IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in House section
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH
(House of Representatives - January 21, 1997)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H171-H235]
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX and by
direction of the Select Committee on Ethics, I send to the desk a
privileged resolution (
H. Res. 31) in the matter of Representative Newt
Gingrich, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
House Resolution 31
In the Matter of Representative Newt Gingrich
Resolved, That the House adopt the report of the Select
Committee on Ethics dated January 17, 1997, In the Matter of
Representative Newt Gingrich.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution constitutes a question of
privilege and may be called up at any time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Before we proceed, the Chair will have a
statement about the decorum expected of the Members.
The Chair has often reiterated that Members should refrain from
references in debate to the conduct of other Members where such conduct
is not the question actually pending before the House, either by way of
a report from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or by way
of another question of the privileges of the House.
This principle is documented on pages 168 and 526 of the House Rules
and Manual and reflects the consistent rulings of the Chair in this and
in prior Congresses. It derives its force primarily from clause 1 of
rule XIV which broadly prohibits engaging in personality in debate. It
has been part of the rules of the House since 1789.
On the other hand, the calling up of a resolution reported by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or the offering of a
resolution as a similar question of the privileges of the House,
embarks the House on consideration of a proposition that admits
references in debate to a Member's conduct. Disciplinary matters by
their very nature involve personalities.
Still, this exception to the general rule against engaging in
personality--admitting references to a Member's conduct when that
conduct is the very question under consideration by the House--is
closely limited. This point was well stated on July 31, 1979, as
follows: While a wide range of discussion is permitted during debate on
a disciplinary resolution, clause 1 of rule XIV still prohibits the use
of language which is personally abusive. This is recorded in the
Deschler-Brown Procedure in the House of Representatives in chapter 12,
at section 2.11.
On the question now pending before the House, the resolution offered
by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Members should confine their
remarks in debate to the merits of that precise
[[Page
H172]]
question. Members should refrain from remarks that constitute
personalities with respect to members of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct or the Select Committee on Ethics or with respect to
other sitting Members whose conduct is not the subject of the pending
report. Finally, Members should exercise care to maintain an atmosphere
of mutual respect.
On January 27, 1909, the House adopted a report that stated the
following: It is the duty of the House to require its Members in speech
or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the House
to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without unnecessarily
and unduly exciting animosity among its Members.
This is recorded in Cannon's Precedents in volume 8 at section 2497.
The report adopted on that occasion responded to improper references
in debate to the President, but it articulated a principle that
occupants of the Chair over many Congresses have held equally
applicable to Members' remarks toward each other.
The Chair asks and expects the cooperation of all Members in
maintaining a level of decorum that properly dignifies the proceedings
of the House.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is recognized for 1
hour.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that debate on the resolution be extended for a half an hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Johnson] is recognized for 90 minutes.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate
only, I yield 45 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics to
lay before you the committee's bipartisan recommendation for final
action on the matter of Representative Newt Gingrich. The committee
recommends that Representative Gingrich be reprimanded and reimburse
the House $300,000. The penalty is tough and unprecedented. It is also
appropriate. No one is above the rules of the House of Representatives.
This matter centered on two key questions: whether the Speaker
violated Federal tax law and whether he intentionally filed incorrect
information with the Ethics Committee. While the committee investigated
these questions extensively, its findings were inconclusive. Rather,
the committee found that Representative Gingrich brought discredit to
the House by failing to get appropriate legal advice to ensure that his
actions would be in compliance with tax law and to oversee the
development of his letters to the committee to ensure they were
accurate in every respect.
Each Member of Congress, especially those in positions of leadership,
shoulders the responsibility of avoiding even the appearance of
impropriety. Representative Gingrich failed to exercise the discipline
and caution of his office and so is subject to penalty today.
As I have said, the penalty recommended by the committee is tough and
unprecedented. In past cases of this nature, the House has reprimanded
a Member only where the Member was found to have intentionally made
false statements to the Ethics Committee. In this case, the committee
recommended a reprimand of Representative Gingrich even though the
statement of alleged violations did not assert that he intentionally
misled the committee. Likewise in past cases where the committee
imposed monetary sanctions on a Member, the committee found that the
Member had been personally enriched by the misconduct. The committee
made no such finding against Representative Gingrich, yet recommends
that a cost reimbursement of $300,000 be paid to the House by him.
The report before us contains several hundred pages of exhibits and a
detailed analysis of the subcommittee's findings. The allegations and
the key facts supporting them were laid out by the special counsel
during a public hearing on January 17. The committee's recommendations
before you today end 2 long years of work.
Throughout this process we never lost sight of our key goals: full
and complete disclosure of the facts and a bipartisan recommendation.
We accomplished both. Even though it would have been easy for
Republicans or Democrats to walk away from the process at many stages,
we did not, because we believed in this institution and in the ethics
process.
The investigative subcommittee was ably chaired by Representative
Porter Goss. Representatives Ben Cardin, Steve Schiff, and Nancy
Pelosi, along with Mr. Goss deserve the gratitude of this House for the
extraordinary workload they shouldered and for their dedication to
pursuing each issue until they reached consensus. Together with Mr.
James Cole, the special counsel, they laid the groundwork for the
bipartisan conclusion of this matter. I want to thank Mr. Cardin, the
current ranking member, as well, for working with me through difficult
times to enable the bipartisan Ethics Committee process to succeed.
In the last 2 years the committee was forced to conduct its work
against the backdrop of harsh political warfare. It is the first time
ever that members of the Ethics Committee have been the target of
coordinated partisan assaults in their districts. Coordinated political
pressure on members of the Ethics Committee by other Members is not
only destructive of the ethics oversight process but is beneath the
dignity of this great institution and those who serve here.
{time} 1215
Despite the pressures, we bring you today a bipartisan recommendation
resolving the most complex charge against Representative Newt Gingrich.
I ask for both my colleagues' rejection of the partisanship and
animosity that has so deeply permeated the work of the House and for
their support of the committee's resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair notes a disturbance in the visitors' gallery in
contravention of the laws and the rules of the House. The Doorkeepers
and police, the Chair believes, have already acted, but shall act to
remove from the gallery those persons participating in a disturbance.
If there is an outburst from the visitors' gallery, the Chair will
make this statement but will insist on order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this is a sad moment for the
House of Representatives. One of our Members has admitted to a serious
violation of the House rules. This process and this admission affects
not only that Member but each Member who serves in this body. While I
believe that is true of any ethics proceeding, it is particularly true
and particularly troublesome in this case because the offending Member
is the Speaker of the House, the third ranking official in our
Government.
We have received the report and recommendation from the special
counsel. Mr. Gingrich has agreed with the judgment of the special
counsel. In addition to the report, the recommendation of sanctions
represents the bipartisan work produced by our investigative
subcommittee. The report in the recommendation of sanctions has been
overwhelmingly approved by the full Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct and deserves the support of this House.
Let me begin by saying how proud I am of the work of the
investigative subcommittee. In my judgment, all four members of the
subcommittee maintained their commitment to a process that was fair to
the respondent as well as the House and its rules. I want to commend
and compliment the work of our chairman, the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Goss], for the extraordinary work that he did as well as the work
of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] and the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi] and the work of the subcommittee. I also want
to recognize the extraordinary service performed by Jim Cole, our
special counsel; Kevin Wolf, his assistant; and Virginia Johnson from
the
[[Page
H173]]
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Before commenting on the substance of the resolution before us, I
feel obligated to point out the severe problems that have plagued the
process. The 1-year delay in 1995 in enlisting the services of the
special counsel was wrong. We have some evidence that this delay may
have been part of the strategy by allies of Mr. Gingrich. In sharp
contrast to the good faith, bipartisan cooperation which governed the
subcommittee's work, the orderly process collapsed on December 21,
1996, after the matter was forwarded to the full committee. Ignoring
the advice of special counsel and the subcommittee, the Republican
leadership in the House imposed an unrealistic deadline for the
completion of our work to coincide with the Presidential inauguration.
The schedule agreed upon by the full Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct for full public hearings on the subcommittee findings was
unilaterally and improperly canceled. These partisan actions were aimed
at shielding Mr. Gingrich from a full airing of the charges to which he
has admitted guilt.
During the past 5 days the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Johnson] and I have worked closely together to use these days as
effectively as possible to achieve two objectives: First, in the face
of an unrealistic time limit, to get the broadest possible public
release of the information contained in the subcommittee's report; and
second, to arrive at a fair, bipartisan recommendation on sanctions. We
have achieved both objectives, and for that I would like to express my
appreciation to the chairwoman. The report details the reason why the
committee has found that Mr. Gingrich has committed a serious violation
of the House ethics rules. I urge each of my colleagues to read the
report and the accompanying exhibits.
I will now briefly review the findings of the special counsel's
report. First, we must disregard the notion that this case involves a
college professor engaged in a normal academic classroom activity. The
respondent in this case is not Professor Gingrich, but Representative
Gingrich, a Member of the House, minority whip and then Speaker of the
House, who had a vision to launch a political movement to change the
country, in his words, from a welfare state to an opportunity society.
Second, over a 5-year period Mr. Gingrich improperly commingled
political activities with tax exempt organizations. When GOPAC ran
short of funds, Mr. Gingrich sought contributions from several tax
exempt entities in order to continue his partisan political crusade.
Third, there is ample evidence that he did so in violation of tax
laws. Celia Roady, the tax expert retained by the committee, has
concluded that the tax laws were violated, and it is not even a close
call. Our special counsel agrees with that judgment. In all, almost
$1.5 million was spent by these tax exempt organizations, costing the
U.S. Treasury hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost tax revenues
that should have been paid.
Fourth, one need not reach a conclusion on the tax issues to find
that Mr. Gingrich has violated our ethical standards. From his
involvement in the American Campaign Academy case, Mr. Gingrich knew
that pursuing these activities posed a risk of potential tax law
violations. The ACA case established limits on political activities of
tax exempt organizations.
It is important to understand that this case involved similar facts
and some of the same parties as the matter investigated by the
subcommittee. In fact, in response to a question from the special
counsel, Mr. Gingrich stated, and I quote: ``I lived through that case.
I mean I was very well aware of what the ACA case did and what the
ruling was.'' All experts agreed that he should have sought tax advice
before using tax exempt organizations to pursue his political agenda.
In the words of our special counsel Mr. Gingrich's actions suggest
that ``either Mr. Gingrich did not seek legal advice because he is
aware that it would not have permitted him to use a 501(c)(3)
organization for his projects,'' or he was ``reckless in an area that
was fraught with legal peril.''
Finally, the House must make a judgment on the question of whether
Mr. Gingrich deliberately misled the committee. Mr. Gingrich submitted
two letters to the committee that he now admits contained information
about GOPAC that was inaccurate. The facts surrounding these
inaccuracies were well known to Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich had read the
letters before submitting them to the committee. When the investigative
subcommittee specifically called the contradiction in the letters to
Mr. Gingrich's attention, he once again defended them as accurate even
though they were clearly wrong. The misleading letters were sent with
the express intent of persuading the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to dismiss the pending charges. They had the effect of
misleading the committee. It stretches credibility to conclude that the
repeated misstatements were innocent mistakes.
The linchpin of these findings is stated clearly in the report of
special counsel: ``Of all the people involved in drafting, reviewing,
or submitting the letters, the only person who had firsthand knowledge
of the facts contained within them with respect to the Renewing
American Civilization course was Mr. Gingrich.''
The special counsel concludes: ``Either Mr. Gingrich intentionally
made misrepresentations to the committee or he was again reckless in
the way he provided information to the committee concerning a very
important matter.''
Mr. Gingrich's defense is that he has always been very sensitive to
ethics issues and he was embarrassed by the obvious inaccurate letters.
He said he never intended to mislead the committee. But Mr. Gingrich's
actions with respect to the understanding reached with the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct belies his statement.
Mr. Gingrich, through his attorneys, had entered into an agreement
with the committee. That agreement provided ``Mr. Gingrich agree that
no public comment should be made about this matter while it is still
pending. This includes having surrogates sent out to comment on the
matter and attempt to mischaracterize it.''
I am sure that Members of this House are well aware of public comment
since the release of our findings on December 21. As the special
counsel States, ``In the opinion of the subcommittee Members and the
special counsel, a number of press accounts indicated that Mr. Gingrich
had violated that agreement,'' the finding of the bipartisan committee
and our special counsel. Mr. Gingrich's violation of the no comment
agreement raises serious questions about the extent to which he has
deliberately sought to mislead the committee in other instances.
Beyond the events of December 21, 1996, Republican operatives close
to Mr. Gingrich conducted an ongoing campaign to disrupt the
committee's work. It is relevant for this House to consider these
circumstances in determining the degree of Mr. Gingrich's culpability
in providing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct information
that was not accurate, reliable, and complete. It is up to the Members
of this House to determine the appropriate sanction for the violations
committed by Mr. Gingrich. This is not a vote on whether Mr. Gingrich
should remain Speaker of the House. Members need time to become
familiar with the factual record presented in the special counsel's
report and to consider the seriousness of these violations that have
just come to light during the past 4 days.
In the days and weeks to come Mr. Gingrich and each Member of this
House should consider how these charges bear on the question of the
speakership. The resolution before us, the House, today is a sanction
for Representative Gingrich for the ethics violations that he has
committed. According to the House rules a reprimand is appropriate for
serious violations of ethical standards. Sadly, Mr. Gingrich's conduct
requires us to confirm that this case involves infractions of at least
that level of seriousness. He has provided inaccurate and misleading
information to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and there
is significant evidence that he intended to do so.
The recent history of congressional ethics sanctions indicate the
House has imposed the sanction of reprimand when a Member has been
found knowingly to have given false statements. But the earlier cases
did not involve
[[Page
H174]]
giving false statements to the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct itself in response to an inquiry from the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, and Mr. Gingrich's case involves more
than just giving false information to the committee. Mr. Gingrich has
also admitted to directing a political empire that made extensive use
of tax exempt entities for political fundraising purposes. As a result
of all these actions, the reputation of the House of Representatives
has been damaged and tax dollars have been lost.
But there is still more. This is not the first time Mr. Gingrich has
had ethical problems that drew critical action by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct. On other occasions he has been sighted
by this committee for violating House rules. The American public has
not forgotten the lucrative book advance contract that the incoming
Speaker of the House was forced to renounce under public pressure. Our
committee concluded in regards to that book deal: ``At a minimum this
creates the impression of exploiting one's office for personal gain.
Such perception is especially troubling when it pertains to the Office
of the Speaker of the House, a constitutional office requiring the
highest standards of ethical behavior.''
Because of all those factors, these violations require a penalty more
serious than a reprimand. Considering all these matters, I urge this
House to adopt the resolution before us. The resolution incorporates
the recommendation of the special counsel, the investigative
subcommittee, the full Committee on Standards of Official, and Mr.
Gingrich. The sanction we recommend is somewhere between a reprimand
and a censure. It provides a reprimand plus a required $300,000
contribution by Mr. Gingrich to the cost of these proceedings. In my
view this payment should come from his personal resources because it is
a personal responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, with today's vote I will have completed my service on
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Over the past 6 years
and 1 month I have participated in many ethics matters. Among the
issues that we had before the committee during my tenure has been not
only this matter but the House bank and post office matters, both of
which exposed many Members of this House, including its leadership, to
embarrassment either for misdeeds or for mismanagement. I must say,
however, that the matter before us today has brought a threat to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that far exceeded anything I
have seen. The committee was subject to repeated attempts to obstruct
its work and improperly interfere with its investigation. As I leave
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I hope that the
incoming Members will find the process has survived and will continue
to serve this House and the people of our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a distinguished
member of the subcommittee.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I first want to join in the compliments to
the other committee members and to our staffs and special counsel
because, even though we had many disagreements along the way, and
obviously still have some disagreements, I think we made the best
possible effort to get us here today.
I agree with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] this is a sad
day. It is a sad day when any Member is here because of a
recommendation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Last
time I was here it was because a Democratic colleague was here on our
recommendations. I was not happier then because it was a Democrat and
not a Republican then. I think it is a sad day when it is a Member of
the House.
Nevertheless, I think the House can be proud of the fact there is
accountability for its Members. I wish such accountability could be
found from every area of our government.
Second, I am sorry that in the rendition of facts I just heard, there
were certain partisan conclusions that eliminated other conclusions
which I guess could be stated from the other side. For example, it was
said that there was an attempt made by our chairwoman, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] who got us here, when many people
expected along the way we could never get here; but through her
leadership we are here today.
There was the accusation that our chairwoman deliberately tried to
scuttle the information getting to the Members in order to mitigate any
effect on Congressman Gingrich. Quite the contrary. Our chairwoman and
the rest of us had an agreed to up to 5 days of public hearings. Those
were changed only when our Democratic colleagues on the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct held a press conference in which they
said the most important product we could produce would be a written
report that Members could consider before they vote.
That left our Chair, in my judgment, no alternative but to change
directions and to postpone the public hearing, which we ultimately did
have anyway, in favor of trying to produce the written report by this
date which we have now accomplished.
There has been no mention of the fact that Members on the Republican
side particularly were subject to enormous political attack in their
districts. If I were still a district attorney, a career I had before I
got to Congress, I would have certain leaders arrested for attempted
jury tampering, because I think that is what they were doing. They were
trying to use political pressure to get a result in what is essentially
a judicial type of deliberative body. That was their intent.
That was one of the most unethical things I have seen since becoming
a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
What I want to emphasize now is why we are here today. I want to
point out that the statement made, that there have been many new facts
revealed in the last several days, in my judgment is not correct. We
are here because of a statement of alleged violation found by the
ethics subcommittee and released publicly on December 21, 1996, to
which the Speaker acknowledged. And those violations have not changed.
What has changed is the reporting of those violations in the news
media over the last several days. What I have seen in the news media in
various forms is some significant misstatements of what the violations
are. But I have to add that I do not believe that that was in this case
the fault of the news media. It is their job to be critical of us, and
it is our responsibility to respond if we think it is appropriate.
But I want to make it very clear what I think happened was an
unfortunate matter of timing, that on Friday of last week, our hearing
did not begin and our written report was not available until 3 o'clock
on Friday afternoon. Some reporters have told me there were not enough
copies to go around. So they are trying to form deadlines for their
programs or for their newspapers with a report that is over 200 pages
long. I think it is entirely understandable that some errors were made
at first.
Nevertheless, I think some errors were made. They were made because
Mr. Cole's report attempted to be a soup-to-nuts, beginning to end
explanation of what we did in the ethics subcommittee to get to where
we are today. In going through step by step, he quite properly, in my
judgment, said we had this choice to make and we had this fact and we
handled it as follows, and so forth. But what I have seen as reported
as a final conclusion, certain excerpts from that report were
intermediary at best.
The final conclusion of the subcommittee did not change. That final
conclusion is, first, that Mr. Gingrich should have sought competent
legal, professional tax advice before he began his procedures that
involved the use of a tax-exempt foundation, which under the law is
called a 501(c)(3) organization.
Second, that materials were sent to the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct in response to questions from the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct that the Speaker should have known were
inaccurate. That is the final finding, if you will, of the
subcommittee.
The report goes through all of the events, and I heard the gentleman
from
[[Page
H175]]
Maryland [Mr. Cardin] make reference to a number of the events. But the
findings did not change. All of the events would include things like we
on the subcommittee interviewed everybody we could find who had
anything to do with the preparation of those two letters that were
inaccurate.
What we found, in my judgment, if it were not so serious, and I
recognize how serious it is, it would really be called a comedy of
errors.
What happened was the letters were prepared in Mr. Gingrich's law
firm that sent the letters first to a staff member in Mr. Gingrich's
office. The law firm thought that the staff member would correct any
factual misstatements. The staff member thought the law firm had
already checked out the facts. So nobody checked out the facts to see
if they were accurate. But the most important thing is that Mr.
Gingrich was never involved in the preparation of those letters at any
point until the very end where he acknowledges he signed them, he
should have read more carefully, and he is responsible for that before
this House of Representatives.
I would point out that in a letter of October 1996 that he prepared
himself with his staff, he gave us entirely accurate information about
the matters that are under consideration here. I think it is pretty
obvious you do not give accurate information in October and then you
can deliberately prepare information the following September and March
that nobody would know the difference of.
Based upon the allegation, the violations we found, the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct on a 7-to-1 vote, full committee now,
entire committee, recommended the following penalty: It recommended a
reprimand and a cost assessment of $300,000. In some meetings earlier
with members, I have heard some members say that that is unique and
they are concerned about that penalty being unique because, although we
have imposed cost assessments before, we have never done so in the past
for the cost of the investigation.
That is basically what we did. We set $300,000 as the estimated cost
of that portion of the investigation that dealt with clearing up the
misstatements that we received, which may have begun to be prepared in
Mr. Gingrich's law firm, but for which he is responsible as a Member of
the House.
I want to tell all Members that they do not need, in my judgment, to
be concerned about the precedent value, because I believe everyone
concerned understood that this is a unique penalty because the Speaker
of the House is a unique official in our institution. In fact, that is
the reason we decided to, on the subcommittee's part, propose a unique
penalty, and we got word, I have to say ``got word,'' because we never
met with the Speaker to discuss the penalty. All of the negotiations
were by our special counsel on our behalf and the Speaker's attorney,
Mr. Evans, on his behalf. So we got reports on it. But the report we
got back was that Speaker Newt Gingrich agrees that because he holds a
unique position in the House he should receive a unique penalty, so
there is no doubt even the Speaker of the House is not above the rules.
I would hastily add, however, two things, and conclude with this. The
first is that I think there is room for this to be made a standing
procedure in certain cases. For example, I saw what in my judgment were
a number of frivolous complaints filed with the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct which had no other purpose than to be leaked to the
press and create bad publicity for whomever was the target of those
complaints. It seems to me that the precedent we have established here
should apply to those who are found by the committee to have filed
frivolous complaints.
Finally, on how the funds should be paid if the House adopts the
recommended penalty, we were deliberately silent on that. My colleague,
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], is most certainly entitled to
his opinion, but the subcommittee and the committee made no
determination.
Insofar as I have studied the precedents on financial remuneration to
the Government, we have never established as a matter of law how these
funds can be paid.
