the same time. That is why the resolution was sequentially referred to the House Administration Committee. In any event, the clause 5(c) exception applies to any entity, not to any preexisting entity.
[Page: H333]
Mr. WALKER. But as a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, am I not correct that the Chair previously ruled that this was a subunit of the Foreign Affairs Committee?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That may have been the impression of the Chair at the time, but whether or not that was correct, the exception in the rule still stands.
Mr. WALKER. I have a further parliamentary inquiry. If that was the impression of the Chair at the time, is that what the Chair ruled?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair ruled as the Chair stated.
Mr. WALKER. The Chair ruled on section (c).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. On any entity being excepted under (c).
Mr. WALKER. I have a further parliamentary inquiry. The Chair ruled on section 5(c) based upon his contention that it was a subunit of the Foreign Affairs Committee. What I am seeking to find out is whether or not the Chair is now withdrawing that contention.
[TIME: 1940]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The Chair's ruling was based on the literal ruling of 5(c).
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair for pointing out it was based upon a literal ruling of 5(c). However, the specific ruling of the Chair, and again, I point out the video record of the House will certainly confirm this, that he ruled on 5(c) based upon----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has already commented on that and does not care to repeat himself.
Mr. WALKER. I am sure the Chair does not, because I think the question here is whether or not the people who voted just to table the appeal did not do so in a wrong manner because of the Chair's previous ruling, but I thank the chair for his indulgence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair believes the underlying ruling was correct.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, under my point of order under clause 5(a) of House rule XI, I stated that the new entity being created by the resolution currently before us had to meet the requirements of that. You have stated now that this new entity is a subunit.
Can the Chair rule for me the circumstances under which my rule cited here, clause 5(a) of rule XI, would apply ever?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair read the exception as it applies in this instance and has ruled accordingly.
Mr. McEWEN. So can the Chair state for me of an instance or example in which the rule that I cited under the belief that it applied to the House would be applicable to anything stated?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot speculate about other situations, and the Chair has provided the ruling, and the House has spoken.
Mr. McEWEN. I thank the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the amendment recommended by the Committee on Rules, as modified by the amendment recommended by the Committee on House Administration, now printed in the resolution, is considered as adopted.
The text of the resolution, as amended, is as follows:
Resolved, That (1) There is hereby created a Task Force of Members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to Investigate Certain Allegations Concerning the Holding of Americans as Hostages by Iran in 1980, to be composed of thirteen Members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to be appointed by the Speaker, one of whom he shall designate as chairman. The Speaker shall, with respect to the Republican Members of the Task Force, make such appointments upon consultation with the Republican Leader. Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the Task Force shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made. The Task Force is, with respect to the matters described below, authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study, and to make such findings as are warranted, including, where appropriate, a finding that no credible evidence can be found to support particular allegations. The Task Force is further authorized and directed to make such recommendations to the Committee on Foreign Affairs as the Task Force deems appropriate, including those concerning the amendment of existing legislation or the enactment of new legislation. The Task Force shall fulfill these functions with respect to the following matters:
(a) Communications by or on behalf of the 1980 Reagan Presidential Campaign, or individuals representing or associated with that campaign, with any person or persons representing or associated with the Iranian Government or those persons with Iran holding Americans as Hostages during 1979 and 1980;
(b) Any attempt or proposal to attempt, by the 1980 Reagan Presidential Campaign or persons representing or associated with that campaign, to delay the release of the Americans held as hostages in Iran;
(c) Any activity by the 1980 Reagan Presidential Campaign to acquire or disseminate any information relating to actions being taken or considered by the United States Government in an effort to obtain the release of the Americans being held as hostages in Iran;
(d) Any sale or other transmittal of arms, spare parts or other assistance to Iran, in 1980 or thereafter, by any person or nation, intended to delay the release of the American held as Hostages by Iran, and any approval, acquiescence or knowledge of such sales or transmittals by the 1980 Reagan Presidential
Campaign or persons representing or associated with that campaign; and
(e) Any actions taken to keep any communications or actions as described above, if any such communications or actions took place, from being revealed to the Government of the United States or the American people.
(2) One-third of the members of the Task Force shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business other than the reporting of a matter, which shall require a majority of the Task Force to be actually present, except that the Task Force may designate a lesser number, but not less than two, as a quorum for the purpose of holding hearings to take testimony. When a quorum for any particular purpose is present, general proxies may be counted for that purpose. The Task Force may sit while the House is reading a measure for amendment under the five-minute rule. The rules of the House shall govern the Task Force where not inconsistent with this resolution. The Task Force shall adopt additional written rules, which shall be public, to govern its procedures, which shall not be inconsistent with this resolution or the rules of the House. Such rules may govern the conduct of the depositions, interviews, and hearings of the Task Force, including the persons present. Such rules shall provide for the protection of classified information from unauthorized disclosure.
(3) The Task Force is authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times and places within the United States, including any Commonwealth or possession thereof, or in any other country, whether the House is in session, or has adjourned; to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses, the furnishing of information by interrogatory, and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, calendars, recordings, data compilations from which information can be obtained, tangible objects, and other things and information of any kind as it deems necessary, including all intelligence materials however classified, White House materials, campaign materials, materials of present and former government officials and materials pertaining to unvouchered expenditures or concerning communications interceptions or surveillance; and to obtain evidence in other appropriate countries with the cooperation of their governments and by letters rogatory, commissions, field depositions and other appropriate mechanisms. Unless otherwise determined by the Task Force the chairman, upon consultation with the ranking Republican member, on the Task Force, shall authorize and issue subpoenas. Subpoenas shall be issued under the seal of the House and
attested by the Clerk, and may be served by any person designated by the chairman or any member. The Task Force may request investigations, reports, and other assistance from any agency of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.
(4) The chairman, or in his absence a member designated by the chairman, shall preside at all meetings and hearings of the Task Force. All meetings and hearings of the Task Force shall be conducted in open session, unless a majority of members of the Task Force voting, there being in attendance the requisite number required for the purpose of hearings to take testimony, vote to close a meeting or hearing.
(5) The Chairman, upon consultation with the ranking Republican member, may employ and fix the compensation of such clerks, experts, consultants, technicians, attorneys, investigators, and clerical and stenographic assistants as it considers necessary to carry out the purposes of this resolution. The Task Force shall be deemed a committee of the House for all purposes of law, including House Rule XI (2)(n), and sections 6005, 1505, and 1621 of title 18, section 192 of title 2, 1754(b)(1)(B)(ii) of title 22, and section 734(a) of title 31, United States Code. The Task Force may reimburse the members of its staff for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the performance of the duties vested in the Task Force, other than expenses in connection with meetings of the Task Force held in the District of Columbia.
(6) Unless otherwise determined by the Task Force the chairman, upon consultation with the ranking Republican member, or the Task Force, may authorize the taking of affidavits, and of depositions pursuant to notice or subpoena, by a Member or by designated staff, under oath administered by a Member or a person otherwise authorized by law to administer oaths. Disposition and affidavit testimony shall be deemed to have been taken in Washington, DC, before the Task Force once filed there with the clerk of the Task Force for the Task Force's use. Depositions shall be deemed to be taken in Executive Session.
(7) The Task Force shall be authorized to respond to any judicial or other process, or to make any applications to court, upon consultation with the Speaker consistent with rule L.
(8) The Task Force shall provide other committees and Members of the House with access to information and proceedings, consistent with rule XLVIII(7)(c): Provided, That the Task Force may direct that particular matters or classes of matter shall not be made available to any person by its members, staff, or others, or may impose any other restriction. The Task Force may require its staff to enter nondisclosure agreements and its chairman, in consultation with the ranking Republican member, may require others, such as counsel for witnesses, to do so: Provided further, That the Task Force shall, as appropriate, provide access to information and proceedings to the Speaker, the Majority Leader, the Republican Leader, and their appropriately cleared and designated staff.
(9) Authorized expenses of the Task Force for investigations and studies, including for the procurement of the services of individual consultants or organizations thereof, and for training of staff, shall be paid from the contingent fund of the House upon vouchers signed by the chairman and approved by the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration.
(10) By July 1, 1992, the Task Force shall report to the House the status of its investigation. With respect to this and any other report of the Task Force, including its final report, the report shall be accompanied by supplemental or additional minority views.
(11) At the conclusion of the existence of the Task Force all records of the Task Force shall become the records of the Committee on Foreign Affairs except for those records relating to intelligence matters which shall, upon the Task Force's designation, become the records of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McEwen] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick].
[Page: H334]
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 258.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 258 would establish a special task force of members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to investigate the so-called October surprise allegations. These allegations are extremely serious. Let me take a few moments and explain just how serious they are and why we need a formal investigation.
Literally for years rumors have circulated in this country and abroad that individuals associated with the 1980 Reagan Presidential campaign entered into secret negotiations with the Iranians for the purpose of making sure our 52 hostages, seized in the take over of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran on November 4, 1979, would not be released prior to the 1980 Presidential election.
The rumors are premised on the idea, widely believed in the fall of 1980, that an October Surprise, or release of the hostages just prior to the election, was the only event capable of causing a majority of American voters to reelect the incumbent President, Jimmy Carter, the following month. Therefore, the theory goes, the Reagan campaign had every incentive to work behind the scenes to prevent President Carter from arranging an October surprise, and actually did so.
It is alleged that through a series of secret meetings with Iranian representatives in Madrid, Paris, and possibly elsewhere during the summer and fall of 1980, a deal was struck between individuals associated with the Reagan campaign and Iranians whereby Iran would hold the hostages until after the election in return for arms and spare parts.
These rumors received increased attention last year from Mr. Gary Sick, a former National Security Adviser to President Carter who worked in the White House during the hostage crisis. Mr. Sick, a widely respected expert on Iran, Ivy League professor and former naval officer, wrote an article which appeared in the New York Times in April.
Mr. Sick's article detailed how during the course of researching a book he had been told repeatedly that individuals associated with the 1980 Reagan campaign had made a secret deal with the Iranians to delay the release of the hostages. In return for keeping the hostages in captivity until after the election, the Iranians were allegedly rewarded with a substantial supply of arms and spare parts for their military machine, which was almost exclusively of American origin.
Mr. Sick's article laid out the factual circumstances of 1980 which give credence to the story, including how the Carter administration's ongoing negotiations with the Iranians to secure their release seemed promising. The article also described how suddenly in October 1980, about the time the secret deal was allegedly finalized, Iran broke off negotiations with the Carter administration and began to thwart all official attempts to address the hostage issue until just before the election.
As we all know, the hostages were not released until moments after the inauguration of President Reagan on January 20, 1981. We also know arms in fact began flowing to Iran in substantial quantities immediately thereafter and continued flowing for a long period of time.
Mr. Sick's article created a sensation, not because the rumors were new, but because he had become convinced, after years of dismissing them as fantasy, that there might be something to them.
Journalists working for various news organizations including the Public Broadcasting System documentary `Frontline,' ABC News `Nightline,' the German magazine Der Spiegel, and various others, have looked into these allegations. These investigators have found no conclusive evidence of such a deal, nor have they found conclusive evidence disproving the allegations.
What Mr. Sick and the other journalists have determined, however, is that they have taken the investigation as far as they can without the power to subpoena documents and other evidence, including sworn testimony, and the cooperation of foreign governments.
Mr. Speaker, there has never been a complete, formal investigation of these allegations by any agency or instrumentality of the U.S. Government having the benefit of subpoena power, the power to swear witnesses, and the cooperation of foreign governments.
