[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 147 (Wednesday, September 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9251-H9252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE

  (Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, ``I am concerned that the scope, 
authority and independence of the special counsel will be limited by 
the guidelines the Ethics Committee has established. 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. Clearly, 
this investigation has to meet a higher standard of public 
accountability and integrity.''
  Prophetic words, indeed, Mr. Speaker.
  These are the words of the current Speaker of the House in 1988 
referring to the investigation of a former Speaker of this House.


                             point of order

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I made the point yesterday with precisely 
the same speaker that it is out of order, according to the House rules, 
to discuss a matter that is pending before the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the words, every single word 
except for ``prophetic words, indeed,'' Mr. Speaker, that I spoke were 
the words that the current Speaker spoke in 1988. This is not a 
reference to the current investigation or the current Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will read the following statement:

       The Chair has consistently ruled that it is not in order 
     during debate to refer to the official conduct of other 
     Members where such conduct is not under consideration in the 
     House by way of a report from the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct or as a question of the privileges of the 
     House.
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I do so so that, when I speak, I will 
understand the parameters of that.
  As long as the focus is on the powers of a special counsel rather 
than a particular inquiry before the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, it would not be out of order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman referred to a particular 
inquiry pending before the committee.

[[Page H 9252]]

  Mr. DOGGETT. But he can refer to the powers of the committee and the 
general subject of ethics?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would judge those references when 
they are made.


                            points of order

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her point of 
order.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I just want a further clarification.
  The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] is saying he is talking about 
a precedent of prior investigations. He is discussing precedents that 
were discussed in this House at prior times. Therefore I am not quite 
sure I understand, under the Speaker's guidance, why he is not allowed 
to proceed with the precedent and a statement made in 1988. He is not 
talking about an individual in 1995.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members should avoid references to current 
investigations pending before the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Further point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Is the Chair saying then no discussion can be made of precedents, and 
past cases, and how the House proceeded on those past cases?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Not if related to current matters.
  Mr. HOKE. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  It was clear that the Member had not referenced what he was speaking 
to. He was clearly alluding to a current investigation that was taking 
place.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has already ruled that the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] should not refer to the current 
investigation.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying this 
House and the Speaker cannot tolerate a double standard. What is good 
for the goose is good for the gander.


                          ____________________