Mr. Gingrich, if he does get this as a final penalty, understands all
the ramifications, I am certain he does not need me to explain them to
him or, for that matter, any of my colleagues on the other side. But
the fact is the committee was silent deliberately on how any such funds
should be paid. It is my understanding there are at least some
precedents for campaign funds, for example, being used to reimburse the
Government, and certainly we all know that the Chief Executive of the
United States has a legal defense fund in which he raises money. So I
am just saying that whatever the options are to Newt Gingrich as a
Member of the House, they have not been precluded legally by the
committee, and in my judgment they should not be.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to again commend our chairwoman,
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], my fellow members of
the committee, and say I believe we have come up with an appropriate
penalty, which some think is too harsh, some think is too lenient. That
tells me we are about where we ought to be. I hope the House will adopt
it.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The Chair will request that
visitors in the gallery, in coming and going, refrain from any audible
disruption of the proceedings.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
briefly to comment on some of the points raised by the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] is correct,
we are in agreement on the recommendation. We put different emphasis on
some of the facts. Mr. Gingrich clearly, in my view, had ample
opportunity to know about the statements in his letters. He did
indicate he hired an attorney in order to draft the two letters. Let me
just read, if I might, from the transcripts as to the exchange between
Mr. Cole and Mr. Baran, Mr. Baran being Mr. Gingrich's attorney.
Mr. Cole: ``Would you have made sure that he had read it and approved
it, or just the fact he read it is all you would have been interested
in,'' referring to Mr. Gingrich?
Mr. Baran said, ``No, I would have wanted him to be comfortable with
this on many levels.''
Mr. Cole: ``Were you satisfied he was comfortable with it prior to
filing it with the committee?''
Mr. Baran: ``Yes.''
Let me also point out that after this, after we pointed out to Mr.
Gingrich the inconsistency in the letters, Mr. Gingrich wrote another
letter back to the committee. Clearly he had time to review the
inconsistencies by that time. The October 31, 1996, letter, in that
letter he still maintains his innocence on inconsistencies in the
letter, even though the letters were clearly inaccurate, he knew they
were inaccurate, and he had a chance to reread the letters and correct
the record.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 11\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi], my colleague on the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, who was on the investigative subcommittee and who has
made a great contribution to this process and has been an extraordinary
member of our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time
and for his leadership and guidance throughout this process. Clearly
without his involvement, we would not be here today with a bipartisan
recommendation for a sanction for the Speaker of the House.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the investigative subcommittee, I would
like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the gentleman from
Florida, Porter Goss, our Chair of the investigative subcommittee,
again acknowledge the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, as ranking
member for his service there, as well as to say how much I learned from
the gentleman from new Mexico, Mr. Schiff, in the course of our service
there.
Clearly, from the debate so far, you can see that we had many
unresolved difficult issues to deal with, and under the leadership of
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], we went through that.
I want to also commend our special counsel, James Cole, for making us
stick to the facts, the law, and the ethics rules as those elements
that were
[[Page
H176]]
the only matters relevant to our decisions, and many thanks to Kevin
Wolf and Virginia Johnson for their assistance and professionalism.
I heard my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], say
in his earlier days as a prosecutor he might entertain thoughts of
bringing jury tampering charges. If he decides to do that, I hope that
the gentleman will include in his package the dirty tricks memo that is
now in the public record that is a written document about attempts to
undermine the ethics process directly by the Republican House
leadership.
Let me say though we did produce a bipartisan product. I hope our
work will serve as a foundation for a bipartisan solution to be agreed
to today.
Today, others have said it, is a sad day. I think it is a tragic day.
Here in the House of Representatives we will sanction a sitting Speaker
for the first time. It is an unwelcome task to pass judgment on any of
our colleagues, but we have a responsibility to uphold ethical
standards called for in the rules and expected by the American people.
I associate myself with the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin's,
remarks about the process. We should not have to choose to make the
American people aware of either the hearing, a full hearing, or the
report. But since we have a report, I urge everyone to read it. I think
it is very instructive and gives lie to many of the
mischaracterizations that have been made about the violations that the
committee charged Mr. Gingrich with and those which he admitted to.
{time} 1245
The last few weeks have been dreadful. But we have an opportunity to
say today to the American people that when we come to Washington, we do
not check our integrity at the beltway, and that power is not a license
to ignore ethical standards. We also have an opportunity to tell the
American people that sanity can reign in the Congress by demonstrating
our ability to agree and disagree in a respectful way. The American
people gave us the privilege to serve; they expect us not only to make
the laws and to obey the laws, but also to live up to a high ethical
standard.
So today we are here to address the failure of Speaker Gingrich with
regard to the laws governing charitable contributions and GOPAC, and
his failure to respond accurately and reliably to the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.
I would like to just take a moment to refer to the book, because as I
asked people to read it, I want to point out the statement of alleged
violations which was originally set forth by the special counsel. This
is on page 155.
Based on the information described above, the special counsel
proposed a statement of alleged violations to the subcommittee on
December 12. The statement of alleged violations contained 3 counts:
Mr. Gingrich's activities on behalf of ALOF in regard to AOW and ACTV,
and the activities of others in that regard with his knowledge and
approval, constituted a violation of ALOF's status under section
501(c)(3).
Second, Mr. Gingrich's activities on behalf of Kennesaw State College
Foundation, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Reinhardt College
in regard to the Renewing American Civilization course, and other
activities in that regard, with his knowledge and approval, constituted
a violation of those organizations' status under 501(c)(3).
And, third, Mr. Gingrich had provided information to the committee,
directly or through counsel, that was material to matters under
consideration by the committee, which Mr. Gingrich knew or should have
known was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.
These were not the alleged violations that were passed out at the
committee because we did not come to agreement on them, but they are
the original allegations by the special counsel. I think everyone is
well aware that we have charged the Speaker in our statement of alleged
violations that he did not ensure that the law was complied to in his
activities, and that he gave information to the committee that was not
accurate.
Think how much easier it would be if we could all use the 501(c)(3),
not consult a lawyer, and build our political agenda around tax
deductible considerations. The American people in their generosity give
the opportunity to charitable institutions to do charitable work. That
does not include subsidizing our political activity. At the grassroots
level we have always had to comply with the law in relationship to
political activity and 501(c)(3). If we have to do it at the grassroots
level, so should the Speaker of the House.
As the counsel mentions in his statement, some members of the
committee and the special counsel were in favor, as I mentioned before,
of the original proposal. After much deliberation, all four of us could
agree on a statement of alleged violations that despite, in quotes,
``Despite significant and substantial warnings, Mr. Gingrich did not
seek the legal advice to ensure that his conduct conformed with the
provisions of 501(c)(3),'' with the law.
Why did he not? Why did he not? Either because Speaker Gingrich knew
what the answer would be no, from an attorney, ``No, you cannot do
this,'' or he was reckless in conforming with the law. The committee
decided that regardless of the resolution of the 501(c)(3) tax
question, Speaker Gingrich's conduct was improper, did not reflect
credibly on the House, and was deserving of sanction, serious sanction,
and Speaker Gingrich agreed.
The next issue in my view is the most serious, that of not dealing
honestly with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It is
interesting to me that Speaker Gingrich has repeatedly stated that
ethics are important to him. Why, then, did he say that he was too busy
to respond to the committee accurately? Again, either he was trying to
get complaints dismissed and an accurate answer would not achieve that
end, or that ethics were not important enough for him to take the
necessary time.
As our colleague, Mr. Cardin, has pointed out, Mr. Gingrich gave one
answer in the earlier letter in order to respond to a complaint
regarding use of official resources for his course, so he said GOPAC
did it. Then when we asked the question if GOPAC and 501(c)(3) cannot
be that cozy, then he said GOPAC did not do it; and then in the third
communication to the committee, he stood by his previous letters.
The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] prefers to call it a
comedy of errors. I think it is violating our trust that we have among
Members. Every day that we speak to each other in this House, we refer
to each other as the gentleman from Georgia, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut, the gentleman from Maryland. We trust each other that we
will deal truthfully with each other.
Unfortunately, in terms of Speaker Gingrich's dealings with the
committee on a number of occasions, and in his violation of the
agreement under which we would go forward in bringing this issue to a
conclusion, Mr. Gingrich's statements lead me to one conclusion: that
Mr. Gingrich, in his dealings with the committee, is not to be
believed. I conclude also that Mr. Gingrich gave these different
answers not because it was a comedy of errors, but because he thought
he would get away with it.
I was particularly concerned about the ``too busy'' defense. We
cannot say that ethics is important to us and then say we are too busy
to answer the central question asked by the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. Maintaining a high ethical standard is a decision,
and it requires making it a priority. It is not just something we do
when we are not too busy.
We expect the Speaker of the House to be busy. We also expect the
Speaker of the House to be ethical. Speaker Gingrich himself has stated
that the Speaker must be held to a higher standard. I do not put any
additional burden on the Speaker. I think all Members of Congress
should be held to a higher ethical standard.
When new Members arrive in Congress, one of the first documents they
receive is the House Ethics Manual. And one of the first
responsibilities impressed upon all of us is to uphold a high ethical
standard. Clearly, Speaker Gingrich did not live up to his own
professed ethical standards of the House, and, indeed, to the ethical
standards in this book.
I urge my colleagues to read this report. I think when you do, you
will see
[[Page
H177]]
that it gives lie to the mis characterizations of our Republican
colleagues that the violations were nothing, or that they were like
trespassing or double parking. Either our colleagues were ill-informed,
and that is what I choose to believe, or they have a cavalier regard
for the tragedy of the Speaker admitting bringing discredit to the
House of Representatives which he wants to lead.
Now we come to the penalty. As you know, we have a financial penalty
because we believe that the inaccurate statements that the Speaker said
to us prolonged the process. There are other reasons why there is a
financial penalty, but that was one of them. And the subcommittee
concluded, and I quote, ``that because these inaccurate statements were
provided to the committee, this matter was not resolved as
expeditiously as it could have been. This caused a controversy over the
matter to arise and last for a substantial period of time, it disrupted
the operations of the House, and it cost the House a substantial amount
of money in order to determine the facts.''
So I urge our colleagues, in light of all of that, to support the
bipartisan recommendation of the committee. The $300,000 penalty I
believe speaks eloquently to the American people, who may not know the
weight of one of our sanctions or another, but they understand
$300,000. And I hope that this money will not come from the Speaker's
political campaign funds, because I think that will increase the
cynicism of the American people about what goes on here in Washington.
Whether the Speaker remains Speaker is up to the Republicans. He is
technically eligible. I hope you will make a judgment as to whether he
is ethically fit.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss), the chairman of the
subcommittee, and I want to recognize the outstanding job that he did
chairing that subcommittee, as I recognize the remarkable service of
the members of that subcommittee.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the
distinguished chair of our committee, for yielding me this time. She
deserves our sincere gratitude for all she has endured, for her
persistence, for her determination to bring this to a successful
conclusion, and here we are today. It was certainly an unenviable and,
I know, thankless task.
Today we have a conclusion. Today the House takes the final step in
what has been a most difficult process, I think we all would agree. It
is not just for those intimately involved in the day-to-day twists and
turns in this tortuous case, but also for the entire House.
On Friday the full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
approved a recommendation which is today before this House, for an
official reprimand and a $300,000 cost assessment to Mr. Gingrich as
sanction for his violation of House rules and as partial reimbursement
for the costs of the inquiry that ensued. This is unquestionably a
serious sanction, but one that is also fair and appropriate, in my
view, as evidenced by the fact that indeed Mr. Gingrich himself has
agreed to it.
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, functioning
independently of leadership on both sides of the aisle, is supposed to
find the truth through an investigative process. It is not designed to
protect errant Members, nor is it designed to permit partisan zealots
to destroy Members or to score political points.
In this case, the committee's members were subject to frequent unfair
and inaccurate partisan political attack. That is a matter of fact.
Outsiders attempted to influence our activities, our deliberations, our
schedule and our conclusions. That is truly a shame. It has caused
harm, not just to the Members involved, but it has also brought
discredit to this institution, in my view.
Friday, I urged the leadership on both sides of the aisle to tone
down the rhetoric, cut the nonsense, and get back to work in repairing
the damage that has come to this House. I repeat that exhortation
today.
With regard to the matter at hand, I am very satisfied with the work
done by our investigative subcommittee, whose recommendation was
adopted by the full committee and is the recommendation all Members
will consider today.
The four of us, working with the extraordinarily talented special
counsel, Jim Cole, functioned in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation
that did actually grow as we went along in the case. I say we started
with different perspectives, but we started with open minds, and I am
grateful for the very fine service, the unbelievable commitment of time
of the members, their cooperation. I take my hat off to the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff],
and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], all of whom in my
view bring great credit to this institution.
Contrary to what has been reported, the statement of alleged
violations that our subcommittee developed and passed and which forms
the basis for the sanctioned recommendation did not, I repeat not, find
that Mr. Gingrich violated or did not violate tax law in his
relationship with 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations. And contrary to
media reports, that statement of alleged violation of December 21st
also did not charge Mr. Gingrich with intentionally deceiving our
committee with his correspondence in this case.
Nonetheless, I found it extraordinarily imprudent of Mr. Gingrich not
to seek and follow a less aggressive course of action in tax areas he
knew to be sensitive and controversial. And even more troubling, I
found the fact that the committee was given inaccurate, unreliable, and
incomplete information to be a very serious failure on his part.
{time} 1300
Now, it is certainly true that we had more than enough facts and
extenuating circumstances to consider. We all know a Member of Congress
wears many hats, for our official lives, our campaign lives, our
private lives, our business lives or whatever, and knowledge of how
careful we must be in wearing those hats is fundamental to our job. We
all have an extra obligation to be sure our activities are appropriate,
no matter which hat we are wearing. That is an obligation that each of
us signs up for when we run to serve in this institution.
That is why the serious sanction we recommend is appropriate, in my
view. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] has recognized his
lapses and the problems they have caused for this House. He has
apologized, forthrightly and sincerely. He has also accepted the unique
sanction we proposed, one that includes a clear signal to all Members
about the importance of providing accurate and grounded information to
the Select Committee on Ethics, whether in response to a complaint or
in filing a complaint.
I must point out to Members that our mission in the preliminary
investigation was to find and examine the dark clouds. That is what
investigations do. Mr. Cole is very good at that. He is a brilliant
prosecutor. In his report he presented well those dark clouds. He did
not, however, present all of the other clouds we looked at that turned
out to be not quite so dark. So I found that his report would be well
supplemented by reading the report of the Speaker's attorneys for
balance, as well. I refer colleagues and interested parties to both
reports to get the full picture.
In the end, I agreed with my subcommittee colleagues that Mr.
Gingrich's absence of diligence subjects him legitimately to charges of
conduct reckless enough to constitute a violation of House rules. I
sincerely hope with today's voting we can put this matter to rest.
I urge this House to adopt the recommendation of the Select Committee
on Ethics and remember, the penalty is aimed at findings in response to
the specific work of our subcommittee, no matter what feelings any
particular Member may personally have about Mr. Gingrich.
Some have said this is a sad day. Indeed it is, whenever we have this
type of a situation. I will also say it is a day of victory. We have
proved to the American people that no matter how rough the process is,
we can police ourselves. We do know right from wrong in this
institution. We can take the necessary steps.
[[Page
H178]]
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], a very valuable member of the Select
Committee on Ethics, who has done yeoman's service for the House and
for the Congress on that committee.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by commending the members of the
investigative subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ben
Cardin, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Nancy Pelosi, the
chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Porter Goss, and, of course,
the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Schiff, for the extraordinary job
they have performed for this institution. They are all people of
enormously high integrity, and they have done this committee and this
House very proud.
I also want to commend the special counsel, Mr. Cole, who under the
most difficult and trying of circumstances came through with a report
that, again, I would urge all Members of the House to read; but again,
under the most difficult and trying of circumstances, he performed an
heroic deed for this House.
Mr. Speaker, let me state the obvious. No Member seeks or enjoys a
position on the Ethics Committee, but the proper functioning of that
committee is essential to the integrity of the House. It is a matter of
personal and institutional honor that each of us has agreed to serve.
I remember distinctly when I received the phone call that any one of
us never wants to get; a leader of my party, Speaker Tom Foley, asked
me to serve on the Ethics Committee. I remember distinctly saying to
Mr. Foley that I was reminded of the fellow who was tarred and
feathered, put on a rail and run out of town, whose retort was that if
it weren't for the honor, he would rather walk. I am on this committee,
but it is as a reluctant member. On more than one occasion I have
offered to step down when the removal of a member was necessary to
maintain the political balance of the committee. But Mr. Speaker, I
feel very strongly that it is our constitutional duty, and it was mine,
to respond positively to Tom Foley's request. It was, again, certainly
not a position that I wanted.
I hope to concentrate my efforts and energies on the work of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, probably the most
bipartisan committee in this House of Representatives, and where that
bipartisan atmosphere has enabled us to turn out very important pieces
of legislation.
It is always a grueling and distasteful task to investigate a fellow
Member--all the more so in the case of the Speaker. Some have suggested
that partisan attempts were made to derail the special counsel's
efforts and render him less effective. I might say that I agree. The
subcommittee released its statement of alleged violation on the
Saturday before Christmas. The counsel's report was released on Friday
afternoon, before inaugural weekend, with the vote firmly scheduled for
this afternoon. Despite a prior agreement which allowed for a full week
of public hearings, we were left with only a single afternoon's
session. Mr. Cole, along with members of the full committee and
subcommittee were troubled by the time line insisted upon by Republican
leadership. The special counsel insisted with consistency that he would
be hard pressed to complete a report detailing the 2-year investigation
before February 4. Yet, Mr. Cole was denied the time he deemed
necessary.
Despite these obstacles, however, the special counsel did release a
report on Friday afternoon which included the subcommittee's
recommended sanction of a reprimand and fine. In this report, Mr. Cole,
along with Ms. Roady, the subcommittee's tax expert, and two members of
the committee conclude that Mr. Gingrich has violated the tax code in
conjunction with 501(c)(3). However, the Committee agreed that the
focus of the investigation should be on the conduct of the Member
rather than the resolution of issues of tax law which would best be
left to the IRS. What the report does say about the 501(c)(3), is the
following:
``* * * the subcommittee was faced with a disturbing choice. Either
Mr. Gingrich did not seek legal advice because he was aware that it
would not have permitted him to use a 501(c)(3) organization for his
projects, or he was reckless in not taking care that, as a Member of
Congress, he made sure that his conduct conformed with the law in an
area where he had ample warning that his intended course was fraught
with legal peril. The subcommittee decided that regardless of the
resolution of the 501(c)(3) tax question, Mr. Gingrich's conduct in
this regard was improper, did not reflect creditably on the House and
was deserving of sanction.''
With respect to the letters containing inaccurate information that
Mr. Gingrich provided to the committee, the report goes on to say:
``The special counsel suggested that a good argument could be made,
based on the record, that Mr. Gingrich did act intentionally, however
it would be difficult to establish that with a high degree of certainty
* * * In determining what the appropriate sanction should be in this
matter, the subcommittee and the special counsel considered the
seriousness of the conduct, the level of care exercised by Mr.
Gingrich, the disruption caused to the House by the conduct, the cost
to the House in having to pay for an extensive investigation, and the
repetitive nature of the conduct.''
``The subcommittee was faced with troubling choices in each of the
areas covered by the statement of alleged violation. Either Mr.
Gingrich's conduct in regard to the 501(c)(3) organizations and the
letters he submitted to the committee was intentional or it was
reckless. Neither choice reflects creditably on the House. * * *''
Under the rules of the committee, a reprimand is the appropriate
sanction for a serious violation of House Rules and a censure is
appropriate for a more serious violation of House rules. This is the
extent to which guidelines are in place for Members to make a
determination of sanction. According to the special counsel, it was the
opinion of the Ethics Subcommittee, after two years of investigation
and inquiry, that this matter fell somewhere in between. As such, both
the subcommittee and the special counsel recommended that the
appropriate sanction should be a reprimand and a payment reimbursing
the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of
$300,000. Mr. Gingrich has agreed that this is the appropriate
sanction, as has the full Ethics Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, particularly my colleagues on
the Democratic side of the aisle, this is not about who should be the
Speaker of the House. Democrats have no say in who should be the
Speaker of the House. That is up to the majority party.
This is not about process. There were parts of this process that I
find extremely disturbing, and parts that I think need to be dealt with
further at an appropriate time. This is not that time.
This is not about whether the existing tax code in question is
arcane. I asked the special counsel, Mr. Cole, at our Friday afternoon
public hearing whether the law was in fact arcane, and Mr. Cole
responded in the strongest possible language that the law was not
arcane. In fact, it is a headline issue that politics and tax-exempt
organizations should not mix. Even Mr. Gingrich's tax attorney agreed
with that statement.
I also asked the special counsel to respond to the spin that we are
all familiar with, and it goes like this: ``I saw the course, I watched
the tape. There is nothing political about them.'' Mr. Cole's response
was that the issue in question was not so much the content of the
course, but, rather, the intent and the way in which it was
distributed.
The report states, ``Mr. Gingrich applied the ideas of the course to
partisan political purposes.'' Mr. Speaker, this is not about
determining the innocence or the guilt of Mr. Gingrich. He has already
admitted that guilt, that he has brought discredit to this House. This
is about the ability of the House of Representatives, under the most
trying of circumstances, to judge one of its own Members, an extremely
controversial Member, one who has led his party to the majority. It is
our duty to determine the appropriate sanction to that Member.
The subcommittee, aided by the special counsel, has conducted an
investigation and made its recommendation to the full committee, which
in turn has made that recommendation to the full House.
Those are the processes we have adopted and those are the processes
we have followed. We are giving every Member, independently, the
opportunity to put aside partisan politics and follow the
recommendation offered by the special counsel, the subcommittee, and
the full committee upon completion of a 2-year inquiry. It is right and
it is just. We were asked as Members of Congress to put aside our
partisan beliefs and serve on this committee out of a sense of duty and
honor.
[[Page
H179]]
Now, we are asking you to honor our recommendations with dignity.
I ask my colleagues to honor the work of the Ethics Committee and to
vote yes for this very strict sanction.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of the Ethics
Committee for yielding time to me.
Let me say at the outset that you can clearly disagree and have great
respect for your colleagues on the Ethics Committee, as I do, and still
reach different conclusions, as I do.
