[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 167 (Thursday, October 26, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11366-H11370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  TABLING OF PRIVILEGED RESOLUTION REGARDING FORGERY OF DOCUMENT BY A 
                           HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr Speaker, I rise tonight to participate in this 
special order in order to have an opportunity to discuss yesterday's 
tabling of the privileged resolution which dealt with the forgery by a 
House subcommittee. Although we were denied the opportunity to even 
debate the serious issue, I feel it is so important that we cannot let 
it go undiscussed.
  Yesterday we tabled a resolution regarding an issue of basic 
responsibility of the people who serve here either by election or by 
appointment. This responsibility is to assure that all who serve here 
are cognizant of their responsibility and determined to carry out the 
legal obligations of this country.
  This resolution, Mr. Speaker, was an effort to protect the history of 
our legislative record. It was designed to guarantee that we put 
together a fair and accurate record of our legislative history for 
those to come. What we do in Congress is used by teachers in 
classrooms, lawyers in courtrooms, authors and historians, all of whom 
depend upon our integrity so they need not question the authenticity of 
what they read.
  Senator Trent Lott, when he served in the House, made an eloquent 
statement of the importance of the sanctity of our legislative records, 
and I quote.

       For if the legislative history made by the duly elected 
     representatives of the people is subject to malicious 
     alteration and distortion by anonymous nonelected staffers, 
     then the credibility of this institution in the people's 
     branch is in serious jeopardy. All our written records become 
     suddenly suspect in the eyes of the people and of the press 
     and of the courts. How much weight, for instance, 

[[Page H11367]]

     are the courts likely to give to the legislative history we 
     supposedly made as representatives when the actual source of 
     that history is in doubt? And yet that is the situation in 
     which we find ourselves until the guilty are found and 
     punished and adequate steps are taken to prevent the 
     reoccurrence of such abuse.

  That was then House Member Lott, Congressional Record June 30, 1983, 
and I agree with him.
  Yesterday, a resolution was tabled that would have reaffirmed this 
House's commitment to history. Not only did this House refuse to affirm 
the integrity and honesty of House records, but we were prevented from 
even speaking about it. Are we to expect that when such things occur in 
this House we will sweep them under the carpet, pretend they never 
happened, in essence condone the actions with our silence?
  Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the beginning. At a hearing on 
September 28 in the Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on 
National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, a 
document was placed on the press table which appeared to be on the 
letterhead of the Alliance for Justice. It included a logo and address, 
phone number, fax number, E-mail address and a listing of member 
organizations laid out in such a manner as to replicate the Alliance's 
own letterhead. Incorrect information was then placed on this document 
in such a way in which any reasonable person would believe it came from 
the Alliance for Justice.
  Upon closer examination by members of the Alliance for Justice it 
became clear that the document was falsified. When pressed, the Chair 
of the committee admitted his staff had created the document and, as 
admitted by his communications director, they had taken a faxed 
document, scanned it into the computer system and altered it.
  Mr. Speaker, anyone could have picked up this piece of paper, walked 
out of the room and remained under the impression that it was put out 
by the Alliance for Justice. The creation of this document clearly held 
the intention of deceit. This is forgery. Forgery is a crime in the 
United States, and forgery was committed by those people who work in a 
place where the laws on forgery are made.
  If the intent was not to deceive or to mislead, as claimed by the 
creators of the document, why create it at all? Why not simply make the 
point on a hand-out of their own committee letterhead? Why not just use 
the organization's name and list the information? The sole reason to 
replicate the logo and include an address, phone number, fax number, E-
mail address and listing of members organizations is to make the reader 
of the document assume the document came from the organization instead 
of from the subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, why did this staff need to forge a document in the first 
place? We should all be perplexed and outraged by this action. 
Regardless of your position on the legislation which was under 
consideration on September 28, that hearing cannot be ignored by anyone 
who believes that Congress must obey the laws that it writes. It cannot 
go unchallenged by anybody who honorably claims to represent the United 
States in these hallowed halls of Congress. It cannot be accepted by 
those of us who have vowed to uphold the laws of the United States as 
we take our oath.

