[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5598-H5603]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               REGARDING THE ETHICS PROCESS IN THE HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the Speaker very much for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I take the floor really rather sadly, because as we get 
ready to go home for Memorial Day break, I want to talk a bit about a 
letter that a group of us feel we have been forced to sign, and I think 
we would like to talk a bit about why we feel that we were forced to 
sign this letter. We certainly hope something is going to be done about 
this letter when we come back.
  This letter was addressed to both Nancy Johnson and Jim McDermott, 
care of the Committee on Ethics, and it is about the issue of the 
pending matters in front of the Committee on Ethics that appear, 
according to news printed stores, to be in deadlock.
  You know, we started this year with the big check, the big check that 
we saw from Rupert Murdoch going to the Speaker for $4.5 million. And 
then, all of a sudden the Speaker said oh, no, no, no, we tore up that 
deal, and it is only going to be $1, and he would not sign the contract 
until there was some agreement with the Committee on Ethics about this.
  Well, we still have not heard anything from the Committee on Ethics 
that this has been approved, and yet today we saw announcements that he 
was going off on a 35 city tour come August break, sponsored, I assume, 
by the same company that is doing the book. And there are an awful lot 
of issues around that.
  Congressman Doggett and I are going to talk a bit about this, because 
I think one of the real resources we have in this House is the 
gentleman from Texas, who I believe was not only on the supreme court, 
but was head of the Committee on Ethics.
  Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentlewoman will yield, I do approach this whole 
issue from a little different perspective from some of my colleagues 
who have been here for a longer time, coming here new, having at the 
beginning of this year just finished up a 6-year period on the Texas 
Supreme Court, chairing its Ethics Task Force, wanting to be sure that 
this process is fair to the Speaker or to anyone else who might be 
accused in this body of ethical lapse, ethical wrongdoing.
  I have not participated in any of the earlier letters or the press 
conferences, because it had been my hope that this ethics process, 
which is set up to be a nonpartisan and I think has been nonpartisan in 
the past, would operate, would provide due process.
  Yet almost from the outset, the response to the complaints that have 
been filed there from the Speaker has been one of attempting, instead 
of really providing a reasonable defense, has been one of attacking the 
accuser, even to the point of intimidation, of saying well, we will 
pass legislation here that would require anyone who complains about 
ethics to pay the attorney's fees of the person against whom the 
complaint is made.
  That seems to me to be the kind of special legislation that serves to 
intimidate, rather than to clarify and to ensure that this House meets 
the highest ethical standards that I think this Nation has a right to 
demand.
  Then, leaving and entrusting this responsibility to the Committee on 
Ethics, we were first told they were just too busy, because they had 
their contract on America and they did not have time to look at the 
contract with Rupert Murdoch; that there was not time enough to pass 
the contract and consider that other contract, that $4.5 million book 
deal that was looming out there. They did not have time to consider 
that.
  So we waited through the 100 days for the contract to be passed, and 
justice was really delayed. Then the congressional recess came along. 
Well, we are taking a little vacation. We do not have time to look at 
these very serious ethical charges against the Speaker over the book 
deal because of the fact that we are on recess. So justice was again 
delayed.
  Now apparently justice is going to be delayed through another 
congressional recess with the chair of the committee saying that it 
will be sometime after Memorial Day, and I would inquire of the 
gentlewoman, apparently there is some discussion in the Washington Post 
that there is a deadlock and the goal may be justice delayed, justice 
denied by never giving us an answer on these very serious charges that 
we wanted the Speaker to have due process. But process is due now to 
respond to these charges, is it not?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for his insight on this, 
because you are fresher from the outside, having dealt with these 
issues in other forums. I must say to those of us who have more gray
 hair and have been around this is puzzling, because for those of us on 
the inside, we have no idea whether this is justice denied or delayed, 
or is this justice totally deadlocked.

