[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 151 (Wednesday, October 21, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2265-E2266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ATTEMPTS TO BLACKLIST PEOPLE BECAUSE OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY AFFILIATION

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON KLINK

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, October 20, 1998

  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, there was a time when people were blacklisted 
from jobs because of alleged affiliation with the Communist Party. 
Today, attempts are being made to blacklist people because of their 
affiliation with the Democratic Party.
  How do they do that in our democratic system? Through direct threats 
to employers' pocketbooks. According to Roll Call, the Washington Post, 
and the New York Times, Speaker Gingrich, Majority Leader Richard 
Armey, Majority Whip Tom DeLay and House Republican Chairman John 
Boehner either themselves called or instructed others to call member 
companies of the Electronics Alliance Industry (EIA) and demand that 
EIA break its contract with former Democratic Congressman Dave McCurdy 
and hire a Republican as its new president. In case that was not 
sufficient warning, the Republican leadership then removed legislation 
to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Act from the 
floor schedule and told EIA it was to ``send a message'' that McCurdy 
and other Democrats were not welcome in Republican leadership offices. 
EIA stood up to the pressure, but some member companies now are talking 
about leaving the association to set up a more Republican-acceptable 
one.
  This is not new. Since 1995, Representative DeLay has been 
threatening trade associations, law firms and lobbying groups to remove 
Democrats from top jobs and replace them with Republicans. To see him, 
Representative DeLay told one company, ``you have to hire a 
Republican.'' As Representative Bill Paxon said, Democrats are ``the 
enemy'' and should not be supported. [``Speaker and His Directors Make 
the Cash Flow Right,'' Washington Post, Nov. 27, 1995.] Apparently, the 
Republican leadership no longer believe in a robust two-party system.
  In many countries in the world, the actions of the Republican 
majority would be routine behavior. Persons affiliated with the ruling 
dictator or party and its henchmen get good private and public jobs for 
themselves and their families; special deals when public businesses are 
``privatized''; and many other luxuries. Several billionaires were made 
in Mexico over the past decade because of such affiliations with the 
ruling party--the PRI. Dissidents in the former Soviet Union and its 
satellite states were denied the right to work at their chosen 
professions because of their political views. In the Congo, the right 
to work at all under former dictator Mobutu often depended on political 
party affiliation. The right to work and speak in China today can 
depend upon a person's political views. Indonesia, Malaysia . . . I 
could go on and on.
  From our vaunted and privileged perch in what is still the world's 
greatest democracy, we call these countries and their leaders 
``corrupt,'' ``backward,` and ``undemocratic.'' We decry 
the ``inefficiencies'' that result from such interferences with 
individual and corporate freedoms. We spend millions of dollars every 
year to bring the message of our ``democracy'' to the benighted of the 
world. But unfortunately, in the Congress of the United States, the 
majority party too is now imposing the litmus test of party affiliation 
to reward or punish our citizens. The Republicans are using party 
affiliation to determine who has the right to petition the government. 
The sacred constitutional rights of free speech and association and the 
right to freely contract for goods and services no longer exist if you 
are registered as a Democrat. In fact, you may be summoned before a 
Congressional Committee to explain all of your business dealings. This 
new 1990's McCarthyism is a way of life for the Republican party. Light 
must be shed on it and it must be stopped.

