[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E32-E33]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   HOUSE SHOULD ELECT INTERIM SPEAKER

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, January 7, 1997

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, article I, section 2 of the 
Constitution requires the House of Representatives to choose a Speaker. 
It is customary at the commencement of every Congress for members of 
each party to vote for the candidate decided upon by his or her caucus. 
Because governance of the House conforms to the democratic principles 
which undergird our Republic, there is no doubt that the votes of the 
majority will determine who shall be our Speaker.
  Today, however, we are choosing a presiding officer in unprecedented 
circumstances. Never before has there been an election for Speaker in 
which one of the candidates stands formally accused by the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct of violating the rules of the House. It 
is not my intention today to argue the merits of the charges against 
the gentleman from Georgia or what if any sanctions should be imposed. 
I focus instead on the implications of the committee's statement of 
alleged violation for today's election for Speaker, for the Speakership 
as an institution, for the House of Representatives, and for our Nation 
itself.
  The facts are these: The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
alleges that the gentleman from Georgia violated the rules of the 
House. As of this date the committee has not completed its 
consideration of the case, and no resolution has been achieved. When 
resolution does occur, it may very well involve sanctions which make 
the gentleman from Georgia ineligible to hold the post of Speaker.
  Removal of a Speaker under those conditions would be debilitating for 
the House and the Nation. It would cause chaos within the House and 
further undermine public confidence in democratic institutions. Even if 
resolution of the case against the gentleman from Georgia does not 
result in his ineligibility for the Speakership, his election as 
Speaker at this time would be inadvisable for two reasons: No. 1, the 
time, attention, and energy he must devote to his case will diminish 
the personal resources available for the discharge of his duties as 
Speaker of the House; and No. 2, the shadow of doubt and suspicion cast 
by the proceedings against him will undoubtedly fall on every action of 
the House and bring into question the integrity of this institution.
  I believe, therefore, that until the case against the gentleman from 
Georgia is resolved, the House should choose an interim Speaker. I 
reiterate my acknowledgement that the majority has the right to 
determine who that individual shall be. However, in order to ensure 
that the business of the House is conducted in an undistracted manner, 
free of

[[Page E33]]

doubts about the integrity of the institution and its governance, that 
person should be someone not involved in the ethical issues in which 
the gentleman from Georgia finds himself enmeshed.

                          ____________________