  If it is totally deadlocked, and again we do not know, because all of 
these hearings are in secret and we only know what we read in the 
paper, if it is totally deadlocked, how do we move this off dead 
center? How does anything go forward? Does this then become a way that 
our ethics rules mean nothing if there is real deadlock? Does deadlock 
give you the right to go ahead and do anything you want to then?
  So I am a little perplexed.
  Mr. DOGGETT. May I inquire of the gentlewoman, since I am new to this 
body, concerning the way these matters have been handled in this House 
before? This is not the first Speaker against whom charges have been 
made, nor is it the first Member of this House against whom charges 
have been made. When those kind of events have happened in the past, 
might you inform the House today and the American people about how the 
House has assured that there would not be a biased investigation?
  The Speaker charges bias, he says these are all politically motivated 
charges. Can you tell us what the best way is to get at those charges 
and determine whether they are blessed or whether they represent a 
selling of public office?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman from Texas makes a very good point. 
Obviously, the Committee on Ethics is half and half of each party. No 
matter what the makeup on this floor is, it is half and half.
  There have been some serious charges, as we all know, and we are not 
happy about them, but there have been serious charges in the past 
against major and senior Members around here, and everyone I remember, 
from the late 1970's on, ended up getting an outside counsel, because 
the idea was we needed to get it out of here.
  I think if you flipped it and we stopped talking about how personal 
it was here, if you moved it from under this dome and took it to the 
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and said that the President had some 
problems with his Cabinet or himself and he said he would let his own 
people decide that, that would not work. So they get outside counsel, 
too. In every prior case I remember getting outside, independent 
counsel when there has been someone of the gravitas of the Speaker.
  I would also think that everybody always says these motives are 
politically driven, or whatever. I do not know if they are or are not. 
It would seem to me if you are so sure they were that politically 
motivated and there was nothing to them, you would be more happy to get 
an outside counsel, because that would then clear the air once and for 
all.
  Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentlewoman will yield, if the real concern, the 
real motivation were to get away from politics and really get to the 
bottom and find out if public office has been sold, whether it was for 
$4.5 million or whatever the amount involved, whether there had been 
abuse of public office, whether there had been a violation of the 
ethics standards that the American people have every right to demand 
that this body, all the Members of this body, Democrat and Republican 
alike, [[Page H5599]] abide by, would not the best way to get to the 
bottom of that be to get someone, not a Member of this body, not owing 
allegiance to either party, but to get to the bottom of it, just as 
quickly as possible, and someone, of course, who would have the power 
not to take little snippets over the press or to take little sound 
bites over television, snidely attacking one's critics, but rather 
could put people under oath, ask them to raise their hand, ask them to 
place a hand on the Bible, and put them under oath, so we can know the 
truth, so that their veracity can be tested and get to the very bottom 
of the charges and determine whether they were justified or not.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I totally agree with the gentleman from Texas. I am 
very glad that he is saying that, because that to me just seems to be 
the way to solve this once and for all. It has been the way we have 
traditionally solved it over and over again. There certainly is enough 
to do in this body without having all of these other issues swirling 
around and giving this place a taint. Certainly politicians do not need 
any additional taint.
  So it seems to me that it would be very logical to get it out of 
here, so we could get on with the normal business of what is going on. 
But I must also say one of the things that I am troubled by and the 
gentleman kind of touched it, was that anyone who asked the questions 
we are asking gets attacked. That really puzzles me. Like we are not 
allowed to even speak about this. Free speech is now gone on this 
issue, that if you stand up and ask a question such as our 
distinguished whip has, there were implications that I read in some of 
the press clips today that there must have been something terribly 
wrong with the whip, that maybe he needed counseling or maybe he was 
psychologically fixated or whatever.
                              {time}  1315

