[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H11662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     HEARING ``PROP'' INCIDENT DOES NOT MERIT ETHICS INVESTIGATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, halloween is over and it is time to take 
off the masks and reveal to the American public the truth about the so-
called ethics matter regarding a prop used at a recent subcommittee 
hearing in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. The truth is 
that this issue is really about partisan politics. I shouldn't have to 
be here tonight, or for that matter none of us should be. I find it 
truly discouraging when Congress has so many urgent matters at hand, 
balancing the budget, health care, and education, just to name a few, 
we find ourselves having to spend time and money addressing a matter 
that deserves nothing more than a brief explanation and an apology. 
Both of which have already been done.
  I hope tonight that once and for all we can put an end to discussing 
this issue--we are beating a dead horse. Many of us, like myself, are 
sick and tired of discussing this nonissue. Clearly, this whole 
incident has been exaggerated and blown way out of proportion.

  Let me clarify exactly what happened. On September 28 as part of a 
hearing conducted by the National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, 
and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee a prop was prepared to show that 
certain organizations received Federal grants. The prop, a large chart 
prepared by HIS, was a reproduction of the organization's letterhead 
and showed in red ink the amount of Federal funds received by several 
members of the organization. The exhibit was xeroxed on letter size 
paper so that those that might not otherwise be able to see the easel 
could review it, including members of the press, and was released 
before the prop itself. The prop did not include any identifying 
information on it as to who prepared it as many hearing props do not; 
it was to be used for questioning a witness as to whether the 
information on the chart was accurate. No one who saw the prop or 
document would believe that it was put out by the organization itself.
  Was there a crime committed? Was there a conscious attempt to 
deceive? Was this a forgery? The answer to each of these questions is a 
resounding no. This whole incident is being blown out of proportion. 
What did occur is that a new staffer on the Hill simply made an error. 
A human error. Nothing more, nothing less. Our Democrat colleagues want 
to spend more taxpayer money on trying to pursue an ethics violation. 
However, if one looks at the history of the types of ethics 
investigations brought before the House in the past they are far more 
serious charges, such as bribery or sexual harassment. There is no 
basis for comparison. The one incident referenced last week regarding a 
staffer who in 1983 intentionally and maliciously altered transcripts, 
which are official records of the House was a concern because of the 
legal nature of the document as legislative history. There is a big 
distinction between a prop used at a hearing to question a witness and 
altering the official records of the House. There is absolutely no 
precedent in the history of the House for bringing up an ethics charge 
based upon the unintentional actions of a staffer creating a prop for 
purposes of questioning a witness at a hearing.
  In fact, we all make errors. I would like to expose some of the 
inaccuracies expressed last week in speeches given by my Democrat 
colleagues with regards to this incident. I will give them the benefit 
of the doubt, and assume that they too were errors. First, it was 
stated that Subcommittee Chairman McIntosh did not issue a letter of 
apology for some time, but in fact, a written letter of apology was 
issued that very same day. Second, it was stated the motion to table 
Mrs. Slaughter's resolution was voted down twice--when in fact it was 
only voted down once by the House. Third, this incident is being 
mischaracterized as a criminal forgery. This is erroneous. For the 
record, according the Perkins' casebook defining criminal law the term 
``forgery'' means the fraudulent making of a false writing having 
apparent legal significance. This prop had no such legal significance; 
it was not done intentionally, and it was not done to deceive. It was 
intended to be used for the purposes of questioning a witness during a 
hearing.
  Mr. Speaker, there was no forgery and there was no crime committed. 
What I find most embarrassing and upsetting about this entire incident 
is the amount of time and money spent by Members discussing it on the 
House floor. There is nothing more to discuss--so let's be done with it 
and get on with the business that the taxpayers sent us here to do.

                          ____________________