[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H11667]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         INNOCENT MISTAKE TRANSFORMED INTO AN ETHICS COMPLAINT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Ehrlich, I wanted to conclude my remarks from 
earlier and just to say that, regardless of these types of attacks on 
our subcommittee and the process there, we do not feel that that should 
be the type of debate we have in this Congress. What we are going to do 
is continue on the merits of our bill that will protect the taxpayer 
and end the taxpayer subsidy for lobbyists here in Washington, and I 
look forward to working with my colleague from Maryland in doing that.
  Mr. EHRLICH. If the gentleman will stay right there, I hope the 
American people are watching this tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I would 
like the gentleman in very concise terms to go before me in 2 minutes 
the facts of what was set out earlier.
  From my understanding, you have a hearing, you were the subcommittee 
chair, a mistake was made, a prop was made, a mistake was made by a 
staffer; correct?
  Mr. McINTOSH. We should have used the prop first and then distributed 
the smaller version.
  Mr. EHRLICH. It was distributed prior to the time it should have been 
distributed; is that correct?
  Mr. McINTOSH. That is correct.
  Mr. EHRLICH. When you found out about this mistake performed by the 
staffer, what did you do?
  Mr. McINTOSH. At the hearing I told people this is our document. We 
intended to make the point this way, and that evening I sent a letter 
of apology to Miss Erin saying, if there was any umbrage taken, it 
certainly was not our intent.
  Mr. EHRLICH. And to my colleague how long was the offending piece of 
paper on the desk for public consumption? Do you know?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I am not sure exactly how long it was there. It did not 
take long before we were asked about it, and the staff withdrew the 
document and have since then reissued it with a disclaimer that this 
information about the grants comes from the subcommittee.
  Mr. EHRLICH. The irrefutable facts, however, are once I found out the 
staffer had made a mistake, you ordered it off the table, you offered 
an immediate apology, at least you recognized a mistake had been made 
publicly; correct? And that evening you wrote a formal letter of 
apology; is that correct?
  Mr. McINTOSH. That is correct.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Now, Mr. Speaker, a political culture that encourages 
this scenario to be transformed into an ethics complaint against my 
colleague from Indiana is not what the American people have a right to 
expect. A political culture that seeks to personalize innocent, 
innocuous mistakes and attacks a Member of this body personally not on 
the issues, not on political philosophy, not on political orientation, 
that is all fair, I would submit, to the general public and the Members 
of this body, but a political culture that requires even a personal 
attack against my colleague from Indiana on these facts is broken, and 
I thank my colleague from Indiana for his indulgence.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line to this entire situation, as the 
chairman of the full committee stated, as the chairman of the 
subcommittee stated tonight, we were sent to Washington to change this 
culture, and if there is one thing I hope we can claim success on come 
November 1996, and I will direct this comment to my colleague from 
Indiana, it is that we change the culture that seeks to personalize 
innocent mistakes. Where I came from, in a State legislature, this is a 
nonevent.

                              {time}  1930

  Here, it is an ethics complaint. I submit to the people of this 
country, this is not what they voted for November 8, 1994. I am making 
it my business, and I want the Members to know, and I want every Member 
of this body to know that this has to stop. I thank my colleague for 
his indulgence.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, let me say 
that I wholeheartedly agree, that we need to get to debating the facts. 
In this particular case, I think what is feared more than anything by 
these groups is that we will succeed in telling the American people 
about how their tax dollars are being used. In this case it was $7 
million that indirectly went to benefit this lobbying group through a 
laundering scheme. Interestingly enough, when I asked Ms. Aron at the 
committee hearing to help us bring out those facts and to tell us if 
she did not agree with these dollar amounts, how much Federal subsidy 
there was, this was her response.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Let me understand this now. This quote that you have 
produced was her response, and that is the reason the entire document 
was generated in the first place?
  Mr. McINTOSH. She said, ``We are not going to tell you, Members of 
Congress, how much taxpayer dollars go to our membership, how and 
whether that taxpayer dollar is being used to subsidize our lobbying 
effort.'' In a typical kind of arrogance that has grown up in this city 
of people who have gotten used to living off of the taxpayer dollars, 
she said, ``I will not. I will not go into the amounts of Federal 
monies that my members receive.'' To me, we owe it to the taxpayer to 
tell them that information.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, if only our opponents would debate the 
issue on the merits.

                          ____________________