[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2721-H2722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ETHICAL VIOLATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT
Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Madam Speaker, until 2 weeks ago, in almost
20 years of public service, I had never filed a complaint against a
colleague, even though I twice served on committees charged with
investigating colleagues for ethical violations in the Florida State
Senate with their censure or dismissal often hanging in the balance.
In 30 years of the practice of law, I never filed an ethics complaint
against a colleague, even though again, I served for many years on the
grievance committee of the Florida Bar which recommended to the bar
either disbarment, suspension, or reprimand for serious violations of
ethical standards.
Accordingly, I do not take lightly such complaints against a
colleague, and in particular, the Speaker of the House.
On Wednesday, February 22 of this year, I became a signatory, along
with Congresswomen Pat Schroeder and Cynthia McKinney, to a complaint
filed with the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct against
Speaker Newt Gingrich.
The first response to our complaint by the Speaker was communicated
through his staff assistant, who, according to the Washington Post, ``*
* * accused the lawmakers who filed the complaint of `malicious
imbecility.''' I consider this a rather intemperate remark, to say the
least, and as much as the spokesman is an employee of the House of
Representatives and a surrogate of the Speaker, I find his tone and
language both offensive and inappropriate.
On Friday of the same week, Mr. Gingrich made the following statement
with respect to our complaint: ``They are misusing the ethics system in
a deliberate, vicious, vindictive way, and I think it is despicable and
I have just about had it.''
I do not plan to discuss the merits of the complaint against Mr.
Gingrich this morning. I believe that would be improper, because the
matter is now within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. If and when there are charges filed against the
Speaker by the committee, the full House will sit in judgment of these
charges. I will comment, however, on the history of the Speaker's
complaints against a former colleague.
It is common knowledge that Mr. Gingrich filed numerous complaints
against Speaker Jim Wright in 1988, and I quote at length from an
article in the New York Times dated June 10, 1988:
The New York Times has examined the case against Mr. Wright
through interviews with the House Republican who has been his
main accuser, as well as with the Speaker's attorney and
legal experts and through a review of the House rules,
transcripts of congressional debate of those rules and other
documents.
In the course of that examination, the Speaker's primary
critic, Representative Newt Gingrich of Georgia and Mr.
Gingrich's aides said that there were errors and gaps in the
complaint that he had filed with the Ethics Committee and
that led to the panel's proceedings, but they said that what
was most important was a full inquiry into the Speaker's
actions, as well as a review of the adequacy of the House
rules.
The case against Mr. Wright as laid out in the complaint is
not particularly strong, according to Mr. Gingrich and his
aides. Mr. Gingrich said in an interview earlier this week
that the two counts involving oil investments had been
included in his complaint solely ``out of curiosity'' and
that ``I don't expect them to be actionable items.''
Let me repeat that 7 years ago, Mr. Gingrich told the New York Times
that he filed two counts against the Speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives solely out of curiosity and with no expectation of
their being actionable.
My compliant against the Speaker of the House on February 22
certainly was not conceived out of curiosity and certainly does not
rise or fall to the level of malicious imbecility, and certainly, as
quoting the Speaker in reference to this compliant, is not offered in a
deliberate, vicious, vindictive way. I would never charge a colleague
with misconduct and the violation of a law and ethics, as I have done,
without serious and conscientious deliberation and conviction.
Continuing in a historical vein, I have attached to these remarks a
press release issued by Mr. Gingrich through
[[Page H2722]] his congressional office, dated July 28, 1988. In this
press release, Mr. Gingrich demands that the special counsel appointed
to investigate House Speaker Jim Wright be given carte blanche
authority. Let me point out that this special counsel was appointed
under a Democratic Congress with the consent of the then-Speaker, Jim
Wright. I quote from this press release:
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 position in America. Clearly this
investigation has to meet a higher standard of public
accountability and integrity.