But I am confident it is obvious to every Member of this House why we need one. Serious people have made serious allegations that private citizens associated with a presidential campaign may have sought to undermine the foreign policy of our Government to keep 52 Americans in captivity for 3 extra months because releasing them might have benefited another candidate.
If true, Mr. Speaker, such actions would in my view come close to being treasonous. Certainly such an episode, if it happened, would have to be the lowest point in American political history, and the American people need to know the truth so they can make sure it never happens again.
If the allegations are not true, the American people have every right to know that too. Very serious allegations have been made against persons who held, and in some cases now hold, high positions in our Government.
Those persons have a right, I believe, to have their names cleared if possible. Only a thorough, formal investigation by an entity vested with subpoena power, the ability to take sworn testimony, and able to win the cooperation of foreign governments can find the truth.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 258 is a well-crafted measure to create such an entity, a special task force of the House. The task force would consist of 13 members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, 8 Democrats and 5 Republicans, appointed by the Speaker and the minority leader.
The resolution authorizes the task force to investigate fully the allegations which have been made. The matters to be investigated include allegations of communications by or on behalf of the 1980 Reagan campaign with Iranians; any attempt or proposal to delay the hostages' release; any activity to acquire or disseminate information pertaining to actions being considered by the Government to obtain the hostages' release; arms sales to Iran by anyone intended to delay the hostages' release; and any actions taken to keep such actions and communications from being revealed.
The resolution authorizes the task force to make such recommendations as it sees fit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs for the enactment of appropriate legislation. The resolution requires the task force to report to the House by July 1, 1992, on the status of its investigation at which time the House may, if it chooses, vote to abandon further investigation.
Mr. Speaker, this panel will face the extremely difficult task of investigating serious, extremely sensitive allegations which are several years old, which implicate various foreign governments, and which involve numerous foreign nationals who may or may not be present in the United States and who may or may not cooperate voluntarily. As such, House Resolution 258 gives the task force the tools it will need to conduct this inquiry swiftly, economically and efficiently.
Some who oppose this investigation will criticize provisions giving the task force chairman the authority, upon consultation with his ranking minority member, to issue subpoenas; giving the task force staff the authority to take depositions; and allowing less than a majority to close meetings or hearings, among others.
Mr. Speaker, constituting a task force to look into these extraordinary allegations and not giving it extraordinary flexibility would render it difficult, if not impossible, for the panel to fulfill its talks and reach the truth. Indeed under some scenarios involving foreign travel, requiring the task force to conform to the rules applicable to other committees would drive up the costs of the investigation substantially.
There is nothing in House Resolution 258 which prevents or in any way impairs the right of any task force member, Republican or Democrat, to participate fully in the activities of the task force. I have complete faith that the member the Speaker has wisely chosen to chair the task force, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and the member of the minority leader has wisely selected as its ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], will work together amicably in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, none of those who have agreed to serve on the task force will be relieved of any of his other responsibilities as a Member of this House. We must not impose upon these members or this task force any procedural requirements which provide burdens without benefits. Their job will be difficult enough as it is, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for their willingness to undertake it.
Mr. Speaker, none of us wants to believe any political campaign would even contemplate such dastardly deeds as have been alleged, let alone consummate them. But these allegations, which have never been formally investigated, go to the very heart of our democratic form of government, and we ignore them at our peril.
Several of the hostages have called for an investigation. President Carter has called for an investigation, as have President Reagan, numerous editorial boards, commentators, and ordinary citizens. President Bush has said he would welcome an investigation.
I believe House Resolution 258 will enable the task force to investigate the October Surprise fully, fairly, expeditiously. I urge all Members to support the resolution without amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
[Page: H335]
[TIME: 1950]
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Broomfield], the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
(Mr. BROOMFIELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have many legitimate concerns about the motives and conduct of the proposed investigation.
The politically charged issue of dealings with the Iranians during the 1980 election deserves to be looked at fairly. Instead, for 18 months Democratic Members and staff have tried to use the power of Congress to build a case against Republicans without ever once informing the minority.
I, like other Republicans--including President Bush and former President Reagan--would be willing to support a proper inquiry. For these reasons, I will support the Michel substitute but must oppose the resolution offered by the majority.
Frankly, I doubt whether any investigation of this matter is warranted at present. The so-called evidence that has been put forward is simply too weak to justify such an expensive election year extravaganza.
Regardless of this, a small group of Democratic Members and staff have relentlessly promoted this investigation. Is it coincidental that the call for an investigation is being heard only now, nearly 12 years later and during a Presidential election year?
For months we have been subjected to a barrage of allegation from various sources that Bill Casey or others with the 1980 Reagan campaign made a deal with the Iranians to delay the release of the United States Embassy hostages. Time and time again, however, such allegations have proved unfounded.
A few months ago, two reputable magazines printed the results of their own far-reaching reviews of these allegations. Both New Republic and Newsweek concluded that the major sources for these stories lacked credibility.
Credit for reviving these old conspiracy theories is often given to Gary Sick, who was a staff member on the Carter National Security Council. In fact, Sick has been making these claims for years.
At this point I will insert an article from the Wall Street Journal of May 2, 1991, as follows:
In a New York Times article that has provoked international notice, Gary Sick wrote on April 15 that he had long been skeptical about the notion that Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign managers had cut a deal with the Iranian authorities to keep American hostages in Tehran until after the election. In return, the story went, the Israeli government delivered arms to the Iranians at the behest of the new Reagan administration.
Much of the power of Mr. Sick's piece, to which the New York Times devoted two-thirds of its op-ed page, derived from the fact that the author had only recently, and reluctantly, been forced to give credence to these stories.
Mr. Sick's precise words bear quoting: `I first heard these rumors in 1981 and I dismissed them as fanciful. I again heard them during the 1988 election campaign, and I again refused to believe them. I had worked in and around the Middle East long enough to be skeptical of the conspiracy theories that abound in the region.' It was only after compiling a massive computerized data base that he began to notice the `curious pattern' of events that led him to go public with his concerns.
But Mr. Sick seems to have forgotten his own thinking. Here is a statement he made, quoted by the Rocky Mountain News on Oct. 30, 1988--at the very peak of the 1988 presidential campaign--in which he discussed the possibility of a hostage deal:
`At first I dismissed this, but not any more. I'm more convinced on the basis of what I heard that there were some meetings in Paris. I know that the Iranians changed their policy at that time. . . .'
Just over a month before that, on Aug. 26, 1988, Mr. Sick told the New York Daily News in a telephone interview: `There is something here. I just don't know how much. * * * I have always been puzzled at why the Reagan administration gave a complete green light to Israel (to deliver arms to Iran) immediately after they took office. These people despised the ayatollah, but they let Israel go ahead with deliveries. I would certainly have to take account of this stuff if I was writing my book over again.'
Mr. Sick, the principal Carter aide for Iran during the hostage crisis, author of `All Fall Down,' a highly regarded book on the hostage crisis, and now an adjunct professor at Columbia, seems to have made a major error on the subject about which he is the world expert: his own mind. It could be a simple mistake; but it could also have to do with the recognition that the convert has more impact than he who is to the faith born. Simply put, had Mr. Sick acknowledged a years-long belief in Republican plotting, his account would have had far less impact.
All of this makes a difference because it is Gary Sick's stature that moved speculations about a Reagan campaign conspiracy from the fringe to the mainstream. Indeed, the subcommittee chairmen of the House Foreign Affairs Committee are scheduled to meet with Mr. Sick today, beginning a process that might lead to a full-scale investigation, by Congress or by a special prosecutor, or by both.
But the flaws in Mr. Sick's account of his own thoughts raise serious doubts about his credibility. Given the vast array of issues facing Congress, the representatives would do well to let this one drift back to the fringe where it belongs.
Sick and others have worked for months, if not years, with Democratic staff on Capitol Hill in order to get an investigation going. He and other journalists actually participated in the investigation conducted during 1990 and 1991 by the General Accounting Office at the request of a Democratic Member. Meanwhile, House Republicans were told nothing for over 6 months.
The GAO investigation shows the pitfalls of starting such a politically charged investigation without any real basis. The GAO spent over $55,000 and devoted 85 staff days to this matter. GAO officials have testified, however, that they were not able to confirm a single allegation.
More recently, we have become aware that Democratic members and staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee continued to investigate this matter, and have even taken legal steps. The minority was not informed of these activities either.
I therefore urge Members to support the Michel substitute, which would help ensure that this investigation will be conducted in a responsible and bipartisan manner.
First, the authorizing resolution should specifically permit investigation of relevant activities of the Carter administration and campaign. This is because without such information, it is impossible to understand the activities of the Reagan team or evaluate allegations against them.
Why would the Iranians have dealt with the Reagan campaign if they already had an arrangement all but done with the Carter administration? Was the Carter plan an arms-for-hostages deal? What other activities was the Carter administration pursuing with the Iranians?
Second, the investigation must have a time limit. Otherwise it will just drag along for political purposes. Those who wish the investigation to continue beyond a certain date should be required to vote again to continue it.
Third, the funding should be more tightly controlled and a limit should be placed on expenditures. The tens of millions of dollars spent on the Iran-Contra investigation demonstrate the folly of taking the taxpayers for a ride on a political investigation.
Finally, additional procedural protections should be adopted for the minority, in accordance with the rules of the House. Our experience with this matter shows that both sides must be included in all proceedings and that the minority should be kept informed of all investigatory activities.
For these reasons, I urge all Members to oppose the resolution and support the Michel substitute.
[Page: H336]
[TIME: 2000]
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, a student of abnormal psychology, I think, would have a field day with this excursion into political paranoia.
Not so long ago we conservatives were thought to monopolize all political paranoia; the John Birch Society found a Communist under everybody's bed; the Trilateral Commission infamously ruled the world; our President, the despised Ronald Reagan, used the term evil empire to describe a progressive socialist country and thus proved himself beyond intellectual redemption.
You do not hear much about political paranoia anymore, nor McCarthyism, for that matter, although I saw it revived here today.
Allegations without proof against people's reputations.
But the paranoia has leapt across the aisle, it has moved to the left now and in today's milieu we demonize nuclear power, for that matter.
We all remember the Silkwood movie; Oliver Stone in `JKF' stigmatized everybody except Shirley Temple.
Now, in all its Freudian glory we have the October Surprise. Richard Hofstadter wrote a book a few years ago, an interesting book, `The Paranoia Style in American Politics.' It was his view in that book that Barry Goldwater supporters were paranoid. But his conclusion, nonetheless, still holds up today. He felt that paranoid fantasies develop among people who perceive a loss of power and a loss of status.
Mr. Speaker, many liberals have never gotten over the victory of Ronald Reagan. He is a usurper who has wrenched from their grasp the entitlement of high office, and he could not have won but for foul play.
So, here we are with October Surprise.
Now, those of you who are great students of ancient history remember a famous Roman senator named Cato, the Elder.
He never ended speech in the Senate but he said, `Delenda est Carthago,' Carthage must be destroyed. Here, 2,000 years later, we have a new version, Reagan must be destroyed, `delenda est Reagan.'
Bipartisan support? We make a pass at bipartisanship, but, you know, this little adventure has been under way,
well, since 1988, in the dark, secretly, stealthily. Even as recently as 3 weeks ago things are going on in a Federal court in New York and we Republicans are never brought in.
Now, today, at last we are invited to sit down at the table. The timing of this investigation guarantees that it will be in full flourish as we approach the elections in November.