My conclusion is that the penalty that has been assessed by the
Ethics Committee is way too severe whe
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH
(House of Representatives - January 21, 1997)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H171-H235]
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX and by
direction of the Select Committee on Ethics, I send to the desk a
privileged resolution (
H. Res. 31) in the matter of Representative Newt
Gingrich, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
House Resolution 31
In the Matter of Representative Newt Gingrich
Resolved, That the House adopt the report of the Select
Committee on Ethics dated January 17, 1997, In the Matter of
Representative Newt Gingrich.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution constitutes a question of
privilege and may be called up at any time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Before we proceed, the Chair will have a
statement about the decorum expected of the Members.
The Chair has often reiterated that Members should refrain from
references in debate to the conduct of other Members where such conduct
is not the question actually pending before the House, either by way of
a report from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or by way
of another question of the privileges of the House.
This principle is documented on pages 168 and 526 of the House Rules
and Manual and reflects the consistent rulings of the Chair in this and
in prior Congresses. It derives its force primarily from clause 1 of
rule XIV which broadly prohibits engaging in personality in debate. It
has been part of the rules of the House since 1789.
On the other hand, the calling up of a resolution reported by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or the offering of a
resolution as a similar question of the privileges of the House,
embarks the House on consideration of a proposition that admits
references in debate to a Member's conduct. Disciplinary matters by
their very nature involve personalities.
Still, this exception to the general rule against engaging in
personality--admitting references to a Member's conduct when that
conduct is the very question under consideration by the House--is
closely limited. This point was well stated on July 31, 1979, as
follows: While a wide range of discussion is permitted during debate on
a disciplinary resolution, clause 1 of rule XIV still prohibits the use
of language which is personally abusive. This is recorded in the
Deschler-Brown Procedure in the House of Representatives in chapter 12,
at section 2.11.
On the question now pending before the House, the resolution offered
by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Members should confine their
remarks in debate to the merits of that precise
[[Page
H172]]
question. Members should refrain from remarks that constitute
personalities with respect to members of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct or the Select Committee on Ethics or with respect to
other sitting Members whose conduct is not the subject of the pending
report. Finally, Members should exercise care to maintain an atmosphere
of mutual respect.
On January 27, 1909, the House adopted a report that stated the
following: It is the duty of the House to require its Members in speech
or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the House
to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without unnecessarily
and unduly exciting animosity among its Members.
This is recorded in Cannon's Precedents in volume 8 at section 2497.
The report adopted on that occasion responded to improper references
in debate to the President, but it articulated a principle that
occupants of the Chair over many Congresses have held equally
applicable to Members' remarks toward each other.
The Chair asks and expects the cooperation of all Members in
maintaining a level of decorum that properly dignifies the proceedings
of the House.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is recognized for 1
hour.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that debate on the resolution be extended for a half an hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Johnson] is recognized for 90 minutes.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate
only, I yield 45 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics to
lay before you the committee's bipartisan recommendation for final
action on the matter of Representative Newt Gingrich. The committee
recommends that Representative Gingrich be reprimanded and reimburse
the House $300,000. The penalty is tough and unprecedented. It is also
appropriate. No one is above the rules of the House of Representatives.
This matter centered on two key questions: whether the Speaker
violated Federal tax law and whether he intentionally filed incorrect
information with the Ethics Committee. While the committee investigated
these questions extensively, its findings were inconclusive. Rather,
the committee found that Representative Gingrich brought discredit to
the House by failing to get appropriate legal advice to ensure that his
actions would be in compliance with tax law and to oversee the
development of his letters to the committee to ensure they were
accurate in every respect.
Each Member of Congress, especially those in positions of leadership,
shoulders the responsibility of avoiding even the appearance of
impropriety. Representative Gingrich failed to exercise the discipline
and caution of his office and so is subject to penalty today.
As I have said, the penalty recommended by the committee is tough and
unprecedented. In past cases of this nature, the House has reprimanded
a Member only where the Member was found to have intentionally made
false statements to the Ethics Committee. In this case, the committee
recommended a reprimand of Representative Gingrich even though the
statement of alleged violations did not assert that he intentionally
misled the committee. Likewise in past cases where the committee
imposed monetary sanctions on a Member, the committee found that the
Member had been personally enriched by the misconduct. The committee
made no such finding against Representative Gingrich, yet recommends
that a cost reimbursement of $300,000 be paid to the House by him.
The report before us contains several hundred pages of exhibits and a
detailed analysis of the subcommittee's findings. The allegations and
the key facts supporting them were laid out by the special counsel
during a public hearing on January 17. The committee's recommendations
before you today end 2 long years of work.
Throughout this process we never lost sight of our key goals: full
and complete disclosure of the facts and a bipartisan recommendation.
We accomplished both. Even though it would have been easy for
Republicans or Democrats to walk away from the process at many stages,
we did not, because we believed in this institution and in the ethics
process.
The investigative subcommittee was ably chaired by Representative
Porter Goss. Representatives Ben Cardin, Steve Schiff, and Nancy
Pelosi, along with Mr. Goss deserve the gratitude of this House for the
extraordinary workload they shouldered and for their dedication to
pursuing each issue until they reached consensus. Together with Mr.
James Cole, the special counsel, they laid the groundwork for the
bipartisan conclusion of this matter. I want to thank Mr. Cardin, the
current ranking member, as well, for working with me through difficult
times to enable the bipartisan Ethics Committee process to succeed.
In the last 2 years the committee was forced to conduct its work
against the backdrop of harsh political warfare. It is the first time
ever that members of the Ethics Committee have been the target of
coordinated partisan assaults in their districts. Coordinated political
pressure on members of the Ethics Committee by other Members is not
only destructive of the ethics oversight process but is beneath the
dignity of this great institution and those who serve here.
{time} 1215
Despite the pressures, we bring you today a bipartisan recommendation
resolving the most complex charge against Representative Newt Gingrich.
I ask for both my colleagues' rejection of the partisanship and
animosity that has so deeply permeated the work of the House and for
their support of the committee's resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair notes a disturbance in the visitors' gallery in
contravention of the laws and the rules of the House. The Doorkeepers
and police, the Chair believes, have already acted, but shall act to
remove from the gallery those persons participating in a disturbance.
If there is an outburst from the visitors' gallery, the Chair will
make this statement but will insist on order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this is a sad moment for the
House of Representatives. One of our Members has admitted to a serious
violation of the House rules. This process and this admission affects
not only that Member but each Member who serves in this body. While I
believe that is true of any ethics proceeding, it is particularly true
and particularly troublesome in this case because the offending Member
is the Speaker of the House, the third ranking official in our
Government.
We have received the report and recommendation from the special
counsel. Mr. Gingrich has agreed with the judgment of the special
counsel. In addition to the report, the recommendation of sanctions
represents the bipartisan work produced by our investigative
subcommittee. The report in the recommendation of sanctions has been
overwhelmingly approved by the full Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct and deserves the support of this House.
Let me begin by saying how proud I am of the work of the
investigative subcommittee. In my judgment, all four members of the
subcommittee maintained their commitment to a process that was fair to
the respondent as well as the House and its rules. I want to commend
and compliment the work of our chairman, the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Goss], for the extraordinary work that he did as well as the work
of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] and the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi] and the work of the subcommittee. I also want
to recognize the extraordinary service performed by Jim Cole, our
special counsel; Kevin Wolf, his assistant; and Virginia Johnson from
the
[[Page
H173]]
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Before commenting on the substance of the resolution before us, I
feel obligated to point out the severe problems that have plagued the
process. The 1-year delay in 1995 in enlisting the services of the
special counsel was wrong. We have some evidence that this delay may
have been part of the strategy by allies of Mr. Gingrich. In sharp
contrast to the good faith, bipartisan cooperation which governed the
subcommittee's work, the orderly process collapsed on December 21,
1996, after the matter was forwarded to the full committee. Ignoring
the advice of special counsel and the subcommittee, the Republican
leadership in the House imposed an unrealistic deadline for the
completion of our work to coincide with the Presidential inauguration.
The schedule agreed upon by the full Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct for full public hearings on the subcommittee findings was
unilaterally and improperly canceled. These partisan actions were aimed
at shielding Mr. Gingrich from a full airing of the charges to which he
has admitted guilt.
During the past 5 days the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Johnson] and I have worked closely together to use these days as
effectively as possible to achieve two objectives: First, in the face
of an unrealistic time limit, to get the broadest possible public
release of the information contained in the subcommittee's report; and
second, to arrive at a fair, bipartisan recommendation on sanctions. We
have achieved both objectives, and for that I would like to express my
appreciation to the chairwoman. The report details the reason why the
committee has found that Mr. Gingrich has committed a serious violation
of the House ethics rules. I urge each of my colleagues to read the
report and the accompanying exhibits.
I will now briefly review the findings of the special counsel's
report. First, we must disregard the notion that this case involves a
college professor engaged in a normal academic classroom activity. The
respondent in this case is not Professor Gingrich, but Representative
Gingrich, a Member of the House, minority whip and then Speaker of the
House, who had a vision to launch a political movement to change the
country, in his words, from a welfare state to an opportunity society.
Second, over a 5-year period Mr. Gingrich improperly commingled
political activities with tax exempt organizations. When GOPAC ran
short of funds, Mr. Gingrich sought contributions from several tax
exempt entities in order to continue his partisan political crusade.
Third, there is ample evidence that he did so in violation of tax
laws. Celia Roady, the tax expert retained by the committee, has
concluded that the tax laws were violated, and it is not even a close
call. Our special counsel agrees with that judgment. In all, almost
$1.5 million was spent by these tax exempt organizations, costing the
U.S. Treasury hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost tax revenues
that should have been paid.
Fourth, one need not reach a conclusion on the tax issues to find
that Mr. Gingrich has violated our ethical standards. From his
involvement in the American Campaign Academy case, Mr. Gingrich knew
that pursuing these activities posed a risk of potential tax law
violations. The ACA case established limits on political activities of
tax exempt organizations.
It is important to understand that this case involved similar facts
and some of the same parties as the matter investigated by the
subcommittee. In fact, in response to a question from the special
counsel, Mr. Gingrich stated, and I quote: ``I lived through that case.
I mean I was very well aware of what the ACA case did and what the
ruling was.'' All experts agreed that he should have sought tax advice
before using tax exempt organizations to pursue his political agenda.
In the words of our special counsel Mr. Gingrich's actions suggest
that ``either Mr. Gingrich did not seek legal advice because he is
aware that it would not have permitted him to use a 501(c)(3)
organization for his projects,'' or he was ``reckless in an area that
was fraught with legal peril.''
Finally, the House must make a judgment on the question of whether
Mr. Gingrich deliberately misled the committee. Mr. Gingrich submitted
two letters to the committee that he now admits contained information
about GOPAC that was inaccurate. The facts surrounding these
inaccuracies were well known to Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich had read the
letters before submitting them to the committee. When the investigative
subcommittee specifically called the contradiction in the letters to
Mr. Gingrich's attention, he once again defended them as accurate even
though they were clearly wrong. The misleading letters were sent with
the express intent of persuading the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to dismiss the pending charges. They had the effect of
misleading the committee. It stretches credibility to conclude that the
repeated misstatements were innocent mistakes.
The linchpin of these findings is stated clearly in the report of
special counsel: ``Of all the people involved in drafting, reviewing,
or submitting the letters, the only person who had firsthand knowledge
of the facts contained within them with respect to the Renewing
American Civilization course was Mr. Gingrich.''
The special counsel concludes: ``Either Mr. Gingrich intentionally
made misrepresentations to the committee or he was again reckless in
the way he provided information to the committee concerning a very
important matter.''
Mr. Gingrich's defense is that he has always been very sensitive to
ethics issues and he was embarrassed by the obvious inaccurate letters.
He said he never intended to mislead the committee. But Mr. Gingrich's
actions with respect to the understanding reached with the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct belies his statement.
Mr. Gingrich, through his attorneys, had entered into an agreement
with the committee. That agreement provided ``Mr. Gingrich agree that
no public comment should be made about this matter while it is still
pending. This includes having surrogates sent out to comment on the
matter and attempt to mischaracterize it.''
I am sure that Members of this House are well aware of public comment
since the release of our findings on December 21. As the special
counsel States, ``In the opinion of the subcommittee Members and the
special counsel, a number of press accounts indicated that Mr. Gingrich
had violated that agreement,'' the finding of the bipartisan committee
and our special counsel. Mr. Gingrich's violation of the no comment
agreement raises serious questions about the extent to which he has
deliberately sought to mislead the committee in other instances.
Beyond the events of December 21, 1996, Republican operatives close
to Mr. Gingrich conducted an ongoing campaign to disrupt the
committee's work. It is relevant for this House to consider these
circumstances in determining the degree of Mr. Gingrich's culpability
in providing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct information
that was not accurate, reliable, and complete. It is up to the Members
of this House to determine the appropriate sanction for the violations
committed by Mr. Gingrich. This is not a vote on whether Mr. Gingrich
should remain Speaker of the House. Members need time to become
familiar with the factual record presented in the special counsel's
report and to consider the seriousness of these violations that have
just come to light during the past 4 days.
In the days and weeks to come Mr. Gingrich and each Member of this
House should consider how these charges bear on the question of the
speakership. The resolution before us, the House, today is a sanction
for Representative Gingrich for the ethics violations that he has
committed. According to the House rules a reprimand is appropriate for
serious violations of ethical standards. Sadly, Mr. Gingrich's conduct
requires us to confirm that this case involves infractions of at least
that level of seriousness. He has provided inaccurate and misleading
information to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and there
is significant evidence that he intended to do so.
The recent history of congressional ethics sanctions indicate the
House has imposed the sanction of reprimand when a Member has been
found knowingly to have given false statements. But the earlier cases
did not involve
[[Page
H174]]
giving false statements to the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct itself in response to an inquiry from the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, and Mr. Gingrich's case involves more
than just giving false information to the committee. Mr. Gingrich has
also admitted to directing a political empire that made extensive use
of tax exempt entities for political fundraising purposes. As a result
of all these actions, the reputation of the House of Representatives
has been damaged and tax dollars have been lost.
But there is still more. This is not the first time Mr. Gingrich has
had ethical problems that drew critical action by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct. On other occasions he has been sighted
by this committee for violating House rules. The American public has
not forgotten the lucrative book advance contract that the incoming
Speaker of the House was forced to renounce under public pressure. Our
committee concluded in regards to that book deal: ``At a minimum this
creates the impression of exploiting one's office for personal gain.
Such perception is especially troubling when it pertains to the Office
of the Speaker of the House, a constitutional office requiring the
highest standards of ethical behavior.''
Because of all those factors, these violations require a penalty more
serious than a reprimand. Considering all these matters, I urge this
House to adopt the resolution before us. The resolution incorporates
the recommendation of the special counsel, the investigative
subcommittee, the full Committee on Standards of Official, and Mr.
Gingrich. The sanction we recommend is somewhere between a reprimand
and a censure. It provides a reprimand plus a required $300,000
contribution by Mr. Gingrich to the cost of these proceedings. In my
view this payment should come from his personal resources because it is
a personal responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, with today's vote I will have completed my service on
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Over the past 6 years
and 1 month I have participated in many ethics matters. Among the
issues that we had before the committee during my tenure has been not
only this matter but the House bank and post office matters, both of
which exposed many Members of this House, including its leadership, to
embarrassment either for misdeeds or for mismanagement. I must say,
however, that the matter before us today has brought a threat to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that far exceeded anything I
have seen. The committee was subject to repeated attempts to obstruct
its work and improperly interfere with its investigation. As I leave
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I hope that the
incoming Members will find the process has survived and will continue
to serve this House and the people of our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a distinguished
member of the subcommittee.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I first want to join in the compliments to
the other committee members and to our staffs and special counsel
because, even though we had many disagreements along the way, and
obviously still have some disagreements, I think we made the best
possible effort to get us here today.
I agree with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] this is a sad
day. It is a sad day when any Member is here because of a
recommendation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Last
time I was here it was because a Democratic colleague was here on our
recommendations. I was not happier then because it was a Democrat and
not a Republican then. I think it is a sad day when it is a Member of
the House.
Nevertheless, I think the House can be proud of the fact there is
accountability for its Members. I wish such accountability could be
found from every area of our government.
Second, I am sorry that in the rendition of facts I just heard, there
were certain partisan conclusions that eliminated other conclusions
which I guess could be stated from the other side. For example, it was
said that there was an attempt made by our chairwoman, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] who got us here, when many people
expected along the way we could never get here; but through her
leadership we are here today.
There was the accusation that our chairwoman deliberately tried to
scuttle the information getting to the Members in order to mitigate any
effect on Congressman Gingrich. Quite the contrary. Our chairwoman and
the rest of us had an agreed to up to 5 days of public hearings. Those
were changed only when our Democratic colleagues on the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct held a press conference in which they
said the most important product we could produce would be a written
report that Members could consider before they vote.
That left our Chair, in my judgment, no alternative but to change
directions and to postpone the public hearing, which we ultimately did
have anyway, in favor of trying to produce the written report by this
date which we have now accomplished.
There has been no mention of the fact that Members on the Republican
side particularly were subject to enormous political attack in their
districts. If I were still a district attorney, a career I had before I
got to Congress, I would have certain leaders arrested for attempted
jury tampering, because I think that is what they were doing. They were
trying to use political pressure to get a result in what is essentially
a judicial type of deliberative body. That was their intent.
That was one of the most unethical things I have seen since becoming
a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
What I want to emphasize now is why we are here today. I want to
point out that the statement made, that there have been many new facts
revealed in the last several days, in my judgment is not correct. We
are here because of a statement of alleged violation found by the
ethics subcommittee and released publicly on December 21, 1996, to
which the Speaker acknowledged. And those violations have not changed.
What has changed is the reporting of those violations in the news
media over the last several days. What I have seen in the news media in
various forms is some significant misstatements of what the violations
are. But I have to add that I do not believe that that was in this case
the fault of the news media. It is their job to be critical of us, and
it is our responsibility to respond if we think it is appropriate.
But I want to make it very clear what I think happened was an
unfortunate matter of timing, that on Friday of last week, our hearing
did not begin and our written report was not available until 3 o'clock
on Friday afternoon. Some reporters have told me there were not enough
copies to go around. So they are trying to form deadlines for their
programs or for their newspapers with a report that is over 200 pages
long. I think it is entirely understandable that some errors were made
at first.
Nevertheless, I think some errors were made. They were made because
Mr. Cole's report attempted to be a soup-to-nuts, beginning to end
explanation of what we did in the ethics subcommittee to get to where
we are today. In going through step by step, he quite properly, in my
judgment, said we had this choice to make and we had this fact and we
handled it as follows, and so forth. But what I have seen as reported
as a final conclusion, certain excerpts from that report were
intermediary at best.
The final conclusion of the subcommittee did not change. That final
conclusion is, first, that Mr. Gingrich should have sought competent
legal, professional tax advice before he began his procedures that
involved the use of a tax-exempt foundation, which under the law is
called a 501(c)(3) organization.
Second, that materials were sent to the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct in response to questions from the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct that the Speaker should have known were
inaccurate. That is the final finding, if you will, of the
subcommittee.
The report goes through all of the events, and I heard the gentleman
from
[[Page
H175]]
Maryland [Mr. Cardin] make reference to a number of the events. But the
findings did not change. All of the events would include things like we
on the subcommittee interviewed everybody we could find who had
anything to do with the preparation of those two letters that were
inaccurate.
What we found, in my judgment, if it were not so serious, and I
recognize how serious it is, it would really be called a comedy of
errors.
What happened was the letters were prepared in Mr. Gingrich's law
firm that sent the letters first to a staff member in Mr. Gingrich's
office. The law firm thought that the staff member would correct any
factual misstatements. The staff member thought the law firm had
already checked out the facts. So nobody checked out the facts to see
if they were accurate. But the most important thing is that Mr.
Gingrich was never involved in the preparation of those letters at any
point until the very end where he acknowledges he signed them, he
should have read more carefully, and he is responsible for that before
this House of Representatives.
I would point out that in a letter of October 1996 that he prepared
himself with his staff, he gave us entirely accurate information about
the matters that are under consideration here. I think it is pretty
obvious you do not give accurate information in October and then you
can deliberately prepare information the following September and March
that nobody would know the difference of.
Based upon the allegation, the violations we found, the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct on a 7-to-1 vote, full committee now,
entire committee, recommended the following penalty: It recommended a
reprimand and a cost assessment of $300,000. In some meetings earlier
with members, I have heard some members say that that is unique and
they are concerned about that penalty being unique because, although we
have imposed cost assessments before, we have never done so in the past
for the cost of the investigation.
That is basically what we did. We set $300,000 as the estimated cost
of that portion of the investigation that dealt with clearing up the
misstatements that we received, which may have begun to be prepared in
Mr. Gingrich's law firm, but for which he is responsible as a Member of
the House.
I want to tell all Members that they do not need, in my judgment, to
be concerned about the precedent value, because I believe everyone
concerned understood that this is a unique penalty because the Speaker
of the House is a unique official in our institution. In fact, that is
the reason we decided to, on the subcommittee's part, propose a unique
penalty, and we got word, I have to say ``got word,'' because we never
met with the Speaker to discuss the penalty. All of the negotiations
were by our special counsel on our behalf and the Speaker's attorney,
Mr. Evans, on his behalf. So we got reports on it. But the report we
got back was that Speaker Newt Gingrich agrees that because he holds a
unique position in the House he should receive a unique penalty, so
there is no doubt even the Speaker of the House is not above the rules.
I would hastily add, however, two things, and conclude with this. The
first is that I think there is room for this to be made a standing
procedure in certain cases. For example, I saw what in my judgment were
a number of frivolous complaints filed with the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct which had no other purpose than to be leaked to the
press and create bad publicity for whomever was the target of those
complaints. It seems to me that the precedent we have established here
should apply to those who are found by the committee to have filed
frivolous complaints.
Finally, on how the funds should be paid if the House adopts the
recommended penalty, we were deliberately silent on that. My colleague,
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], is most certainly entitled to
his opinion, but the subcommittee and the committee made no
determination.
Insofar as I have studied the precedents on financial remuneration to
the Government, we have never established as a matter of law how these
funds can be paid.