  I do not think he is psychologically fixated. He is an officer of 
this House, trying to retain some dignity and ethical standards and 
have people look outside. So I suppose we are going to be accused of 
something tomorrow.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Down in Texas, it is said that, if you do not have the 
facts on your side on a case, you argue the law. And if you do not have 
the law on your side either, then you attack the attorney or the 
complainant on the other side. That seems to be what is occurring here: 
That lacking the facts to support a position, to defend a position in 
public, lacking the law, since the ethical standards are set out for 
all Members in this regard, that instead of relying on the law or the 
facts, that the Speaker chooses to attack those that complain against 
him.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. That is right. And I would like to engage with some 
more colloquy with the gentleman from Texas.
  Let me go back to this letter that he gentleman from Texas and I and 
other Members signed today, because I think it is important that we 
have the record very clear, what it is that we have put in there.
  This is going toward the city tour that was being written up. We 
asked, No. 1, whether the ethics committee had approved the book deal 
as the Speaker said that they would before he did anything and, if not, 
then how can they organize these tours before they made that decision? 
We thought that was a very important issue.
  No. 2, we were asking who pays for this tour. A 36-city tour is very, 
very expensive. Is it funded out of his advance. What is going on? We 
were told he was only going to get a dollar. I do not think a dollar is 
going get you to 36 cities. Do you know what? He has got another book. 
If you can figure out how to do 36 cities on one dollar, boy, has he 
got a book there.
  Mr. DOGGETT. There are airlines down where I come from that advertise 
peanuts fares, that you can actually fly around the country for peanuts 
or you can take somebody else along. But you are going to get a dollar 
and you can fly to 35 cities around the country.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Nobody has got that kind of fare. You cannot even buy 
a bag of peanuts most places for much less than a dollar. That is a 
real question that we have.
  People will also answer, but he is doing it on his break, so what is 
your problem? The problem is, Members of Congress are not allowed to 
take corporate sponsors and have them do their vacation and are not 
allowed to do those kinds of tours without having some kind of an 
ethics signing off saying it is okay.
  We are also asking questions about, are there any conflicts of 
interest? Who is paying for the tour and is there any conflict of 
interest vis-a-vis legislation in front of this body, because we 
understand, if it is Mr. Murdoch, Mr. Murdoch has some very, very 
important interests in this body on the telecommunications issues and 
many others.
  And then we are also asking, what other kinds of activities will he 
be doing on this tour? My understanding is under the rules you cannot 
have someone else pay for your travel around America to do political 
events So that if the gentleman from Texas were to come to my State to 
speak at universities, for example, and they paid your fare to give 
your speech, you could not do a fund raiser for me or anything else 
because then the universities would be underwriting that. So we asked 
those kind of questions, too.
  We went on to ask for more details to find out what is happening. It 
is very frustrating to have your constituents asking you these 
questions and all you can say is, well, I may be a Member but we are 
not allowed in. It is all in secret. We only know that we read in the 
paper, and we are very troubled by these things, too.
  I wanted to ask the gentleman from Texas about what he can make out 
of all of this. I know he got so frustrated he signed a letter, too.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Well, it is a very serious matter that we talk about. It 
is disturbing to not have action, to see justice delayed. But as I look 
over some of the news reports about this tour, on a lighter note, it 
sounds like one of these, a concert tour, the notion that Rupert 
Murdoch and the Speaker together have this joint venture and that this 
will be the biggest thing since the Eagles went on tour. I know they 
packed a whole stadium down in Austin, TX. I want to be sure that 
Austin gets included. I am sure you want Boulder and Denver included on 
the tour, especially if questions will be permitted so that the people 
these can ask questions about all this.
  I do not know whether they will put out T shirts for the Speaker--
Murdoch tour on not, so that everyone can share and know all the sites 
where this tour is being conducted. But it is a mighty strange thing to 
right in the middle of what is supposed to be a district work period to 
have, I guess, some major publishing company of Mr. Murdoch finance 
this 35-city tour with T shirts and promotions and whatever else might 
be involved, unless and lest anyone think as well that we lack humor in 
this or that we lack bipartisanship, I am wondering if the gentlewoman 
is familiar with today's New York Daily News.
  Today's New York Daily News quotes Kevin Phillips, a Republican 
political analyst, who says, ``You have to wonder whether Gingrich 
is''----