I heard from your side of the aisle that it is our fault that we have not moved this thing along. Why, it was August 5 when the Speaker said he was going to put together this task force. How could we stop the juggernaut of the Democratic party from putting together the task force?
Now here it is February and we are going to have weeks consumed in getting the clearances for all of the staff and come November we will be in full flourish, no question about it. Mr. Speaker, in show business that is called a lucky booking.
Now, we hear much in Presidential primaries about the character issue. Well, we have the character issue here. We have a collection of people who right out of Charles Dickens making the charges and the rumors and countercharges here, and I think we will see it in full display.
What we are playing with is history and, yes, we are playing with people's reputations.
I just hope and pray that we have fair play and that we have due process as we pursue wherever the facts lead us.
Dubious as I am, skeptical as I am, I want to go into this with an open mind. I conceive it is within the realm of possibility that something as horrendous as these charges might have occurred. I really doubt it, but I cannot approach this as a member of this task force and have a preconceived notion.
I will do my best to see that fair play and that a weighing of the facts fairly occurs, at least as far as I am concerned. But I hope you will remember you are dealing with people's reputations, you are dealing with people who are deceased. At least three of the major players are deceased here. This is a serious matter.
Last, I want to say that I am pleased that the chairman will be the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], someone in whom I have great confidence, and I look forward to an interesting year as we approach the elections.
[Page: H337]
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this measure to create a task force to investigate the so-called October Surprise allegations. Permit me to associate myself with the eloquent remarks made by our distinguished ranking Republican on our Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Broomfield]. He is correct in stating that most Republicans, including Presidents Bush and Reagan, would be willing to support a proper inquiry. I too will support the Michel substitute.
Last year, our Foreign Affairs Committee met with Richard Allen, former National Security Advisor, and Albo Hassan Bani-Sadr, former Prime Minister of Iran. I have reviewed Mr. Bani-Sadr's so-called evidence and I believe that none of it would meet the evidentiary standards of our Nation's courts.
We have heard outrageous allegations from an incredibly diverse variety of people, all of whom seem to be more interested in the politicizing of this investigation than they do in examining the facts.
Former Carter administration NSC staffer Gary Sick and a plethora of Democratic staffers here on the Hill have been working on this issue for years. If there was really any substance to these charges, something so significant would have come to the surface long ago and we would not have to bother with this debate. As Steven Emerson and Jesse Furman, the authors of the New Republic's November 1981 article entitled `The Conspiracy That Wasn't' noted:
But the truth is, the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication. None of the evidence cited to support this October surprise stands up to scrutiny.
Moreover, the GAO has already expended over $50,000 of Government money and 85 days investigating these charges and they did not come up with any substantive evidence.
If a truly reasonable further investigation is to occur, I urge that we vote for the Michel substitute.
The Michel substitute specifically permits the investigation of the Carter administration's conduct of United States policy toward Iran. The Michel substitute also provides for a strict 56-month time limit. If the investigation is conducted without any time limit, those who have been accused of politicizing the issue would find themselves hard pressed to defend themselves against those charges.
The Michel substitute cleans up several critical procedural matters, subjecting the task force to the regular rules of the House. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to be reasonable, to be fair, and to vote for the Michel substitute.
In considering this issue before us I urge my colleagues to read Newsweek's article of November 11, 1991, entitled `Making of a Myth,' copies of which are on the House Minority's Committee desk, and which concludes:
* * * Newsweek has found, after a long investigation including interviews with Gov't Officials and other knowledgeable sources around the world, that the key claims of the purported eyewitnesses and accusers simply do not hold up. What the evidence does show is murky history of a conspiracy theory run wild.
[TIME: 2010]
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the senior member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
(Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I accepted the assignment to serve as one of the minority members of the October Surprise task force with mixed emotions.
On the one hand, given the extraordinary and even unprecedented charges leveled against current and former public officials, we in this body have an obligation to engage in a fairminded search for the truth.
On the other hand, unless this investigation proceeds with the utmost diligence, objectivity, and punctilious regard for process, I fear that we may inadvertently exacerbate--rather than dispel--mounting public dismay with Congress and our political institutions.
Here I would note that in America process is our most important product. When procedure and comity break down, tragi-comedy ensues. As Reinhold Niebuhr, perhaps the profoundest religious philosopher of the century, once observed, the temper and integrity with which the political fight is waged is more important to the health of our society than the outcome of any single issue.
In this context, it must be stressed that the purpose of this investigation is fundamentally historical rather than prosecutorial.
Its scope will be unique in that the time frame and actions it will cover must inevitably involve prominent personalities and foreign policies in administrations of both parties. And therein lies the danger of destructive partisan rivalry: If the enquiry degenerates into a mischievous political fishing expedition, the endeavor will prove a mire from which no reputation emerges unsullied.
More consequentially, the mere establishment of an investigatory enquiry has the unfortunate implication of lending credibility to charges which are anything but consistent and as yet unproven.
Congressional enquiries, as we all understand, are blunt instruments. Congress is the center point of political debate in this country; it is the arena where public policy is directed through legislation; yet to be introspective, our forte is not historical investigation, although clearly greater attention to historical analysis would serve us well.
The enquiry at hand, however, doesn't appear purely motivated pure historicism. When unhappy events occur, especially when there are partisan political ramifications, conspiracy rationales escalate.
At a time when respect for public officials is low, when the economy is unstable, when the future is uncertain, people are prone to give credence to conspiratorial explanations of events.
This body thus has a particular responsibility to take great caution to ensure that truth, not political advantage, is sought, and that if wrongdoing is found, that the innocent be protected from charges that may be applicable to any that may be guilty of misjudgment or illegality.
This is a powerfully important enquiry. At stake is nothing less than the confidence of the people of the United States in the system of governance established by our Constitution.
A basic tension exists in American politics between the activities of searching for truth and trying to win elections. Our system is founded on the conviction that the former will be successful only if the latter is done fairly.
If in the upcoming investigation into the so-called October Surprise, the American people perceive that either party is willing to sacrifice truth in the desire to win partisan political points, the Nation will be ill served.
Any manipulation of Congress' investigatory powers to corrupt the historical record could precipitate a partisan political victory which would inevitably prove Pyrrhic for the Republic, undoing rather than bolstering respect for the constitutional process.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close on this side. I just have one speaker remaining.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think it is incredible that we are to hear a 12-year-old charge based on the alleged statements of liars, frauds, felons, and opportunists, completely fabricated allegations, totally debunked by Newsweek and New Republic and a host of other investigative committees, including the GAO. Even the independent counsel which has wasted $25 million of our money over the last 5 years, could not find anything to investigate in this thing, and still the Democrats go forward.
Mr. Speaker, they say no to a public investigation of the House restaurant and unpaid bills. They say no to the public investigation of the House bank and bounced checks. They say no to a public investigation of cocaine sales and embezzlement in the House Post Office. And yet they say OK to staff letters to judges to spring criminals from jail.
Where are the demands for the review of Jimmy Carter's role in the October Surprise? Where are the demands for an investigation of the Sandinista surprise where Members of Congress irregularly dealt with the Communists of Nicaragua? Where were the investigations of the Kennedy winning margin in Cook County in 1960, or of Chappaquiddick, or when Lincoln was shot, or when Elvis was sighted? Where are all these investigations?
But yet we go forward with this fabrication. It is nothing more than a credit card for election posturing. It is a travesty, and it is a bad idea, and it is a waste of taxpayers' dollars.
I hope that our friends will vote for the Michel substitute, and on final passage, that they will vote against this travesty. I know this investigation will go forward and my pleas will go unheeded, but I feel confident at the end the American people will be saying to themselves: `What in the heck was that all about?'
[Page: H338]
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee chosen to participate in the so-called October Surprise task force which the House is apparently about to create, I want to assure my colleagues that this Member regards the allegations prompting the creation of this task force indeed to be extraordinarily serious and, if true, a fundamental assault on the electoral system underpinning our democracy. That is, of course, not a suggestion that the charges are true or correct, for many independent and apparently unbiased examiners have found these serious charges to be without merit.
Nevertheless, this Member hereby assures his constituents, the House, and the American people that he will pursue and report the truth, wherever it may be found.
Having given these assurances, however, this Member also would warn that the pursuit of this investigation may well be as dangerous as conducting a torchlight, inch-by-inch search of a darkened explosives factory. With such a potentially fractious investigation conducted in a presidential election year, it is particularly unfortunate that that House seems unable to proceed under a broadly supported, bipartisan resolution to establish proper scope and timing of the investigation. Strictures by the majority limiting the full appropriate scope of the investigation regarding the arms-for-hostages allegations and its insistence on an open-ended time frame which could be manipulated to create a 1992 October Surprise are highly unfortunate. They stand in the way of a bipartisan and good-faith initiation of this investigation. Therefore, the Michel substitute should be accepted.
Beyond this lack of bipartisan agreement on timing and scope in the proposed resolution, as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with some familiarity with the subject of this investigation, their Member fully expects that we will find a large amount of directly conflicting material and testimony from numerous sources who have little, uncertain, or no credibility. In some cases these shadowy characters in the arms-trade and pseudo-members of the intelligence communities are known liars. In other cases the very murky situation in the Iranian religious-political community and the Byzantine intrigue of Middle Eastern politics almost certainly means that the truth is either not determinable or events or statements are subject to uncertain
or totally opposite interpretations. Beyond that, some of the key alleged actors have taken their testimony to the grave; they are dead. Despite skilled and unbiased investigative resources which might be put at the disposal of the task force, the ultimate truth of what happened in 1980 almost certainly will not be conclusively knowable. Some critics of the Reagan campaign, the Carter administration, and the task force will not be satisfied unless the task force can conclusively prove not only what happened, but what didn't happen. This Member doubts whether the task force can provide such conclusive proof.
Members must consider that great temptations will exist in this investigative environment for partisan manipulation and exploitation of every leaked allegation, half-truth, or bald-faced lie from those giving testimony. It will be a veritable feast for the rapidly expanding number and variety of conspiracy theorists whose fanciful tales undermine the very credibility of our political system and the American consensus. It will tempt the self-launched congressional and party staffer or elected or appointed official to exploit the unsubstantiated products of the investigation for political reasons or for self-aggrandizement. It's quite possible that the spreading of the existing allegations will damage relations between the Israeli and American people, the Arab-Israeli peace talks, and the reputation of the United States in the Middle East and elsewhere. It could encourage the further taking of hostages to manipulate American elections or to enhance the prospects of arms sales.
Keep this in mind, too, colleagues, the improper use of this investigative process, the manipulation of any findings or their timing, and the leaking of premature or inconclusive information will further damage the reputation of this Congress. It will damage this Congress and the American system of government which is so visible to the world through our deliberations in this House Chamber.
However, now that the House has reached this point, with visibility and limited, but sufficient, credibility given to these allegations of fundamental impact on the American governmental system, we now have no choice but to proceed. In light of the potential abuses and damage that could be caused by this investigation, Members and staff of both the Senate and the House, our political leaders and candidates, and the news media have a very heavy responsibility to assure that the investigative process and its results are not abused for partisan or other purposes.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished first lady of the State of Maine [Ms. Snowe].
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 258, and in support of the Michel substitute. My interest in this resolution is more than passing--I will be a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee task force investigating this matter, so I have a desire to see that it is done right.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, as a member of this task force, I am concerned about the political appearance that this resolution creates. This task force will be charged with investigating a very serious matter. It should be above even the appearance of partisanship. That is a reasonable principle to embrace.
My opposition to this resolution is not grounded in a belief that nothing should be looked at--rather, I believe that if we are to go forward everything should be looked at. In this instance, half an investigation is not better than no investigation at all.