  In short, Mr. Speaker, the unauthorized creation and falsification of 
documents to be distributed to the general public must be condemned. 
The forgery calls into question the role that we, as Members of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, have been sworn to carry 
out. It is our duty and responsibility to ensure that we provide 
oversight, to make sure we are acting in accordance with rules and 
regulations of the land. We must guarantee we are fair to all our 
witnesses. We must guarantee we conduct fair and open hearings. We must 
guarantee we put together a fair and accurate record of our legislative 
history.
  Furthermore, I find it distressing to witness this kind of 
overreaching and blatant disregard for the law simply in order to make 
a political point, to create an enemies list, mistreat them as 
witnesses before the Congress and then to silence those who challenge 
this kind of behavior brings dangerous memories to mind and sets off 
resounding alarm bells.
  As the people of this country once again examine this institution 
ever more closely, do we think they would accept the use of forgery to 
make a point? Do we think they would accept silencing those who attempt 
to make us honest? I think not.
  In the name of the men and women who have served Congress in the 
past, in the name of those who will come after us, and in the name of 
history, we must be clear. We will not let forgery go unchecked. We 
will not allow representatives in this Congress to deceive. Mr. 
Speaker, we will not tolerate this kind of action.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO. I thank my friend from New York, Ms. Slaughter, for 
including me in this opportunity to comment on something that I think 
is a very serious matter. And while the privileged resolution that 
was to be offered yesterday was tabled, it in no sense erases this 
problem from the Record. In fact, perhaps the claim of vindication that 
we have heard since then makes it even more important that we pursue 
the matter vigorously.

  I think the gentlewoman's effort tonight is an effort, even in the 
midst of all that is happening here, with all the very fundamental 
questions about public policy, to make sure that this very key issue 
for those of us who are concerned about the legitimacy of our process 
here remains on the table. Because, in my view, there are few things as 
sacred to this House as the public trust. And that very legitimacy, 
that legitimacy of our representation, rests on a tradition of trust, a 
tradition that is truly built painstakingly over 200 years of serve to 
this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, 13 years ago an incident occurred that put that trust in 
jeopardy. I think that incident is very much like the one that the 
gentlewoman from New York is commenting on. And it might surprise some 
of the new Members of Congress, who seem to think that for 40 years we 
did not fight to uphold the integrity of this institution, but, in 
fact, a very different approach was taken. We were not into tabling and 
covering up, we were actually concerned enough that we took some 
action.
  So perhaps I can outline for colleagues who were not aware of the 
similar occurrence and the differing approach we took under that 
Democratic leadership.
  A staff member of the Government Operations Committee doctored the 
transcripts of a committee hearing. He altered an official committee 
document, part of the permanent record of the House of Representatives. 
The changes he made were designed to advance his political agenda. The 
testimony of committee members was changed in a way that reflected 
negatively on them. He made them look foolish, and in doing so, in my 
opinion, he made all of us look foolish.
  Committee hearings and debate like the debate we are having tonight 
constitute a living history of the democratic process. Words have 
meaning. Debate has meaning. Parliamentary democracy derives its very 
legitimacy from rules and procedures, and, most importantly, from a 
tradition of trust. For these reasons, the House acted swiftly and on a 
bipartisan basis to investigate the matter. 409 Members agreed 
unanimously to authorize the Ethics Committee to look into the 
incident.
  The entire shameful episode was put to rest with the resignation of 
the staff person who perpetrated the forgery and the release of an 
Ethics Committee report which commented on the fulsome nature of the 
activity involved. No single voice was more powerful in that debate 
than the voice of my Republican colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Bob Walker.
  Today a similar outrageous incident compels us to take the floor. I 
believe that outrageous incident is deceitful and is damaging and just 
as dangerous. Another forgery, this time perpetrated by yet unnamed 
staff of the very same committee. No one has been brought to justice, 
and it looks like more than a few people here would just as soon sweep 
this whole matter, this entire episode under the rug.
  Mr. Speaker, I am angry, and I think I am angry in the same context 
that our colleague Bob Walker was angry in 1983. Twelve years ago he 
said the following: ``The integrity of this body 

[[Page H11368]]

has been compromised.'' He added ``There is a need to begin a process 
to make certain that such an instance never happens again''. And I 
think we are in a similar position today.

  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] talked 
about the integrity of the committee process. He told the House ``To 
have any committee or any subcommittee of that full committee under a 
cloud of suspicion will reflect adversely on the base work of the 
committee, which is oversight of Federal agencies''. The same as it is 
today.
  As we do today, my colleague demanded a thorough investigation of 
these matters. In language that seems, unfortunately, as appropriate 
today as it did then, my colleague, Mr. Walker, characterized the 
incident as ``An example of congressional staff run amuck and of 
certain Members of Congress attempting to utilize our legitimate 
congressional oversight functions as platform to further their 
individual political ambition''.
  While I certainly hope the same is not true today, 12 years ago we 
acted on a bipartisan basis to investigate a forgery. Today we should 
join together once again in condemning a similar shameful action. We 
have the opportunity to urge the Speaker to ensure that the integrity 
of the legislative process and the committee process are respected and 
protected. A vote to uphold the honesty and the integrity of the House 
of Representatives should still be scheduled here for the deliberation 
on the House floor.

