[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 183 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H13282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    AN INJUSTICE CENTERED ON SILENCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we can have a legitimate dispute over 
matters such as that which we just heard, knowing a different 
perspective on some of these issues, knowing that the whole idea of 
middle class to at least one of our Republican colleagues was that 
those who earned even as much as $183,000 were lower middle class, but 
there are some issues that ought to go beyond partisanship. They ought 
to go beyond differences in philosophy. I think we have seen one of 
those issues presented in this House tonight.
  Of the many injustices that have occurred on the floor of this House 
this year, none, certainly, is any greater than what which we saw 
tonight. I refer to an injustice not based on what was said here on the 
floor of this House, but on what was not said.
  Usually when people on one side or the other complain about an 
injustice, they are talking about a vote that was taken and many 
speeches and debate, as we have had here today. But this was the 
muzzling of debate. This was the gagging of debate. This was an 
injustice that centered on silence, not on anything that was said. This 
injustice related to the handling of a privileged resolution that was 
presented here on the floor of the House tonight, presented by the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Harry Johnston and Mr. Peterson. It 
concerned a very important matter, that being the ethical standards 
that prevail in this House or do not prevail in this House.
  The timing of the consideration of this resolution was interesting, 
at the end of a long day of debate. The timing of this resolution 
seemed to be designed, along with the motion to table that immediately 
cut off consideration of this measure, immediately cut it off without 
any presentation of the kind of debate that we are seeing here tonight 
on matters concerning the budget, and yet, which go to the core of the 
operation of this Congress; that is, the confidence of the American 
people in the integrity of this body.
  Let me just read to you, since it was done so hurriedly, and without 
any opportunity for debate, from this resolution:
  ``Whereas the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is currently 
considering several ethics complaints against Speaker Newt Gingrich''--
and indeed, they are, there have been a number of such complaints--
``and whereas the committee has traditionally handled such cases by 
appointing an independent nonpartisan outside counsel,'' a procedure 
which has been adopted in every major ethics case since the committee 
was established, and, indeed, that is also accurate; in fact, on at 
least nine occasions, including Speaker Jim Wright, an independent 
counsel was appointed--``and whereas, although complaints against 
Speaker Gingrich have been under consideration for more than 14 
months,'' for 14 months, for every day of this great revolutionary new 
Congress those complaints have been pending and nothing has happened, 
``this committee has failed to appoint an outside counsel, and whereas 
the committee has also deviated from other longstanding precedents and 
rules of procedure, including its failure to adopt a resolution of 
preliminary inquiry before calling third-party witnesses and receiving 
sworn testimony,''--and in the section of the resolution, of course, 
referring to the rules of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct which, based on the news reports, have not been complied with.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman would yield for a 
moment.
  Mr. DOGGETT. For a question, certainly.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, is it not correct that each one of these 
complaints that has been brought against the Speaker of the House has 
been brought by a Member of the opposite party, the Democratic Party, 
the minority party?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is correct that we 
have yet had an opportunity to discuss these complaints, and, yes, they 
have. And the whole thrust of this resolution is to have someone who is 
neither Democrat nor Republican participate in an independent 
consideration of those complaints to find out if they have been 
partisan or nonpartisan. And, as the resolution so indicates, whereas 
these procedural irregularities and the unusual delay in the 
appointment of an independent outside counsel have led to widespread 
concern that the committee is making special exceptions for the Speaker 
of the House; and, whereas the integrity of the House depends on the 
confidence of the American people, and the fairness and impartiality of 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct; therefore, be it 
resolved that the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct should report to the House no later than 
November 28, 1995, concerning first, the status of the committee's 
investigation of the complaints against Speaker Gingrich; the 
committee's disposition with regard to the appointment of a nonpartisan 
outside counsel and the scope of the counsel's investigation; and, 
finally, a timetable for committee action on the complaints.
  That is to say, that the resolution did not go so far as to actually 
demand the immediate appointment of an outside counsel, but only that 
the committee come forward and report on what it has been doing 
throughout this year. Yet, Mr. Speaker, every Republican who voted 
refused to have even an investigation reported to this House on this 
critical ethical matter.

                          ____________________