I am of course referring to the resolution's exclusion of the activities of the Carter administration. There is considerable evidence that the Carter administration was indeed taking covert actions and back channel activities to free the hostages before the election. That is worth exploring. Investigating the Reagan campaign solely, without specifically including the Carter administration, severely limits the ability of the task force to fully investigate the allegations.
I am not suggesting illegality per se, but rather that a pattern of activities by the Carter administration could shed light on the motivations of the Reagan campaign and of the Iranians. For example, how can the allegation that Reagan campaign officials offered to sell arms to the Iranians be fully and properly examined without also examining the substance of a competing offer from the Carter administration?
It seems to me that if we really want to get to the bottom of this we would encourage a study that encompasses all of the factors. Investigating these allegations without exploring the Carter actions is like holding a trial with an essential part of the evidence fenced off from consideration.
Exclusion of the Carter efforts from this investigation leads one dangerously close to the conclusion that the proponents of this resolution have prejudged its results. Mr. Speaker, that is no way to conduct an impartial inquiry.
If we are going to take time to investigate this matter, and spend millions of tax dollars to do it as the resolution intends, isn't it simple fairness to the American people to see that we do a thorough job? Only the Michel substitute provides this fairness by explicitly including the Carter activities within the scope of the task force.
I am also troubled by the majority's reluctance to put an end date to this investigation. By stretching the investigation out ad infinitum, it could potentially drag on into the thick of the presidential campaign.
If Members are determined, as I am, that this investigation not become politically tainted--or more politically tainted--they need to vote for a deadline.
The Michel substitute has a 6-month deadline. However, it provides that if at the end of 6 months the House determines that more time is needed, it may approve a longer investigation. What could be more fair than that?
A vote against a deadline is a vote to immerse the investigation in the 1992 campaign. As a member of the task force, I don't want my work sullied by political entanglements. It will be without a deadline.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to be a part of an investigation of these very serious allegations. But I want the investigation to be objective and as nonpolitical as possible. The American people have had enough of partisanship. They deserve to have this investigation conducted fairly, thoroughly, and without the taint of partisanship. The best way to achieve that is to vote for the Michel substitute.
[Page: H339]
[TIME: 2020]
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I hear the American people calling for economic growth, affordable health care and assistance for the unemployed. But I don't hear them asking us to spend their money to investigate the October Surprise theory.
CBO estimates this investigation could cost $1.2 to $2.5 million. I ask my colleagues, how can you justify this expense when there's a long list of more pressing concerns to be addressed?
I'm deeply concerned that this measure lacks any type of spending limit, or budget. Expenses will require only the approval of the Chair of the House Administration Committee. With all due respect to my chairman, this isn't a fair process for dealing with such a partisan issue.
Granted, it would be nice to dispel these conspiracy rumors, but let's face it, we don't have the time or money to waste, let alone enough evidence to warrant an investigation. Under House Resolution 258. I urge support for the Michel substitute.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would rather be here tonight to discuss ways to get the economy moving again, or how to address our health care crisis, or any of the number of other issues our constituents are telling us should be congressional priorities.
Not surprisingly, the so-called October Surprise investigation didn't come up once in my recent town hall meetings, and I imagine that the topic wasn't raised much in similar meetings across the country. The notion of authorizing unlimited funds for an unspecified time period for Congress to investigate an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory is understandably absent from the priority lists of people who look to Congress to take action on their concerns.
Nonetheless, one of our first actions this session will be to do just that: To authorize the spending of hundreds of thousands--maybe millions--of taxpayer dollars on a politically motivated search for shadows.
I don't mean to make light of this investigation. Certainly, the accusations are very serious, and if there is something to be found, we should take an orderly, bipartisan look at them. Under the capable leadership of Chairman Hamilton and Mr. Hyde, I am confident that this task force will do its job and do it well. But at what cost?
It was just over a week ago that the President challenged this body to put politics aside and focus on the needs of the country. Even if you choose not to listen to the President, listen to what the American people are telling us, what your constituents are telling you. If they're like southwest Floridians, they think our efforts and our dollars are better used elsewhere.
In the end, a vote will be taken, the resolution will pass and the investigation will begin. The other members of the task force and I will examine the evidence objectively and with open minds, and report back our findings. But with every passing day, I fear we'll be reinforcing the American people's perception that Congress is an out-of-touch institution, more interested in scoring political points than solving the immediate and urgent problems facing its citizens. If we are slipping into fantasyland up here on the Hill, shouldn't we be going on a treasure hunt for jobs for Americans rather than an endless witch hunt for political ghosts?
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to follow on my colleague's comments to the effect that this basically represents what is wrong with Congress today. We have a situation where long unemployment lines are developing, people are worrying about the economy. My colleagues are putting out literally thousands, millions of questionnaires to the American people asking them what priorities they want us to work on in 1992. I would bet that working on the October Surprise does not even show up in the top 100.
I think that fairly represents the fact that we have ceased to be a House of Representatives. We are not concerned about the people, at least the leadership of this House is not concerned about the people and their priorities. In these very difficult times, what they are worried about is beating up on the guy who whipped them in two elections, an 80-year-old man named Ronald Reagan. I look at the two statements, statements by Newsweek and the New Republic, with regard to the statements and the allegations upon which the October Surprise is based. These two publications, which certainly are not conservative publications, state, and I am quoting Newsweek, `Newsweek has found that after a long investigation, including interviews with government officials and other knowledgeable sources around the world, that the key claims of the purported witnesses and accusers simply do not hold up.'
It is too bad that the same publication would not make the same statement about the facts that have come up with respect to the sale of cocaine across the counter at the post office of the House of Representatives.
I look at the New Republic statement. They are saying about the October Surprise, `The truth is the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication.' It is too bad we cannot get anybody to say that about the experience with the House bank or the House restaurant or fixed tickets.
I think if you asked the American people which they would rather investigate, the October Surprise or the stewardship of the House of Representatives, there would be no contest.
[Page: H340]
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McEwen] for yielding and compliment him for the excellent job that he and the other Members have been doing here today.
To answer the gentleman from California, I would say the American people are upset with Congress, yes, that after 38 consecutive years where every Speaker, every chairman, every subcommittee chairman has been Democrat, you can expect legislation like this.
Why are the Democrats pushing this boondoggle? I do not think it is the Democrats, I think it is liberals. I know Democrats. Democrats are decent people. They stand up for what is best for this country. But liberals? The liberals will take 2 billion taxpayer dollars and engage in this wild goose chase. This investigation of unsubstantiated rumors will be the Salem witch trials all over again. Why?
What is the evidence? After 10 years of rumor-mongering,
who are their big sources? They have got two. One is an American who says he is a spy or has been a spy for the United States, France, Italy, and Israel, but he has been totally dismissed as unreliable.
The other is a man who says that he has been a spy for Israel and has surfaced after landing in prison for trafficking in military goods. The press, too, not we but the press, has said this man is totally unreliable.
Then we have the two crazy Iranian brothers accused of smuggling and involved in con games. The press says involved in con games. This whole thing is nothing but a con game. These are con artists.
My favorite, October Surprise is always being quoted here today, do you know who they are quoting? Abbie Hoffman. Yes, the former student radical who wrote an article for Playboy is the liberals unimpeachable source. Gary Sick cites Abbie Hoffman as a serious source! Come on. Abbie Hoffman? All the liberal evidence comes under the heading of that `barnyard stuff.' That's what we call it in Wisconsin.
We have a group of liberals here who are salivating at the chance of taking taxpayer dollars and transforming these wierdos, wackos, and nut cases into witnesses with taxpayer dollars, $2 million. This Congress ought to be ashamed of themselves, at 8:30 at night talking about these wierdos. Who is going to be the chief investigator? Geraldo Rivera?
[TIME: 2030]
Let's debate the serious problems confronting our country tonight. This country, this economy needs a shot in the arm. We should be taking care of legislation, dealing with the economy and problems of families and seniors. Let us vote on the notch issues for a change and get to some real substantial issues. Let's start addressing the peoples agenda. Let's start doing our Nation's business.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I do intend to offer a substitute as the designee of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel]. I just wanted to make sure we were not going to be precluded from doing that.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, this is just the first part we are talking about.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] getting ready to summarize?
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close the general debate.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I cannot let 3 1/2 minutes go by when they have 16 minutes, so I yield the balance of my time to myself.
Mr. Speaker, let's just recap where we stand. We started out with a partisan day and we are ending up the same way. Why do they want this hearing? Why can they not use the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the 57 other committees that they chair? Because they want to have a particular platform in an election year in which they can call of these weirdos and, what are they called, you can use the terms that you want to use, documented frauds and imposters.
One of the fellows said that he turned down the job as the head of the secret service for Israel, the Mossad. He was too busy. He is the one that saw George Bush on the tarmac over there during the campaign, over in Europe someplace. When they brought him the documents and showed that George Bush was at these other places, then he changed the city, then he changed the date, and, after four tries, he finally came up with it.
The General Accounting Office has already gone through this. The General Accounting Office came up to the Committee on Rules and testified that they had interviewed as many people as possible, checked all these things out. They said where they landed so they would not see the pilot. The pilot said he never landed in those places in his life. They said what was the weather like, and they went out and checked the weather, and found out it was completely
wrong. They checked the tail numbers of the planes they used. In fact, we asked the question in the Committee on Rules as to anything that they ever said under any circumstances, did any of it turn out to be true?
They said, `Congressmen, every single thing they said proved to be wrong.'
Now, we have investigated under the General Accounting Office, under the Committee on House Administration, under Iran-Contra. We have done it all.
The purpose of this is not for an investigation. We do not want to get to the facts.
When the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] said that he was going to look at the facts, they went back and excised it so you cannot look at any Democrats. You can only look at Republican candidates for office in 1980.
That is what this House has stooped to. That is what this Congress, dominated lock, stock, and barrel, from the person that sells the postage stamps, to the person that runs the bank, to the person that runs the police force, they are solid Democrats. Republicans are not allowed to have any understanding as to what is going on. They do it behind our back.
It is only through slipshod incompetence that we ever find out what they are doing in the first place. And now that it is all out in the open and all of these reports have been exposed, they want to reach into the till, take another $2 million, at least, maybe even more than that, unlimited funding, unlimited time, and set up a platform to bring all of these wierdos in to testify as to when you saw George Bush and when you saw Ronald Reagan and where was he standing and what deal was he cutting, and you and I know that this is absolutely reprehensible to the political process.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McEWEN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McEwen] saying that the economy, that health care, that the environment, that crime, that jobs, are more important than what happened in 1980 in the Reagan-Carter campaign? Is that what the gentleman is telling us?
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is the value system that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the American people hold. But the people who have run this Congress throughout my entire lifetime and for 58 of the last 62 years are far more interested in power than they are in the prospects of the future of the American taxpayer.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has 16 minutes remaining.
[Page: H341]
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, has the minority used all their time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McEwen] has expired.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 16 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, of course I rise in support of the resolution. I think I understand some of the deep feelings that have been expressed here this afternoon and this evening. I would like to try to put into some context my feelings about this investigation.
Mr. Speaker, obviously the threshold question is why we have an investigation? There are three reasons.
The first of those reasons are the circumstances of the time. The second is the seriousness of the allegations. The third is the evidence.
Let us start with the first one, that is, the circumstances of 1980 and 1981. Surely anybody would have to say that these circumstances were unusual and extraordinary. American hostages were released within minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President of the United States. Significant quantities of arms are alleged to have begun to flow very shortly thereafter.
