[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          SPEAKER'S BOOK DEAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, is 
recognized during morning business for 2 minutes.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, later in this session the House 
will consider the Personal Responsibility Act. Is it not time for the 
Speaker and all of us to take some personal responsibility for our own 
actions?
  When the flap came up over what the Speaker's mother said to Connie 
Chung concerning the First Lady of our Nation, he turned the issue to 
Connie Chung and not what was said. When the issue came up on the $4.5 
million book deal that was negotiated, the debate in the House was 
censored last week. And then over the weekend, our Speaker lashed out 
at the First Lady again and at a former Speaker. He repeated the charge 
that made him famous when he called former Speaker Jim Wright a crook. 
Never mind the fact that the former Speaker's book deal was worth 
$12,000 versus our current Speaker's $4.5 million deal. Even our most 
successful writer in this country does not command $4.5 million of up-
front money. Or the fact that it was simply unprofessional, 
undignified, and impugned the character of a former Speaker when he is 
retired and gone and cannot defend himself.
  Much has been written about our Speaker's book deal, particularly the 
meeting with Mr. Murdoch and political apparatus, GOPAC, The Progress 
and Freedom Foundation, et cetera.
  The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call has written in the Speaker's 
eloquent words from 1988 about another book deal, an outside counsel on 
ethics should be brought in for a ``complete and thorough'' 
investigation. We have a saying in Texas, what goes around comes 
around.
  I ask today as Representative Gingrich did in 1988 that the outside 
counsel investigate these ethical matters and clear up these questions 
once and for all, because just like the Energizer bunny, this issue 
will keep on going and going and going until we put it to rest.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

                           An Outside Counsel

       Much has been made in the last week of Members' speech. 
     Consider this choice of words: ``The rules normally applied 
     by the Ethics Committee to an investigation of a typical 
     Member are insufficient in an investigation of the Speaker of 
     the House, a position which is third in line of succession to 
     the Presidency and the second most powerful elected position 
     in America. Clearly, this investigation has to meet a higher 
     standard of public accountability and integrity.'' So wrote 
     Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) in a July 28, 1988, press release 
     calling for an outside counsel in the House ethics probe of 
     then-Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas).
       Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and Democrats are 
     clamoring for (in Gingrich's nearly decade-old words) a 
     ``complete and thorough'' investigation of a variety of 
     allegations against the new Speaker. Unfortunately but 
     predictably, the situation has grown ugly. And, as witnesses 
     on the House floor for two days last week, it is now creating 
     a spectacle before the American public. Which is perhaps the 
     best reason for an outside counsel.
       But there are others. The charges against Gingrich range 
     from conflicts of interest and use of office for personal 
     gain in connection with his Harper-Collins book deal to 
     improper use of funds from his tax-exempt outside groups.
       Ironically, the book deal, which has drawn the most 
     attention both from the media and Democrats, raises the less 
     serious ethical questions. The facts: Gingrich agreed to and 
     then canceled a $4.5 million advance for two books to be 
     published by HarperCollins, the company owned by Rupert 
     Murdock, who is currently lobbying to alter laws restricting 
     foreign ownership of broadcast properties such as his Fox TV 
     network. Despite urging from fellow Republicans to abandon 
     the book deal, Gingrich holds onto it. Even though he's 
     rejected the advance, he still could make millions from the 
     book--partly depending upon how heavily HarperCollins 
     promotes it, a decision ultimately in Murdoch's hands.
       More serious are the allegations of the funding of 
     Gingrich's college course, ``Renewing American 
     Civilization,'' and the extensive connections between 
     Gingrich's political action committee, GOPAC; his 
     Congressional office; and his outside educational arm, the 
     Progress & Freedom Foundation. It is these charges that are 
     the subject of the ethics case now pending against him. The 
     Speaker's elaborate political dynasty appears to be 
     constructed in a manner in which he can conduct political 
     activities while skirting contribution limits and disclosure 
     laws. The entire structure must be probed.
       We do not fully agree with what Gingrich said in 1988; an 
     investigation of the Speaker should not be held to any higher 
     standard than one of any other Member. Whether a Speaker 
     should be held to a higher standard of conduct is a separate 
     question. At the very least, he should set that standard, and 
     as Gingrich himself said so eloquently in 1988, an outside 
     counsel would offer the most ``complete and thorough'' 
     investigation.
     

                          ____________________