When the House of Representatives returns from its current break
on February 22, Members will decide how to resolve the House Post
Office scandal.
Despite the conviction of seven former House employees for Post
Office-related crimes, and allegations of improper activity by
sitting Members of Congress, the House has failed to investigate
the matter properly or even to consider disciplinary action.
Representative Ernest Istook (R-OK) has moved to force a vote next
week ordering the House Standards of Official Conduct Committee
(the Ethics Committee) to investigate the matter.
The Post Office scandal began with a May 1991 investigation by
the U.S. Capitol Police into embezzlement by a single employee. The
inquiry rapidly expanded to include allegations against other
employees and a general audit of the Post Office. In early June
1991 top House officials moved to stop the investigation despite
protests from then-Capitol Police Chief Frank Kerrigan. A month
later, the Postal Inspection Service of the U.S. Postal Service
began its own investigation at the request of then-U.S. Attorney
Jay Stevens. In September 1991, the report of that investigation
was turned over to House Postmaster Robert Rota, who says he gave
the report to Heather Foley, wife of House Speaker Thomas Foley and
his unpaid chief-of- staff. No action was taken until January 1992
media reports revealed that embezzlement and drug sales had taken
place in the House Post Office. Following those reports, Democratic
leaders referred the matter to the House Administration Committee,
which established an investigative task force.
The task force's investigation was marked by partisan disputes,
leading to the issuance of separate Republican and Democratic
reports in July 1992. Democratic Task Force Leader Charles Rose of
North Carolina declared the matter closed, but the Republican
report raised numerous questions about illegal activity and
mismanagement in the Post Office, noting that many issues could not
be resolved by the task force because important records were
unavailable and because Rota and other Post Office employees were
not questioned under oath. Rota subsequently admitted that he
misled the task force. The House agreed to put the Post Office
under the control of a new, nonpartisan administrator, but
took no action to clarify questions raised by the Republican task
force report or to investigate and consider disciplinary action
against specific employees or Members, a step which can be taken
only by the Ethics Committee.
The issue again subsided until July 1993, when former Postmaster
Rota pleaded guilty to three criminal charges, implicating House
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski and former
Representative Joe Kolter in an illegal scheme to trade stamps or
official House postal vouchers for cash. Soon thereafter
Representative Istook began calling for an Ethics Committee
investigation of these allegations. Largely on the argument that an
Ethics Committee investigation might interfere with the workings of
an ongoing grand jury inquiry, Istook agreed not to force a vote on
his request, but did introduce a resolution (H.Res. 238) calling
for such a probe. The resolution has 60 cosponsors.
Istook's request has now been pending for six months. In the
meantime, authority for the first grand jury expired and a second
panel had to start work anew, this time under the third U.S.
Attorney to supervise the case -- a Clinton appointee. Istook
argues that further delay based on potential grand jury action is
unwarranted, if indeed it was ever justified. As the House was
preparing to leave for a week-long recess on February 10, Istook
gave notice that he would demand a vote on his request for an
Ethics Committee investigation as soon as the House returns. Since
this is a matter of privilege under House Rules, the Speaker must
schedule the vote within two legislative days, making it necessary
for the House to consider the issue within a day of its return on
February 22.
The Constitution gives the House the authority, and by
implication the responsibility, to discipline its members. In other
cases House leaders have acted aggressively to preserve the
prerogatives of the House to discipline Members, rejecting attempts
by the executive branch or the judiciary. This separation of powers
argument is a key justification, for instance, for congressional
self- exemptions from legal requirements or enforcement procedures
under many civil rights and worker protection laws. Representative
Rose, who chaired the original Post Office investigation, claims
that Ethics Committee action regarding alleged deficiencies in his
own financial disclosure statements precludes subsequent court
action on the same charges. The logic of these arguments would
demand that the Justice Department stand aside for an internal
House probe of its Post Office, rather than the other way around.
At a minimum it is clear that there is no legal or constitutional
requirement for the House to delay an inquiry into the conduct of
its own Members in anticipation of potential action by the
executive branch.
House inaction on the Post Office compares unfavorably with the
Senate Ethics Committee's investigation of arguably lesser charges
against Senator Bob Packwood (R-OR). Despite the Senate's
aggressive stance, the Justice Department apparently is conducting
a parallel investigation (an FBI agent recently examined Packwood's
financial disclosure filings).
Istook has responded to charges that a House inquiry might
interfere with the Justice Department probe by requiring, in his
resolution, that the Ethics Committee cooperate with Justice and by
allowing the committee to suspend its inquiry with respect to any
Member who is already under investigation. While media attention
has focused on allegations regarding Representative Rostenkowski,
Istook's resolution orders a broader inquiry which might determine
whether other Members violated House rules in connection with the
Post Office. Such matters might well fall below the standard for
criminal prosecution, but still could warrant internal House
action.
Finally, Istook argues against the House simply awaiting
executive branch action, pointing out that the Reno Justice
Department's record in politically sensitive cases including
Whitewater, the death of Vincent Foster, and the State Department
personnel files (where Justice refused to prosecute, despite a
recommendation from the State Department's Inspector General),
inspires little confidence. It was in anticipation of precisely
this sort of politically sensitive situation that the Constitution
granted Congressmen partial immunity from arrest and gave each
House power to discipline its own Members. Abdicating that
responsibility in such a high profile case would again show that
the House is incapable of managing its internal affairs, and
strengthen arguments for remedies such as independent counsels and
subjecting Members to executive branch regulators.
The House Post Office scandal has dragged on for three years.
Despite the criminal convictions of several staff members, House
leaders have continued to resist a thorough investigation of
Representatives' conduct. While caution to avoid interference with
criminal probes is appropriate, such external efforts are no excuse
for the House failing to deal with its internal scandal. Istook's
motion for an Ethics Committee investigation will ensure that House
Members can no longer avoid this issue.