  Let me provide another example about how this Congress is punishing 
people for being Democrats or having the audacity to hire Democrats to 
work for them. Last week Chairman Joe Barton of the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, came to the 
floor to announce that he intended to refer to the Justice Department 
for further ``investigation'' his allegations that certain highly 
connected Democrats and Democratic supporters had lied under oath at 
subcommittee hearings, paid illegal contingency fees for government 
leases and conspired to commit all manner of mayhem in violation of the 
federal conspiracy statute.
  Chairman Barton also demanded that the General Services 
Administration ``take immediate steps''--apparently without going 
through proper legal channels and by breaching a valid contract--to get 
back all the rent it has paid for the Portalls II building, the new 
headquarters into which the Federal Communications Commission will 
begin moving next week. Chairman Barton also wants the GSA to recover 
all fees paid to Washington lawyers by one of the partners in that 
development. Exactly how this is to be done legally is quite unclear, 
particularly since on October 7, 1998, GSA issued a ``lease status'' 
letter indicating that the government was not aware of any ``defense to 
its obligations under the Lease.'' The chairman did not further 
enlighten us.
  The special order appeared to be a last-minute, cheap shot bid for 
press attention--and speech-and-debate protection--for old, unproven 
allegations and an investigation that has drilled a dry hole. There is 
no report nor is a referral letter yet written. One must question why a 
subcommittee chairman needs to go to the floor to give instructions to 
his staff.
  More importantly, this referral is not based on credible evidence but 
is an attempt to punish private persons who happen to be Democrats by 
forcing them to go through months of additional investigations when the 
Subcommittee's own work failed to uncover any criminal wrongdoing. 
Attorneys' fees to defend against a continuing string of unsuccessful 
investigations can be used quite easily to cripple individuals with 
different political views. As much was threatened at the Subcommittee's 
October 6, 1998, hearing. In his opening statement, Committee Chairman 
Bliley told the witnesses that he believed that their behavior was 
``wrong,'' and that ``if they continue down the path of evasion and 
avoidance, they should know the consequences will be far greater.'' 
(emphasis added)
  Chairman Bliley stated that the witnesses' previous testimony, in 
which they denied any wrongdoing, raised ``serious questions about 
whether these men intended to mislead the Committee.'' He claimed the 
Subcommittee had ``other testimony and evidence'' that should cast 
``significant doubt'' on their explanations. But, as staff and members 
already knew, there was no new testimony or evidence to be presented at 
that hearing or the

[[Page E2266]]

following hearing on October 9. In fact, on October 9, witnesses from 
two government agencies denied that any misconduct had occurred, 
confirming statements that they had made to staff months before. 
Nonetheless, Chairman Bliley complained again about what he viewed as 
``implausible stories and explanations.''

