[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 153 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H9597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              SPIRIT AND LETTER OF LAW SHOULD BE OBSERVED

  (Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in an article in the Hartford 
Current dated September 27 of this year, the chair of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct reflected on the committee's inquiry into 
the complaint against Speaker Newt Gingrich. I quote, ``The letter of 
the law is not compelling to me,'' she said, ``I will work with our 
rules. Our rules have a certain degree of flexibility. My goal is to 
have a process that the committee members feel good about.''
  Mr. Speaker, the work of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct is not about Members feeling good about themselves. If both the 
spirit and the letter of the law are not compelling and relevant to 
each and every inquiry undertaken by this important committee, then we 
have lost sight of the purposes of its function.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. EHLERS. Point of order.
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. The inquiry into the Speaker's actions and 
the issue of whether to hire outside counsel are critically important 
to this institution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Will the gentleman suspend.


                             point of order

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] 
will state his point of order.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is addressing a matter 
currently under consideration by the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, and under House rules that is not permitted.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  Mr. Speaker, on March 8 of this year, Speaker Gingrich himself 
announced a new policy concerning speech on the House floor. Let me 
quote directly, for your consideration in making this ruling, his 
comments on March 8.
  He said, and I quote, ``The fact is, Members of the House are allowed 
to say virtually anything on the House floor. It is protected and has 
been for 200 years. It is written into the Constitution.''
  Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me, in view of the Speaker's own words, 
that comments about the Speaker and about ethics on the floor of this 
House are certainly within the rules of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan wish to be 
heard?
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, that point that was just made has been made 
a number of times. The point is simply the rules of the House prevent 
us from speaking about matters which are under consideration in the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and the speaker was out of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Wise] wish to be heard?
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, yes, I wish to comment. As I understood the 
remarks of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Johnston], they were 
directed at the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the 
process it is undertaking. Those remarks also went to a general process 
and, as I think he specifically referred to, proceedings affecting any 
Member.
  Mr. Speaker, certainly I would hope that the general conduct of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct would be a proper subject 
for discussion here on the House floor.
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if I may further address the 
inquiry, I agree with the last speaker. I was inquiring and 
investigating the process of the committee itself, and not into the 
specific inquiry of the Speaker. I think if the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Ehlers] listened closely, the gentleman would see the distinction 
of his complaints last week and the freedom of speech.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if I might be heard further on the point of 
order. In consideration of the rules, particularly as it relates to the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I believe that the rules do 
refer to certain proceedings in front of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct being secret.
  But, Mr. Speaker, when the chairwoman of the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct comments publicly and repeatedly in the newspapers 
on this subject, surely there is an exception within our rules to 
permit our Members to comment on the proceedings in front of that 
committee when she is, herself, speaking about the Committee on 
Standards and Official Conduct and how it is disregarding its own 
rules.

  Mr. EHLERS. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point 
of order raised by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers]. The Member 
is reminded not to refer to matters currently pending before the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and 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 a question 
of the privilege of the House.
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, their fair adjudication depends 
on a serious and faithful reading of the rules and the laws that govern 
our conduct. Anything less is totally unacceptable.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this. Your 
ruling to the speaker in the well, was your ruling that we cannot speak 
or address on this floor matters pending before the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct, or are we allowed to speak about the 
ethics process, which is published in the ethics rules that we all 
receive and is a public document?
  Mr. Speaker, are you ruling that we cannot even speak about the 
process, if we disagree that the process is not being properly followed 
out? We are now gagged and cannot talk even about the process?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair's ruling speaks for itself. Let me 
repeat that ruling. Members are reminded not to refer to matters 
currently pending before the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. So we can 
speak about the process? Is that your ruling? It is OK to speak about 
the process of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members can speak about the process, but 
should refrain from speaking about matters that are pending before the 
committee.

                          ____________________