                              {time}  1915

  Once Republicans learn, I believe, that vindication has been claimed, 
as I said earlier, and once they learn that there is a precedent for 
taking action on matters that are very similar, if not exact, I am 
hopeful that their sense of fair play and bipartisan sense of 
integrity, the integrity of this institution, will come into play and 
that the cavalier decision to simply table the matter without further 
comment will be not only regretted but reversed.
  It seems to me that the only way perhaps we can call upon a sense of 
fairness and a sense of not only perpetuating a tradition of integrity, 
but following a precedent can be brought about is for the gentlewoman, 
and others who have a concern for the institution, to continue to bring 
the issue to the floor until it is properly dealt with by the 
Republican leadership.
  So, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her diligence, for the 
serious nature that she views this indiscretion, and I hope that other 
Members looking back to 1983, to when Democrats were embarrassed but 
unanimously, with our Republican colleagues, took action, with that 
harkening back to I think the proper management of the House, we will 
ultimately succeed.
  Once again, I appreciate, the gentlewoman for letting my comments be 
a part of the Record, and I hope she will continue her effort.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, very much. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding some time to me and for her courage in pursuing this very 
troubling matter.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the wonderful words of political debate in this 
country over the decades has been the word ``balderdash.'' It just 
occurred to me that as with so many things, perhaps like obscenity, it 
is hard to define, but we know it when we see it.
  My colleagues, this is balderdash. The idea that the gentleman from 
Indiana would claim that a vote to table the gentlewoman's resolution 
of inquiry and privilege somehow vindicated the acts that were taken 
under his name by his staff in the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight really stretches credulity to the breaking point.
  This is a classic example of, I think, ``He protesteth too much,'' 
and we will see how the facts ultimately unfold here.
  I think, as the gentlewoman has pointed out, this is a very serious 
matter. It does implicate the integrity of the House of Representatives 
of this country and the trustworthiness of the legislative process. 
This forgery was committed with the official resources of the House of 
Representatives. What kind of example does that set for not only our 
colleagues, but others who are observing us and trying to discern 
whether this body deserves to have their trust and confidence?
  Let us be perfectly clear about this. There could be no purpose in 
this document's being produced other than to deceive. There is simply 
no such thing as an innocent forgery.
  Let me just show, this is a blowup of the genuine article, the real 
stationery of the Alliance for Justice, and this was the forgery. I 
think there can be absolutely no doubt that this document was devised 
and intended to look like this one and to mislead people in the 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, I was there at that hearing. I questioned the chairman 
about it at the time. He professed to have no knowledge that this had 
been done by his committee staff, and I think that is why the 
gentlewoman's resolution, which was a measured response asking the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives to deal appropriately to 
correct this failure of the committee staff to meet the high standards 
we expect of them, was a very, as I say, measured reaction to this.
  Yet, what does the majority leader do but to move to table the 
resolution, clearly hoping that this problem will just go away. To the 
contrary, I believe that it will fester until it is dealt with openly 
and straightforwardly by the body. It is another example of the 
leadership style that seems to prevail around here these days, which is 
essentially encapsulated in the phrase, ``Our way or no way.''
  The underlying issue here, the so-called Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich 
proposal, is a perverse one to begin with. It directly attacks the 
ability of many, if not most organizations, and many if not most 
citizens of this country, to fully participate in the political life of 
American. It is a direct attack on the life blood of any democracy, 
which is the free flow of information and debate.
  What is the problem? What is the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh] afraid of? Why is political advocacy by the American Red 
Cross or the Girl Scouts or the YMCA somehow a threat? Why should those 
organizations not have the full right to talk to the Congress and to 
others in public life about things that concern them?