Mr. Gingrich, if he does get this as a final penalty, understands all
the ramifications, I am certain he does not need me to explain them to
him or, for that matter, any of my colleagues on the other side. But
the fact is the committee was silent deliberately on how any such funds
should be paid. It is my understanding there are at least some
precedents for campaign funds, for example, being used to reimburse the
Government, and certainly we all know that the Chief Executive of the
United States has a legal defense fund in which he raises money. So I
am just saying that whatever the options are to Newt Gingrich as a
Member of the House, they have not been precluded legally by the
committee, and in my judgment they should not be.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to again commend our chairwoman,
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], my fellow members of
the committee, and say I believe we have come up with an appropriate
penalty, which some think is too harsh, some think is too lenient. That
tells me we are about where we ought to be. I hope the House will adopt
it.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The Chair will request that
visitors in the gallery, in coming and going, refrain from any audible
disruption of the proceedings.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
briefly to comment on some of the points raised by the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] is correct,
we are in agreement on the recommendation. We put different emphasis on
some of the facts. Mr. Gingrich clearly, in my view, had ample
opportunity to know about the statements in his letters. He did
indicate he hired an attorney in order to draft the two letters. Let me
just read, if I might, from the transcripts as to the exchange between
Mr. Cole and Mr. Baran, Mr. Baran being Mr. Gingrich's attorney.
Mr. Cole: ``Would you have made sure that he had read it and approved
it, or just the fact he read it is all you would have been interested
in,'' referring to Mr. Gingrich?
Mr. Baran said, ``No, I would have wanted him to be comfortable with
this on many levels.''
Mr. Cole: ``Were you satisfied he was comfortable with it prior to
filing it with the committee?''
Mr. Baran: ``Yes.''
Let me also point out that after this, after we pointed out to Mr.
Gingrich the inconsistency in the letters, Mr. Gingrich wrote another
letter back to the committee. Clearly he had time to review the
inconsistencies by that time. The October 31, 1996, letter, in that
letter he still maintains his innocence on inconsistencies in the
letter, even though the letters were clearly inaccurate, he knew they
were inaccurate, and he had a chance to reread the letters and correct
the record.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 11\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi], my colleague on the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, who was on the investigative subcommittee and who has
made a great contribution to this process and has been an extraordinary
member of our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time
and for his leadership and guidance throughout this process. Clearly
without his involvement, we would not be here today with a bipartisan
recommendation for a sanction for the Speaker of the House.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the investigative subcommittee, I would
like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the gentleman from
Florida, Porter Goss, our Chair of the investigative subcommittee,
again acknowledge the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, as ranking
member for his service there, as well as to say how much I learned from
the gentleman from new Mexico, Mr. Schiff, in the course of our service
there.
Clearly, from the debate so far, you can see that we had many
unresolved difficult issues to deal with, and under the leadership of
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], we went through that.
I want to also commend our special counsel, James Cole, for making us
stick to the facts, the law, and the ethics rules as those elements
that were
[[Page
H176]]
the only matters relevant to our decisions, and many thanks to Kevin
Wolf and Virginia Johnson for their assistance and professionalism.
I heard my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], say
in his earlier days as a prosecutor he might entertain thoughts of
bringing jury tampering charges. If he decides to do that, I hope that
the gentleman will include in his package the dirty tricks memo that is
now in the public record that is a written document about attempts to
undermine the ethics process directly by the Republican House
leadership.
Let me say though we did produce a bipartisan product. I hope our
work will serve as a foundation for a bipartisan solution to be agreed
to today.
Today, others have said it, is a sad day. I think it is a tragic day.
Here in the House of Representatives we will sanction a sitting Speaker
for the first time. It is an unwelcome task to pass judgment on any of
our colleagues, but we have a responsibility to uphold ethical
standards called for in the rules and expected by the American people.
I associate myself with the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin's,
remarks about the process. We should not have to choose to make the
American people aware of either the hearing, a full hearing, or the
report. But since we have a report, I urge everyone to read it. I think
it is very instructive and gives lie to many of the
mischaracterizations that have been made about the violations that the
committee charged Mr. Gingrich with and those which he admitted to.
{time} 1245
The last few weeks have been dreadful. But we have an opportunity to
say today to the American people that when we come to Washington, we do
not check our integrity at the beltway, and that power is not a license
to ignore ethical standards. We also have an opportunity to tell the
American people that sanity can reign in the Congress by demonstrating
our ability to agree and disagree in a respectful way. The American
people gave us the privilege to serve; they expect us not only to make
the laws and to obey the laws, but also to live up to a high ethical
standard.
So today we are here to address the failure of Speaker Gingrich with
regard to the laws governing charitable contributions and GOPAC, and
his failure to respond accurately and reliably to the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.
I would like to just take a moment to refer to the book, because as I
asked people to read it, I want to point out the statement of alleged
violations which was originally set forth by the special counsel. This
is on page 155.
Based on the information described above, the special counsel
proposed a statement of alleged violations to the subcommittee on
December 12. The statement of alleged violations contained 3 counts:
Mr. Gingrich's activities on behalf of ALOF in regard to AOW and ACTV,
and the activities of others in that regard with his knowledge and
approval, constituted a violation of ALOF's status under section
501(c)(3).
Second, Mr. Gingrich's activities on behalf of Kennesaw State College
Foundation, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Reinhardt College
in regard to the Renewing American Civilization course, and other
activities in that regard, with his knowledge and approval, constituted
a violation of those organizations' status under 501(c)(3).
And, third, Mr. Gingrich had provided information to the committee,
directly or through counsel, that was material to matters under
consideration by the committee, which Mr. Gingrich knew or should have
known was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.
These were not the alleged violations that were passed out at the
committee because we did not come to agreement on them, but they are
the original allegations by the special counsel. I think everyone is
well aware that we have charged the Speaker in our statement of alleged
violations that he did not ensure that the law was complied to in his
activities, and that he gave information to the committee that was not
accurate.
Think how much easier it would be if we could all use the 501(c)(3),
not consult a lawyer, and build our political agenda around tax
deductible considerations. The American people in their generosity give
the opportunity to charitable institutions to do charitable work. That
does not include subsidizing our political activity. At the grassroots
level we have always had to comply with the law in relationship to
political activity and 501(c)(3). If we have to do it at the grassroots
level, so should the Speaker of the House.
As the counsel mentions in his statement, some members of the
committee and the special counsel were in favor, as I mentioned before,
of the original proposal. After much deliberation, all four of us could
agree on a statement of alleged violations that despite, in quotes,
``Despite significant and substantial warnings, Mr. Gingrich did not
seek the legal advice to ensure that his conduct conformed with the
provisions of 501(c)(3),'' with the law.
Why did he not? Why did he not? Either because Speaker Gingrich knew
what the answer would be no, from an attorney, ``No, you cannot do
this,'' or he was reckless in conforming with the law. The committee
decided that regardless of the resolution of the 501(c)(3) tax
question, Speaker Gingrich's conduct was improper, did not reflect
credibly on the House, and was deserving of sanction, serious sanction,
and Speaker Gingrich agreed.
The next issue in my view is the most serious, that of not dealing
honestly with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It is
interesting to me that Speaker Gingrich has repeatedly stated that
ethics are important to him. Why, then, did he say that he was too busy
to respond to the committee accurately? Again, either he was trying to
get complaints dismissed and an accurate answer would not achieve that
end, or that ethics were not important enough for him to take the
necessary time.
As our colleague, Mr. Cardin, has pointed out, Mr. Gingrich gave one
answer in the earlier letter in order to respond to a complaint
regarding use of official resources for his course, so he said GOPAC
did it. Then when we asked the question if GOPAC and 501(c)(3) cannot
be that cozy, then he said GOPAC did not do it; and then in the third
communication to the committee, he stood by his previous letters.
The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] prefers to call it a
comedy of errors. I think it is violating our trust that we have among
Members. Every day that we speak to each other in this House, we refer
to each other as the gentleman from Georgia, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut, the gentleman from Maryland. We trust each other that we
will deal truthfully with each other.
Unfortunately, in terms of Speaker Gingrich's dealings with the
committee on a number of occasions, and in his violation of the
agreement under which we would go forward in bringing this issue to a
conclusion, Mr. Gingrich's statements lead me to one conclusion: that
Mr. Gingrich, in his dealings with the committee, is not to be
believed. I conclude also that Mr. Gingrich gave these different
answers not because it was a comedy of errors, but because he thought
he would get away with it.
I was particularly concerned about the ``too busy'' defense. We
cannot say that ethics is important to us and then say we are too busy
to answer the central question asked by the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. Maintaining a high ethical standard is a decision,
and it requires making it a priority. It is not just something we do
when we are not too busy.
We expect the Speaker of the House to be busy. We also expect the
Speaker of the House to be ethical. Speaker Gingrich himself has stated
that the Speaker must be held to a higher standard. I do not put any
additional burden on the Speaker. I think all Members of Congress
should be held to a higher ethical standard.
When new Members arrive in Congress, one of the first documents they
receive is the House Ethics Manual. And one of the first
responsibilities impressed upon all of us is to uphold a high ethical
standard. Clearly, Speaker Gingrich did not live up to his own
professed ethical standards of the House, and, indeed, to the ethical
standards in this book.
I urge my colleagues to read this report. I think when you do, you
will see
[[Page
H177]]
that it gives lie to the mis characterizations of our Republican
colleagues that the violations were nothing, or that they were like
trespassing or double parking. Either our colleagues were ill-informed,
and that is what I choose to believe, or they have a cavalier regard
for the tragedy of the Speaker admitting bringing discredit to the
House of Representatives which he wants to lead.
Now we come to the penalty. As you know, we have a financial penalty
because we believe that the inaccurate statements that the Speaker said
to us prolonged the process. There are other reasons why there is a
financial penalty, but that was one of them. And the subcommittee
concluded, and I quote, ``that because these inaccurate statements were
provided to the committee, this matter was not resolved as
expeditiously as it could have been. This caused a controversy over the
matter to arise and last for a substantial period of time, it disrupted
the operations of the House, and it cost the House a substantial amount
of money in order to determine the facts.''
So I urge our colleagues, in light of all of that, to support the
bipartisan recommendation of the committee. The $300,000 penalty I
believe speaks eloquently to the American people, who may not know the
weight of one of our sanctions or another, but they understand
$300,000. And I hope that this money will not come from the Speaker's
political campaign funds, because I think that will increase the
cynicism of the American people about what goes on here in Washington.
Whether the Speaker remains Speaker is up to the Republicans. He is
technically eligible. I hope you will make a judgment as to whether he
is ethically fit.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss), the chairman of the
subcommittee, and I want to recognize the outstanding job that he did
chairing that subcommittee, as I recognize the remarkable service of
the members of that subcommittee.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the
distinguished chair of our committee, for yielding me this time. She
deserves our sincere gratitude for all she has endured, for her
persistence, for her determination to bring this to a successful
conclusion, and here we are today. It was certainly an unenviable and,
I know, thankless task.
Today we have a conclusion. Today the House takes the final step in
what has been a most difficult process, I think we all would agree. It
is not just for those intimately involved in the day-to-day twists and
turns in this tortuous case, but also for the entire House.
On Friday the full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
approved a recommendation which is today before this House, for an
official reprimand and a $300,000 cost assessment to Mr. Gingrich as
sanction for his violation of House rules and as partial reimbursement
for the costs of the inquiry that ensued. This is unquestionably a
serious sanction, but one that is also fair and appropriate, in my
view, as evidenced by the fact that indeed Mr. Gingrich himself has
agreed to it.
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, functioning
independently of leadership on both sides of the aisle, is supposed to
find the truth through an investigative process. It is not designed to
protect errant Members, nor is it designed to permit partisan zealots
to destroy Members or to score political points.
In this case, the committee's members were subject to frequent unfair
and inaccurate partisan political attack. That is a matter of fact.
Outsiders attempted to influence our activities, our deliberations, our
schedule and our conclusions. That is truly a shame. It has caused
harm, not just to the Members involved, but it has also brought
discredit to this institution, in my view.
Friday, I urged the leadership on both sides of the aisle to tone
down the rhetoric, cut the nonsense, and get back to work in repairing
the damage that has come to this House. I repeat that exhortation
today.
With regard to the matter at hand, I am very satisfied with the work
done by our investigative subcommittee, whose recommendation was
adopted by the full committee and is the recommendation all Members
will consider today.
The four of us, working with the extraordinarily talented special
counsel, Jim Cole, functioned in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation
that did actually grow as we went along in the case. I say we started
with different perspectives, but we started with open minds, and I am
grateful for the very fine service, the unbelievable commitment of time
of the members, their cooperation. I take my hat off to the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff],
and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], all of whom in my
view bring great credit to this institution.
Contrary to what has been reported, the statement of alleged
violations that our subcommittee developed and passed and which forms
the basis for the sanctioned recommendation did not, I repeat not, find
that Mr. Gingrich violated or did not violate tax law in his
relationship with 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations. And contrary to
media reports, that statement of alleged violation of December 21st
also did not charge Mr. Gingrich with intentionally deceiving our
committee with his correspondence in this case.
Nonetheless, I found it extraordinarily imprudent of Mr. Gingrich not
to seek and follow a less aggressive course of action in tax areas he
knew to be sensitive and controversial. And even more troubling, I
found the fact that the committee was given inaccurate, unreliable, and
incomplete information to be a very serious failure on his part.
{time} 1300
Now, it is certainly true that we had more than enough facts and
extenuating circumstances to consider. We all know a Member of Congress
wears many hats, for our official lives, our campaign lives, our
private lives, our business lives or whatever, and knowledge of how
careful we must be in wearing those hats is fundamental to our job. We
all have an extra obligation to be sure our activities are appropriate,
no matter which hat we are wearing. That is an obligation that each of
us signs up for when we run to serve in this institution.
That is why the serious sanction we recommend is appropriate, in my
view. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] has recognized his
lapses and the problems they have caused for this House. He has
apologized, forthrightly and sincerely. He has also accepted the unique
sanction we proposed, one that includes a clear signal to all Members
about the importance of providing accurate and grounded information to
the Select Committee on Ethics, whether in response to a complaint or
in filing a complaint.
I must point out to Members that our mission in the preliminary
investigation was to find and examine the dark clouds. That is what
investigations do. Mr. Cole is very good at that. He is a brilliant
prosecutor. In his report he presented well those dark clouds. He did
not, however, present all of the other clouds we looked at that turned
out to be not quite so dark. So I found that his report would be well
supplemented by reading the report of the Speaker's attorneys for
balance, as well. I refer colleagues and interested parties to both
reports to get the full picture.
In the end, I agreed with my subcommittee colleagues that Mr.
Gingrich's absence of diligence subjects him legitimately to charges of
conduct reckless enough to constitute a violation of House rules. I
sincerely hope with today's voting we can put this matter to rest.
I urge this House to adopt the recommendation of the Select Committee
on Ethics and remember, the penalty is aimed at findings in response to
the specific work of our subcommittee, no matter what feelings any
particular Member may personally have about Mr. Gingrich.
Some have said this is a sad day. Indeed it is, whenever we have this
type of a situation. I will also say it is a day of victory. We have
proved to the American people that no matter how rough the process is,
we can police ourselves. We do know right from wrong in this
institution. We can take the necessary steps.
[[Page
H178]]
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], a very valuable member of the Select
Committee on Ethics, who has done yeoman's service for the House and
for the Congress on that committee.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by commending the members of the
investigative subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ben
Cardin, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Nancy Pelosi, the
chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Porter Goss, and, of course,
the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Schiff, for the extraordinary job
they have performed for this institution. They are all people of
enormously high integrity, and they have done this committee and this
House very proud.
I also want to commend the special counsel, Mr. Cole, who under the
most difficult and trying of circumstances came through with a report
that, again, I would urge all Members of the House to read; but again,
under the most difficult and trying of circumstances, he performed an
heroic deed for this House.
Mr. Speaker, let me state the obvious. No Member seeks or enjoys a
position on the Ethics Committee, but the proper functioning of that
committee is essential to the integrity of the House. It is a matter of
personal and institutional honor that each of us has agreed to serve.
I remember distinctly when I received the phone call that any one of
us never wants to get; a leader of my party, Speaker Tom Foley, asked
me to serve on the Ethics Committee. I remember distinctly saying to
Mr. Foley that I was reminded of the fellow who was tarred and
feathered, put on a rail and run out of town, whose retort was that if
it weren't for the honor, he would rather walk. I am on this committee,
but it is as a reluctant member. On more than one occasion I have
offered to step down when the removal of a member was necessary to
maintain the political balance of the committee. But Mr. Speaker, I
feel very strongly that it is our constitutional duty, and it was mine,
to respond positively to Tom Foley's request. It was, again, certainly
not a position that I wanted.
I hope to concentrate my efforts and energies on the work of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, probably the most
bipartisan committee in this House of Representatives, and where that
bipartisan atmosphere has enabled us to turn out very important pieces
of legislation.
It is always a grueling and distasteful task to investigate a fellow
Member--all the more so in the case of the Speaker. Some have suggested
that partisan attempts were made to derail the special counsel's
efforts and render him less effective. I might say that I agree. The
subcommittee released its statement of alleged violation on the
Saturday before Christmas. The counsel's report was released on Friday
afternoon, before inaugural weekend, with the vote firmly scheduled for
this afternoon. Despite a prior agreement which allowed for a full week
of public hearings, we were left with only a single afternoon's
session. Mr. Cole, along with members of the full committee and
subcommittee were troubled by the time line insisted upon by Republican
leadership. The special counsel insisted with consistency that he would
be hard pressed to complete a report detailing the 2-year investigation
before February 4. Yet, Mr. Cole was denied the time he deemed
necessary.
Despite these obstacles, however, the special counsel did release a
report on Friday afternoon which included the subcommittee's
recommended sanction of a reprimand and fine. In this report, Mr. Cole,
along with Ms. Roady, the subcommittee's tax expert, and two members of
the committee conclude that Mr. Gingrich has violated the tax code in
conjunction with 501(c)(3). However, the Committee agreed that the
focus of the investigation should be on the conduct of the Member
rather than the resolution of issues of tax law which would best be
left to the IRS. What the report does say about the 501(c)(3), is the
following:
``* * * the subcommittee was faced with a disturbing choice. Either
Mr. Gingrich did not seek legal advice because he was aware that it
would not have permitted him to use a 501(c)(3) organization for his
projects, or he was reckless in not taking care that, as a Member of
Congress, he made sure that his conduct conformed with the law in an
area where he had ample warning that his intended course was fraught
with legal peril. The subcommittee decided that regardless of the
resolution of the 501(c)(3) tax question, Mr. Gingrich's conduct in
this regard was improper, did not reflect creditably on the House and
was deserving of sanction.''
With respect to the letters containing inaccurate information that
Mr. Gingrich provided to the committee, the report goes on to say:
``The special counsel suggested that a good argument could be made,
based on the record, that Mr. Gingrich did act intentionally, however
it would be difficult to establish that with a high degree of certainty
* * * In determining what the appropriate sanction should be in this
matter, the subcommittee and the special counsel considered the
seriousness of the conduct, the level of care exercised by Mr.
Gingrich, the disruption caused to the House by the conduct, the cost
to the House in having to pay for an extensive investigation, and the
repetitive nature of the conduct.''
``The subcommittee was faced with troubling choices in each of the
areas covered by the statement of alleged violation. Either Mr.
Gingrich's conduct in regard to the 501(c)(3) organizations and the
letters he submitted to the committee was intentional or it was
reckless. Neither choice reflects creditably on the House. * * *''
Under the rules of the committee, a reprimand is the appropriate
sanction for a serious violation of House Rules and a censure is
appropriate for a more serious violation of House rules. This is the
extent to which guidelines are in place for Members to make a
determination of sanction. According to the special counsel, it was the
opinion of the Ethics Subcommittee, after two years of investigation
and inquiry, that this matter fell somewhere in between. As such, both
the subcommittee and the special counsel recommended that the
appropriate sanction should be a reprimand and a payment reimbursing
the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of
$300,000. Mr. Gingrich has agreed that this is the appropriate
sanction, as has the full Ethics Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, particularly my colleagues on
the Democratic side of the aisle, this is not about who should be the
Speaker of the House. Democrats have no say in who should be the
Speaker of the House. That is up to the majority party.
This is not about process. There were parts of this process that I
find extremely disturbing, and parts that I think need to be dealt with
further at an appropriate time. This is not that time.
This is not about whether the existing tax code in question is
arcane. I asked the special counsel, Mr. Cole, at our Friday afternoon
public hearing whether the law was in fact arcane, and Mr. Cole
responded in the strongest possible language that the law was not
arcane. In fact, it is a headline issue that politics and tax-exempt
organizations should not mix. Even Mr. Gingrich's tax attorney agreed
with that statement.
I also asked the special counsel to respond to the spin that we are
all familiar with, and it goes like this: ``I saw the course, I watched
the tape. There is nothing political about them.'' Mr. Cole's response
was that the issue in question was not so much the content of the
course, but, rather, the intent and the way in which it was
distributed.
The report states, ``Mr. Gingrich applied the ideas of the course to
partisan political purposes.'' Mr. Speaker, this is not about
determining the innocence or the guilt of Mr. Gingrich. He has already
admitted that guilt, that he has brought discredit to this House. This
is about the ability of the House of Representatives, under the most
trying of circumstances, to judge one of its own Members, an extremely
controversial Member, one who has led his party to the majority. It is
our duty to determine the appropriate sanction to that Member.
The subcommittee, aided by the special counsel, has conducted an
investigation and made its recommendation to the full committee, which
in turn has made that recommendation to the full House.
Those are the processes we have adopted and those are the processes
we have followed. We are giving every Member, independently, the
opportunity to put aside partisan politics and follow the
recommendation offered by the special counsel, the subcommittee, and
the full committee upon completion of a 2-year inquiry. It is right and
it is just. We were asked as Members of Congress to put aside our
partisan beliefs and serve on this committee out of a sense of duty and
honor.
[[Page
H179]]
Now, we are asking you to honor our recommendations with dignity.
I ask my colleagues to honor the work of the Ethics Committee and to
vote yes for this very strict sanction.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of the Ethics
Committee for yielding time to me.
Let me say at the outset that you can clearly disagree and have great
respect for your colleagues on the Ethics Committee, as I do, and still
reach different conclusions, as I do.