When asked about the report of these arms transfers, former Reagan administration officials say they cannot recall any such transfers, and they have offered conflicting accounts of their origin and purpose. These circumstances are just extraordinary. That is reason No. 1.
Reason No. 2, I think, does not need elaboration. These allegations are extremely serious. Successful or not, any effort by representatives of the Reagan campaign to influence the outcome of the 1980 election, to delay the release of the hostages, all of us would surely agree if those allegations are true, then they represent a grave and dangerous abuse of constitutional process and a profound injustice.
Sure, we have other issues that are important on the agenda today. But protecting the constitutional processes of the United States has to be ranked as a major priority.
Now, these allegations are sufficiently alarming that former President Carter has called for an investigation. President Bush has said that he would like to see this matter put to rest. President Reagan has said that we should do all we can to clear the air. Fourteen of the former hostages, and I would urge Members to read their letter, have urged a formal congressional inquiry.
Let me say that I genuinely hope that these allegations can be disproven conclusively. I have yet to see any conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. But neither have I seen all of the evidence or heard from all who claim to have witnessed or participated in these events.
If these allegations can be proven false, they will be put to rest, and the stains on the reputations of many public servants who have been implicated will be removed.
If the allegations are proven true, corrective steps will need to be taken. If the allegations are true, we would do a disservice to the country if we failed to pursue an inquiry.
If the allegations are false, we would do a disservice to those who have been accused of misconduct if we fail to go forward.
Mr. Speaker, I do not see how one can get to the bottom of these matters unless one has a formal investigation by an official party with subpoena power, able to take statements under oath and to obtain secure access to information.
Mr. Speaker, how does one get to the bottom of this unless one has that kind of official power? Even these investigatory tools may not get us to the truth. But without them, the chances of learning the truth and ending the controversy are slim.
Mr. Speaker, the other point is the evidence. I have heard many statements deriding the evidence, and I have to acknowledge that one has to approach this evidence with a lot of skepticism.
[TIME: 2040]
Let me briefly, very briefly, try to summarize some of that evidence.
It is widely agreed that the Reagan campaign officials were deeply concerned about the possible political impact of a release of the American hostages. Mr. Allen, Mr. Deaver have both said that.
Jamshid Hashemi gave a detailed account of a series of meetings he claims took place in Madrid in 1980, between Iranian Government representatives and Reagan campaign director William Casey. Five other sources independently claim knowledge of meetings involving Casey and Iranians in Madrid in July, and corroborate much of what Hashemi's characterization of the content of those meetings was.
Several sources report a series of meetings among William Casey, Iranian officials, and Israeli officials that took place in Paris over a weekend in October 1980.
I will name names: Hushang Lavi, an Iranian arms dealer; Oswald Lewinter, a man who claims to have worked for United States intelligence officers; two men with access to French intelligence; a French lawyer; Arif Durrani, a Pakistani arms dealer; William Herrmann, an American CIA contractor; an Arab diplomat, and there are other indications of evidence.
Let me repeat again, this is some of the evidence suggesting that a deal was arranged. That evidence surely should be treated with skepticism, and the credibility of several key sources is questionable. And those sources need to be regarded with caution.
Similarly, several individuals who have disputed some of these allegations also appear to have been mistaken or incorrect in their recollections.
Now, the magazine reports that have been referred to so often have challenged the October Surprise allegations and evidence. In my view, the fact that these magazines reached plausible but entirely different conclusions, for example, from Mr. Sick's book only underscores the need for a formal investigation. And may I point out to my colleagues that none of those journalists had the subpoena power, none of them so far as I know was able even to interview Mr. Hashemi. They simply were not able to contact a lot of the sources, not because they did not try but because they did not have the investigatory power.
I think we know enough about these charges to identify the lines of inquiry, and I understand that some of my colleagues are saying tonight that it is a waste of time pursuing this inquiry when there are so many urgent issues before us. And I agree, of course, that the Congress must make the important issues of the day its top priority.
But I also think we have the ability in this institution and the responsibility to focus on several important issues at one time.
Let me say a word about the investigation as I see it developing. The task force will make every effort to coordinate with the Senate. As best I can judge, the investigation will proceed in two stages. First, we will examine the paper trail associated with these allegations. This will involve locating and reviewing a substantial existing body of evidence relating to these allegations. During this stage the task force will take a lot of depositions.
Once that stage of inquiry is completed, the task force will then decide whether or not public hearings are warranted. The inquiry will be structured so that it can be altered or stopped at any point, if the facts demand.
The task force's primary objective will be to determine what, if anything, happened in 1980.
I understand my friends on the minority side have some real concerns. One of those concerns, as they have expressed repeatedly, is the scope of the investigation. Let me make several comments with respect to that.
First, this inquiry is prompted by significant evidence, certainly not conclusive, concerning allegations of misconduct by the Reagan campaign team in 1980. The resolution authorizes an investigation of those allegations. I heard claims about Carter administration policy during the hostage crisis, but I have not heard allegations of misconduct or illegality of the Carter administration.
The point I want to make is that the allegations of wrongdoing relate to the Reagan campaign team. The allegations do not relate, so far as I know, to the illegality or the misconduct of the Carter administration.
The second point, may I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, is this, that Members of Congress cannot be denied and should not be denied the opportunity to raise issues they believe relevant to a matter before them. The policies in place when the alleged events of 1980 are said to have occurred are relevant to this inquiry.
Members of the task force would certainly be able to raise any questions or issues whose relevance to the task force mandate can reasonably be demonstrated.
Now, about the duration of the investigation. My friends on the minority side want to limit the investigation to a set time, six months. May I say to my colleagues that I really do have a lot of sympathy with that demand, but certainly they can understand that when we are investigating, we do not know how that investigation will go. We are going to have to begin by seeking security clearances for some of our people. That is a process that took months during the Iran-Contra investigation. We do not control that. The executive branch controls it, and if they wanted to delay for 3 or 4 months, and I am not making the accusation that they do, but if they wanted to, it could hold us up.
Second, evidence concerning these allegations is likely to be scattered around the world, and it is going to take time to locate them. And next, we are going to have to deal with a number of foreign governments. And when we deal with foreign governments, we have to deal with the protocol of those governments and go through their channels. And we cannot force that process or speed that process.
I do hope my friends understand that the time limit is finite because it relates to the 102d Congress, but I do believe that imposing a time limit would really be quite unwise. We plan to go where the facts lead us. We do not know the facts. We do not know how much time will be needed to get there. And it is to no one's advantage to trade speed for thoroughness.
Let me conclude with a few personal observations. I want to do the very best I can to make this investigation thorough, professional and fair. I intend to conduct this investigation in as bipartisan a manner as possible. I have worked frequently with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], your task force leader. He is an able and honorable man in this institution, and he and I will work hard together, I am confident, to carry this investigation out properly.
I will not try to blindside Members or to deny them an opportunity for fair and reasonable access to the documents and to the witnesses.
I frankly do not understand the intensity of some of the opposition to this task force. If Members are confident that the alleged events of 1980 did not occur, what then do they have to fear from a formal inquiry? Do they not see the advantages of our country putting to rest these concerns and suspicions? Would we not all be better off if a serious and thorough effort is made to find out what did and what did not happen in 1980? Why let these allegations continue to undermine public trust in our government and the reputations of so many individuals?
My own view is it would be better for us to try to find out what we can with this special investigation and with the tools that are available to us.
[Page: H342]
[TIME: 2050]
I understand that some say that a House investigation is bound to be partisan and unfair. I cannot see how any political party or any elected official, least of all those of us on the task force, could benefit from an investigation that is perceived to be partisan or sloppy or less than thorough. I know that a perfect investigation is not possible, but a flawed investigation would damage the reputations of those who conducted it and reflect unfavorably on this House.
Finally, let me say that I will do my best to see that this inquiry is carried out with a small staff and a modest budget. We will hire outside legal counsel and investigators as needed, but we will rely as much as possible on current congressional staff and other staff that can be seconded. We recognize the need to keep the cost of the inquiry as low as possible while proceeding expeditiously.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the memorandum of general counsel Steven R. Ross and deputy general counsel Charles Tiefer on the subject of the authority for a chairman to initiate a committee inquiry.
The document referred to follows:
We have been asked whether a House Committee Chairman has authority to initiate a committee investigation involving certain steps, such as writing letters, without a committee vote. As described below, the courts have found such a procedure entirely appropriate. Many investigative actions, like scheduling hearings, sending letters relating to an investigation, or asking staff to look into a matter, are among the actions by which a chairman appropriately provides for information to come to a committee. These are legally quite distinct from using the subpoena power for compulsory provision of information, and it is only the subpoena power which requires the more formal committee authorization steps addressed in House Rule XI(2) (m).
The House of Representatives's rules, precedents, and practices address in many respects one of its most important procedures, the conduct of committee investigations. House Rule XI.1(b) provides:
`Each committee is authorized at any time to conduct such investigations and studies as it may consider necessary or appropriate * * *.'
The rule only tells committees they are `authorized at any time to conduct such investigations,' not how they are to do so. It is just as consistent with this rule for the instigation of the investigation, and some of the various steps, to occur on a chairman's instructions as by committee vote. Moreover, it is well known that chairman of committees or subcommittees have a number of responsibilities with respect to investigations, including scheduling hearings and announcing their subjects, and assigning staff to prepare prior to the hearings. See, e.g., House Rule XI(2) (c)(1) and (k)(1). Both the Rules and Jefferson's Manual also prescribe the aspects of investigations that typically require collective participation of committee members, such as a votes to issue subpoenas, requirements regarding quorums and closed sessions, and reports of the committees. See, e.g., House Rule XI(2)(g)(2), (h)(2), and (m)(1) 1
1 See House Manual Sec. 407 (Jefferson's Manual section on bills, addressing the requirement of a meeting for the committee to report) (`A committee . . . can only act together, and not by separate consultation and consent--nothing being the report of the committee but what has been agreed to in committee actually assembled'). Jefferson's Manual is clearly speaking at this point about committee reporting of bills, as this is the section on bills. The section regarding investigations, section XIII, `Examinations of Witnesses,' House Manual 342-43, discusses procedure for hearings (how questions are put, that `testimony given in answer * * * before a committee [] must' be `written down,' and similar matters) but does not discuss steps preliminary to hearings, such as the chairman's role in scheduling them and deciding their subject, writing letters, or using non-Member assistance.
Many House Committee investigations begin by committee inquiry letters asking for information, and assigning staff to investigate, and this procedure has recently been described and discussed with approval by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In United States v. Mitchell, 877 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1989), the Court upheld a conviction for obstructing an investigation by the House Committee on Small Business. The Court said of the obstruction statute that `[t]o give 1505 the protective force it was intended, corrupt endeavors to influence congressional investigations must be proscribed even when they occur prior to formal committee authorization.' Id. at 301 (italic added). The Court explained the factual background:
`Applying these principles to the case at hand, all of the circumstances surrounding this investigation point to the conclusion that appellants' corrupt endeavor was directed towards a legitimate House investigation. The investigation was instigated by the chair of a House committee that unquestionably has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the inquiry. The letter from Congressman Mitchell to the SBA expressly said that `[t]his Committee is presently conducting an investigation' and referred to the Small Business Act for its authority to do so. Furthermore, the investigation was handled by the chief investigator of the Small Business Committee on a continuing basis for several months. * * * [T]his was a congressional investigation. Accordingly, we hold that the investigation instigated by Congressman Mitchell was an investigation by the Small Business Committee of the House that was protected by 1505.' Id. at 301.