  It is hard to figure out, but that is, as the gentlewoman knows, the 
underlying agenda here. Perhaps one of the things that explains all of 
this is that it is intended to distract, intended to draw attention 
away from the failure on the part of the majority party to take up real 
lobbying reform, real gift ban legislation.
  But in their zeal to push this kind of extreme proposal, they have 
overstepped the bounds. That zeal has clearly been communicated to 
staff in a way that has evidently blurred the very important 
distinction between means and ends.
  A forgery by the official staff of a committee of the House of 
Representatives. Give me a break. That is bad enough. But for the 
majority just to brush it off, to table the gentlewoman's resolution, 
is a sorry spectacle indeed.
  Ms. Slaughter. Thank you. The gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. 
Hefner].
  (Mr. Hefner asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. Hefner. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for making this time 
available. I do not usually participate in special orders, but I read a 
press release that took on, in my view, a very vicious tone and made 
some accusations about a gentlewoman who has been my friend for a long, 
long time.
  Mr. Speaker, the only thing we have in life is our integrity, and our 
word is our bond, as people take about. We have some high rhetoric when 
we get into debate about different issues. We have just had Medicare 
and reconciliation. I have been here for some 20 years, but we usually 
try to, in our arguments, be basically honest and have some truth to 
what we say.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any argument, nobody has 
disputed, that this was not a forgery, which in itself is bad enough 
that anyone would forge a document. The only reason that I can imagine 
that anyone would put a document out is because the heading ``Alliance 
for Justice'' maybe would call attention that this is an organization 
and people would pick 

[[Page H11369]]

it up and they would have some respect and people would read it.
  It would seem to me if someone wanted to put the information out, 
they would have used their own stationery, or the subcommittee's 
stationery head. Not only was it a forgery, which is bad enough, but 
after contacting the different organizations that were mentioned, they 
denied that they got the numbers. They got no Federal funds. And this, 
in itself, is false witness about an agency.
  Then when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, if they 
are in the majority, they can have a motion to table and if they have 
got the votes, they can walk lockstep and table it. It does not mean 
that they are not caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
  It seems to me if they had wanted to do the honorable thing when it 
was called to their attention, if the subcommittee chairman had wanted 
to do the honorable thing, he would apologize if his staff had done it.
  Mr. Speaker, if my staff had done it, I would have been the first one 
on this floor. I have been a subcommittee chairman for a lot of years. 
I would have been the first one on this floor to apologize to this 
House and to apologize to the people that were affected, and the staff 
people that had done it would apologize and they probably would not 
have been on the staff anymore.
  This is something that takes on a very serious situation to me. Then 
I read the press accounts here. The press release says: Taking Ms. 
Slaughter to task for all she wants to do and use this as politically 
motivated and unfounded.
  It is not unfounded. Nobody denies that it is a forgery. There is no 
doubt about that. Let me just read and follow up on what the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Fazio] said. I have a quotation here on the same 
situation that the gentleman was talking about. This was from the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]:

       We have got to make certain that what we do serves the best 
     interest of the House, but also accomplishes the purpose of 
     making certain that we never have the future staff people or 
     future Members thinking that this is the kind of thing they 
     can get away with.

He goes on to say,

     This is political dirty tricks with venom, because what they 
     have done here is the dirty tricks have resulted, 
     potentially, in the change in the entire public 
documentation, but in this case, in trying to change the people's minds 
on legislation that is being proposed in this House.''

  In my view, it is to put a muzzle on these people that you do not 
agree with their positions, but you will just do away with these 
organizations. We just shut them down. We want to be able to end up 
detailing precisely how this came about, what took place, and then make 
whatever changes are necessary to make certain it never takes place 
again, including, of course, getting rid of the people who are 
responsible.
  Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues are responsible Members of this House, 
talking about family values and principle, they would not condone and 
would certainly not be a party to this, which constitutes dirty tricks. 
It is a forgery. It is a false document. It does not have any truth to 
it. They are trying to do this so they can prevail in their ability to 
do away with all of these different agencies; muzzle the agencies, the 
Red Cross, the Girl Scouts, and all of these that I consider to be 
legitimate agencies.
  If my colleagues are responsible Members of this House, and they 
represent, as I do and the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] 
and these other people that have spoken, some half a million people in 
this country, they owe it to these people to be honest, to the best of 
their ability to speak the truth, to where the people in their district 
and the people of the great United States of America know that when 
they speak or they put out a document, it has some basis of truth to 
it.
  And, Mr. Speaker, when they are caught in a case where this is not 
the case, rather than to admit and be big enough to come before the 
House and at least come before the people on the committee that could 
be affected by it and the agencies that could be affected by it, be big 
enough to come to them and apologize and take the people to task, the 
staff people, take them to task so it would never happen again.
  What goes beyond all bounds of reason in my view is they muzzle the 
gentlewoman that brought the resolution to the House and just say, 
``Hey, we have got the numbers. We will not face up to it. We do not 
have to explain to anybody, because we have the numbers and we will 
just vote to table it and that will be the last of it.''
  I do not believe that that is the way this place is supposed to work. 
That is not the way that we have operated in the 22 years that I have 
been here, and there have been times when we have been forced to take 
painful votes when it affected people in my party. But we made the 
votes and we did not sweep it under the rug.
  To me, this is absolutely, totally unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I 
appreciate the gentlewoman from New York for taking this special order. 
I would urge that the Member that is responsible for this would take 
the responsibility. He swore to uphold the laws of the great United 
States of America and the Constitution, that he would take it upon his 
shoulders to come to this House and admit that this was a forgery and 
that the people who are responsible for it are no longer in the employ 
of the taxpayers of the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for taking this time and I think 
she certainly is to be commended for standing up for what is morally 
right and the integrity of this House of Representatives.