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter] for a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). The gentleman will 
state it.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to whether this 
discussion is within the rules of the House or outside the rules of the 
House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members should not engage in debate 
concerning matters that may be pending in the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Doggett] for a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DOGGETT. In March of this year, Speaker Gingrich announced that 
under the speech and debate clause applying to this Congress that 
Members were free to speak on any subject at any time. I am wondering 
if that pronouncement does not control in a situation that applies to 
the Speaker as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ``Speech and debate'' clause does not 
[[Page H5600]] apply with respect to the subject of the parliamentary 
inquiry just asked by the gentleman from Illinois.
  The Chair will again state that Members should not engage in debate 
concerning matters that may be pending in the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct.
  Mr. DOGGETT. One aspect that we have not discussed thus far in the 
course of this colloquy about this very serious matter with reference 
to Mr. Murdoch are the interests that Mr. Murdoch has pending here in 
Congress and has had pending during this session of the Congress.
  The gentlewoman will recall that there was a special provision passed 
here with regard to taxes, with regard to health insurance for the 
self-employed. And while that bill had a very important and salutary 
purpose, to try to help those who are self-employed with the cost of 
health insurance, since this Congress is doing little or nothing about 
the health needs of American citizens, there was a provision tacked 
into it to pay for that provision that concerned various deals with 
minority broadcasters. I am wondering if the gentlewoman recalls that 
there were 19 business transactions around this country that were 
encompassed by that provision. And when it went out of this House, the 
very body that we are speaking in, and over to the Senate, all 19 of 
those deals were disapproved.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Yes. I am aware of that. The gentleman makes a very 
good point, because that was one of the many issues that made us all 
wonder what was happening.
  As I recall, and let me ask the gentleman from Texas if this is 
right, when we went out of here, our assumption was in that bill it was 
totally clean, that we voted for a totally clean bill, and this body 
had made the decision there should be no special tax breaks vis-a-vis 
affirmative action deals that had been done like they had been done in 
the past, where people were really enriched that really were not 
benefiting by that. And then we were very surprised when it came back.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Surprised, indeed. Because though there were 19 
transactions that were disapproved, when it came back from conference 
committee, there was one deal that was approved and that one deal was 
for Mr. Rupert Murdoch. I guess just a coincidence perhaps with what 
had been going on in the dealings with Mr. Murdoch having been involved 
in book deals with the Saudis, with book deals with Margaret Thatcher, 
with book deals with the daughter of Deng Xiaoping in China, just a 
coincidence that one of the many deals that he would benefit from that 
are the subject of action in this House and this Congress of the United 
States at the same time that all of these concerns were raised about a 
book deal in this House, that he is the only one in the whole country 
who gets his special deal cut out.
  Does the gentlewoman remember the debate about that measure here on 
the floor of the House and the fact that when you say surprise, 
surprise indeed, because there was never one word mentioned. And again, 
had it not been for careful journalism, we would never have known it 
was even in there, because it did not say Rupert Murdoch. It simply 
changed a date in the bill, tucked away a hidden provision in secret, 
done in secret, never mentioned on the floor of this House, to benefit 
Rupert Murdoch and no one else.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman remembers it very well. And I also 
remember the very distinguished Senator who had put it in who believes 
in those programs. He was very candid. He said I believe in these 
programs, that is why I have put this special thing in. Being totally 
surprised it was the only one that survived and said it survived 
because she heard there had been someone pressuring for it besides 
herself that had much more prominence.
  I want to ask the gentleman from Texas, I am still not sure what was 
just said to us. I guess we are not allowed to talk about anything in 
front of the blank committee. Can we say the word?
                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Can we say ``ethics committee'' on the floor? Can we 
say the words ``ethics committee'' on the floor? Can we say the name of 
committee?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is the mention of the conduct that may be 
under consideration within that committee that is questionable.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. So we can say ``ethics committee'' on the floor?
  I have another parliamentary inquiry. Can we put the content of our 
letter to the committee in the Record at this point?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not aware of the content of 
that letter.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. So the Chair would have to preapprove. How would I 
make a motion? Would I ask unanimous consent for the Chair to read the 
letter?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The content of the letter would be judged on 
the same basis as the conduct of speech on the floor of the House.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. So how would I make my unanimous-consent request 
then? I would ask unanimous-consent to put in the Record the letter 
that we have drafted, but you are telling me it is subject to approval 
of the Chair?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The response that was made earlier stated 
quite clearly, Members should not engage in debate concerning matters 
that may be pending in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. 
And the letter would have to meet the same requirement; that is, if the 
letter addresses conduct of another Member.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, if I may go one step further. I am still 
a little confused, because there is no way the gentleman from Texas and 
I can discuss conduct or anything going on in the committee because it 
is all quiet, it is all silent, and we are not allowed in. What the 
Chair is saying is, this would be about anything going to the 
committee.
  Clearly, we cannot discuss discussions that we are not party to, we 
have not seen, and we are not allowed to participate in, even as an 
audience or as a passive listener.

                              {time}  1330

  I am perplexed. Are these new rules?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). The Chair will read 
from an annotation of clause 1 of rule XIV:

       Members should refrain from references in debate to the 
     official conduct of other Members where such conduct is not 
     under consideration in the House by way of a report of the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or as a question 
     of privilege of the House.

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if I might make a related parliamentary 
inquiry, because I referred to it generally earlier, but I would like 
to be sure that the Speaker is clear about the nature of my inquiry, 
about the rights of Members on this floor, on March 8, right here, the 
Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, said, and I quote:

       The fact is Members of the House are allowed to say 
     virtually anything on the House floor, routinely do. It is 
     protected, and has been for 200 years. It is written into the 
     Constitution under the speech and debate clause.

