[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 190 (Thursday, November 30, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H13846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                REMOVE THE ETHICAL CLOUD FROM THE HOUSE

  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, the question this afternoon is how long our 
Republican colleagues will be able to hold the lid down on the pressure 
cooker, the pressure cooker of the desires of the people of this 
country to see justice, to see the ethical cloud removed from the 
operations of this Congress.
  Today, we have seen that it will take a little bit longer, for, for 
the second time, this Congress has refused to even discuss in the light 
of day whether a committee of this Congress should come forward and 
tell us what it has been doing for the last 14 months with regard to 
charges concerning the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that our Republican colleagues can hold that 
pressure cooker lid down. They can stand on it. They can sit on it. 
They can jump up and down on it. But sooner or later, enough people in 
this country are going to care about the operations of this House and 
the ethics of this House that they are going to demand a report and 
demand action.
  We see the same concern with reference to the broader issue of the 
way all Members, the Speaker, myself, every Member of this institution, 
gets to this body with reference to the cost of campaigns.
  All over this country, people are expressing their concern about the 
operation of the campaign finance system. I think they are pleased that 
despite the Speaker, we moved forward and banned gifts from lobbyists 
to Members of this Congress. They are pleased that despite the Speaker 
holding at his desk for month, after month, after month, a lobby reform 
bill, there was finally enough pressure built up that the lid came off 
that pressure cooker and we passed a lobby reform bill this week, 
despite his effort.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the big issue is campaign finance reform and 
whether there will be enough public interest to do something about 
that. The Speaker shook hands with President Clinton back in June in 
New Hampshire. They smiled at each other, it was a nice moment, and 
agreed that they would do something about campaign finance reform and 
what did they do? Well, the Speaker waited from June until November and 
then he came along and said, ``You know what we need is a commission to 
study this.'' A stall commission to delay it past the next election. 
Then the Speaker went on to elaborate in testimony in front of a 
committee of this House that what we need is not less money in the 
political process; we need more money. The Speaker said there is less 
money going into all these campaigns than the equivalent of two 
antiacid campaigns.

                              {time}  1530

  I think that is enough to give Americans heartburn, as they think 
about the future of our political system and the ethics of our system. 
If they had reason for concern, they certainly have reason for concern 
today when they look at papers across this country and reports about 
the improper activities of GOPAC, a committee that--essentially the 
``go'' in GOPAC meant it was OK to go beyond the law.
  In fact, after reading these stories, I now understand why it is that 
the Speaker thinks we need more money in the political process, that we 
are not spending enough on campaigns. That is because he has had a 
little more all along. He has had a little more through an organization 
called GOPAC that did not bother to comply with the Federal election 
laws, that according to the documents filed by the Federal Election 
Commission in Federal court here in Washington, apparently spent a 
quarter of a million dollars to benefit him in his reelection campaign 
a few years ago, an election campaign that he just barely made it back 
to this Congress, a pretty nice sum of additional money, maybe enough 
to promote antacid in Georgia, but certainly enough to get a person 
reelected outside and improperly, under our laws.
  Let me just speak a little bit about those court documents and quote 
from some of them. The Federal Election Commission told the Federal 
judge here in Washington:

       Hiding the identity of large contributors to organizations 
     associated with elected officials and Federal candidates 
     creates the appearance of corruption and makes enforcement of 
     the act's other provisions unnecessarily difficult.

  This is exactly what GOPAC did. I am quoting the FEC on this.
  It did it for the avowed purpose of electing a majority of 
Republicans to the U.S. House of Representatives.
  GOPAC's failure to register and file disclosure reports creates the 
appearance of corruption, and it is that appearance of corruption that 
the American people are learning about and eventually, no matter how 
many people you put on top of that pressure cooker, that lid is going 
to explode, and the demands of the American people for justice on this 
matter are going to be realized.
  I refer again to the documents filed in Federal court here by the 
Federal Election Commission. It said that, unlike the Republican 
National Committee and the other two Republican Party committees, where 
Gingrich's idea might be too controversial, GOPAC could be as bold as 
it wanted to be, and its only restriction was whether or not its donors 
wanted to keep donating.
  The only restriction on this issue is whether the American people 
will speak up firmly enough to demand we have justice both on the 
ethics charges against the Speaker and on the need to see that this 
kind of GOPAC big spending is ended.

                          ____________________