My conclusion is that the penalty that has been assessed by the
Ethics Committee is way too
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in House section
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH
(House of Representatives - January 21, 1997)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H171-H235]
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX and by
direction of the Select Committee on Ethics, I send to the desk a
privileged resolution (
H. Res. 31) in the matter of Representative Newt
Gingrich, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
House Resolution 31
In the Matter of Representative Newt Gingrich
Resolved, That the House adopt the report of the Select
Committee on Ethics dated January 17, 1997, In the Matter of
Representative Newt Gingrich.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution constitutes a question of
privilege and may be called up at any time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Before we proceed, the Chair will have a
statement about the decorum expected of the Members.
The Chair has often reiterated that Members should refrain from
references in debate to the conduct of other Members where such conduct
is not the question actually pending before the House, either by way of
a report from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or by way
of another question of the privileges of the House.
This principle is documented on pages 168 and 526 of the House Rules
and Manual and reflects the consistent rulings of the Chair in this and
in prior Congresses. It derives its force primarily from clause 1 of
rule XIV which broadly prohibits engaging in personality in debate. It
has been part of the rules of the House since 1789.
On the other hand, the calling up of a resolution reported by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or the offering of a
resolution as a similar question of the privileges of the House,
embarks the House on consideration of a proposition that admits
references in debate to a Member's conduct. Disciplinary matters by
their very nature involve personalities.
Still, this exception to the general rule against engaging in
personality--admitting references to a Member's conduct when that
conduct is the very question under consideration by the House--is
closely limited. This point was well stated on July 31, 1979, as
follows: While a wide range of discussion is permitted during debate on
a disciplinary resolution, clause 1 of rule XIV still prohibits the use
of language which is personally abusive. This is recorded in the
Deschler-Brown Procedure in the House of Representatives in chapter 12,
at section 2.11.
On the question now pending before the House, the resolution offered
by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Members should confine their
remarks in debate to the merits of that precise
[[Page
H172]]
question. Members should refrain from remarks that constitute
personalities with respect to members of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct or the Select Committee on Ethics or with respect to
other sitting Members whose conduct is not the subject of the pending
report. Finally, Members should exercise care to maintain an atmosphere
of mutual respect.
On January 27, 1909, the House adopted a report that stated the
following: It is the duty of the House to require its Members in speech
or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the House
to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without unnecessarily
and unduly exciting animosity among its Members.
This is recorded in Cannon's Precedents in volume 8 at section 2497.
The report adopted on that occasion responded to improper references
in debate to the President, but it articulated a principle that
occupants of the Chair over many Congresses have held equally
applicable to Members' remarks toward each other.
The Chair asks and expects the cooperation of all Members in
maintaining a level of decorum that properly dignifies the proceedings
of the House.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is recognized for 1
hour.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that debate on the resolution be extended for a half an hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Johnson] is recognized for 90 minutes.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate
only, I yield 45 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics to
lay before you the committee's bipartisan recommendation for final
action on the matter of Representative Newt Gingrich. The committee
recommends that Representative Gingrich be reprimanded and reimburse
the House $300,000. The penalty is tough and unprecedented. It is also
appropriate. No one is above the rules of the House of Representatives.
This matter centered on two key questions: whether the Speaker
violated Federal tax law and whether he intentionally filed incorrect
information with the Ethics Committee. While the committee investigated
these questions extensively, its findings were inconclusive. Rather,
the committee found that Representative Gingrich brought discredit to
the House by failing to get appropriate legal advice to ensure that his
actions would be in compliance with tax law and to oversee the
development of his letters to the committee to ensure they were
accurate in every respect.
Each Member of Congress, especially those in positions of leadership,
shoulders the responsibility of avoiding even the appearance of
impropriety. Representative Gingrich failed to exercise the discipline
and caution of his office and so is subject to penalty today.
As I have said, the penalty recommended by the committee is tough and
unprecedented. In past cases of this nature, the House has reprimanded
a Member only where the Member was found to have intentionally made
false statements to the Ethics Committee. In this case, the committee
recommended a reprimand of Representative Gingrich even though the
statement of alleged violations did not assert that he intentionally
misled the committee. Likewise in past cases where the committee
imposed monetary sanctions on a Member, the committee found that the
Member had been personally enriched by the misconduct. The committee
made no such finding against Representative Gingrich, yet recommends
that a cost reimbursement of $300,000 be paid to the House by him.
The report before us contains several hundred pages of exhibits and a
detailed analysis of the subcommittee's findings. The allegations and
the key facts supporting them were laid out by the special counsel
during a public hearing on January 17. The committee's recommendations
before you today end 2 long years of work.
Throughout this process we never lost sight of our key goals: full
and complete disclosure of the facts and a bipartisan recommendation.
We accomplished both. Even though it would have been easy for
Republicans or Democrats to walk away from the process at many stages,
we did not, because we believed in this institution and in the ethics
process.
The investigative subcommittee was ably chaired by Representative
Porter Goss. Representatives Ben Cardin, Steve Schiff, and Nancy
Pelosi, along with Mr. Goss deserve the gratitude of this House for the
extraordinary workload they shouldered and for their dedication to
pursuing each issue until they reached consensus. Together with Mr.
James Cole, the special counsel, they laid the groundwork for the
bipartisan conclusion of this matter. I want to thank Mr. Cardin, the
current ranking member, as well, for working with me through difficult
times to enable the bipartisan Ethics Committee process to succeed.
In the last 2 years the committee was forced to conduct its work
against the backdrop of harsh political warfare. It is the first time
ever that members of the Ethics Committee have been the target of
coordinated partisan assaults in their districts. Coordinated political
pressure on members of the Ethics Committee by other Members is not
only destructive of the ethics oversight process but is beneath the
dignity of this great institution and those who serve here.
{time} 1215
Despite the pressures, we bring you today a bipartisan recommendation
resolving the most complex charge against Representative Newt Gingrich.
I ask for both my colleagues' rejection of the partisanship and
animosity that has so deeply permeated the work of the House and for
their support of the committee's resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair notes a disturbance in the visitors' gallery in
contravention of the laws and the rules of the House. The Doorkeepers
and police, the Chair believes, have already acted, but shall act to
remove from the gallery those persons participating in a disturbance.
If there is an outburst from the visitors' gallery, the Chair will
make this statement but will insist on order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this is a sad moment for the
House of Representatives. One of our Members has admitted to a serious
violation of the House rules. This process and this admission affects
not only that Member but each Member who serves in this body. While I
believe that is true of any ethics proceeding, it is particularly true
and particularly troublesome in this case because the offending Member
is the Speaker of the House, the third ranking official in our
Government.
We have received the report and recommendation from the special
counsel. Mr. Gingrich has agreed with the judgment of the special
counsel. In addition to the report, the recommendation of sanctions
represents the bipartisan work produced by our investigative
subcommittee. The report in the recommendation of sanctions has been
overwhelmingly approved by the full Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct and deserves the support of this House.
Let me begin by saying how proud I am of the work of the
investigative subcommittee. In my judgment, all four members of the
subcommittee maintained their commitment to a process that was fair to
the respondent as well as the House and its rules. I want to commend
and compliment the work of our chairman, the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Goss], for the extraordinary work that he did as well as the work
of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] and the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi] and the work of the subcommittee. I also want
to recognize the extraordinary service performed by Jim Cole, our
special counsel; Kevin Wolf, his assistant; and Virginia Johnson from
the
[[Page
H173]]
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Before commenting on the substance of the resolution before us, I
feel obligated to point out the severe problems that have plagued the
process. The 1-year delay in 1995 in enlisting the services of the
special counsel was wrong. We have some evidence that this delay may
have been part of the strategy by allies of Mr. Gingrich. In sharp
contrast to the good faith, bipartisan cooperation which governed the
subcommittee's work, the orderly process collapsed on December 21,
1996, after the matter was forwarded to the full committee. Ignoring
the advice of special counsel and the subcommittee, the Republican
leadership in the House imposed an unrealistic deadline for the
completion of our work to coincide with the Presidential inauguration.
The schedule agreed upon by the full Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct for full public hearings on the subcommittee findings was
unilaterally and improperly canceled. These partisan actions were aimed
at shielding Mr. Gingrich from a full airing of the charges to which he
has admitted guilt.
During the past 5 days the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Johnson] and I have worked closely together to use these days as
effectively as possible to achieve two objectives: First, in the face
of an unrealistic time limit, to get the broadest possible public
release of the information contained in the subcommittee's report; and
second, to arrive at a fair, bipartisan recommendation on sanctions. We
have achieved both objectives, and for that I would like to express my
appreciation to the chairwoman. The report details the reason why the
committee has found that Mr. Gingrich has committed a serious violation
of the House ethics rules. I urge each of my colleagues to read the
report and the accompanying exhibits.
I will now briefly review the findings of the special counsel's
report. First, we must disregard the notion that this case involves a
college professor engaged in a normal academic classroom activity. The
respondent in this case is not Professor Gingrich, but Representative
Gingrich, a Member of the House, minority whip and then Speaker of the
House, who had a vision to launch a political movement to change the
country, in his words, from a welfare state to an opportunity society.
Second, over a 5-year period Mr. Gingrich improperly commingled
political activities with tax exempt organizations. When GOPAC ran
short of funds, Mr. Gingrich sought contributions from several tax
exempt entities in order to continue his partisan political crusade.
Third, there is ample evidence that he did so in violation of tax
laws. Celia Roady, the tax expert retained by the committee, has
concluded that the tax laws were violated, and it is not even a close
call. Our special counsel agrees with that judgment. In all, almost
$1.5 million was spent by these tax exempt organizations, costing the
U.S. Treasury hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost tax revenues
that should have been paid.
Fourth, one need not reach a conclusion on the tax issues to find
that Mr. Gingrich has violated our ethical standards. From his
involvement in the American Campaign Academy case, Mr. Gingrich knew
that pursuing these activities posed a risk of potential tax law
violations. The ACA case established limits on political activities of
tax exempt organizations.
It is important to understand that this case involved similar facts
and some of the same parties as the matter investigated by the
subcommittee. In fact, in response to a question from the special
counsel, Mr. Gingrich stated, and I quote: ``I lived through that case.
I mean I was very well aware of what the ACA case did and what the
ruling was.'' All experts agreed that he should have sought tax advice
before using tax exempt organizations to pursue his political agenda.
In the words of our special counsel Mr. Gingrich's actions suggest
that ``either Mr. Gingrich did not seek legal advice because he is
aware that it would not have permitted him to use a 501(c)(3)
organization for his projects,'' or he was ``reckless in an area that
was fraught with legal peril.''
Finally, the House must make a judgment on the question of whether
Mr. Gingrich deliberately misled the committee. Mr. Gingrich submitted
two letters to the committee that he now admits contained information
about GOPAC that was inaccurate. The facts surrounding these
inaccuracies were well known to Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich had read the
letters before submitting them to the committee. When the investigative
subcommittee specifically called the contradiction in the letters to
Mr. Gingrich's attention, he once again defended them as accurate even
though they were clearly wrong. The misleading letters were sent with
the express intent of persuading the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to dismiss the pending charges. They had the effect of
misleading the committee. It stretches credibility to conclude that the
repeated misstatements were innocent mistakes.
The linchpin of these findings is stated clearly in the report of
special counsel: ``Of all the people involved in drafting, reviewing,
or submitting the letters, the only person who had firsthand knowledge
of the facts contained within them with respect to the Renewing
American Civilization course was Mr. Gingrich.''
The special counsel concludes: ``Either Mr. Gingrich intentionally
made misrepresentations to the committee or he was again reckless in
the way he provided information to the committee concerning a very
important matter.''
Mr. Gingrich's defense is that he has always been very sensitive to
ethics issues and he was embarrassed by the obvious inaccurate letters.
He said he never intended to mislead the committee. But Mr. Gingrich's
actions with respect to the understanding reached with the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct belies his statement.
Mr. Gingrich, through his attorneys, had entered into an agreement
with the committee. That agreement provided ``Mr. Gingrich agree that
no public comment should be made about this matter while it is still
pending. This includes having surrogates sent out to comment on the
matter and attempt to mischaracterize it.''
I am sure that Members of this House are well aware of public comment
since the release of our findings on December 21. As the special
counsel States, ``In the opinion of the subcommittee Members and the
special counsel, a number of press accounts indicated that Mr. Gingrich
had violated that agreement,'' the finding of the bipartisan committee
and our special counsel. Mr. Gingrich's violation of the no comment
agreement raises serious questions about the extent to which he has
deliberately sought to mislead the committee in other instances.
Beyond the events of December 21, 1996, Republican operatives close
to Mr. Gingrich conducted an ongoing campaign to disrupt the
committee's work. It is relevant for this House to consider these
circumstances in determining the degree of Mr. Gingrich's culpability
in providing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct information
that was not accurate, reliable, and complete. It is up to the Members
of this House to determine the appropriate sanction for the violations
committed by Mr. Gingrich. This is not a vote on whether Mr. Gingrich
should remain Speaker of the House. Members need time to become
familiar with the factual record presented in the special counsel's
report and to consider the seriousness of these violations that have
just come to light during the past 4 days.
In the days and weeks to come Mr. Gingrich and each Member of this
House should consider how these charges bear on the question of the
speakership. The resolution before us, the House, today is a sanction
for Representative Gingrich for the ethics violations that he has
committed. According to the House rules a reprimand is appropriate for
serious violations of ethical standards. Sadly, Mr. Gingrich's conduct
requires us to confirm that this case involves infractions of at least
that level of seriousness. He has provided inaccurate and misleading
information to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and there
is significant evidence that he intended to do so.
The recent history of congressional ethics sanctions indicate the
House has imposed the sanction of reprimand when a Member has been
found knowingly to have given false statements. But the earlier cases
did not involve
[[Page
H174]]
giving false statements to the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct itself in response to an inquiry from the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, and Mr. Gingrich's case involves more
than just giving false information to the committee. Mr. Gingrich has
also admitted to directing a political empire that made extensive use
of tax exempt entities for political fundraising purposes. As a result
of all these actions, the reputation of the House of Representatives
has been damaged and tax dollars have been lost.
But there is still more. This is not the first time Mr. Gingrich has
had ethical problems that drew critical action by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct. On other occasions he has been sighted
by this committee for violating House rules. The American public has
not forgotten the lucrative book advance contract that the incoming
Speaker of the House was forced to renounce under public pressure. Our
committee concluded in regards to that book deal: ``At a minimum this
creates the impression of exploiting one's office for personal gain.
Such perception is especially troubling when it pertains to the Office
of the Speaker of the House, a constitutional office requiring the
highest standards of ethical behavior.''
Because of all those factors, these violations require a penalty more
serious than a reprimand. Considering all these matters, I urge this
House to adopt the resolution before us. The resolution incorporates
the recommendation of the special counsel, the investigative
subcommittee, the full Committee on Standards of Official, and Mr.
Gingrich. The sanction we recommend is somewhere between a reprimand
and a censure. It provides a reprimand plus a required $300,000
contribution by Mr. Gingrich to the cost of these proceedings. In my
view this payment should come from his personal resources because it is
a personal responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, with today's vote I will have completed my service on
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Over the past 6 years
and 1 month I have participated in many ethics matters. Among the
issues that we had before the committee during my tenure has been not
only this matter but the House bank and post office matters, both of
which exposed many Members of this House, including its leadership, to
embarrassment either for misdeeds or for mismanagement. I must say,
however, that the matter before us today has brought a threat to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that far exceeded anything I
have seen. The committee was subject to repeated attempts to obstruct
its work and improperly interfere with its investigation. As I leave
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I hope that the
incoming Members will find the process has survived and will continue
to serve this House and the people of our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a distinguished
member of the subcommittee.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I first want to join in the compliments to
the other committee members and to our staffs and special counsel
because, even though we had many disagreements along the way, and
obviously still have some disagreements, I think we made the best
possible effort to get us here today.
I agree with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] this is a sad
day. It is a sad day when any Member is here because of a
recommendation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Last
time I was here it was because a Democratic colleague was here on our
recommendations. I was not happier then because it was a Democrat and
not a Republican then. I think it is a sad day when it is a Member of
the House.
Nevertheless, I think the House can be proud of the fact there is
accountability for its Members. I wish such accountability could be
found from every area of our government.
Second, I am sorry that in the rendition of facts I just heard, there
were certain partisan conclusions that eliminated other conclusions
which I guess could be stated from the other side. For example, it was
said that there was an attempt made by our chairwoman, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] who got us here, when many people
expected along the way we could never get here; but through her
leadership we are here today.
There was the accusation that our chairwoman deliberately tried to
scuttle the information getting to the Members in order to mitigate any
effect on Congressman Gingrich. Quite the contrary. Our chairwoman and
the rest of us had an agreed to up to 5 days of public hearings. Those
were changed only when our Democratic colleagues on the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct held a press conference in which they
said the most important product we could produce would be a written
report that Members could consider before they vote.
That left our Chair, in my judgment, no alternative but to change
directions and to postpone the public hearing, which we ultimately did
have anyway, in favor of trying to produce the written report by this
date which we have now accomplished.
There has been no mention of the fact that Members on the Republican
side particularly were subject to enormous political attack in their
districts. If I were still a district attorney, a career I had before I
got to Congress, I would have certain leaders arrested for attempted
jury tampering, because I think that is what they were doing. They were
trying to use political pressure to get a result in what is essentially
a judicial type of deliberative body. That was their intent.
That was one of the most unethical things I have seen since becoming
a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
What I want to emphasize now is why we are here today. I want to
point out that the statement made, that there have been many new facts
revealed in the last several days, in my judgment is not correct. We
are here because of a statement of alleged violation found by the
ethics subcommittee and released publicly on December 21, 1996, to
which the Speaker acknowledged. And those violations have not changed.
What has changed is the reporting of those violations in the news
media over the last several days. What I have seen in the news media in
various forms is some significant misstatements of what the violations
are. But I have to add that I do not believe that that was in this case
the fault of the news media. It is their job to be critical of us, and
it is our responsibility to respond if we think it is appropriate.
But I want to make it very clear what I think happened was an
unfortunate matter of timing, that on Friday of last week, our hearing
did not begin and our written report was not available until 3 o'clock
on Friday afternoon. Some reporters have told me there were not enough
copies to go around. So they are trying to form deadlines for their
programs or for their newspapers with a report that is over 200 pages
long. I think it is entirely understandable that some errors were made
at first.
Nevertheless, I think some errors were made. They were made because
Mr. Cole's report attempted to be a soup-to-nuts, beginning to end
explanation of what we did in the ethics subcommittee to get to where
we are today. In going through step by step, he quite properly, in my
judgment, said we had this choice to make and we had this fact and we
handled it as follows, and so forth. But what I have seen as reported
as a final conclusion, certain excerpts from that report were
intermediary at best.
The final conclusion of the subcommittee did not change. That final
conclusion is, first, that Mr. Gingrich should have sought competent
legal, professional tax advice before he began his procedures that
involved the use of a tax-exempt foundation, which under the law is
called a 501(c)(3) organization.
Second, that materials were sent to the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct in response to questions from the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct that the Speaker should have known were
inaccurate. That is the final finding, if you will, of the
subcommittee.
The report goes through all of the events, and I heard the gentleman
from
[[Page
H175]]
Maryland [Mr. Cardin] make reference to a number of the events. But the
findings did not change. All of the events would include things like we
on the subcommittee interviewed everybody we could find who had
anything to do with the preparation of those two letters that were
inaccurate.
What we found, in my judgment, if it were not so serious, and I
recognize how serious it is, it would really be called a comedy of
errors.
What happened was the letters were prepared in Mr. Gingrich's law
firm that sent the letters first to a staff member in Mr. Gingrich's
office. The law firm thought that the staff member would correct any
factual misstatements. The staff member thought the law firm had
already checked out the facts. So nobody checked out the facts to see
if they were accurate. But the most important thing is that Mr.
Gingrich was never involved in the preparation of those letters at any
point until the very end where he acknowledges he signed them, he
should have read more carefully, and he is responsible for that before
this House of Representatives.
I would point out that in a letter of October 1996 that he prepared
himself with his staff, he gave us entirely accurate information about
the matters that are under consideration here. I think it is pretty
obvious you do not give accurate information in October and then you
can deliberately prepare information the following September and March
that nobody would know the difference of.
Based upon the allegation, the violations we found, the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct on a 7-to-1 vote, full committee now,
entire committee, recommended the following penalty: It recommended a
reprimand and a cost assessment of $300,000. In some meetings earlier
with members, I have heard some members say that that is unique and
they are concerned about that penalty being unique because, although we
have imposed cost assessments before, we have never done so in the past
for the cost of the investigation.
That is basically what we did. We set $300,000 as the estimated cost
of that portion of the investigation that dealt with clearing up the
misstatements that we received, which may have begun to be prepared in
Mr. Gingrich's law firm, but for which he is responsible as a Member of
the House.
I want to tell all Members that they do not need, in my judgment, to
be concerned about the precedent value, because I believe everyone
concerned understood that this is a unique penalty because the Speaker
of the House is a unique official in our institution. In fact, that is
the reason we decided to, on the subcommittee's part, propose a unique
penalty, and we got word, I have to say ``got word,'' because we never
met with the Speaker to discuss the penalty. All of the negotiations
were by our special counsel on our behalf and the Speaker's attorney,
Mr. Evans, on his behalf. So we got reports on it. But the report we
got back was that Speaker Newt Gingrich agrees that because he holds a
unique position in the House he should receive a unique penalty, so
there is no doubt even the Speaker of the House is not above the rules.
I would hastily add, however, two things, and conclude with this. The
first is that I think there is room for this to be made a standing
procedure in certain cases. For example, I saw what in my judgment were
a number of frivolous complaints filed with the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct which had no other purpose than to be leaked to the
press and create bad publicity for whomever was the target of those
complaints. It seems to me that the precedent we have established here
should apply to those who are found by the committee to have filed
frivolous complaints.
Finally, on how the funds should be paid if the House adopts the
recommended penalty, we were deliberately silent on that. My colleague,
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], is most certainly entitled to
his opinion, but the subcommittee and the committee made no
determination.
Insofar as I have studied the precedents on financial remuneration to
the Government, we have never established as a matter of law how these
funds can be paid.
