[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 18 (Monday, January 30, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H842-H843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     RENEWED CALL FOR INDEPENDENT COUNSEL IN SPEAKER'S ETHICS CASE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments, I just want to 
respond to my good friend, and he is my good friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], to say on the Social Security issue, we would 
not be raising it, except that the Speaker, who raised the issue, said 
he wants to do away with the CPI index as presently stated. If he does 
that and they refigure the CPI based upon what Mr. Greenspan and others 
have suggested, we are talking about a $2,000 hit for Social Security 
recipients. There is no way around it.
  I want the folks to be clear on that. If the Speaker and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] and the Republicans want to fool 
around with Social Security and the CPI index, it is going to cost 
seniors dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today because we saw one more example of why we 
need an outside counsel to look into the Speaker's ethics problems. The 
Los Angeles Times ran a story this morning that raises disturbing new 
questions about GOPAC. GOPAC, of course, is a multi-million-dollar 
political action committee run by Mr. Gringrich which at its very heart 
is part of the ethics complaint that is being filed against him.
  Over the past 9 years, GOPAC has raised between $10 million and $20 
million. Its contributors include people who have a direct interest in 
Federal legislation. Yet we do not know who contributed this money and 
we do not know how much was spent. We do not know this because GOPAC 
still refuses to disclose the names of its past contributors and its 
past expenses.
  Let me just read a headline that was in the L.A. Times this morning. 
``Funding of Gingrich PAC Raises Questions. Key Corporate Donors Have 
Interests in Pending Federal Action. FEC Alleges Campaign Violations.
  The L.A. Times story points out: ``GOPAC'' has collected 
contributions from wealthy individuals that far exceed annual Federal 
election limits.''
  It points out: ``One Wisconsin couple gave over $700,000 to 
Gingrich's organization between 1985 and 1993, nearly twice what they 
could have donated directly to all Federal candidates.''
  Remember, Mr. Speaker, it was just last month that a top Gingrich 
ally when asked about GOPAC said that GOPAC was founded ``as a way of 
getting around campaign finance disclosure laws.''
  We are not just talking about one or two campaigns here.
  According to this morning's story in the L.A. Times, ``GOPAC boasts 
that half of the 136 Republican lawmakers elected since 1990 actively 
used the group's training materials and followed its advice on how to 
attack Democratic opponents and use powerful issues.''
  It is not just who they gave to that is the problem, but why.
  As the story points out, ``The size of the contributions solely to 
GOPAC from corporate donors with important interests before the Federal 
Government raises questions about the prospects of preferential 
treatment.''
  When asked about GOPAC, the nonpartisan director of the government 
watch dog group, Ellen Miller says, ``GOPAC has clearly violated the 
spirit 
[[Page H843]]  of laws which govern how much people can give to support 
politicians. The biggest concern is the fact that is all hidden.''
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have a right to know who is giving 
money to GOPAC and how it is being spent.
  Clearly any person who has had dealings with GOPAC has a serious 
conflict of interest in this case. Yet last week we learned that 2 of 
the 5 members of the Committee on Ethics appointed by Mr. Gingrich have 
had past dealings with GOPAC.
  Mr. Speaker, this will not do. The only way that we are going to get 
to the bottom of this case is to have a professional, independent, 
nonpartisan, outside appointed counsel to come in here and investigate.
  That is what this House had done in every high visible ethics case 
since 1979. It did it in the ABSCAM case, it did it in the Diggs case, 
it did it in the Hansen case, it did it in the St. Germain case, it did 
it in the case of the former Speaker and several others. In each case 
we have appointed a nonpartisan outside counsel to investigate.
  As Mr. Gingrich said himself in 1988, ``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. Clearly, 
this investigation has to meet higher standards of public 
accountability and integrity.''
  In fact, the new chair of the Committee on Ethics, the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], joined Mr. Gingrich in his campaign 
for an outside counsel in 1988. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. 
Johnson] was one of 71 Republican Members who joined Mr. Gingrich in 
sending a letter to the Ethics Committee asking for an investigation of 
the former Speaker.
  She is reported to have supported a call for a special counsel to 
carry out that investigation in 1988. Now she is backing away from it.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me just say, if past Ethics 
Committees were not fair or tough enough, why would this one be any 
different? The standard has been set, the precedent is there. It is 
time for an independent, nonpartisan outside counsel to come in and 
look at this issue.


                          ____________________