                              {time}  1930

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], 
the ranking member of the full committee.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I come to this floor for special 
orders, but I come here today because I feel this is an extremely 
important matter.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Economic 
Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, has said that he had 
no prior knowledge of the document distributed at the hearing on 
September 28.
  I have no reason not to believe him. I, therefore, also believe that 
he had no personal involvement in creating the document that misled so 
many who saw it.
  However, Mr. Speaker, this incident should never have happened.
  In this case, when the facts failed to support the majority's view, 
it appears they manufactured their own facts using official funds, 
committee staff and support agencies of the House to mislead Members, 
the press, and the public.
  When they did these things, Mr. Speaker, they went too far. They ran 
afoul of rule IX of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and that 
created a question of the privileges of the House of the kind Ms. 
Slaughter presented yesterday. Her resolution, which was tabled twice 
deserved a full and open debate on this floor.
  Adoption of the motion to table which was offered by the majority 
leader obviously represented a desire to avoid debate and to side step 
accountability. We have seen this blind vision so often in the 104th 
Congress--far too often. It was hardly the vindication which some have 
claimed.
  What is particularly offensive about the events described by Ms. 
Slaughter is that a document was created using official funds which 
misrepresented the views of a witness at the hearing, an organization 
called the Alliance for Justice. In addition, the information about 
Federal grants was inaccurate.
  There is only one reason the subcommittee would have created this 
document and that is to embarrass the Alliance for Justice.
  When the document was exposed as a fraud, the chairman of the 
subcommittee claimed that he was not aware of any problems in the 
preparation of the document.
  He accused the witness, Nan Aron, the director of the Alliance for 
Justice, of hiding behind the fifth amendment when she refused to 
confirm the accuracy of the numbers contained in the document.

[[Page H11370]]