When the Fourth Circuit said explicitly and repeatedly, as the heart of its holding in the case, that an investigation initiated by the Chairman `was a congressional investigation' and `was an investigation by the Small Business Committee,' it plainly considered, and rejected, the argument that something more than the Chairman's initiation was required. Moreover, the Fourth Circuit counted two actions as the classic signs of a chairman-initiated, proper investigation: writing of a letter, and handling by the Committee's staff and (the `chief investigator of the Small Business Committee').
The same sustaining of Chairman-initiated investigations occurred in the series of Iran-contra cases in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In these well-known prosecutions, the background of House investigations was that in 1985 and 1986, the chairmen of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs sent inquiry letters to the National Security Council seeking documents and other information regarding the allegations in press stories about NSC activities. Those letters were sent without prior committee or subcommittee votes, and the inquiries occurred without the more formal procedures of subpoenas to witnesses, or witnesses under oaths. Despite the absence of such prior votes or other formal procedure, members of the NSC staff were indicted for obstructing the inquiries, destroying records, and providing false answers.
The Court rejected the defendants' challenges to the indictment, holding that the defendants' acts constituted the felony offenses of obstruction of Congress and of making false statements, even though the inquiry letters and responses occurred in the absence of votes, subpoenas and oaths. See United States v. North, 708 F. Supp. 372 (D.D.C. 1988); United States v. North, 708 F. Supp. 380 (D.D.C. 1988). (The indictments have come into question because the NSC staff were later immunized in the 1987 Iran-contra hearings, but the 1987-immunity legal questions are separate from the 1985-86 House investigations.) 2
2 The subsequent histories of the case include trials, and appeals, and reversals on other grounds. United States v. North, 910 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2235 (1991), indictment dismissed on remand on September 16 1991; United States v. John M. Poindexter, No. 90-3125 (D.C. Cir. decided Nov. 15, 1991.) The appeals focused on the issue of immunity, and on some of the jury instructions, not the pretrial rules discussed herein regarding the sufficiency of the indictments.
For the obstruction counts against each defendant, it sufficed that letters `sent by The Honorable Michael Barnes, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HRAC), and the Honorable Lee Hamilton, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), [which] referred explicitly to the Boland Amendment' had `institute[d] inquiries directed towards North's conduct regarding advice and fund-raising support to the Nicaraguan rebel leaders. * * * Both letters were on official stationery and each letter was signed by the Congressman in his official capacity as Chairman.' 708 F. Supp. at 381-82. `In response to separate letters from the chairmen, North allegedly drafted obstructive responses,' and `[C]hairmen of two of these committees wrote on behalf of their committees to the President * * * defendant Poindexter responded in separate letters to all three committees.' 708 F. Supp. at 374 nn. 3 & 4.
The Court rejected objections by the defendants that such procedures would not suffice for perjury prosecutions, particularly due to the absence of the oath. `[North's] arguments are addressed to the wrong forum. * * * [since] the [false statements] statute
does not allow North's interpretations. Congress may set the policy it expects from those who deal with it. Congress felt that less exacting standards than are included in the perjury statute were appropriate for ensuring the integrity of governmental functions. United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 95 (1941); United States v. Rodgers, 466 U.S. 475, 482-83 (1984).' 708 F. Supp. at 384. Accordingly, the Court held that the indictment properly stated the offenses of obstruction, and providing false statements, regarding the responses that occurred to the House Committee and Subcommittee Chairmen's letters of inquiry.
Of course, the various House committees and subcommittees have their own rules and procedures. Different inquiries by different committees may follow their own individual paths. Committees may decide among themselves, by precedent or newly devised procedures, how to conduct any particular inquiry. A committee can even adopt rules requiring committee votes before initiation of major inquiries, as the House Un-American Activities Committee did, and if such a rule is adopted, `it must be strictly observed.' Gojack v. United States, 384 U.S. 702, 708 (1966). However, HUAC had special reasons, stemming from the controversial nature of its investigations, for adopting such a rule, and the vast majority of committees have not had any reason to adopt such a rule. For committees without such a rule, the ordinary procedures by which chairmen commence inquiries--through inquiry letters, scheduling hearings, or staff studies--are proper without committee votes in advance. The different procedural questions which arise when a committee invokes its power to issue compulsory process pursuant to the subpoena power of House Rule XI(2)(m) only arise when, and if, the committee elects to invoke its subpoena power.
While it may be true under clause 1(b) of Rule XI that a committee or subcommittee acting as a collegial body should at some point meet if that question is raised to determine whether to conduct an investigation, it is also true under clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X that each standing committee has the oversight responsibility to `review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration, execution and effectiveness of those laws * * * within the jurisdiction of that committee * * *.' In furtherance of this responsibility, it has been traditionally proper for the chairmen of committees or subcommittees to initiate preliminary `reviews or studies' i.e. inquiries which in a general sense may be termed preliminary investigations, in preparation for possible investigations to be undertaken by the committee and subject to ultimate direction and control of the committee. In fact most Members know that committee investigations are normally undertaken without the need for a formal committee vote where the need for the `investigation' is understood, or by the issuance of subpoenas where formal committee action is deemed necessary.
It is essential, for example, that a chairman's preliminary inquiry be able to minimize the possibility of the destruction of documents pending their formal incorporation as committee files. There exists an inherent authority for a chairman to take preliminary steps to request and preserve testimony and documents.
The courts have even agreed that congressional investigations need not have been formally authorized pursuant to the letter of a committee's rules in order to be due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under the obstruction of witnesses statute (18 U.S.C. 1505), where it is apparent from all surrounding circumstances that the inquiry is a legitimate exercise of the investigative authority within the committee's purview (U.S. v. Mitchell, 877 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1989).
[Page: H343]
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following exhibits for the Record.
.....................The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). All time has expired.
It is now in order to consider the amendment printed in House Report 102-386.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 303, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Michel:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
That there is hereby established in the House of Representatives a Task Force of members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to investigate certain allegations concerning the holding of Americans as hostages by Iran in 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the `task force').
Sec. 2. The task force is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete investigation of--
(a) Any attempt, or proposal to attempt, by the 1980 presidential campaign of then Governor Reagan, and/or the 1980 presidential campaign of then President Carter, or persons representing or associated with those campaigns, or the United States Government, to affect the timing of the release of the Americans held as hostages in Iran;
(b) Any attempt by then President Carter, or his Administration, to affect the timing of the release of the Americans held as hostages in Iran;
(c) Any actions taken to keep any attempt, or proposal to attempt, to affect the timing of the release of the Americans held as hostages in Iran, as described in (a) or (b) above, if any such attempts or proposed attempts took place, from being revealed to the Government of the United States or to the American people.
Sec. 3. (a) The task force shall be composed of 13 Members of the House who shall be appointed by the Speaker from the membership of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, one of whom he shall designate as chairman, and the minority members of which shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the minority leader.
(b) Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the task force shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made.
Sec. 4. (a) For pusposes of carrying out this resolution the task force is authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times and places within the United States, including any commonwealth or possession thereof, or in any other country, whether the House is in session (including while the House is sitting for amendment under the five-minute rule), has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold hearings as it deems necessary.
(b) The provisions of clauses 1, 2, and 3 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, shall apply to the task force, except that--
(1) no vote by any member of the task force may be cast by proxy; and
(2) the task force shall not delegate to the chairman the power to authorize subpoenas.
(c)(1) the chairman, upon consultation with the ranking minority members, may authorize the taking of affidavits, and of depositions pursuant to notice or subpoena, by a Member or by designated staff, under oath administered by a Member, there being at least two members of the task force present including at least one member and one staff person from the minority.
(2) Affidavit and deposition testimony shall be deemed to have been taken in Washington, D.C. before the task force once filed with the Clerk of the task force for the task force's use, and shall be deemed to have been taken in executive session.
(3) The provisions of clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI requiring a committee vote to close hearings to the public shall not apply with respect to the taking of affidavit and deposition testimony in executive session.
(d) Pursuant to its authority under House Rules to require by subpoena or otherwise the testimony of witnesses and the production of certain materials, the task force may use such authority to obtain any relevant intelligence materials, however classified,
White House materials of President Carter and President Reagan, campaign materials, materials of present and former government officials and materials pertaining to un- vouchered expenditures or concerning communications interceptions or surveillance; and to obtain evidence in other appropriate countries with the cooperation of their governments.
(e) The task force shall be authorized to respond to judicial or other process, or to make any applications to court, upon consultation with the Speaker consistent with Rule L.
(f)(1) The task force shall provide in its written rules procedures for the protection of classified information from unauthorized disclosure.
(2) The task force shall provide other committees and Members of the House with access to information and proceedings, consistent with rule XLVIII, clause 7(c)(2); Provided, That the task force may direct that particular matters of classes of matter shall not be made available to any person by its members, staff, or others, and may impose any other restriction.
(3) The task force may require its staff to enter nondisclosure agreements, and its chairman, in consultation with the ranking minority member, may require others, such as counsel for witnesses, to do so.
(4) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct may investigate any unauthorized disclosure of such classified information by a Member, officer or employee of the House or other covered person upon request of the task force.
(5) If, at the conclusion of its investigation, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct determines that there has been a significant unauthorized disclosure, it shall report its findings to the House and recommend appropriate sanctions for the Member, officer, employee, or other covered person consistent with rule XLVIII, clause 7(e), and any committee restriction, including nondisclosure agreements.
(6) Classified information received by the task force shall not be disclosed publicly by any Member, officer, or employee of the House, except pursuant to the procedure specified in rule XLVIII, clause 7(b) for which purpose the task force shall be the select committee to which the rule refers.
[Page: H368]
Sec. 5. (a) Authorized expenses of the task force for investigations and studies, including for the procurement of the services of individual consultants or organizations thereof, and for the training of staff, shall be paid from the contingent fund of the House upon vouchers signed by the chairman and approved by the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, except such payments may not exceed $300,000.
(b) In carrying out its functions under this resolution, the task force is authorized--
(1) to appoint, either on a permanent basis or as experts or consultants, such staff as the task force considers necessary;
(2) to prescribe the duties and responsibilities of such staff;
(3) to fix the compensation of such staff;
(4) to terminate the employment of any such staff as the task force deems appropriate; and
(5) to reimburse members of the task force and its staff for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties and responsibilities for the task force, other than expenses in connection with any meeting of the task force held in the District of Columbia.
(c) The task force and all authority granted in this resolution shall expire thirty days after the filing of the report of the task force.
(d) The task force shall be deemed a committee of the House for all purposes of law, including sections 6005, 1505, and 1621 of title 18, section 192 of title 2, 1754(b)(1)(B)(ii) of title 22, and section 734(a) of title 31, United States Code.
(e) The task force may request investigations, reports, and other assistance from any agency of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Federal government.
Sec. 6. (a)(1) The task force shall report to the House as soon as practicable during the present Congress but not later than six months after the date of adoption of this resolution, the results of its investigation and study, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable.
(2) Not more than 45 days prior to the expiration of the six-month period referred to in paragraph (1), but prior to the expiration of such period, the task force may file an interim report detailing the progress made to date, the costs incurred by the inquiry, and the need for extending the inquiry.
(3) At any time after the filing of such interim report it shall be in order in the House to consider as privileged a resolution introduced and offered by the chairman of the task force, or his designee, extending the period of the inquiry to a date certain which shall be specified in the resolution. If the resolution is adopted the task force shall have until the date specified in the resolution to file its final report. If the resolution is not adopted, the task force shall file its final report as soon as practicable thereafter but in no event later than 15 calendar days after such vote.