  My inquiry to the Chair is whether the Speaker's pronouncement 
controls in the discussion that the gentlewoman from Colorado and I are 
having, and that
 others may choose to have about the Speaker, or was the Speaker just 
mistaken in his constitutional analysis?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). The Chair is unaware 
that the Speaker has ever uttered those pronouncements from the chair 
in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I think they were just across the hall here in the 
Rayburn Room, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Chair is aware that the 
Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia, until very recently gave daily 
pronouncements there. This is a transcript, verbatim. I would not 
misquote the Speaker. I would be glad to provide the Chair, in 
connection with my parliamentary inquiry, his commitment to freedom of 
expression, which surely must apply to discussion of his own conduct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has relied on past rulings and 
statements from the Chair regarding parliamentary inquiries and not on 
statements outside the Chamber.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. So the only 
thing [[Page H5601]] we can look to are statements said inside the 
Chamber about Members' rights to discuss these issues?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Decorum in debate is governed by rule XIV, 
and there are countless annotations under that rule in the House Rules 
Manual. Those are the sources on which the Chair has to rely.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Where 
would the gentleman and I go to be able to have this discussion? Are we 
allowed to have this discussion anywhere? The gentleman and I, as I 
understand, are not allowed to go to the committee, because we are not 
members. Is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair, unfortunately, cannot treat that 
as a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I must say to the 
gentleman, I am perplexed, because apparently we cannot talk about an 
entity that oversees the rules that supposedly govern us, but we cannot 
go there and we cannot talk abut it. I am a little troubled by what we 
have just learned.
  Mr. DOGGETT. It does seem to be peculiar, Mr. Speaker, because one 
would hope and one would think that we could rely on the official 
pronouncements of the Speaker of the House concerning the right of 
Members, that he says has been protected for 200 years under the U.S. 
Constitution, to discuss matters, and that those matters ought to apply 
to him as well as to other people. In compliance with the ruling of the 
Chair, I would hope that the gentlewoman might discuss with me a little 
bit this whole question of freedom of expression.
  I certainly do not want to leave the topic of Mr. Murdoch, because 
that is clearly not covered by the Chair's rulings. I think that needs 
to be explored further, given the nature of the letter that has been 
submitted today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentlewoman, is it not truly vital to 
this institution that we be able to engage in discussions, in debate 
and colloquy, about the standards of conduct that people express? I 
know, I heard many people say last year, before I ever came to this 
body, they were not content with business as usual, that they wanted 
real change here; that they wanted constructive change, that they 
wanted Members of this Congress, certainly the Speaker of the House, to 
abide by the same ethical standards that they expected of the people 
that they went to church with and went to temple with, that they should 
have to meet those standards.
  If we cannot debate that here on the floor of the House, and we 
cannot go into the secret committee meeting that the public does not 
get a chance to observe, how can we really fulfill that responsibility 
that the American people have said ``Change business as usual''?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I stand here shaking my head with the gentleman from 
Texas, because I do not know. I must say, I am very troubled by this. I 
have never, never wanted to violate the rules of the House. I have 
never heard of this type of thing coming out, saying ``Oh, no, no, you 
cannot do that.''
  I remember when I was studying law, they used to have these things 
called the star chamber and things like that in England, and that was 
one of the things that our forefathers and foremothers came over to say 
``We are not going to do that.''
  I thought the speech and debate clause was in the Constitution, and 
it said on the House floor we could all engage in speech and debate 
about issues. However, I would certainly think issues governing the 
body that we are part of would be very important. It would almost be 
like saying to doctors, or to lawyers, ``You cannot talk about the 
ethics procedure governing lawyers or doctors.'' I hope they do, and I 
hope they as a profession are out there policing themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Doggett], did he have those kinds of laws when he was on the Supreme 
Court and when he was in the ethics--what kind of laws did he have 
about people being able to discuss issues?
  Mr. DOGGETT. To be candid with the gentlewoman, Mr. Speaker, there 
has been a tendency across this country for people to protect their 
own. One of the concerns that I had about our process in Texas was that 
it was not open enough. Our commission, the task force that I headed, 
actually recommended that the process be opened up more in Texas, 
because people would lose confidence in their judiciary, in the 
impartiality of their judiciary, if they could not see the process 
transpiring. There may be some situations with a frivolous complaint, 
where it is appropriate initially to evaluate it in secrecy. I do not 
say secrecy has no place.
  However, with matters of this type dragging on for months without due 
process, it seems to me that the public is entitled to know a little 
more, and surely the Members of this House ought to be able to come 
here in front of the American people and have a legitimate debate, 
given the history of this country and its commitment to freedom of 
expression, given the pronouncement of the Speaker himself right here 
in this building on March 8 that Members of Congress could say 
anything, and that they usually do about these matters; an intelligent, 
an incisive discussion of how it is that we can assure the highest 
ethical standards, which are demanded of the Speaker and demanded of me 
and the gentlewoman from Colorado and of every Member of this House.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I am totally agreeing with the gentleman. I am very 
saddened, because I always remember the things about Caesar's wife and 
so forth; if you are in public office, you are held to a higher 
standard. Therefore, I think it is incumbent upon all of us to engage 
in that, and to have a little sunshine.
  Government is not a fungus, it can thrive in sunshine. What we are 
saying, we cannot even get into that. I almost feel like it is deja vu. 
I am back to where I came. When I joined this body 22 years ago this 
was going on in the committee I was assigned to. It was all closed. 
Nothing ever went on in
 public. All sorts of things transpired. I remember a young freshman 
and myself would try to sit in on those Members, and they would call 
the Sergeant at Arms and threaten to drag us out, and all sorts of 
things. We got all that kind of opened up, and now I see things closing 
back down in a limited fashion. I do not think that is what the 
American people wanted to see here.

