On the recordJune 9, 1994
I suppose in the climate in which we live today, anyone who talks about honor and Congress in the same breath invites hoots of derision from the cynics, but I must rise today to note that we are about to dishonor ourselves. Let me explain why. Mr. Speaker, our job, those of us who were unfortunate enough to be assigned to serve on the committee to investigate the Post Office, was to analyze what went wrong administratively, where was the cash kept, in what drawer, who was overseeing it, and all that kind of stuff; why was that done, why was it not done better, and to recommend ways to improve that. We did find out and we did recommend, and through that and other procedures, that problem has been resolved. But as a result of the fact that our role was simply to figure out what was going on administratively, it was not to build a groundwork for a criminal prosecution. The structure of the testimony we took was very informal, wholly inadequate for any kind of a criminal investigation. Most was not sworn. We accepted hearsay, we accepted gossip, we accepted innuendo, and, I am afraid, some lies. For our purposes, which was to understand what went on administratively, that was all right, because we could throw all that stuff out and make the kinds of general judgments we had to make and move on. But the testimony we are about to release is unreliable for virtually any other purpose.
Source
govinfo.gov