  As Rep. John Dingell, ranking member of the Commerce Committee, and 
others stated in the press last week, these statements are nothing more 
than the last gasp of a Subcommittee staff that has labored 
unsuccessfully for almost two years. In two investigations, this 
subcommittee has engaged in a futile effort to link Peter Knight, the 
well-paid lawyer/lobbyist who successfully managed the 1996 Clinton-
Gore re-election campaign, and Vice President Al Gore to some type of 
illegal activity. This was done to the detriment of much more important 
investigations that could have been done on health care, securities, 
telecommunications, and other issues under the Commerce Committee's 
jurisdiction.
  During most of those two years, there was little or no effort to 
conduct a fair investigation. During 1997, the majority worked mightily 
to show that Molten Metal Technology, a small Massachusetts company 
which hired Mr. Knight as its Washington representative, received 
special treatment from the Department of Energy and Vice President Gore 
in obtaining research and development contracts for a nuclear waste 
clean-up technology it was developing. The president of that company, a 
life-long Democrat, had contributed to both the Democratic and 
Republican national parties, but the allegation was that he has 
received special treatment only because of his Democratic 
contributions.
  The political purpose of that investigation was revealed before even 
a single hearing was held. Two days before the first hearing, a 
Subcommittee staff memo was leaked to the press in which the staff 
stated that it had no evidence of wrong-doing and no evidence of any 
linkage to Vice President Gore. This was already clear to the minority 
staff which had reviewed all of the documents and participated in many 
interviews. But the majority staff recommended--and the chairman 
concurred--that hearings be held anyway to ``highlight . . . the cozy 
relationship among the key players, and the substantial flow of 
campaign contributions to Democrats.'' One of the benefits, according 
to the Republican memo, would be ``enormous press coverage'' and 
forcing key players to ``deny allegations of misconduct under oath.'' 
McCarthyism at its worst.
  Strangely, after the ``enormous press coverage'' resulting from Mr. 
Knight's appearance, at which he denied ``allegations of misconduct 
under oath,'' the majority had to be pressured by the minority to allow 
the executives from Molten Metal Technology to testify--even though 
these were the very same persons who had supposedly paid for influence 
at DOE, according to the majority's allegations. The minority's request 
to have Molten Metal's Republican Washington representative testify 
about his role for the company was turned down.
  Not surprisingly, the Subcommittee's investigation turned up no 
evidence of wrongdoing, but there were very heavy and tangible 
penalties placed on the parties targeted. Molten Metal was driven into 
bankruptcy. Two hundred people, including the president of the company, 
lost their jobs. Personal reputations were damaged. Private individuals 
amassed huge legal fees; and the taxpayer will probably never benefit 
from the $33 million invested in the technology. No report was ever 
written: no apologies were ever made by the Republican accusers or 
those who leaked negative stories to the press.
  The second investigation, which Rep. Barton says he will refer to the 
Justice Department--to find the evidence that the Subcommittee could 
not--grew out of the first one. During the Molten Metal investigation, 
majority staff heard that Mr. Knight had been paid $1 million by 
another client and decided that such a fee was too large. Molten Metal 
was soon forgotten, as the Subcommittee plunged forward into another 
year-long investigation of another of Mr. Knight's clients. This 
investigation involved the $1 million payment by Franklin Faney, a 
Tennessee developer, to Mr. Knight for three years' work of various 
real estate projects, mostly in the Washington area. Mr. Haney also had 
the misfortune to be an active Democrat, a former Democratic candidate 
for governor of Tennessee and a big contributor to the Democratic 
Party. The project on which the Subcommittee focused was Mr. Haney's 
ultimately successful attempt to become a participant in the Portals II 
building.
  The chairman alleged at various times that Mr. Haney had paid illegal 
contingency fees and improperly and politically influenced decisions by 
government officials on a supplemental lease agreement signed on 
January 3, 1996. All testimony and documents to the contrary were 
ignored, particularly the evidence that Mr. Haney was not a member of 
the Portals partnership at the time in question, Chairman Barton stated 
at various times that he did not have evidence of improper contingency 
fees or other improprieties, but the investigation and the hearings 
continued--hours and hours of hearings. The final one consumed almost 
nine hours during which eleven government witnesses denied any improper 
behavior or influence by Mr. Haney or his representatives. A number of 
them denied even knowing Mr. Knight or Mr. Haney. Chairman Barton said 
that he hoped to ``gain a much clearer picture of the contracts and 
negotiations'' at that session, but what he heard apparently did not 
meet his pre-conceived view of the facts. So he came to the floor of 
the House to try again to do what his subcommittee could not do--ruin 
Peter Knight's reputation. Why? Because Peter Knight happens to be a 
Democrat.
  This investigation has also established a number of new, expansive 
roles for Congressional committees that make us vulnerable to charges 
of abuse and meddling in business that is entirely and properly 
private, not public. The first new role is a judicial one. We set a new 
standard for evidence that sworn testimony by individuals is evidence 
only if it is backed up by documents. Otherwise, it is just talk.
  Second, we became the D.C. Bar's ethics guru because some law firms 
have billing and partnership practices that we don't like. This was 
brought to our attention by disgruntled former partners who one would 
assume can litigate their own differences and file bar complaints.
  The third new role was that of making sure that private businesses--
particularly those with chief executives of Democratic leaning--who 
agree to do business with the government take no steps to understand 
the business or the risks involved before they invest their funds. 
``Due diligence'' by Democratic business people--especially if it 
involves hundreds of millions of dollars--is forbidden. Phone calls, 
meetings with anyone who might know about the project--all are suspect. 
If carried out, such activities are put under a Republican microscope 
for months on end.
  Even when no wrongdoing is found, Republicans continue to sully the 
reputations of those innocent people. Is there no decency left in the 
GOP?
  The people did not pay us to come to Washington to punish those of 
different political views, to eliminate our two-party system and 
political debate or to look into people's private businesses because we 
think they are paid too much or don't like the way they comb their 
hair. Millions of dollars in public and private funds have been 
expended on these investigations already because certain business 
people were seen by the Republican majority as Democratic ``enemies'' 
of this Congress. Hopefully, the Justice Department can separate a 
political referral designed to save face from a legitimate 
investigation and end this charade.

                          ____________________