  However, I want to ask the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Speaker, let us 
just think about this. I guess we have committed a great faux pas, and 
I know there are going to be people here tracking us for the next 10 
days. We did not know we could not come here and have this discussion. 
What do you think you are going to be called, partisan, fixated? What 
do you think you are going to be called the next 10 days?
  Mr. DOGGETT. It is hard to guess. I know some were supposed to need 
to see their analysts just for having the audacity to make ethical 
complaints. I do find all this--I am still trying to learn the rules 
here as a brand new Member, not having been a part of the system that 
existed.
  If those are the rules, it seems to me we need, if within these very 
restrictive rulings it is permissible to do so, to look at those rules, 
to look at the way the ethics process is done here, and see whether we 
are really fulfilling our responsibility to the American people to 
assure the highest ethical standards.
  I suppose if there is not another opportunity to do that, and we are 
precluded from doing that here, perhaps in the midst of this tour that 
is going to take place that we have written about today, this tour that 
is like a rock star tour to go gallivanting around the country, 35 or 
36 different cities in your State I am sure, and in mine, that perhaps 
we could go out and talk with the American people ourselves during the 
course of that tour and ask them for their thoughts as to whether they 
think their elected representatives, Democrat and Republican alike, 
ought to be able to stand there on the floor of the House, ought to be 
empowered by the voters across this country to stand here on the floor 
of the House and at least be able to discuss the ethics of the Speaker 
of the House, the third most powerful person in the entire country, and 
who may think he is even more powerful than being No. 3.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has just thought of the 
perfect symbol for this tour. How about a gag, with the 35 cities, and 
we could have a gag. I think we have had a gag [[Page H5602]] order. I 
guess we cannot talk about some of the issues that drove us to sit down 
and write this letter.
  Mr. Speaker, we laugh about this, but I find it very sad, because we 
go around the world and talk about how great our country is and how 
wonderful it is, and we believe in free speech, and we believe that we 
are all big enough to be able to deal with these issues in the open, 
and we are finding, I guess, some backsliding on that; that anybody who 
asks questions gets called some names, or that all sorts of innuendo 
was made. I do not know how we are going to be able to police ourselves 
if that continues on.
  Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I do not want 
to call names, but I do think, and I want to comply with the ruling of 
the Chair, I think it is within the ruling that we do have to go back 
and take up one name, and that is Mr. Rupert Murdoch. I am not talking 
about the $4.5 million book deal. I am talking about Mr. Murdoch and 
his legislative interest here.
  We have talked about the fact that of all the
   people in the world, he is the one that got the special hidden tax 
break, the tax break this House was never told about. He made tens of 
millions of dollars that were at stake there. That has already happened 
this year. That is one gift that he has already gotten, with all the 
influence that he has with the Speaker and other Members of the House, 
is this special tax break, corporate welfare.

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman is absolutely correct. As the gentleman 
also knows, about telecommunications----
  Mr. DOGGETT. I wanted to inquire of the gentlewoman about that.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I can hardly get through the building where my office 
is for all the high-priced lobbyists.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Is it true there are more telecommunication lobbyists 
here than there are Members?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I think there are. You can tell them because they 
have better shoes. They have much better shoes.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Is not one of those key issues in the telecommunications 
bill, which I believe is being marked up, perhaps, even as we speak for 
consideration there in the Committee on Commerce, one of the real 
issues about those foreign shoes that are there, about whether or not 
the media of America are going to be owned, foreign ownership, by 
people like Rupert Murdoch?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. That is exactly right. Let us face it. There are two 
things going on here that we understand he has a great interest in. No. 
1, we understand that he has been talking about maybe being able to buy 
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or some of the programming, or 
whatever. I am not too sure I want him owning Big Bird. Big Bird was 
one of the few things that was on for my kids. That has been at least 
in the process as an interest, that he was interested in.
  He has not come and talked to me. I am way low on the totem pole. My 
average campaign contribution is 50 bucks. Murdock does not bother with 
poor white trash like me.
  The other thing that I understand that he is very interested in is 
the foreign ownership issues. We have not allowed foreign ownership of 
our communications, because we felt it was very, very important for 
national defense, for a lot of things. They are trying to change that, 
along with maybe other things that I am sure he has an interest in. 
When you get to be that big a guy, with that much money, megabucks and 
gigabucks all over the place, I am sure there are a lot of other 
interests that you and I do not know about, also. It just looks like a 
conflict, shall we say.
  Mr. DOGGETT. On the same day that the letter is filed that we are 
now, apparently, going to be denied an opportunity to talk about with 
one committee of this House, another committee of this House is there 
marking up a telecommunications bill, deciding whether Rupert Murdoch 
and other foreign interests can come in and can take over the media 
outlets which report what it is we can and cannot say on the floor of 
this House.
  That is one very big interest, in addition to the great tax break 
that he got, that the gentleman from Australia has at stake here. In 
between signing book deals, there is the matter of a few tens of 
millions here, and then I guess with the telecommunications, we are not 
talking about tens of millions or hundreds of millions, we are talking 
about billions and billions of dollars that are at stake. That is why 
all these hundreds of lobbyists are around here, is that not correct?
                              {time}  1345