Mr. Gingrich, if he does get this as a final penalty, understands all
the ramifications, I am certain he does not need me to explain them to
him or, for that matter, any of my colleagues on the other side. But
the fact is the committee was silent deliberately on how any such funds
should be paid. It is my understanding there are at least some
precedents for campaign funds, for example, being used to reimburse the
Government, and certainly we all know that the Chief Executive of the
United States has a legal defense fund in which he raises money. So I
am just saying that whatever the options are to Newt Gingrich as a
Member of the House, they have not been precluded legally by the
committee, and in my judgment they should not be.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to again commend our chairwoman,
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], my fellow members of
the committee, and say I believe we have come up with an appropriate
penalty, which some think is too harsh, some think is too lenient. That
tells me we are about where we ought to be. I hope the House will adopt
it.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The Chair will request that
visitors in the gallery, in coming and going, refrain from any audible
disruption of the proceedings.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
briefly to comment on some of the points raised by the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] is correct,
we are in agreement on the recommendation. We put different emphasis on
some of the facts. Mr. Gingrich clearly, in my view, had ample
opportunity to know about the statements in his letters. He did
indicate he hired an attorney in order to draft the two letters. Let me
just read, if I might, from the transcripts as to the exchange between
Mr. Cole and Mr. Baran, Mr. Baran being Mr. Gingrich's attorney.
Mr. Cole: ``Would you have made sure that he had read it and approved
it, or just the fact he read it is all you would have been interested
in,'' referring to Mr. Gingrich?
Mr. Baran said, ``No, I would have wanted him to be comfortable with
this on many levels.''
Mr. Cole: ``Were you satisfied he was comfortable with it prior to
filing it with the committee?''
Mr. Baran: ``Yes.''
Let me also point out that after this, after we pointed out to Mr.
Gingrich the inconsistency in the letters, Mr. Gingrich wrote another
letter back to the committee. Clearly he had time to review the
inconsistencies by that time. The October 31, 1996, letter, in that
letter he still maintains his innocence on inconsistencies in the
letter, even though the letters were clearly inaccurate, he knew they
were inaccurate, and he had a chance to reread the letters and correct
the record.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 11\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi], my colleague on the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, who was on the investigative subcommittee and who has
made a great contribution to this process and has been an extraordinary
member of our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time
and for his leadership and guidance throughout this process. Clearly
without his involvement, we would not be here today with a bipartisan
recommendation for a sanction for the Speaker of the House.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the investigative subcommittee, I would
like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the gentleman from
Florida, Porter Goss, our Chair of the investigative subcommittee,
again acknowledge the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, as ranking
member for his service there, as well as to say how much I learned from
the gentleman from new Mexico, Mr. Schiff, in the course of our service
there.
Clearly, from the debate so far, you can see that we had many
unresolved difficult issues to deal with, and under the leadership of
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], we went through that.
I want to also commend our special counsel, James Cole, for making us
stick to the facts, the law, and the ethics rules as those elements
that were
[[Page
H176]]
the only matters relevant to our decisions, and many thanks to Kevin
Wolf and Virginia Johnson for their assistance and professionalism.
I heard my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], say
in his earlier days as a prosecutor he might entertain thoughts of
bringing jury tampering charges. If he decides to do that, I hope that
the gentleman will include in his package the dirty tricks memo that is
now in the public record that is a written document about attempts to
undermine the ethics process directly by the Republican House
leadership.
Let me say though we did produce a bipartisan product. I hope our
work will serve as a foundation for a bipartisan solution to be agreed
to today.
Today, others have said it, is a sad day. I think it is a tragic day.
Here in the House of Representatives we will sanction a sitting Speaker
for the first time. It is an unwelcome task to pass judgment on any of
our colleagues, but we have a responsibility to uphold ethical
standards called for in the rules and expected by the American people.
I associate myself with the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin's,
remarks about the process. We should not have to choose to make the
American people aware of either the hearing, a full hearing, or the
report. But since we have a report, I urge everyone to read it. I think
it is very instructive and gives lie to many of the
mischaracterizations that have been made about the violations that the
committee charged Mr. Gingrich with and those which he admitted to.
{time} 1245
The last few weeks have been dreadful. But we have an opportunity to
say today to the American people that when we come to Washington, we do
not check our integrity at the beltway, and that power is not a license
to ignore ethical standards. We also have an opportunity to tell the
American people that sanity can reign in the Congress by demonstrating
our ability to agree and disagree in a respectful way. The American
people gave us the privilege to serve; they expect us not only to make
the laws and to obey the laws, but also to live up to a high ethical
standard.
So today we are here to address the failure of Speaker Gingrich with
regard to the laws governing charitable contributions and GOPAC, and
his failure to respond accurately and reliably to the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.
I would like to just take a moment to refer to the book, because as I
asked people to read it, I want to point out the statement of alleged
violations which was originally set forth by the special counsel. This
is on page 155.
Based on the information described above, the special counsel
proposed a statement of alleged violations to the subcommittee on
December 12. The statement of alleged violations contained 3 counts:
Mr. Gingrich's activities on behalf of ALOF in regard to AOW and ACTV,
and the activities of others in that regard with his knowledge and
approval, constituted a violation of ALOF's status under section
501(c)(3).
Second, Mr. Gingrich's activities on behalf of Kennesaw State College
Foundation, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Reinhardt College
in regard to the Renewing American Civilization course, and other
activities in that regard, with his knowledge and approval, constituted
a violation of those organizations' status under 501(c)(3).
And, third, Mr. Gingrich had provided information to the committee,
directly or through counsel, that was material to matters under
consideration by the committee, which Mr. Gingrich knew or should have
known was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.
These were not the alleged violations that were passed out at the
committee because we did not come to agreement on them, but they are
the original allegations by the special counsel. I think everyone is
well aware that we have charged the Speaker in our statement of alleged
violations that he did not ensure that the law was complied to in his
activities, and that he gave information to the committee that was not
accurate.
Think how much easier it would be if we could all use the 501(c)(3),
not consult a lawyer, and build our political agenda around tax
deductible considerations. The American people in their generosity give
the opportunity to charitable institutions to do charitable work. That
does not include subsidizing our political activity. At the grassroots
level we have always had to comply with the law in relationship to
political activity and 501(c)(3). If we have to do it at the grassroots
level, so should the Speaker of the House.
As the counsel mentions in his statement, some members of the
committee and the special counsel were in favor, as I mentioned before,
of the original proposal. After much deliberation, all four of us could
agree on a statement of alleged violations that despite, in quotes,
``Despite significant and substantial warnings, Mr. Gingrich did not
seek the legal advice to ensure that his conduct conformed with the
provisions of 501(c)(3),'' with the law.
Why did he not? Why did he not? Either because Speaker Gingrich knew
what the answer would be no, from an attorney, ``No, you cannot do
this,'' or he was reckless in conforming with the law. The committee
decided that regardless of the resolution of the 501(c)(3) tax
question, Speaker Gingrich's conduct was improper, did not reflect
credibly on the House, and was deserving of sanction, serious sanction,
and Speaker Gingrich agreed.
The next issue in my view is the most serious, that of not dealing
honestly with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It is
interesting to me that Speaker Gingrich has repeatedly stated that
ethics are important to him. Why, then, did he say that he was too busy
to respond to the committee accurately? Again, either he was trying to
get complaints dismissed and an accurate answer would not achieve that
end, or that ethics were not important enough for him to take the
necessary time.
As our colleague, Mr. Cardin, has pointed out, Mr. Gingrich gave one
answer in the earlier letter in order to respond to a complaint
regarding use of official resources for his course, so he said GOPAC
did it. Then when we asked the question if GOPAC and 501(c)(3) cannot
be that cozy, then he said GOPAC did not do it; and then in the third
communication to the committee, he stood by his previous letters.
The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] prefers to call it a
comedy of errors. I think it is violating our trust that we have among
Members. Every day that we speak to each other in this House, we refer
to each other as the gentleman from Georgia, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut, the gentleman from Maryland. We trust each other that we
will deal truthfully with each other.
Unfortunately, in terms of Speaker Gingrich's dealings with the
committee on a number of occasions, and in his violation of the
agreement under which we would go forward in bringing this issue to a
conclusion, Mr. Gingrich's statements lead me to one conclusion: that
Mr. Gingrich, in his dealings with the committee, is not to be
believed. I conclude also that Mr. Gingrich gave these different
answers not because it was a comedy of errors, but because he thought
he would get away with it.
I was particularly concerned about the ``too busy'' defense. We
cannot say that ethics is important to us and then say we are too busy
to answer the central question asked by the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. Maintaining a high ethical standard is a decision,
and it requires making it a priority. It is not just something we do
when we are not too busy.
We expect the Speaker of the House to be busy. We also expect the
Speaker of the House to be ethical. Speaker Gingrich himself has stated
that the Speaker must be held to a higher standard. I do not put any
additional burden on the Speaker. I think all Members of Congress
should be held to a higher ethical standard.
When new Members arrive in Congress, one of the first documents they
receive is the House Ethics Manual. And one of the first
responsibilities impressed upon all of us is to uphold a high ethical
standard. Clearly, Speaker Gingrich did not live up to his own
professed ethical standards of the House, and, indeed, to the ethical
standards in this book.
I urge my colleagues to read this report. I think when you do, you
will see
[[Page
H177]]
that it gives lie to the mis characterizations of our Republican
colleagues that the violations were nothing, or that they were like
trespassing or double parking. Either our colleagues were ill-informed,
and that is what I choose to believe, or they have a cavalier regard
for the tragedy of the Speaker admitting bringing discredit to the
House of Representatives which he wants to lead.
Now we come to the penalty. As you know, we have a financial penalty
because we believe that the inaccurate statements that the Speaker said
to us prolonged the process. There are other reasons why there is a
financial penalty, but that was one of them. And the subcommittee
concluded, and I quote, ``that because these inaccurate statements were
provided to the committee, this matter was not resolved as
expeditiously as it could have been. This caused a controversy over the
matter to arise and last for a substantial period of time, it disrupted
the operations of the House, and it cost the House a substantial amount
of money in order to determine the facts.''
So I urge our colleagues, in light of all of that, to support the
bipartisan recommendation of the committee. The $300,000 penalty I
believe speaks eloquently to the American people, who may not know the
weight of one of our sanctions or another, but they understand
$300,000. And I hope that this money will not come from the Speaker's
political campaign funds, because I think that will increase the
cynicism of the American people about what goes on here in Washington.
Whether the Speaker remains Speaker is up to the Republicans. He is
technically eligible. I hope you will make a judgment as to whether he
is ethically fit.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss), the chairman of the
subcommittee, and I want to recognize the outstanding job that he did
chairing that subcommittee, as I recognize the remarkable service of
the members of that subcommittee.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the
distinguished chair of our committee, for yielding me this time. She
deserves our sincere gratitude for all she has endured, for her
persistence, for her determination to bring this to a successful
conclusion, and here we are today. It was certainly an unenviable and,
I know, thankless task.
Today we have a conclusion. Today the House takes the final step in
what has been a most difficult process, I think we all would agree. It
is not just for those intimately involved in the day-to-day twists and
turns in this tortuous case, but also for the entire House.
On Friday the full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
approved a recommendation which is today before this House, for an
official reprimand and a $300,000 cost assessment to Mr. Gingrich as
sanction for his violation of House rules and as partial reimbursement
for the costs of the inquiry that ensued. This is unquestionably a
serious sanction, but one that is also fair and appropriate, in my
view, as evidenced by the fact that indeed Mr. Gingrich himself has
agreed to it.
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, functioning
independently of leadership on both sides of the aisle, is supposed to
find the truth through an investigative process. It is not designed to
protect errant Members, nor is it designed to permit partisan zealots
to destroy Members or to score political points.
In this case, the committee's members were subject to frequent unfair
and inaccurate partisan political attack. That is a matter of fact.
Outsiders attempted to influence our activities, our deliberations, our
schedule and our conclusions. That is truly a shame. It has caused
harm, not just to the Members involved, but it has also brought
discredit to this institution, in my view.
Friday, I urged the leadership on both sides of the aisle to tone
down the rhetoric, cut the nonsense, and get back to work in repairing
the damage that has come to this House. I repeat that exhortation
today.
With regard to the matter at hand, I am very satisfied with the work
done by our investigative subcommittee, whose recommendation was
adopted by the full committee and is the recommendation all Members
will consider today.
The four of us, working with the extraordinarily talented special
counsel, Jim Cole, functioned in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation
that did actually grow as we went along in the case. I say we started
with different perspectives, but we started with open minds, and I am
grateful for the very fine service, the unbelievable commitment of time
of the members, their cooperation. I take my hat off to the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff],
and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], all of whom in my
view bring great credit to this institution.
Contrary to what has been reported, the statement of alleged
violations that our subcommittee developed and passed and which forms
the basis for the sanctioned recommendation did not, I repeat not, find
that Mr. Gingrich violated or did not violate tax law in his
relationship with 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations. And contrary to
media reports, that statement of alleged violation of December 21st
also did not charge Mr. Gingrich with intentionally deceiving our
committee with his correspondence in this case.
Nonetheless, I found it extraordinarily imprudent of Mr. Gingrich not
to seek and follow a less aggressive course of action in tax areas he
knew to be sensitive and controversial. And even more troubling, I
found the fact that the committee was given inaccurate, unreliable, and
incomplete information to be a very serious failure on his part.
{time} 1300
Now, it is certainly true that we had more than enough facts and
extenuating circumstances to consider. We all know a Member of Congress
wears many hats, for our official lives, our campaign lives, our
private lives, our business lives or whatever, and knowledge of how
careful we must be in wearing those hats is fundamental to our job. We
all have an extra obligation to be sure our activities are appropriate,
no matter which hat we are wearing. That is an obligation that each of
us signs up for when we run to serve in this institution.
That is why the serious sanction we recommend is appropriate, in my
view. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] has recognized his
lapses and the problems they have caused for this House. He has
apologized, forthrightly and sincerely. He has also accepted the unique
sanction we proposed, one that includes a clear signal to all Members
about the importance of providing accurate and grounded information to
the Select Committee on Ethics, whether in response to a complaint or
in filing a complaint.
I must point out to Members that our mission in the preliminary
investigation was to find and examine the dark clouds. That is what
investigations do. Mr. Cole is very good at that. He is a brilliant
prosecutor. In his report he presented well those dark clouds. He did
not, however, present all of the other clouds we looked at that turned
out to be not quite so dark. So I found that his report would be well
supplemented by reading the report of the Speaker's attorneys for
balance, as well. I refer colleagues and interested parties to both
reports to get the full picture.
In the end, I agreed with my subcommittee colleagues that Mr.
Gingrich's absence of diligence subjects him legitimately to charges of
conduct reckless enough to constitute a violation of House rules. I
sincerely hope with today's voting we can put this matter to rest.
I urge this House to adopt the recommendation of the Select Committee
on Ethics and remember, the penalty is aimed at findings in response to
the specific work of our subcommittee, no matter what feelings any
particular Member may personally have about Mr. Gingrich.
Some have said this is a sad day. Indeed it is, whenever we have this
type of a situation. I will also say it is a day of victory. We have
proved to the American people that no matter how rough the process is,
we can police ourselves. We do know right from wrong in this
institution. We can take the necessary steps.
[[Page
H178]]
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], a very valuable member of the Select
Committee on Ethics, who has done yeoman's service for the House and
for the Congress on that committee.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by commending the members of the
investigative subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ben
Cardin, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Nancy Pelosi, the
chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Porter Goss, and, of course,
the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Schiff, for the extraordinary job
they have performed for this institution. They are all people of
enormously high integrity, and they have done this committee and this
House very proud.
I also want to commend the special counsel, Mr. Cole, who under the
most difficult and trying of circumstances came through with a report
that, again, I would urge all Members of the House to read; but again,
under the most difficult and trying of circumstances, he performed an
heroic deed for this House.
Mr. Speaker, let me state the obvious. No Member seeks or enjoys a
position on the Ethics Committee, but the proper functioning of that
committee is essential to the integrity of the House. It is a matter of
personal and institutional honor that each of us has agreed to serve.
I remember distinctly when I received the phone call that any one of
us never wants to get; a leader of my party, Speaker Tom Foley, asked
me to serve on the Ethics Committee. I remember distinctly saying to
Mr. Foley that I was reminded of the fellow who was tarred and
feathered, put on a rail and run out of town, whose retort was that if
it weren't for the honor, he would rather walk. I am on this committee,
but it is as a reluctant member. On more than one occasion I have
offered to step down when the removal of a member was necessary to
maintain the political balance of the committee. But Mr. Speaker, I
feel very strongly that it is our constitutional duty, and it was mine,
to respond positively to Tom Foley's request. It was, again, certainly
not a position that I wanted.
I hope to concentrate my efforts and energies on the work of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, probably the most
bipartisan committee in this House of Representatives, and where that
bipartisan atmosphere has enabled us to turn out very important pieces
of legislation.
It is always a grueling and distasteful task to investigate a fellow
Member--all the more so in the case of the Speaker. Some have suggested
that partisan attempts were made to derail the special counsel's
efforts and render him less effective. I might say that I agree. The
subcommittee released its statement of alleged violation on the
Saturday before Christmas. The counsel's report was released on Friday
afternoon, before inaugural weekend, with the vote firmly scheduled for
this afternoon. Despite a prior agreement which allowed for a full week
of public hearings, we were left with only a single afternoon's
session. Mr. Cole, along with members of the full committee and
subcommittee were troubled by the time line insisted upon by Republican
leadership. The special counsel insisted with consistency that he would
be hard pressed to complete a report detailing the 2-year investigation
before February 4. Yet, Mr. Cole was denied the time he deemed
necessary.
Despite these obstacles, however, the special counsel did release a
report on Friday afternoon which included the subcommittee's
recommended sanction of a reprimand and fine. In this report, Mr. Cole,
along with Ms. Roady, the subcommittee's tax expert, and two members of
the committee conclude that Mr. Gingrich has violated the tax code in
conjunction with 501(c)(3). However, the Committee agreed that the
focus of the investigation should be on the conduct of the Member
rather than the resolution of issues of tax law which would best be
left to the IRS. What the report does say about the 501(c)(3), is the
following:
``* * * the subcommittee was faced with a disturbing choice. Either
Mr. Gingrich did not seek legal advice because he was aware that it
would not have permitted him to use a 501(c)(3) organization for his
projects, or he was reckless in not taking care that, as a Member of
Congress, he made sure that his conduct conformed with the law in an
area where he had ample warning that his intended course was fraught
with legal peril. The subcommittee decided that regardless of the
resolution of the 501(c)(3) tax question, Mr. Gingrich's conduct in
this regard was improper, did not reflect creditably on the House and
was deserving of sanction.''
With respect to the letters containing inaccurate information that
Mr. Gingrich provided to the committee, the report goes on to say:
``The special counsel suggested that a good argument could be made,
based on the record, that Mr. Gingrich did act intentionally, however
it would be difficult to establish that with a high degree of certainty
* * * In determining what the appropriate sanction should be in this
matter, the subcommittee and the special counsel considered the
seriousness of the conduct, the level of care exercised by Mr.
Gingrich, the disruption caused to the House by the conduct, the cost
to the House in having to pay for an extensive investigation, and the
repetitive nature of the conduct.''
``The subcommittee was faced with troubling choices in each of the
areas covered by the statement of alleged violation. Either Mr.
Gingrich's conduct in regard to the 501(c)(3) organizations and the
letters he submitted to the committee was intentional or it was
reckless. Neither choice reflects creditably on the House. * * *''
Under the rules of the committee, a reprimand is the appropriate
sanction for a serious violation of House Rules and a censure is
appropriate for a more serious violation of House rules. This is the
extent to which guidelines are in place for Members to make a
determination of sanction. According to the special counsel, it was the
opinion of the Ethics Subcommittee, after two years of investigation
and inquiry, that this matter fell somewhere in between. As such, both
the subcommittee and the special counsel recommended that the
appropriate sanction should be a reprimand and a payment reimbursing
the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of
$300,000. Mr. Gingrich has agreed that this is the appropriate
sanction, as has the full Ethics Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, particularly my colleagues on
the Democratic side of the aisle, this is not about who should be the
Speaker of the House. Democrats have no say in who should be the
Speaker of the House. That is up to the majority party.
This is not about process. There were parts of this process that I
find extremely disturbing, and parts that I think need to be dealt with
further at an appropriate time. This is not that time.
This is not about whether the existing tax code in question is
arcane. I asked the special counsel, Mr. Cole, at our Friday afternoon
public hearing whether the law was in fact arcane, and Mr. Cole
responded in the strongest possible language that the law was not
arcane. In fact, it is a headline issue that politics and tax-exempt
organizations should not mix. Even Mr. Gingrich's tax attorney agreed
with that statement.
I also asked the special counsel to respond to the spin that we are
all familiar with, and it goes like this: ``I saw the course, I watched
the tape. There is nothing political about them.'' Mr. Cole's response
was that the issue in question was not so much the content of the
course, but, rather, the intent and the way in which it was
distributed.
The report states, ``Mr. Gingrich applied the ideas of the course to
partisan political purposes.'' Mr. Speaker, this is not about
determining the innocence or the guilt of Mr. Gingrich. He has already
admitted that guilt, that he has brought discredit to this House. This
is about the ability of the House of Representatives, under the most
trying of circumstances, to judge one of its own Members, an extremely
controversial Member, one who has led his party to the majority. It is
our duty to determine the appropriate sanction to that Member.
The subcommittee, aided by the special counsel, has conducted an
investigation and made its recommendation to the full committee, which
in turn has made that recommendation to the full House.
Those are the processes we have adopted and those are the processes
we have followed. We are giving every Member, independently, the
opportunity to put aside partisan politics and follow the
recommendation offered by the special counsel, the subcommittee, and
the full committee upon completion of a 2-year inquiry. It is right and
it is just. We were asked as Members of Congress to put aside our
partisan beliefs and serve on this committee out of a sense of duty and
honor.
[[Page
H179]]
Now, we are asking you to honor our recommendations with dignity.
I ask my colleagues to honor the work of the Ethics Committee and to
vote yes for this very strict sanction.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of the Ethics
Committee for yielding time to me.
Let me say at the outset that you can clearly disagree and have great
respect for your colleagues on the Ethics Committee, as I do, and still
reach different conclusions, as I do.
