[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 124 (Friday, July 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H7974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE NEED FOR AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, we began this week hearing about how the 
House had found money for a protocol officer, the new Miss Manners. 
Many of us really questioned that. But we end this week with a whole 
raft of newspaper articles that are in the paper today saying that 
people are very concerned the House ethics committee is risking the 
charge of a coverup, in re the charges against the Speaker.
  My colleagues, if we can find money for a protocol officer but we 
cannot find money for an independent counsel, the people are not going 
to accept it. What is this? It is like pouring perfume on a garbage 
dump.
  The people out there want us to get to the bottom of this, and they 
do not want some excuses about: Oops, we bungled it; oops, we made a 
little mistake; oh, my goodness, we are going to have to back away from 
this. This will not be acceptable.
  I really hope this body reads the newspaper articles and many of the 
columnists calling for an independent counsel and moves forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following article:

                  [From the USA Today, July 28, 1995]

            Gingrich Ethics Scandal Demands Outside Counsel

                         (By Barbara Raynolds)

       ``It's vital that the ethics committee hire outside 
     counsel. The trust of the public will accept no lower 
     standard.''
       That was Newt Gingrich in 1988, leading the charge against 
     House Speaker Jim Wright for an ethically questionable book-
     publishing deal. Within two months after Gingrich filed a 
     complaint, the House ethics committee unanimously agreed to 
     hire an independent counsel.
       Ironically, Thursday it was Gingrich who had to appear 
     before the ethics panel because of a book deal. He signed a 
     contract with HarperCollins to write a book about his plans 
     for revitalizing America. HarperCollins is owned by media 
     mogul Rupert Murdoch, who could benefit mightly from 
     legislation now before Congress; and Gingrich could earn 
     millions from him in royalties.
       Despite that conflict, Gingrich sense calls for an 
     independent counsel are ``ridiculous.''
       The Murdoch deal is challenged in one of five ethics 
     complaints filed by Democratic opponents. One has languished 
     for 10 months. At a closed meeting in May, the five GOP 
     members on the 10-member ethics panel voted down an outside 
     counsel, according to a Washington Post report.
       Is Gingrich above scrutiny? Allegations against him are 
     serious. At the heart of the ethics charges is GOPAC, the 
     powerful political action committee Gingrich used to train 
     and bankroll GOP candidates. ``Since 1986, it has raised 
     about $17 million, but he refuses to show us where it all 
     came from and how it was spent,'' says House Democratic Whip 
     David Bonior, D-Mich., who filed two complaints.
       A complaint by Ben Jones, who ran against Gingrich in last 
     year's election, alleges that, with GOPAC's help, two tax-
     exempt foundations organized a college course to advance the 
     speaker's political mission. Tax-exempts aren't allowed to 
     engage in partisan political activity. The complaint also 
     says congressional staff helped prepare the course material.
       What's wrong with that? If true, it means taxpayers helped 
     subsidize a politically partisan course. And much of the 
     course material is included in Gingrich's best seller, To 
     Renew America.
       Other issues not in formal ethics complaints also deserve 
     scrutiny. Gingrich has touted his reading program, ``Earning 
     by Learning,'' which raises money from private contributors 
     and gives $2 to school kids for each book they read. ``The 
     money goes to the kids,'' Gingrich said in a televised 
     lecture. Yet a Wall Street Journal article last week 
     disclosed that 90 percent of the money last year actually 
     went to Gingrich's official biographer, who runs the program, 
     and two other professors.
       Republicans on the panel, of course, have little interest 
     in probing their leader. But there may be hope. Rep. Nancy 
     Johnson, R-Conn, whom Gingrich appointed panel chair, is 
     under pressure at home to get things moving. A recent poll in 
     her state shows 78 percent of voters want an independent 
     counsel; 85 percent want open hearings.
       The ethics panel should do both, and the hearings should be 
     televised. What Gingrich said about restoring public trust in 
     1988 is still true today.
     

                          ____________________