(b) Any such report which is made when the House is not in session shall be filed with the Clerk of the House.
(c) Any such report shall be referred to the committee or committees which have jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof.
(d) The records, files and materials of the task force shall become the records of the Committee on Foreign Affairs except for those records relating to intelligence matters which shall become the records of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. MICHEL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] will be recognized for 15 minutes and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel].
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICHEL. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The point made by the previous speaker was he could not understand two things. No. 1, why the intensity of our opposition and why we should not consider Mr. Carter.
The strong position of this side of the aisle has been a free and open discussion of both sides, and the degree to which they are unwilling to look at the Democratic President and his campaign staff is the degree to which it arouses intensity on our part that this is obviously a partisan inquiry.
Mr. MICHEL. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. May I take this opportunity to applaud him and commend him for the manner in which he acquitted himself all during the course of this debate from the very beginning.
Mr. Speaker, I obviously rise in support of the substitute I have offered. As I have told the Speaker from the very beginning of our consideration of this item, that I did not think an investigation was warranted. In my view, the majority is offering an unacceptable resolution for an unnecessary investigation into unbelievable allegations based on unsubstantiated claims made by unsavory characters. Now that ought to sit well with you, Mr. Hyde. That is about the way you would say it.
But we in the minority know the realities in this House. The silken glove of civility hides the iron hand of power. But we owe it to the House and to the American people to say we think this investigation is ill-advised.
First, the accusations fail to meet minimum standards of credibility. That is not just our opinion. Objective outside observers share that, as was shown here on the screen earlier, and the statements particularly by Newsweek magazine: `* * * the key claims of the purported eyewitnesses and accusers simply do not hold up. What the evidence does show is the murky history of a conspiracy theory run wild.'
And as the New Republic showed, `* * * the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication. None of the evidence * * * stands up to scrutiny. * * *'
In short, Mr. Speaker, the claims of the conspiracy theorists have not reached the threshold of credibility necessary for our attention.
And second, the investigation will take up time and energy better utilized for urgent problems. And of course, as has been alluded to, but I have to repeat it again, here we are in the midst of a recession, and unemployed Americans look to us for action but the majority wants to spend 9 or 10 months and millions of dollars investigating an 11-year-old story, the kind you find in the supermarket tabloids.
What will the majority do when an unemployed American asks what the House is doing to help the economy? All the majority can say is, `Hey, we are looking into an 11-year-old allegation made by convicted gunrunners and other weirdos.' Well, let the majority tell an unemployed parent of six to take a conspiracy theory to the grocery store and see how much it will buy.
But as I said, the majority controls the proceedings around here. So we have no other recourse than to offer our substitute which differs from the base bill in four important ways.
No. 1, it conducts a full inquiry into any attempt by the 1980 Reagan campaign or the Carter administration or campaign to affect the timing of the release of the hostages.
No. 2, it expends no more than $300,000.
The third point, file a report no later than 6 months after the adoption of the resolution.
And the fourth, very important, abide by the rules of this House.
If I might take just another moment or two to expand, if I may, on only the first point. Our substitute would require the task force to investigate the secret arms deal President Carter attempted to make with Iranian terrorists during the 1980 Presidential campaign.
The majority's strict party line vote in the Rules Committee refused to accept such a provision in its resolution. What Carter actually did is, under the Democrat resolution, off bounds to investigators. What Reagan aides allegedly did is all that matters.
Now that gives Members some idea of the partisan issue the majority has made of this.
The distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] a few moments ago argued in defense of the majority resolution that President Reagan himself has called for an inquiry into these allegations. That is correct. But it is like saying a man who has been smeared with unendurable filth agrees to jump into the first available pool of water. It does not mean he believes the water is clean.
No corroborating evidence of the conspiracy theory was found after an investigation by the General Accounting Office, an investigation secretly begun and, incidentally, directly guided by the majority itself. The secret investigation by the majority is yet another example of that raw power that exists in this House.
The only reason this investigation is being held is that the allegations come from those who hold politically correct conspiracy views of the left. I guess you know that. I know that. The American people know that.
Mr. Speaker, this investigation is only the latest piece of evidence to demonstrate why this institution, frankly, desperately needs a complete overhaul.
I guess let your games begin. But do not expect us to applaud.
I would urge a vote for our substitute, which at least officially recognizes the existence of President Jimmy Carter, something that our Democrat friends would love us to forget.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] has consumed 6 minutes.
[Page: H369]
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torri- celli].
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, there will be no victors on this floor tonight. This is a judgment that no one wants to make, but there is a responsibility in this House. There is a responsibility not simply to prove the things that might have occurred, but indeed to make clear to the world that if they did occur that that blemish is not a part of our history either.
The facts, as they now appear to us are clear. Allegations have been made which would convince a foreign government during a future American election that it is fair game to deal with a political campaign and manipulate the American political process.
That impression has been left with them whether the charges are true or they are false. That brings a responsibility to this House to either establish that these things never occurred or, by virtue of finding those responsible and exposing them, make clear that it will never happen again.
I do not come to this floor having reached any conclusion. Comparing the credibility of some who would make the charges and senior officials of this Government, the benefit of every doubt belongs with those who have led our country.
But it is of service to no one that the charges are never answered, to those hostages who have written to this House writing about a trauma in their own lives asking that answers be provided, to Jimmy Carter, who saw his Presidency torn asunder; to Jimmy Carter, to Ronald Reagan, who have had their own integrity questioned; they deserve an answer.
Support the resolution.
I know the intentions of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] are sound, but the 6-month deadline will only convince those who have answers to withhold them the 6 months.
Support the resolution as it is offered. Find an answer and make the record clean.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
Mr. DORNAN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the Republican leader, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I think the only honorable, decent thing to do here is to support the Michel amendment.
I just want to touch on one aspect of this that really enters the field of science fiction and make my case that this is the decent way to go, because to tell you the truth, and I mean this sincerely, I am embarrassed for some of the best friends I have made on the other side of the aisle for 6 exciting and fascinating years that I served on the Committee on Foreign Affairs before I shifted to the Committee on Armed Services, some of the most distinguished Members of this House who I think, quite honestly, have been given dirty duty here, a rotten detail to pursue a 12-year-old story that is filled with so much ignominy that it really hurts them and it hurts me personally to see them hurt themselves.
Let me take a specific: Former lifelong dedicated public servant George Bush is a candidate with former Governor Ronald Reagan in October 1980, and to make him disappear from the campaign trail, Gary Sick and all of these other strange names I am going to talk about for a second here, they had to put him in an SR-71 Blackbird, to spirit him back on a secret Air Force mission from Spain which means you bump the navigator out of the back seat of an SR-71.
Now, I would ask all of my Democrat colleagues to talk to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Byron] on your side, a distinguished lady Member who is the only Member on your side of the aisle that I know that has flown in the SR-71 Blackbird as the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and I have on this side.
To fly in that aircraft, the Air Force said to all three of us, `You must give us 3 days out of your lives to fly about 8 hours in a simulator and to undergo a whole day of training and physiological studies so that you do not die at 82,000 feet going mach 3, if you lose your oxygen, or something happens to your helmet or you get an unstart or there is a crack in the canopy.' Now, can you imagine George Bush, 12 years more vigorous, and taking him in the back seat of an airplane that is going to go mach 3 across the Atlantic against the jetstream at over 80,000 feet and not have somebody in the Air Force say, `Yes, I saw him get in and out of the world's most exotic airplane that holds every speed and altitude record?' There is the equivalent of going that high physiologically on your body, and it is like going 10,000 feet down in a bathysphere. Why does not Gary Sick say, `They put George Bush in a bathysphere and dragged him across the Atlantic 10,000 feet under the water and subjected his body to the exact opposite pressures without an hour's worth of training?
This is such a sick story that it defies my comprehension that the majority leadership in this House has fingered some of the best men in this House on Foreign Affairs to do this dirty work.
Look at this name, Barbara Honneger, who wore the bunny suit at a White House affair, some lower level campaign worker, the one who channeled voices and heard that Ronald Reagan would lose in 1984.
I am going to put all of this in the Record on Barbara Honnegar, Richard Brenneke, and these two Iranians, Ari Ben-Menashe and Jamshid Hashemi.
Shame on you people for listening to these jerks that the New York Times says are all pathological liars. It will all be in the Record. Read it, America.
[Page: H370]
First source to claim direct October Surprise knowledge, saying that an unnamed Reagan aid said a deal was cut. (Newsweek, New Republic)
Self-claimed believer in paranormal events. (New Republic)
Left low-level Reagan administration job after receiving message from channeled voices that he would lose the 1984 election. Wrote an October Surprise book in 1989. (New Republic)
Claimed to be an 18-year-CIA operative who had also worked for Israeli Mossad, FBI, French, and Italian intelligence. (Newsweek, New Republic)
Main source for later discredited NY Times Davenport project story detailing billions in arms sales to Iran. The NY Times reporters later described him as an absolute liar.
Original source for story that the CIA and Israel were flying arms to Contras, and funding it with drug sales in the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations staffer Jack Blum, who met with him for hundreds of hours, to conclude Nothing he said was true. (New Republic)
Claimed to have supplied the United States military with Iranian intelligence needed to bomb Libya in April 1986. (New Republic)
Original source of the claimed October 1980 meetings in Paris with Casey, Bush and Iranians. Later proven through credit card records and receipts that he was in the United States at the time of the alleged meetings which he claimed to witness. (Newsweek, New Republic)
Claimed that he turned down offer to head the Mossad. (New Republic)
Surfaced as an October Surprise source in 1990 after landing in federal prison on charges of attempted to sell transport planes to Iran. (Newsweek, New Republic)
Former CIA officer Victor Marchetti says Ben-Menashe `is a liar', and Washington Post reporter Mark Hosenball says `Ben-Menashe is a con man. He's a nasty [expletive].' (Esquire)
Claims to have led a six man Israeli team that helped set up the October 1980 meetings with Casey, Bush, Robert Gates and Iranians.
Note: None of the other sources have ever mentioned Israeli involvement, Ben-Menashe, the hotels or dates he cites. (Newsweek, Esquire, New Republic)
Claimed to have placed a homing device at the Osirak nuclear plant in Iraq needed for the Israeli bombing attack. (Newsweek)
Claimed to have blown up the control tower at Entebbe. (Newsweek)
Former wife has said `He lives in an imaginary world. Anyone who counts on him will be misled....' (Newsweek)
Younger brother of Cyrus Hashemi, an Iranian arms dealer who played some role in arranging meetings between the Carter administration and Iranian officials during hostage crisis. (Newsweek, New Republic)
Although under indictment by U.S. for arms smuggling in 1984, and repeatedly trying to broker a deal with U.S. officials from 1984 to 1986, neither Hashemi brother ever claimed any knowledge of an October Surprise, even to their lawyer, Elliot Richardson. (Newsweek, New Republic)
A CIA cable acquired through the Freedom of Information Act describes the Hashemi brothers thus: `Cyrus is only less sleazy than his notorious brother Jamshid who is con artist par excellence and is candidate for scam of the month championship.' (New York Times)
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, it is high time that we learn the truth about October Surprise. Allegations that the 1980 Republican Presidential campaign delayed the release of the Americans held in Iran must be laid to rest. We must know the truth.
We need to shine the spotlight of truth on this matter so that we can put it behind us. The American people have a right to know whether the electoral process was tainted. We need to know whether people were held against their will in order for some to achieve political gain. We have a right to know.