My conclusion is that the penalty that has been assessed by the
Ethics Committee is way too severe whe
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH
(House of Representatives - January 21, 1997)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H171-H235]
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX and by
direction of the Select Committee on Ethics, I send to the desk a
privileged resolution (
H. Res. 31) in the matter of Representative Newt
Gingrich, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
House Resolution 31
In the Matter of Representative Newt Gingrich
Resolved, That the House adopt the report of the Select
Committee on Ethics dated January 17, 1997, In the Matter of
Representative Newt Gingrich.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution constitutes a question of
privilege and may be called up at any time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Before we proceed, the Chair will have a
statement about the decorum expected of the Members.
The Chair has often reiterated that Members should refrain from
references in debate to the conduct of other Members where such conduct
is not the question actually pending before the House, either by way of
a report from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or by way
of another question of the privileges of the House.
This principle is documented on pages 168 and 526 of the House Rules
and Manual and reflects the consistent rulings of the Chair in this and
in prior Congresses. It derives its force primarily from clause 1 of
rule XIV which broadly prohibits engaging in personality in debate. It
has been part of the rules of the House since 1789.
On the other hand, the calling up of a resolution reported by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or the offering of a
resolution as a similar question of the privileges of the House,
embarks the House on consideration of a proposition that admits
references in debate to a Member's conduct. Disciplinary matters by
their very nature involve personalities.
Still, this exception to the general rule against engaging in
personality--admitting references to a Member's conduct when that
conduct is the very question under consideration by the House--is
closely limited. This point was well stated on July 31, 1979, as
follows: While a wide range of discussion is permitted during debate on
a disciplinary resolution, clause 1 of rule XIV still prohibits the use
of language which is personally abusive. This is recorded in the
Deschler-Brown Procedure in the House of Representatives in chapter 12,
at section 2.11.
On the question now pending before the House, the resolution offered
by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Members should confine their
remarks in debate to the merits of that precise
[[Page
H172]]
question. Members should refrain from remarks that constitute
personalities with respect to members of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct or the Select Committee on Ethics or with respect to
other sitting Members whose conduct is not the subject of the pending
report. Finally, Members should exercise care to maintain an atmosphere
of mutual respect.
On January 27, 1909, the House adopted a report that stated the
following: It is the duty of the House to require its Members in speech
or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the House
to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without unnecessarily
and unduly exciting animosity among its Members.
This is recorded in Cannon's Precedents in volume 8 at section 2497.
The report adopted on that occasion responded to improper references
in debate to the President, but it articulated a principle that
occupants of the Chair over many Congresses have held equally
applicable to Members' remarks toward each other.
The Chair asks and expects the cooperation of all Members in
maintaining a level of decorum that properly dignifies the proceedings
of the House.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is recognized for 1
hour.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that debate on the resolution be extended for a half an hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Johnson] is recognized for 90 minutes.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate
only, I yield 45 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics to
lay before you the committee's bipartisan recommendation for final
action on the matter of Representative Newt Gingrich. The committee
recommends that Representative Gingrich be reprimanded and reimburse
the House $300,000. The penalty is tough and unprecedented. It is also
appropriate. No one is above the rules of the House of Representatives.
This matter centered on two key questions: whether the Speaker
violated Federal tax law and whether he intentionally filed incorrect
information with the Ethics Committee. While the committee investigated
these questions extensively, its findings were inconclusive. Rather,
the committee found that Representative Gingrich brought discredit to
the House by failing to get appropriate legal advice to ensure that his
actions would be in compliance with tax law and to oversee the
development of his letters to the committee to ensure they were
accurate in every respect.
Each Member of Congress, especially those in positions of leadership,
shoulders the responsibility of avoiding even the appearance of
impropriety. Representative Gingrich failed to exercise the discipline
and caution of his office and so is subject to penalty today.
As I have said, the penalty recommended by the committee is tough and
unprecedented. In past cases of this nature, the House has reprimanded
a Member only where the Member was found to have intentionally made
false statements to the Ethics Committee. In this case, the committee
recommended a reprimand of Representative Gingrich even though the
statement of alleged violations did not assert that he intentionally
misled the committee. Likewise in past cases where the committee
imposed monetary sanctions on a Member, the committee found that the
Member had been personally enriched by the misconduct. The committee
made no such finding against Representative Gingrich, yet recommends
that a cost reimbursement of $300,000 be paid to the House by him.
The report before us contains several hundred pages of exhibits and a
detailed analysis of the subcommittee's findings. The allegations and
the key facts supporting them were laid out by the special counsel
during a public hearing on January 17. The committee's recommendations
before you today end 2 long years of work.
Throughout this process we never lost sight of our key goals: full
and complete disclosure of the facts and a bipartisan recommendation.
We accomplished both. Even though it would have been easy for
Republicans or Democrats to walk away from the process at many stages,
we did not, because we believed in this institution and in the ethics
process.
The investigative subcommittee was ably chaired by Representative
Porter Goss. Representatives Ben Cardin, Steve Schiff, and Nancy
Pelosi, along with Mr. Goss deserve the gratitude of this House for the
extraordinary workload they shouldered and for their dedication to
pursuing each issue until they reached consensus. Together with Mr.
James Cole, the special counsel, they laid the groundwork for the
bipartisan conclusion of this matter. I want to thank Mr. Cardin, the
current ranking member, as well, for working with me through difficult
times to enable the bipartisan Ethics Committee process to succeed.
In the last 2 years the committee was forced to conduct its work
against the backdrop of harsh political warfare. It is the first time
ever that members of the Ethics Committee have been the target of
coordinated partisan assaults in their districts. Coordinated political
pressure on members of the Ethics Committee by other Members is not
only destructive of the ethics oversight process but is beneath the
dignity of this great institution and those who serve here.
{time} 1215
Despite the pressures, we bring you today a bipartisan recommendation
resolving the most complex charge against Representative Newt Gingrich.
I ask for both my colleagues' rejection of the partisanship and
animosity that has so deeply permeated the work of the House and for
their support of the committee's resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair notes a disturbance in the visitors' gallery in
contravention of the laws and the rules of the House. The Doorkeepers
and police, the Chair believes, have already acted, but shall act to
remove from the gallery those persons participating in a disturbance.
If there is an outburst from the visitors' gallery, the Chair will
make this statement but will insist on order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this is a sad moment for the
House of Representatives. One of our Members has admitted to a serious
violation of the House rules. This process and this admission affects
not only that Member but each Member who serves in this body. While I
believe that is true of any ethics proceeding, it is particularly true
and particularly troublesome in this case because the offending Member
is the Speaker of the House, the third ranking official in our
Government.
We have received the report and recommendation from the special
counsel. Mr. Gingrich has agreed with the judgment of the special
counsel. In addition to the report, the recommendation of sanctions
represents the bipartisan work produced by our investigative
subcommittee. The report in the recommendation of sanctions has been
overwhelmingly approved by the full Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct and deserves the support of this House.
Let me begin by saying how proud I am of the work of the
investigative subcommittee. In my judgment, all four members of the
subcommittee maintained their commitment to a process that was fair to
the respondent as well as the House and its rules. I want to commend
and compliment the work of our chairman, the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Goss], for the extraordinary work that he did as well as the work
of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] and the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi] and the work of the subcommittee. I also want
to recognize the extraordinary service performed by Jim Cole, our
special counsel; Kevin Wolf, his assistant; and Virginia Johnson from
the
[[Page
H173]]
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Before commenting on the substance of the resolution before us, I
feel obligated to point out the severe problems that have plagued the
process. The 1-year delay in 1995 in enlisting the services of the
special counsel was wrong. We have some evidence that this delay may
have been part of the strategy by allies of Mr. Gingrich. In sharp
contrast to the good faith, bipartisan cooperation which governed the
subcommittee's work, the orderly process collapsed on December 21,
1996, after the matter was forwarded to the full committee. Ignoring
the advice of special counsel and the subcommittee, the Republican
leadership in the House imposed an unrealistic deadline for the
completion of our work to coincide with the Presidential inauguration.
The schedule agreed upon by the full Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct for full public hearings on the subcommittee findings was
unilaterally and improperly canceled. These partisan actions were aimed
at shielding Mr. Gingrich from a full airing of the charges to which he
has admitted guilt.
During the past 5 days the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Johnson] and I have worked closely together to use these days as
effectively as possible to achieve two objectives: First, in the face
of an unrealistic time limit, to get the broadest possible public
release of the information contained in the subcommittee's report; and
second, to arrive at a fair, bipartisan recommendation on sanctions. We
have achieved both objectives, and for that I would like to express my
appreciation to the chairwoman. The report details the reason why the
committee has found that Mr. Gingrich has committed a serious violation
of the House ethics rules. I urge each of my colleagues to read the
report and the accompanying exhibits.
I will now briefly review the findings of the special counsel's
report. First, we must disregard the notion that this case involves a
college professor engaged in a normal academic classroom activity. The
respondent in this case is not Professor Gingrich, but Representative
Gingrich, a Member of the House, minority whip and then Speaker of the
House, who had a vision to launch a political movement to change the
country, in his words, from a welfare state to an opportunity society.
Second, over a 5-year period Mr. Gingrich improperly commingled
political activities with tax exempt organizations. When GOPAC ran
short of funds, Mr. Gingrich sought contributions from several tax
exempt entities in order to continue his partisan political crusade.
Third, there is ample evidence that he did so in violation of tax
laws. Celia Roady, the tax expert retained by the committee, has
concluded that the tax laws were violated, and it is not even a close
call. Our special counsel agrees with that judgment. In all, almost
$1.5 million was spent by these tax exempt organizations, costing the
U.S. Treasury hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost tax revenues
that should have been paid.
Fourth, one need not reach a conclusion on the tax issues to find
that Mr. Gingrich has violated our ethical standards. From his
involvement in the American Campaign Academy case, Mr. Gingrich knew
that pursuing these activities posed a risk of potential tax law
violations. The ACA case established limits on political activities of
tax exempt organizations.
It is important to understand that this case involved similar facts
and some of the same parties as the matter investigated by the
subcommittee. In fact, in response to a question from the special
counsel, Mr. Gingrich stated, and I quote: ``I lived through that case.
I mean I was very well aware of what the ACA case did and what the
ruling was.'' All experts agreed that he should have sought tax advice
before using tax exempt organizations to pursue his political agenda.
In the words of our special counsel Mr. Gingrich's actions suggest
that ``either Mr. Gingrich did not seek legal advice because he is
aware that it would not have permitted him to use a 501(c)(3)
organization for his projects,'' or he was ``reckless in an area that
was fraught with legal peril.''
Finally, the House must make a judgment on the question of whether
Mr. Gingrich deliberately misled the committee. Mr. Gingrich submitted
two letters to the committee that he now admits contained information
about GOPAC that was inaccurate. The facts surrounding these
inaccuracies were well known to Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich had read the
letters before submitting them to the committee. When the investigative
subcommittee specifically called the contradiction in the letters to
Mr. Gingrich's attention, he once again defended them as accurate even
though they were clearly wrong. The misleading letters were sent with
the express intent of persuading the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to dismiss the pending charges. They had the effect of
misleading the committee. It stretches credibility to conclude that the
repeated misstatements were innocent mistakes.
The linchpin of these findings is stated clearly in the report of
special counsel: ``Of all the people involved in drafting, reviewing,
or submitting the letters, the only person who had firsthand knowledge
of the facts contained within them with respect to the Renewing
American Civilization course was Mr. Gingrich.''
The special counsel concludes: ``Either Mr. Gingrich intentionally
made misrepresentations to the committee or he was again reckless in
the way he provided information to the committee concerning a very
important matter.''
Mr. Gingrich's defense is that he has always been very sensitive to
ethics issues and he was embarrassed by the obvious inaccurate letters.
He said he never intended to mislead the committee. But Mr. Gingrich's
actions with respect to the understanding reached with the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct belies his statement.
Mr. Gingrich, through his attorneys, had entered into an agreement
with the committee. That agreement provided ``Mr. Gingrich agree that
no public comment should be made about this matter while it is still
pending. This includes having surrogates sent out to comment on the
matter and attempt to mischaracterize it.''
I am sure that Members of this House are well aware of public comment
since the release of our findings on December 21. As the special
counsel States, ``In the opinion of the subcommittee Members and the
special counsel, a number of press accounts indicated that Mr. Gingrich
had violated that agreement,'' the finding of the bipartisan committee
and our special counsel. Mr. Gingrich's violation of the no comment
agreement raises serious questions about the extent to which he has
deliberately sought to mislead the committee in other instances.
Beyond the events of December 21, 1996, Republican operatives close
to Mr. Gingrich conducted an ongoing campaign to disrupt the
committee's work. It is relevant for this House to consider these
circumstances in determining the degree of Mr. Gingrich's culpability
in providing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct information
that was not accurate, reliable, and complete. It is up to the Members
of this House to determine the appropriate sanction for the violations
committed by Mr. Gingrich. This is not a vote on whether Mr. Gingrich
should remain Speaker of the House. Members need time to become
familiar with the factual record presented in the special counsel's
report and to consider the seriousness of these violations that have
just come to light during the past 4 days.
In the days and weeks to come Mr. Gingrich and each Member of this
House should consider how these charges bear on the question of the
speakership. The resolution before us, the House, today is a sanction
for Representative Gingrich for the ethics violations that he has
committed. According to the House rules a reprimand is appropriate for
serious violations of ethical standards. Sadly, Mr. Gingrich's conduct
requires us to confirm that this case involves infractions of at least
that level of seriousness. He has provided inaccurate and misleading
information to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and there
is significant evidence that he intended to do so.
The recent history of congressional ethics sanctions indicate the
House has imposed the sanction of reprimand when a Member has been
found knowingly to have given false statements. But the earlier cases
did not involve
[[Page
H174]]
giving false statements to the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct itself in response to an inquiry from the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, and Mr. Gingrich's case involves more
than just giving false information to the committee. Mr. Gingrich has
also admitted to directing a political empire that made extensive use
of tax exempt entities for political fundraising purposes. As a result
of all these actions, the reputation of the House of Representatives
has been damaged and tax dollars have been lost.
But there is still more. This is not the first time Mr. Gingrich has
had ethical problems that drew critical action by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct. On other occasions he has been sighted
by this committee for violating House rules. The American public has
not forgotten the lucrative book advance contract that the incoming
Speaker of the House was forced to renounce under public pressure. Our
committee concluded in regards to that book deal: ``At a minimum this
creates the impression of exploiting one's office for personal gain.
Such perception is especially troubling when it pertains to the Office
of the Speaker of the House, a constitutional office requiring the
highest standards of ethical behavior.''
Because of all those factors, these violations require a penalty more
serious than a reprimand. Considering all these matters, I urge this
House to adopt the resolution before us. The resolution incorporates
the recommendation of the special counsel, the investigative
subcommittee, the full Committee on Standards of Official, and Mr.
Gingrich. The sanction we recommend is somewhere between a reprimand
and a censure. It provides a reprimand plus a required $300,000
contribution by Mr. Gingrich to the cost of these proceedings. In my
view this payment should come from his personal resources because it is
a personal responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, with today's vote I will have completed my service on
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Over the past 6 years
and 1 month I have participated in many ethics matters. Among the
issues that we had before the committee during my tenure has been not
only this matter but the House bank and post office matters, both of
which exposed many Members of this House, including its leadership, to
embarrassment either for misdeeds or for mismanagement. I must say,
however, that the matter before us today has brought a threat to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that far exceeded anything I
have seen. The committee was subject to repeated attempts to obstruct
its work and improperly interfere with its investigation. As I leave
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I hope that the
incoming Members will find the process has survived and will continue
to serve this House and the people of our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a distinguished
member of the subcommittee.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I first want to join in the compliments to
the other committee members and to our staffs and special counsel
because, even though we had many disagreements along the way, and
obviously still have some disagreements, I think we made the best
possible effort to get us here today.
I agree with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] this is a sad
day. It is a sad day when any Member is here because of a
recommendation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Last
time I was here it was because a Democratic colleague was here on our
recommendations. I was not happier then because it was a Democrat and
not a Republican then. I think it is a sad day when it is a Member of
the House.
Nevertheless, I think the House can be proud of the fact there is
accountability for its Members. I wish such accountability could be
found from every area of our government.
Second, I am sorry that in the rendition of facts I just heard, there
were certain partisan conclusions that eliminated other conclusions
which I guess could be stated from the other side. For example, it was
said that there was an attempt made by our chairwoman, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] who got us here, when many people
expected along the way we could never get here; but through her
leadership we are here today.
There was the accusation that our chairwoman deliberately tried to
scuttle the information getting to the Members in order to mitigate any
effect on Congressman Gingrich. Quite the contrary. Our chairwoman and
the rest of us had an agreed to up to 5 days of public hearings. Those
were changed only when our Democratic colleagues on the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct held a press conference in which they
said the most important product we could produce would be a written
report that Members could consider before they vote.
That left our Chair, in my judgment, no alternative but to change
directions and to postpone the public hearing, which we ultimately did
have anyway, in favor of trying to produce the written report by this
date which we have now accomplished.
There has been no mention of the fact that Members on the Republican
side particularly were subject to enormous political attack in their
districts. If I were still a district attorney, a career I had before I
got to Congress, I would have certain leaders arrested for attempted
jury tampering, because I think that is what they were doing. They were
trying to use political pressure to get a result in what is essentially
a judicial type of deliberative body. That was their intent.
That was one of the most unethical things I have seen since becoming
a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
What I want to emphasize now is why we are here today. I want to
point out that the statement made, that there have been many new facts
revealed in the last several days, in my judgment is not correct. We
are here because of a statement of alleged violation found by the
ethics subcommittee and released publicly on December 21, 1996, to
which the Speaker acknowledged. And those violations have not changed.
What has changed is the reporting of those violations in the news
media over the last several days. What I have seen in the news media in
various forms is some significant misstatements of what the violations
are. But I have to add that I do not believe that that was in this case
the fault of the news media. It is their job to be critical of us, and
it is our responsibility to respond if we think it is appropriate.
But I want to make it very clear what I think happened was an
unfortunate matter of timing, that on Friday of last week, our hearing
did not begin and our written report was not available until 3 o'clock
on Friday afternoon. Some reporters have told me there were not enough
copies to go around. So they are trying to form deadlines for their
programs or for their newspapers with a report that is over 200 pages
long. I think it is entirely understandable that some errors were made
at first.
Nevertheless, I think some errors were made. They were made because
Mr. Cole's report attempted to be a soup-to-nuts, beginning to end
explanation of what we did in the ethics subcommittee to get to where
we are today. In going through step by step, he quite properly, in my
judgment, said we had this choice to make and we had this fact and we
handled it as follows, and so forth. But what I have seen as reported
as a final conclusion, certain excerpts from that report were
intermediary at best.
The final conclusion of the subcommittee did not change. That final
conclusion is, first, that Mr. Gingrich should have sought competent
legal, professional tax advice before he began his procedures that
involved the use of a tax-exempt foundation, which under the law is
called a 501(c)(3) organization.
Second, that materials were sent to the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct in response to questions from the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct that the Speaker should have known were
inaccurate. That is the final finding, if you will, of the
subcommittee.
The report goes through all of the events, and I heard the gentleman
from
[[Page
H175]]
Maryland [Mr. Cardin] make reference to a number of the events. But the
findings did not change. All of the events would include things like we
on the subcommittee interviewed everybody we could find who had
anything to do with the preparation of those two letters that were
inaccurate.
What we found, in my judgment, if it were not so serious, and I
recognize how serious it is, it would really be called a comedy of
errors.
What happened was the letters were prepared in Mr. Gingrich's law
firm that sent the letters first to a staff member in Mr. Gingrich's
office. The law firm thought that the staff member would correct any
factual misstatements. The staff member thought the law firm had
already checked out the facts. So nobody checked out the facts to see
if they were accurate. But the most important thing is that Mr.
Gingrich was never involved in the preparation of those letters at any
point until the very end where he acknowledges he signed them, he
should have read more carefully, and he is responsible for that before
this House of Representatives.
I would point out that in a letter of October 1996 that he prepared
himself with his staff, he gave us entirely accurate information about
the matters that are under consideration here. I think it is pretty
obvious you do not give accurate information in October and then you
can deliberately prepare information the following September and March
that nobody would know the difference of.
Based upon the allegation, the violations we found, the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct on a 7-to-1 vote, full committee now,
entire committee, recommended the following penalty: It recommended a
reprimand and a cost assessment of $300,000. In some meetings earlier
with members, I have heard some members say that that is unique and
they are concerned about that penalty being unique because, although we
have imposed cost assessments before, we have never done so in the past
for the cost of the investigation.
That is basically what we did. We set $300,000 as the estimated cost
of that portion of the investigation that dealt with clearing up the
misstatements that we received, which may have begun to be prepared in
Mr. Gingrich's law firm, but for which he is responsible as a Member of
the House.
I want to tell all Members that they do not need, in my judgment, to
be concerned about the precedent value, because I believe everyone
concerned understood that this is a unique penalty because the Speaker
of the House is a unique official in our institution. In fact, that is
the reason we decided to, on the subcommittee's part, propose a unique
penalty, and we got word, I have to say ``got word,'' because we never
met with the Speaker to discuss the penalty. All of the negotiations
were by our special counsel on our behalf and the Speaker's attorney,
Mr. Evans, on his behalf. So we got reports on it. But the report we
got back was that Speaker Newt Gingrich agrees that because he holds a
unique position in the House he should receive a unique penalty, so
there is no doubt even the Speaker of the House is not above the rules.
I would hastily add, however, two things, and conclude with this. The
first is that I think there is room for this to be made a standing
procedure in certain cases. For example, I saw what in my judgment were
a number of frivolous complaints filed with the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct which had no other purpose than to be leaked to the
press and create bad publicity for whomever was the target of those
complaints. It seems to me that the precedent we have established here
should apply to those who are found by the committee to have filed
frivolous complaints.
Finally, on how the funds should be paid if the House adopts the
recommended penalty, we were deliberately silent on that. My colleague,
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], is most certainly entitled to
his opinion, but the subcommittee and the committee made no
determination.
Insofar as I have studied the precedents on financial remuneration to
the Government, we have never established as a matter of law how these
funds can be paid.