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman is absolutely right. The very puzzling 
thing is there are areas where you know you should not go, the black 
areas and the white areas. Then there is this big gray area. When you 
look at this, if these lobbyists want to give you money, it must be in 
the open, it must be recorded, they must file it at the Federal 
Election Commission so you can see it. But the issue is can they give 
it to you in another way so it is way beyond the limits, like could 
they fund a tour for the gentleman from Texas of 35 cities, setting up 
public relations for him everywhere he goes. It would be worth zillions 
of dollars. Who knows what that is worth?
  But obviously they would be way beyond a campaign limit, and could 
that possible influence the gentleman? We do not know those issues. But 
those are the things that are out there and those are the things that 
trouble an awful lot of us here.
  We hear, well, people have not talked about this before. Maybe no one 
has been quite this creative, who knows? But I do not like it. I am 
frustrated by it.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I would ask the gentlewoman, there may be some people, 
and I am sure that was a concern with this letter, who view themselves 
as little more than a butler for the super-rich, the kind of people who 
go around with a tray saying, ``Here, Jeeves,'' or ``Here, whoever it 
might be,'' and for whom $4.5 million is little more than a good tip.
  When you have something at stake, and the gentlewoman mentioned the 
Public Broadcasting System, the only really quality children's 
programming in this country, and yet there are people right there in 
the well of the House who stood up and attacked it as socialist 
television, who criticized the Big Bird lobby, and yet are there not 
some of those super-rich from other parts of the world who if they can 
take over the Public Broadcasting System and can run it as a giant 
commercial enterprise instead of a truly publicly supported television 
system like we have in Texas and a public radio network, a national 
radio network that is public that all the people have a chance to 
participate in without commercial enterprise, should that happen, would 
$4.5 million for a book deal not be little more than a good tip?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman makes a very interesting point. As you 
know the gentlewoman, I think, a couple of weeks ago was called a 
socialist by a Member on the other side of the aisle, and I said to 
them, ``You can call me whatever you want. I believe in free speech. It 
doesn't bother me.'' But the interesting thing is I thought he was for 
socialism of the rich. Socialism of the rich is a whole new concept but 
that is kind of what we are seeing. How do we give these benefits to 
the rich who already have more than they should ever have?
  But I think the gentleman from Texas and I have probably been gagged 
and shut up and we probably cannot talk about too much more or they are 
going to put us away.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I suspect that that is rather true. I know the 
gentlewoman shares my commitment to a truly free enterprise system. But 
that free enterprise system relying on private capital, relying on the 
hard work of millions of American families who have made this the 
greatest country in the world, that can be perverted when people get 
special favors here and they say they are for free enterprise and 
against socialism, but they do not really want free enterprise. They 
are willing to pay out substantial amounts of money to those who would 
peddle influence in the most sacred institution of this country, who 
would pay out millions of dollars because they have billions and 
trillions at stake.
  That is the kind of thing that motivates a letter to say, let's not 
delay justice. The American people demand justice. They demand justice 
even if it involves a person who says he is the [[Page H5603]] third 
most important person in this entire country.
  I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I just want to end 
this by saying, the gentleman that preceded us in this well was talking 
about many of our veterans. It is Memorial Day that we are breaking 
for. I must say they gave their lives for this wonderful, great 
Government and not for the best Government money can buy. All we want 
to make sure is that we are not finding a new way for people to be able 
to buy this Government.
  We get frustrated with this Government, sometimes this Government 
makes us absolutely nuts, but I must say overall I will take this 
Government against any other one in the world. I am going to do 
everything I can to make sure everybody has a fair chance, everybody 
has a fair shot, and that we do not surrender to new clever ways that 
lobbyists find to get their time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am now going to turn the podium over to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  I wish everyone also a happy Memorial Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). The gentleman from 
Colorado may control the balance of the hour designated by the 
leadership.