This investigation will not be a witch hunt, but a search for the truth. Too many people have raised important questions and concerns. We have a responsibility and a moral obligation to do our very best to find answers.
Several of the Americans that were held in Iran have requested that we investigate. They truly hope the charges are proven false. But, they urge us to move ahead with this investigation.
To sweep these concerns under the rug would not be right. Let us be fair and ask for the truth. Let us use this investigation to take all of the cards from under the table and place them face up on the table. We owe it to the American people.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solarz].
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Speaker, hearing some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, I am reminded of the scene in the great film `Casablanca' starring Humphrey Bogart, which takes place in North Africa in 1942, when the police chief, played by Claude Rains, enters Rick's Cafe and says, `I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here.'
Mr. Speaker, listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I am shocked, shocked to discover that the Republican Members of the House are opposed to this resolution and the establishment of a task force to look into the allegations concerning the October Surprise. We are, after all, dealing with serious allegations here. Around a dozen individuals, Iranians, Israelis, Americans, many of whom do not know each other, have all claimed that they have evidence that agents of the Reagan campaign in 1980 were engaged in direct negotiations with the Iranian Government in an effort to persuade the Iranians to keep the hostages hostage.
Precisely because of the seriousness of these allegations which, if true, border on being almost treasonous, President Reagan has asked us to conduct an investigation into this affair.
[TIME: 2110]
President Bush has asked us to get to the bottom of the affair. Many of the hostages have written to us urging us to proceed with this investigation so that they can find out what actually happened in the fall of 1980.
I strongly suspect that with an adequate investigation these allegations can be laid to rest. I know from some of my good friends on the other side of the aisle that there have been articles in magazines like Newsweek and the New Republic written by authors who have looked into these charges that say they are based on fantasy and fiction. Maybe they are right, but you know and I know that journalistic inquiries are no substitute for a congressional investigation. Journalists cannot depose or subpoena witnesses. They are not in a position to put them under oath, but congressional investigators are, and if we are going to get to the bottom of the story, if we are going to ultimately lay it to rest, the only way to do is through the kind of investigation embodied and called for in the resolution before us.
I urge its adoption.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my leader for yielding me this time.
First let me say to the leader's substitute, it is very, very apparent that there is a need to put some kind of limitation upon this proposed investigation into a thing called the October Surprise.
In the final analysis, it is clear to anybody who has paid any attention to this that there are those who see some significant partisan advantage out of this kind of investigation. In the final analysis, it has its predicate that the people are fundamentally stupid. The American people are not ignorant. They will see through this for what it is.
In the final analysis, no matter whether they agree or disagree with Ronald Reagan, they do not believe that fundamentally he was a corrupt individual.
Indeed, the premise is wrong, friends, and it is going to catch up with you; but I would like to speak for a moment about some in-House things. I had hoped that my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] would be on the floor, because this whole process is raising some serious questions about the way we run the House, and I want to address that for just a moment.
I would ask this question. How are we going to pay for this investigation, with no limitation whatsoever, presumably out of the funds that come from my Subcommittee on Appropriations?
There have been rumors rampant around the place for some time that there was a slush fund that the Speaker had somewhere. We have always suggested there was not a slush fund.
Well, friends, last year when the appropriations bill went forward, a minor amendment was placed in the bill quietly that said any funds left over from your accounts would accumulate until suspended. I suppose that contingency fund will be used to pay for this investigation, whether it costs half a million, $2 million or $5 million or $10 million. I am sure we would not call it a slush fund. It is obvious, however, that it is for partisan purposes.
I would suggest we are long past the point where we spend time on this kind of activity that calls back to 10 years ago and let the people have a clear idea of what the sunshine might do if we take a hard look at what is going on in this House. The corruption in this House today is the question. Fundamental reform is called for.
It is time that we rethink the process we use whereby we reprogram money in our committee, and I think my chairman now knows that I intend to carefully do that.
[Page: H371]
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, our focus here is very simple and I think you have to understand the differences in responsibility, and again some of it has been evident today.
When you draft this proposal, you have to make sure that it is operational. The worst that we could do is go through this process, have it tied up in knots by legislative maneuvers and then through some arbitrary deadline not be able to complete our work. If we do anything here, we may not be able to succeed, but we ought to give the American people a fair chance at trying to get at the bottom of this information. If that takes going past a certain hour or minute in June or July or November or December, we ought to do it until the end of the Congress.
Now, people have talked about there are more important things to do. I am at the leadership of that list.
We should not have taken all day to go through a simple resolution to do the work that the hostages and a number of Presidents want us to do, but the people on the Republican side of the aisle, using their rights in the rules, have taken what would have been a 1-hour debate on the rule, a fight, maybe an hour-and-a-half, and stretched it through the entire day.
I think that is a lesson why we on the Democratic side are so concerned about what the document says, because if we make it impossible for the staff to question a witness unless we go through a chain of events that takes up 1, 2, or 3 weeks, if we prevent the committee from taking the kind of action to get to the root because one Member on one side or the other decides they want to delay the process. We want to get to the bottom of this.
I do not think there is a Member in this House of Representatives who has greater respect than the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]. When you look at the committees he has chaired, I do not think there is a Member of this body, Republican or Democrat, who can come out this well and say that he rolled over their rights.
The majority in this Congress is more cognizant of the rights of the minority than any legislative body on the face of this Earth.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to defeat this motion.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solmon].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 5 hours listening to this debate. I am reminded of the politician, maybe he was a Congressman, who was invited to address the inmates at a prison for the criminally insane. He got there and he held up his arms and he said, `Why are you here?'
And a little voice way out in the yard said, `Because we are not all there.'
My friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and he is a friend, ended his debate by saying that he cannot understand the intensity of why we on this side of the aisle do not want to form this task force.
Let me just read you one letter of thousands that were received by many Members of Congress after a hearing was held back in November. This particular one, just by coincidence, happens to be addressed to Mr. Hamilton. This is a copy and I think he has seen it. It says:
October 31, 1991.
October Surprise Hearings.
Hon. Lee H. Hamilton,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Hamilton: Is there no end to the way you will continue to waste taxpayers monies???
Why in the hell would you, as a supposedly astute Member of Congress, chase a rabbit such as this???
Do you not have anything else to do than pursue rumors of some author who will make millions off of your proposed fiasco???
To put it quite bluntly, who gives a damn??? Do you have a hoard of constituents pressing you on this matter???
This issue is 10 years old; Carter and Reagan are history. Is it any wonder that the American public wants to restrict terms limits on Congress???
Why are you not pursuing such important issues such as reducing the deficit, national health care, releasing highway and airport trusts fund monies and reducing restrictions on the business community???
When you get done spending our tax monies on this issue, I wonder if you could also finance the exhuming of Huey Long's body???
Tell me that this is just a Halloween joke!!!
It would be nice if just once your august body could show some semblance of common sense in your pursuit of government and, if you have just got to get to the so called truth, then spend your own damn money, NOT MINE.
Sincerely,
ROBT. W. HAINES,
14013 W. 48th Terr.,
Shawnee, KS. 66216.
There are, incidently, hundreds of these letters.
You know, this citizen is so right.
Let me just say this on behalf of the taxpayers we all represent on both sides of the aisle. I hope we will support the Michel substitute, because it will only spend $300,000 instead of $3 million or some open-ended sum of money.
Probably this whole thing could be summed up by what was said in Newsweek magazine: `This is probably one of the largest hoaxes and fabrications in modern American journalism.'
That was said by a Bob Woodward investigation; it did not cost the taxpayers a nickel.
The Derrick bill before you provides for unlimited expenditures of taxpayer dollars. It funds unlimited expense accounts for staffs, God knows who they are going to be, to travel all over the world. It provides for unlimited travel authority and unlimited staff. But the Derrick bill refuses to include the Carter administration within the scope of the investigation. And not only that, after the bill was introduced, it was amended.
It now says no, absolutely no Carter investigation. Democrats refused to even consider it.
[TIME: 2120]
The GAO says--and Members ought to listen to this seriously if they want to cast a reasonable vote--the GAO says,
[Page: H372]
A thorough investigation of allegations would require an understanding of the context in which the events occurred, including the state of relations between the United States and Iran, particularly the nature and extent of any negotiations between the [Carter] Administration and the Government of Iran.
Mr. Speaker, the GAO is right. If we do not include Carter, we cannot have a thorough investigation. All we have got left is a witch hunt. Is that what we want? That is why the Michel substitute should be adopted, because it includes Carter administration activities in the investigation. And what is wrong with that? The Michel substitute limits the cost to $300,000. And what is wrong with that? It limits the length of this inquiry to 6 months and requires the task force to adhere to rules that are the same as we use to operate within this House. And it saves the taxpayers millions of dollars.
Support the Michel substitute.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all commend the fine job that my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick], has done, and the gentlemen on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Fascell] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], for the work they have done on it.
Mr. Speaker, the subject we are considering today is clearly not a pleasant one.
None of us wants to entertain the notion that any American--much less a candidate for the Presidency of the United States--might have delayed or interfered with the release of our hostages in Iran.
How could any American have conspired to lengthen the ordeal of those held captive in Teheran?
It's hard--and it is painful--to imagine.
But this evening, we must vote to authorize a full investigation of these charges.
Too many allegations just won't go away.
Too many questions remain unanswered.
Too many issues are still cloudy.
The charges are very, very serious:
There were 52 American lives at stake. A Presidential campaign may have tampered with the essence of the democratic process itself--using these hostages to manipulate the 1980 elections.
We owe it to the hostages--we owe it to the American people--and we owe it to history--to set the record straight if we can. And we are the only ones who can.
We do not want to find ourselves--10 years from now--answering charges that we in Congress did not at least try to find the truth.
Former President Reagan said he wants the air cleared and former President Carter has called for an investigation;
So have editorial writers all across the country.
And most important, so have the former hostages themselves.
They have called on Congress to investigate
The people who were most directly affected--the people who spent 444 days in appalling conditions of captivity in Iran--they have called on us to stop the squabbling and get to the bottom of this.
Listen to what a dozen former hostages wrote just last week:
Although we sincerely hope the allegations can be proved false, the decision to move ahead cannot be based on what we anticipate the outcome to be. We urge you--the leaders of Congress--to move this investigation forward and insure that dignity, rather than fear, will guide this process to a just conclusion.
This should not be a partisan issue. `I'm a Republican,' wrote one former hostage, Moorhead Kennedy, `and I want to know exactly what happened.' He urged the Republican party to take the lead in investigating the charges.
I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will listen to the pleas of these former hostages.
Each and every one of us hopes these allegations are false. But that hope does not absolve us of the responsibility to find the truth.
Only then, only then, can we put these troubling allegations to rest--once and for all.
[Page: H373]
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[Page: H374]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). All time has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the previous question is ordered on the resolution and amendments thereto.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
[Page: H375]
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 158, nays 249, not voting 27, as follows:
[TIME: 2147]
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Johnson of Texas for, with Mr. Eckart against.
Mr. Thomas of California for, with Mr. DeFazio against.
Mr. LIPINSKI changed his vote from `yea' to `nay.'
Messrs. BATEMAN, GREEN of New York, and HOPKINS changed their vote from `nay' to `yea.'
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The question is on the resolution, as amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, nays 192, not voting 25, as follows:
[Page: H376]
[TIME: 2204]
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Eckart for, with Mr. Johnson of Texas against.
Mr. DeFazio for, with Mr. Thomas of California against.
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
END