[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 22 (Friday, February 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1193-H1194]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       PRESERVING THE REPUTATION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I view the House of Representatives as one 
of the most respected bodies and institutions in this world, maybe not 
quite to the extent that I do my church and my home, but it reaches 
right up there with them.
  This is the greatest institution for democracy in the world. It 
should never be sullied, should never be soiled 
[[Page H1194]] by actions of any of its Members, yet today we have a 
stain on the U.S. House of Representatives. We have a cloud over its 
existence. That is the question of the Speaker's involvement with 
Rupert Murdoch over the book deal.
  Mr. Speaker, only 2 weeks ago, finally we had a House Ethics 
Committee appointed. It has not met. Nothing has been done. Yet we all 
know from published reports of the meetings between the Speaker, Mr. 
Murdoch, his lobbyists, and others, we all know that the corporations 
that are controlled by Mr. Murdoch have matters pending before the 
Federal Communications Commission.
  We all know that there is possible pending legislation that would 
benefit Mr. Murdoch and his holdings before this House of 
Representatives. We should have a thorough investigation. Yet, what it 
appears is going on now is, there is nothing going to be done, that 
that committee is not going to meet.
  It is not just the committee in action that concerns me. It is the 
fact that everyone agrees; we just heard from Mr. Wertheimer of Common 
Cause, who says we need an adviser for ethics outside, independent 
counsel, to look into this. I agree. We cannot just rely on our old 
Ethics Committee to examine what occurred or what did not occur.
  I'm not prejudging the Speaker, but I do think that it needs a 
complete airing so that that stain can be removed from this House, or 
the cloud can be lifted, so that we can proceed with our business.
  The other matter I would like to talk about is one that relates 
directly to this House of Representatives that I love so well. That is 
the fairness of each individual member to be able to propose and 
examine their ideas as far as legislation is concerned.
  We have coming up in the next 2 weeks legislation put out by the 
Committee on the Judiciary so-called separate crime bills. Just today 
we hear that the majority proposes that on certain of those crime 
bills, those that are the most controversial, those that will take the 
longest, those that will have amendments, those that will have 
substitutes, they propose to limit the time that the individual Members 
of this body, whether Democrat or Republican, can even address the 
House and offer their amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the majority that they closely 
examine and rethink that proposal. I believe that if the majority 
wishes to proceed with their legislation under the 100-day calendar, if 
they wish to do so, to work with the minority, I am sure that you would 
find that many of these so-called crime bills, some, at least three or 
four, there is not much controversy about at all.
  Those would be disposed of very rapidly, so that the time remaining 
could be devoted to those areas where there is diversity of opinion and 
not try to lump them all as the same.
  I believe strongly, and as long as I am here will work to make sure 
that every Member, whether Democrat or Republican, has the opportunity 
to offer amendments to bills, to have that discussion, to have that 
idea brought up, and I don't believe anybody should be gagged by the 
majority just to expedite a matter.


                          ____________________