[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.''
     

                          ____________________