Mr. Gingrich, if he does get this as a final penalty, understands all
the ramifications, I am certain he does not need me to explain them to
him or, for that matter, any of my colleagues on the other side. But
the fact is the committee was silent deliberately on how any such funds
should be paid. It is my understanding there are at least some
precedents for campaign funds, for example, being used to reimburse the
Government, and certainly we all know that the Chief Executive of the
United States has a legal defense fund in which he raises money. So I
am just saying that whatever the options are to Newt Gingrich as a
Member of the House, they have not been precluded legally by the
committee, and in my judgment they should not be.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to again commend our chairwoman,
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], my fellow members of
the committee, and say I believe we have come up with an appropriate
penalty, which some think is too harsh, some think is too lenient. That
tells me we are about where we ought to be. I hope the House will adopt
it.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The Chair will request that
visitors in the gallery, in coming and going, refrain from any audible
disruption of the proceedings.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
briefly to comment on some of the points raised by the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] is correct,
we are in agreement on the recommendation. We put different emphasis on
some of the facts. Mr. Gingrich clearly, in my view, had ample
opportunity to know about the statements in his letters. He did
indicate he hired an attorney in order to draft the two letters. Let me
just read, if I might, from the transcripts as to the exchange between
Mr. Cole and Mr. Baran, Mr. Baran being Mr. Gingrich's attorney.
Mr. Cole: ``Would you have made sure that he had read it and approved
it, or just the fact he read it is all you would have been interested
in,'' referring to Mr. Gingrich?
Mr. Baran said, ``No, I would have wanted him to be comfortable with
this on many levels.''
Mr. Cole: ``Were you satisfied he was comfortable with it prior to
filing it with the committee?''
Mr. Baran: ``Yes.''
Let me also point out that after this, after we pointed out to Mr.
Gingrich the inconsistency in the letters, Mr. Gingrich wrote another
letter back to the committee. Clearly he had time to review the
inconsistencies by that time. The October 31, 1996, letter, in that
letter he still maintains his innocence on inconsistencies in the
letter, even though the letters were clearly inaccurate, he knew they
were inaccurate, and he had a chance to reread the letters and correct
the record.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 11\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi], my colleague on the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, who was on the investigative subcommittee and who has
made a great contribution to this process and has been an extraordinary
member of our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time
and for his leadership and guidance throughout this process. Clearly
without his involvement, we would not be here today with a bipartisan
recommendation for a sanction for the Speaker of the House.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the investigative subcommittee, I would
like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the gentleman from
Florida, Porter Goss, our Chair of the investigative subcommittee,
again acknowledge the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, as ranking
member for his service there, as well as to say how much I learned from
the gentleman from new Mexico, Mr. Schiff, in the course of our service
there.
Clearly, from the debate so far, you can see that we had many
unresolved difficult issues to deal with, and under the leadership of
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], we went through that.
I want to also commend our special counsel, James Cole, for making us
stick to the facts, the law, and the ethics rules as those elements
that were
[[Page
H176]]
the only matters relevant to our decisions, and many thanks to Kevin
Wolf and Virginia Johnson for their assistance and professionalism.
I heard my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], say
in his earlier days as a prosecutor he might entertain thoughts of
bringing jury tampering charges. If he decides to do that, I hope that
the gentleman will include in his package the dirty tricks memo that is
now in the public record that is a written document about attempts to
undermine the ethics process directly by the Republican House
leadership.
Let me say though we did produce a bipartisan product. I hope our
work will serve as a foundation for a bipartisan solution to be agreed
to today.
Today, others have said it, is a sad day. I think it is a tragic day.
Here in the House of Representatives we will sanction a sitting Speaker
for the first time. It is an unwelcome task to pass judgment on any of
our colleagues, but we have a responsibility to uphold ethical
standards called for in the rules and expected by the American people.
I associate myself with the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin's,
remarks about the process. We should not have to choose to make the
American people aware of either the hearing, a full hearing, or the
report. But since we have a report, I urge everyone to read it. I think
it is very instructive and gives lie to many of the
mischaracterizations that have been made about the violations that the
committee charged Mr. Gingrich with and those which he admitted to.
{time} 1245
The last few weeks have been dreadful. But we have an opportunity to
say today to the American people that when we come to Washington, we do
not check our integrity at the beltway, and that power is not a license
to ignore ethical standards. We also have an opportunity to tell the
American people that sanity can reign in the Congress by demonstrating
our ability to agree and disagree in a respectful way. The American
people gave us the privilege to serve; they expect us not only to make
the laws and to obey the laws, but also to live up to a high ethical
standard.
So today we are here to address the failure of Speaker Gingrich with
regard to the laws governing charitable contributions and GOPAC, and
his failure to respond accurately and reliably to the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.
I would like to just take a moment to refer to the book, because as I
asked people to read it, I want to point out the statement of alleged
violations which was originally set forth by the special counsel. This
is on page 155.
Based on the information described above, the special counsel
proposed a statement of alleged violations to the subcommittee on
December 12. The statement of alleged violations contained 3 counts:
Mr. Gingrich's activities on behalf of ALOF in regard to AOW and ACTV,
and the activities of others in that regard with his knowledge and
approval, constituted a violation of ALOF's status under section
501(c)(3).
Second, Mr. Gingrich's activities on behalf of Kennesaw State College
Foundation, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Reinhardt College
in regard to the Renewing American Civilization course, and other
activities in that regard, with his knowledge and approval, constituted
a violation of those organizations' status under 501(c)(3).
And, third, Mr. Gingrich had provided information to the committee,
directly or through counsel, that was material to matters under
consideration by the committee, which Mr. Gingrich knew or should have
known was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.
These were not the alleged violations that were passed out at the
committee because we did not come to agreement on them, but they are
the original allegations by the special counsel. I think everyone is
well aware that we have charged the Speaker in our statement of alleged
violations that he did not ensure that the law was complied to in his
activities, and that he gave information to the committee that was not
accurate.
Think how much easier it would be if we could all use the 501(c)(3),
not consult a lawyer, and build our political agenda around tax
deductible considerations. The American people in their generosity give
the opportunity to charitable institutions to do charitable work. That
does not include subsidizing our political activity. At the grassroots
level we have always had to comply with the law in relationship to
political activity and 501(c)(3). If we have to do it at the grassroots
level, so should the Speaker of the House.
As the counsel mentions in his statement, some members of the
committee and the special counsel were in favor, as I mentioned before,
of the original proposal. After much deliberation, all four of us could
agree on a statement of alleged violations that despite, in quotes,
``Despite significant and substantial warnings, Mr. Gingrich did not
seek the legal advice to ensure that his conduct conformed with the
provisions of 501(c)(3),'' with the law.
Why did he not? Why did he not? Either because Speaker Gingrich knew
what the answer would be no, from an attorney, ``No, you cannot do
this,'' or he was reckless in conforming with the law. The committee
decided that regardless of the resolution of the 501(c)(3) tax
question, Speaker Gingrich's conduct was improper, did not reflect
credibly on the House, and was deserving of sanction, serious sanction,
and Speaker Gingrich agreed.
The next issue in my view is the most serious, that of not dealing
honestly with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It is
interesting to me that Speaker Gingrich has repeatedly stated that
ethics are important to him. Why, then, did he say that he was too busy
to respond to the committee accurately? Again, either he was trying to
get complaints dismissed and an accurate answer would not achieve that
end, or that ethics were not important enough for him to take the
necessary time.
As our colleague, Mr. Cardin, has pointed out, Mr. Gingrich gave one
answer in the earlier letter in order to respond to a complaint
regarding use of official resources for his course, so he said GOPAC
did it. Then when we asked the question if GOPAC and 501(c)(3) cannot
be that cozy, then he said GOPAC did not do it; and then in the third
communication to the committee, he stood by his previous letters.
The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] prefers to call it a
comedy of errors. I think it is violating our trust that we have among
Members. Every day that we speak to each other in this House, we refer
to each other as the gentleman from Georgia, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut, the gentleman from Maryland. We trust each other that we
will deal truthfully with each other.
Unfortunately, in terms of Speaker Gingrich's dealings with the
committee on a number of occasions, and in his violation of the
agreement under which we would go forward in bringing this issue to a
conclusion, Mr. Gingrich's statements lead me to one conclusion: that
Mr. Gingrich, in his dealings with the committee, is not to be
believed. I conclude also that Mr. Gingrich gave these different
answers not because it was a comedy of errors, but because he thought
he would get away with it.
I was particularly concerned about the ``too busy'' defense. We
cannot say that ethics is important to us and then say we are too busy
to answer the central question asked by the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. Maintaining a high ethical standard is a decision,
and it requires making it a priority. It is not just something we do
when we are not too busy.
We expect the Speaker of the House to be busy. We also expect the
Speaker of the House to be ethical. Speaker Gingrich himself has stated
that the Speaker must be held to a higher standard. I do not put any
additional burden on the Speaker. I think all Members of Congress
should be held to a higher ethical standard.
When new Members arrive in Congress, one of the first documents they
receive is the House Ethics Manual. And one of the first
responsibilities impressed upon all of us is to uphold a high ethical
standard. Clearly, Speaker Gingrich did not live up to his own
professed ethical standards of the House, and, indeed, to the ethical
standards in this book.
I urge my colleagues to read this report. I think when you do, you
will see
[[Page
H177]]
that it gives lie to the mis characterizations of our Republican
colleagues that the violations were nothing, or that they were like
trespassing or double parking. Either our colleagues were ill-informed,
and that is what I choose to believe, or they have a cavalier regard
for the tragedy of the Speaker admitting bringing discredit to the
House of Representatives which he wants to lead.
Now we come to the penalty. As you know, we have a financial penalty
because we believe that the inaccurate statements that the Speaker said
to us prolonged the process. There are other reasons why there is a
financial penalty, but that was one of them. And the subcommittee
concluded, and I quote, ``that because these inaccurate statements were
provided to the committee, this matter was not resolved as
expeditiously as it could have been. This caused a controversy over the
matter to arise and last for a substantial period of time, it disrupted
the operations of the House, and it cost the House a substantial amount
of money in order to determine the facts.''
So I urge our colleagues, in light of all of that, to support the
bipartisan recommendation of the committee. The $300,000 penalty I
believe speaks eloquently to the American people, who may not know the
weight of one of our sanctions or another, but they understand
$300,000. And I hope that this money will not come from the Speaker's
political campaign funds, because I think that will increase the
cynicism of the American people about what goes on here in Washington.
Whether the Speaker remains Speaker is up to the Republicans. He is
technically eligible. I hope you will make a judgment as to whether he
is ethically fit.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss), the chairman of the
subcommittee, and I want to recognize the outstanding job that he did
chairing that subcommittee, as I recognize the remarkable service of
the members of that subcommittee.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the
distinguished chair of our committee, for yielding me this time. She
deserves our sincere gratitude for all she has endured, for her
persistence, for her determination to bring this to a successful
conclusion, and here we are today. It was certainly an unenviable and,
I know, thankless task.
Today we have a conclusion. Today the House takes the final step in
what has been a most difficult process, I think we all would agree. It
is not just for those intimately involved in the day-to-day twists and
turns in this tortuous case, but also for the entire House.
On Friday the full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
approved a recommendation which is today before this House, for an
official reprimand and a $300,000 cost assessment to Mr. Gingrich as
sanction for his violation of House rules and as partial reimbursement
for the costs of the inquiry that ensued. This is unquestionably a
serious sanction, but one that is also fair and appropriate, in my
view, as evidenced by the fact that indeed Mr. Gingrich himself has
agreed to it.
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, functioning
independently of leadership on both sides of the aisle, is supposed to
find the truth through an investigative process. It is not designed to
protect errant Members, nor is it designed to permit partisan zealots
to destroy Members or to score political points.
In this case, the committee's members were subject to frequent unfair
and inaccurate partisan political attack. That is a matter of fact.
Outsiders attempted to influence our activities, our deliberations, our
schedule and our conclusions. That is truly a shame. It has caused
harm, not just to the Members involved, but it has also brought
discredit to this institution, in my view.
Friday, I urged the leadership on both sides of the aisle to tone
down the rhetoric, cut the nonsense, and get back to work in repairing
the damage that has come to this House. I repeat that exhortation
today.
With regard to the matter at hand, I am very satisfied with the work
done by our investigative subcommittee, whose recommendation was
adopted by the full committee and is the recommendation all Members
will consider today.
The four of us, working with the extraordinarily talented special
counsel, Jim Cole, functioned in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation
that did actually grow as we went along in the case. I say we started
with different perspectives, but we started with open minds, and I am
grateful for the very fine service, the unbelievable commitment of time
of the members, their cooperation. I take my hat off to the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff],
and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], all of whom in my
view bring great credit to this institution.
Contrary to what has been reported, the statement of alleged
violations that our subcommittee developed and passed and which forms
the basis for the sanctioned recommendation did not, I repeat not, find
that Mr. Gingrich violated or did not violate tax law in his
relationship with 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations. And contrary to
media reports, that statement of alleged violation of December 21st
also did not charge Mr. Gingrich with intentionally deceiving our
committee with his correspondence in this case.
Nonetheless, I found it extraordinarily imprudent of Mr. Gingrich not
to seek and follow a less aggressive course of action in tax areas he
knew to be sensitive and controversial. And even more troubling, I
found the fact that the committee was given inaccurate, unreliable, and
incomplete information to be a very serious failure on his part.
{time} 1300
Now, it is certainly true that we had more than enough facts and
extenuating circumstances to consider. We all know a Member of Congress
wears many hats, for our official lives, our campaign lives, our
private lives, our business lives or whatever, and knowledge of how
careful we must be in wearing those hats is fundamental to our job. We
all have an extra obligation to be sure our activities are appropriate,
no matter which hat we are wearing. That is an obligation that each of
us signs up for when we run to serve in this institution.
That is why the serious sanction we recommend is appropriate, in my
view. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] has recognized his
lapses and the problems they have caused for this House. He has
apologized, forthrightly and sincerely. He has also accepted the unique
sanction we proposed, one that includes a clear signal to all Members
about the importance of providing accurate and grounded information to
the Select Committee on Ethics, whether in response to a complaint or
in filing a complaint.
I must point out to Members that our mission in the preliminary
investigation was to find and examine the dark clouds. That is what
investigations do. Mr. Cole is very good at that. He is a brilliant
prosecutor. In his report he presented well those dark clouds. He did
not, however, present all of the other clouds we looked at that turned
out to be not quite so dark. So I found that his report would be well
supplemented by reading the report of the Speaker's attorneys for
balance, as well. I refer colleagues and interested parties to both
reports to get the full picture.
In the end, I agreed with my subcommittee colleagues that Mr.
Gingrich's absence of diligence subjects him legitimately to charges of
conduct reckless enough to constitute a violation of House rules. I
sincerely hope with today's voting we can put this matter to rest.
I urge this House to adopt the recommendation of the Select Committee
on Ethics and remember, the penalty is aimed at findings in response to
the specific work of our subcommittee, no matter what feelings any
particular Member may personally have about Mr. Gingrich.
Some have said this is a sad day. Indeed it is, whenever we have this
type of a situation. I will also say it is a day of victory. We have
proved to the American people that no matter how rough the process is,
we can police ourselves. We do know right from wrong in this
institution. We can take the necessary steps.
[[Page
H178]]
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], a very valuable member of the Select
Committee on Ethics, who has done yeoman's service for the House and
for the Congress on that committee.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by commending the members of the
investigative subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ben
Cardin, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Nancy Pelosi, the
chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Porter Goss, and, of course,
the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Schiff, for the extraordinary job
they have performed for this institution. They are all people of
enormously high integrity, and they have done this committee and this
House very proud.
I also want to commend the special counsel, Mr. Cole, who under the
most difficult and trying of circumstances came through with a report
that, again, I would urge all Members of the House to read; but again,
under the most difficult and trying of circumstances, he performed an
heroic deed for this House.
Mr. Speaker, let me state the obvious. No Member seeks or enjoys a
position on the Ethics Committee, but the proper functioning of that
committee is essential to the integrity of the House. It is a matter of
personal and institutional honor that each of us has agreed to serve.
I remember distinctly when I received the phone call that any one of
us never wants to get; a leader of my party, Speaker Tom Foley, asked
me to serve on the Ethics Committee. I remember distinctly saying to
Mr. Foley that I was reminded of the fellow who was tarred and
feathered, put on a rail and run out of town, whose retort was that if
it weren't for the honor, he would rather walk. I am on this committee,
but it is as a reluctant member. On more than one occasion I have
offered to step down when the removal of a member was necessary to
maintain the political balance of the committee. But Mr. Speaker, I
feel very strongly that it is our constitutional duty, and it was mine,
to respond positively to Tom Foley's request. It was, again, certainly
not a position that I wanted.
I hope to concentrate my efforts and energies on the work of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, probably the most
bipartisan committee in this House of Representatives, and where that
bipartisan atmosphere has enabled us to turn out very important pieces
of legislation.
It is always a grueling and distasteful task to investigate a fellow
Member--all the more so in the case of the Speaker. Some have suggested
that partisan attempts were made to derail the special counsel's
efforts and render him less effective. I might say that I agree. The
subcommittee released its statement of alleged violation on the
Saturday before Christmas. The counsel's report was released on Friday
afternoon, before inaugural weekend, with the vote firmly scheduled for
this afternoon. Despite a prior agreement which allowed for a full week
of public hearings, we were left with only a single afternoon's
session. Mr. Cole, along with members of the full committee and
subcommittee were troubled by the time line insisted upon by Republican
leadership. The special counsel insisted with consistency that he would
be hard pressed to complete a report detailing the 2-year investigation
before February 4. Yet, Mr. Cole was denied the time he deemed
necessary.
Despite these obstacles, however, the special counsel did release a
report on Friday afternoon which included the subcommittee's
recommended sanction of a reprimand and fine. In this report, Mr. Cole,
along with Ms. Roady, the subcommittee's tax expert, and two members of
the committee conclude that Mr. Gingrich has violated the tax code in
conjunction with 501(c)(3). However, the Committee agreed that the
focus of the investigation should be on the conduct of the Member
rather than the resolution of issues of tax law which would best be
left to the IRS. What the report does say about the 501(c)(3), is the
following:
``* * * the subcommittee was faced with a disturbing choice. Either
Mr. Gingrich did not seek legal advice because he was aware that it
would not have permitted him to use a 501(c)(3) organization for his
projects, or he was reckless in not taking care that, as a Member of
Congress, he made sure that his conduct conformed with the law in an
area where he had ample warning that his intended course was fraught
with legal peril. The subcommittee decided that regardless of the
resolution of the 501(c)(3) tax question, Mr. Gingrich's conduct in
this regard was improper, did not reflect creditably on the House and
was deserving of sanction.''
With respect to the letters containing inaccurate information that
Mr. Gingrich provided to the committee, the report goes on to say:
``The special counsel suggested that a good argument could be made,
based on the record, that Mr. Gingrich did act intentionally, however
it would be difficult to establish that with a high degree of certainty
* * * In determining what the appropriate sanction should be in this
matter, the subcommittee and the special counsel considered the
seriousness of the conduct, the level of care exercised by Mr.
Gingrich, the disruption caused to the House by the conduct, the cost
to the House in having to pay for an extensive investigation, and the
repetitive nature of the conduct.''
``The subcommittee was faced with troubling choices in each of the
areas covered by the statement of alleged violation. Either Mr.
Gingrich's conduct in regard to the 501(c)(3) organizations and the
letters he submitted to the committee was intentional or it was
reckless. Neither choice reflects creditably on the House. * * *''
Under the rules of the committee, a reprimand is the appropriate
sanction for a serious violation of House Rules and a censure is
appropriate for a more serious violation of House rules. This is the
extent to which guidelines are in place for Members to make a
determination of sanction. According to the special counsel, it was the
opinion of the Ethics Subcommittee, after two years of investigation
and inquiry, that this matter fell somewhere in between. As such, both
the subcommittee and the special counsel recommended that the
appropriate sanction should be a reprimand and a payment reimbursing
the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of
$300,000. Mr. Gingrich has agreed that this is the appropriate
sanction, as has the full Ethics Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, particularly my colleagues on
the Democratic side of the aisle, this is not about who should be the
Speaker of the House. Democrats have no say in who should be the
Speaker of the House. That is up to the majority party.
This is not about process. There were parts of this process that I
find extremely disturbing, and parts that I think need to be dealt with
further at an appropriate time. This is not that time.
This is not about whether the existing tax code in question is
arcane. I asked the special counsel, Mr. Cole, at our Friday afternoon
public hearing whether the law was in fact arcane, and Mr. Cole
responded in the strongest possible language that the law was not
arcane. In fact, it is a headline issue that politics and tax-exempt
organizations should not mix. Even Mr. Gingrich's tax attorney agreed
with that statement.
I also asked the special counsel to respond to the spin that we are
all familiar with, and it goes like this: ``I saw the course, I watched
the tape. There is nothing political about them.'' Mr. Cole's response
was that the issue in question was not so much the content of the
course, but, rather, the intent and the way in which it was
distributed.
The report states, ``Mr. Gingrich applied the ideas of the course to
partisan political purposes.'' Mr. Speaker, this is not about
determining the innocence or the guilt of Mr. Gingrich. He has already
admitted that guilt, that he has brought discredit to this House. This
is about the ability of the House of Representatives, under the most
trying of circumstances, to judge one of its own Members, an extremely
controversial Member, one who has led his party to the majority. It is
our duty to determine the appropriate sanction to that Member.
The subcommittee, aided by the special counsel, has conducted an
investigation and made its recommendation to the full committee, which
in turn has made that recommendation to the full House.
Those are the processes we have adopted and those are the processes
we have followed. We are giving every Member, independently, the
opportunity to put aside partisan politics and follow the
recommendation offered by the special counsel, the subcommittee, and
the full committee upon completion of a 2-year inquiry. It is right and
it is just. We were asked as Members of Congress to put aside our
partisan beliefs and serve on this committee out of a sense of duty and
honor.
[[Page
H179]]
Now, we are asking you to honor our recommendations with dignity.
I ask my colleagues to honor the work of the Ethics Committee and to
vote yes for this very strict sanction.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of the Ethics
Committee for yielding time to me.
Let me say at the outset that you can clearly disagree and have great
respect for your colleagues on the Ethics Committee, as I do, and still
reach different conclusions, as I do.
My conclusion is that the penalty that has been assessed by the
Ethics Committee is way too
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