                  constitutional rights oversight act

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to join Mr. Schiff, my colleagues 
from New Mexico and a former district attorney, in introducing a bill 
to safeguard our constitutional rights as we fight terrorism.
  The tragic bombings in Oklahoma City, 2 years earlier in New York 
City, awakened all of us to the fact that America is not immune to 
terrrorist acts. This has quite appropriately prompted the President 
and many Members of Congress to suggest additional steps to prevent 
terrorism and to make punishment for terrorist acts swifter and more 
certain. It is essential for Congress to see that we are doing all we 
should do to prevent the horror and tragedy of another Oklahoma City.
  But talk about stepped-up counterterrorism efforts has also raised 
among the public the concern that law enforcement agencies may slip 
over proper constitutional boundaries in combating terrorism, that 
their actions to keep us safe may sometimes collide with the 
Constitution's wise restraints that keep us free.
  The bill we are introducing today, the Constitutional Rights 
Oversight Act, responds to these concerns.
  The bill would establish a top-level inspector general for 
counterterrorism activities to head a new independent office, to be 
responsible for ensuring that Federal counterterrorism activities 
comply with constitutional standards.
  The most important feature of the new inspector general will be the 
cross-cutting scope of the authority of this office. Unlike the 
existing inspectors general of various departments, this new IG will 
have oversight authority for many different agencies. The new IG will 
review the counterterrorism activities of agencies as diverse as the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
  In short, this new inspector general will have the authority not 
simply to review the actions of a Department, but to watch the 
counterterrorism activities of all agencies, to assure their adherence 
to the Constitution and their full respect for constitutional rights.
  Besides the power to review, the new inspector general would have the 
power to act, in two significant ways.
  First, agencies would be required to keep this new inspector general 
informed of requests for judicial or administrative authorization for 
searches wiretaps, and similar surveillance activities. The new 
inspector general would be kept similarly informed about deportation 
actions related to the right against terrorism.
  In connection with all these proceedings, the new inspector general 
could make suggestions, or oppose the requested authorizations, to the 
extent appropriate in order to protect constitutional rights.
  Second, the new IG would receive public complaints about alleged or 
potential violations of constitutional rights. Upon receiving these 
complaints, the IG could require relevant agencies to respond.
  Finally, the new IG will be responsible for submitting periodic 
reports to the President and the Congress concerning the observance of 
constitutional requirements, and the protection of constitutional 
rights, in connection with Federal counterterrorism activities, and to 
make suggestions for improvements.
  But just as important as these particular powers I think will be the 
restraining effect of the mere existence of this new IG. The 
requirements for immediate constitutional accountability that the 
office would impose on counterterrorism, investigations should serve to 
deter any tendency a Government official might have to be casual about 
constitutional safeguards.
  Mr. Speaker, the American public has a very real stake in being 
protected from terrorism. It also has a high stake in seeing that the 
Government doesn't cut constitutional corner in providing that 
protection. We do not need to trade our constitutionally protected 
rights, including the rights to privacy, free assembly, and free 
speech, for enhanced protection from terrorists. If we should make that 
mistake, terrorism will have achieved a victory.
  As with all other law enforcement efforts in our country, in fighting 
terrorism the Government must balance the need for security with the 
rights of the people. Sadly, our history provides several examples of 
the Federal Government compromising basic constitutional rights to 
thwart perceived national security threats.
  The FBI's clandestine COINTELPRO Program provides but one stark 
example of such governmental arrogance. In the name of national 
security, then-Director J. Edgar Hoover presiding over a program of 
unauthorized surveillance and harassment of those who legitimately 
protested government policies. Given this history, there are serious 
concerns in the country about giving expanded investigative powers to 
Federal authorities.
  We are introducing the Constitutional Rights Oversight Act to help 
ensure that protection of civil liberties is part of the 
counterterrorism debate. The House should consider this measure as part 
of any counterterrorism legislation that comes to the floor. By its 
enactment, Congress can demonstrate our commitment to protecting both 
public safety and personal freedom and will provide the right response 
to the public's fears both of violence and of Government abuse of civil 
rights. A nation which so reveres its constitution deserves no less 
from its Government.


                          ____________________