  Later he admitted that the subcommittee staff created the document. 
After that, he wrote a letter of apology to Nan Aron.
  It is still unclear which staff actually participated in this 
deception and what authorization they received from Members. Concerns 
have also been raised that staff of a member's personal office 
performed functions which should have been under the direction of 
subcommittee staff.
  Mr. Speaker, some have said in defense of the subcommittee that the 
forged document with the Alliance for Justice letterhead was merely a 
harmless graphic which was intended to illustrate the majority's 
contention that some member organizations of the Alliance received 
Federal funds.
  But if this was merely a harmless graphic, then one of its purposes 
was to give the impression that there was something improper or illegal 
in their receipt of Federal funds.
  Mr. Speaker, this was an exercise in using an official investigative 
hearing of a House subcommittee to deceive, rather than to enlighten.
  The House and its committees cannot function if Members of the House 
attempt to deceive each other, as well as the press and the public 
which we represent, with false information.
  The resolution submitted by Ms. Slaughter called for the Speaker to 
get to the bottom of this incident. The Speaker had already acted 
earlier to ensure that Members of the House must take responsibility 
for documents circulated on the floor about pending legislation and 
amendments.
  We still need action to ensure that the integrity of the committee 
process is respected so that its principal purpose--to gather accurate 
information which we can use to write legislation and to conduct proper 
oversight--is respected.
  That integrity has been under attack throughout this Congress, not 
just in the incident we are addressing today.
  For example, at the recent Waco hearings jointly conducted by 
subcommittees of the Judiciary Committee and the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, we discovered that representatives of 
a private entity, the National Rifle Association, were treated like 
professional committee staff of the House; that an attempt was made to 
allow them access to confidential materials which might be used as 
evidence in the hearings; and that there was an effort to cover up 
their role.
  As the majority must now realize, those revelations, as well as the 
incident involving the forged document, were counterproductive. They 
interfered with whatever message the majority might have been trying to 
put out. They embarrassed the committees and Members involved. 
Ultimately, they reflect on the House and on all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, we often disagree on policy. But let's not attempt to 
deceive each other, or the national audience outside the House, with 
forged documents, tricks, and misrepresentations. That hurts the House 
on every legislative issue, not just this one. And that is what the 
House must speak firmly against. This must not happen again.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. If I could just ask the gentlewoman a question. I know 
you have seen the press release that was handed out saying that the 
House voted to vindicate the gentleman involved.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I did.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Did you notice that that was written on committee 
stationery?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. No, I did not.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] in this committee in trying at 
least to uphold the laws of the House, but the laxity, as you had 
pointed out, what we have seen in the Waco hearings and what we saw the 
other day in the hearings on the White House Travel Office, indicate to 
me that integrity is in very short supply on that committee.
  I wonder if you agree with me, and you were there the day this 
document came about. I have said many times I think the thing that 
saddened me most was the fact that the staff and the subcommittee chair 
thought it was very amusing, and they saw nothing in the world wrong 
with what had taken place here.
  I feel that it is going to be my obligation. If no one else of the 
435 Members care about it, it is terribly important to me that this not 
take place here in this House. This is too sacred a ground that we 
stand on. Too many people send us here with their total trust that we 
are going to do the right thing. I can imagine their outrage if they 
really knew that this is going on. Frankly, I do not know how much more 
of it goes on. But at least on this piece right here where I was 
closely involved I intend to make my stand.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the efforts of the 
gentlewoman from New York to bring a serious problem to this body's 
attention. The actions of majority staff of the Subcommittee on 
National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs are 
very disturbing, and every Member of this House should be alarmed. The 
entire House is once again subject to more public outrage about our 
activities by the production of a phony press release concocted just to 
make a point.
  When the Republican leadership immediately tabled the gentlewoman's 
resolution yesterday, it certainly sent a strong message to me. Why has 
the Republican leadership gagged us? Why can't we have a debate? As the 
gentlewoman has pointed out, quite correctly, forgery is a crime. This 
matter needs to be examined to ensure that it never happens again. 
Contrary to arguments from the other side of the aisle, this is not 
merely a partisan issue: it is a question of institutional integrity.
  I was encouraged at the beginning of this Congress when the new 
leadership promised that the House would be more open and that debate 
would be free. What has happened to that promise? I opposed efforts in 
the last Congress to gag or shorten debate, and I still oppose these 
restrictions. To say I am extremely disappointed in what happened here 
yesterday would be an understatement.
  This is a serious problem that casts a dark shadow over this 
institution. So why have the Republicans also attempted to discredit 
the gentlewoman from New York? We all received a Dear Colleague from 
the Republican members of the subcommittee that not only attacked the 
integrity of the gentlewoman from New York but also evaded the facts. 
Perhaps it is because the gentlewoman is correct: forgery is a crime. 
This matter needs to be examined to ensure that it never happens again. 
Regarding the integrity of the gentlewoman, I wonder how many signers 
of this Dear Colleague have received campaign contributions from 
Defense corporations? We don't see the Republicans attempting to 
subvert the first amendment rights of Defense and other corporations 
who engage in lobbying activities.
  I also question the fact that this was just a simple mistake. If the 
intent was only to show the amount of Federal dollars received by the 
Alliance for Justice, why was it necessary to use House Information 
Resources to produce an exact duplicate of the Alliance's letterhead, 
even down to its e-mail address?
  The legislation that produced this controversy, the restriction of 
groups from using any of their own funds to lobby, deserved to be 
debated in a very open forum. I do not see how this is possible now. 
The fact that the majority staff of this subcommittee believed it 
necessary to willfully falsify a document to make a point about the 
need for this legislation certainly sends a unmistakable signal that 
they and their superiors did not have enough facts to bolster their 
arguments.
  I hope the matter does not end here. Regardless of the propriety or 
impropriety of the actions by majority staff, the fact remains that the 
information was false and could have become part of the public record.
  Finally, how can we explain this to our constituents? As we all know, 
the public's perception of Congress is still quite low. This sad 
situation will only lower our constituents' opinion of both the process 
and the institution most of us respect. This is the greatest tragedy of 
all, because it undermines every Member's mission--producing sound and 
reasoned laws for the public good. How can I tell my constituents back 
home that I am making the best decisions on important issues when the 
information I am receiving may be either skewed or fraudulent?
  Once again, I salute the gentlewoman's commitment to this serious 
problem.

                          ____________________