So far, the Speaker of the House, Congressman Newt Gingrich, has
failed to respond publicly to three charges lodged against him in the
Committee of Standards of Official Conduct, except in terms of the
vernacular that I quoted earlier, nor has he consented to the
appointment of a special counsel. It is he who placed himself in the
glasshouse 7 years ago. It is he who has raised the questions of
integrity, character, and conflict with which we now contend, and it is
he alone who can remove this cloud, not only from himself, but from the
body over which he now presides.
Newt Gingrich is third in line of succession to the Presidency,
occupying the second most powerful position in America. As such, and to
quote his own words, ``Clearly, this investigation has to meet a higher
standard of public accountability and integrity.''
Gingrich Insists on Thorough Investigation
Washington, DC.--Congressman Newt Gingrich (R-GA) today
insisted that the House Ethics Committee give the special
counsel appointed to investigate House Speaker Jim Wright the
independence necessary to do a thorough and complete job.
Discouraged by several news reports that special counsel
Richard Phelan would be restricted in the scope of his
investigation, Gingrich took a series of actions including
writing to House Ethics Chairman Julian Dixon (D-CA),
forwarding the letter to his colleagues in the House, and
speaking on the House floor on the need for a truly
independent counsel with full leeway in pursuing the
investigation.
In his letter to Chairman Dixon, Gingrich wrote:
``I have a number of concerns regarding the Ethics
Committee's contract with and instructions for the special
counsel hired to conduct the investigation into Speaker Jim
Wright's questionable financial dealings.
``First, I am concerned that the scope, authority, and
independence of the special counsel will be limited by the
guidelines the Ethics Committee has established.''
Gingrich agreed with concerns raised by Common Cause
Chairman Archibald Cox in a letter to Chairman Dixon earlier
this week. The Common Cause letter urged the Ethics Committee
to commit itself to the following measures:
1. The outside counsel shall have full authority to
investigate and present evidence and arguments before the
Ethics Committee concerning the questions arising out of the
activities of House Speaker James C. Wright, Jr.;
2. The outside counsel shall have full authority to
organize, select, and hire staff on a full- or part-time
basis in such numbers as the counsel reasonably requires and
will be provided with such funds and facilities as the
counsel reasonably requires;
3. The outside counsel shall have full authority to review
all documentary evidence available from any source and full
cooperation of the Committee in obtaining such evidence;
4. The Committee shall give the outside counsel full
cooperation in the issuance of subpoenas;
5. The outside counsel shall be free, after discussion with
the Committee, to make such public statements and reports as
the counsel deems appropriate;
6. The outside counsel shall have full authority to
recommend that formal charges to brought before the Ethics
Committee, shall be responsible for initiating and conducting
proceedings if formal charges have been brought and shall
handle any aspects of the proceedings believed to be
necessary for a full inquiry;
7. The Committee shall not countermand or interfere with
the outside counsel's ability to take steps necessary to
conduct a full and fair investigation; and
8. The outside counsel will not be removed except for good
cause.
Gingrich wrote to Chairman Dixon, ``It is my impression
from press reports that the Ethics Committee has specifically
failed to meet the Common Cause standard. Furthermore, it is
my understanding that the special counsel cannot go beyond
the six areas outlined in your June 9, 1988, Resolution of
Preliminary Inquiry. This leads me to believe that the
special counsel will not be allowed to investigate the
questionable bulk purchases of Mr. Wright's book,
``Reflections of a Public Man,'' as a way to circumvent House
limits on outside income.
``I am particularly concerned that the unusual purchases by
the Teamsters Union, the New England Mutual Life Insurance
Co., a Fort Worth developer, and a Washington lobbyist will
not be investigated.
``I believe many will perceive this action as an attempt by
the Ethics Committee to control the scope and direction of
the investigation.''
Gingrich requested a copy of the contract arranged between
the Ethics Committee and Mr. Phelan. He also asked to know
the extent of Mr. Phelan's subpoena power.
Gingrich said, ``The House of Representatives, as well as
the American public, deserve an investigation which will
uncover the truth. At this moment, I am afraid that the
apparent restrictions placed on this special counsel will not
allow the truth to be uncovered.
``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 the 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.''
____________________