[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H35-H36]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1800
          ELECTION OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: A HISTORIC DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard several allusions throughout 
the day of the nature of the historic event in which we participated, 
the election of the Speaker of the House for the 105th session. That is 
more than rhetoric, Mr. Speaker.
  Have Members ever heard of the name of Jonathan Dayton? Jonathan 
Dayton of New Jersey was elected Speaker of the House in the fifth 
session in 1797. So when we say today's event was historical, we really 
mean it. It is a repetition of the preservation of our liberties that 
emanated from the first and second terms of George Washington and the 
Fifth Congress, which marked his exit from public service, and has run 
down to today, when we repeated the process in the preservation of 
those same liberties which they fought so hard to create for us in the 
first place.
  So the message for the day for our constituents is that the election 
of the Speaker today is a purely political process. When we say 
``political process,'' that does not demean it, because many in the 
world today will say, he is a politician, or he is involved in 
politics, denoting the worst in humanity. But the preservation of our 
liberties to which I have made reference, beginning with the First 
Congress and then reendorsed in the Fifth Congress and here today in 
the 105th, became part and parcel of our history because of the 
political process it involves.
  So we had the spectacle today of the minority Democrats nominating 
their favorite son while the Republicans chose to nominate the 
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrich. What happened? Through the 
political process, Gingrich has been elected Speaker of the House. We 
should honor that. It is the duty and right of the majority to select 
one of its own to lead the agenda for the ensuing Congress, and we have 
done so. Now it is time to put everything aside and proceed with that 
very same agenda.
  I also want to comment on some other part of the proceedings here 
today that was very important but very likely accepted by the general 
public, because we have not made it clear. When we established the 
rules of the House, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier, 
alluded to it in his prefatory remarks during the debate on the rules, 
we were reendorsing, reconfirming here today, historically what the 
104th Congress under the majority Republicans was able to fashion; and 
the 104th Congress, one step of which, in which I was personally 
involved and of which I am very proud, is the elimination of proxy 
voting in committee.

[[Page H36]]

  When I came to the Congress, I had a matter that I wanted to put in 
front of the Committee on the Judiciary having to do with the death 
penalty for assassination of the President, God forbid that that should 
ever occur, and some other features. On the first time that I proposed 
this to the Committee on the Judiciary, I was outvoted 30 to 15. 
Fifteen Republicans voted with me, two Democrats voted on the other 
side. How could I lose 30 to 15? By the use of the chairman at that 
time of the proxy vote, which he had in hand, and voted his colleagues 
on the committee no, no, no, against my proposition.
  We have eliminated that forever. The Committee on Rules was bright 
enough to be able to do so. We reendorsed it today.
  I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend for his 
very fine statement. I would say that we did a survey of committee 
chairmen and others in leadership positions on the impact of proxy 
voting, to see whether or not they liked it. It has made it, in fact, 
more difficult, but in trying to get the Congress to comply with the 
laws that other Americans have to comply with, showing up for work 
seems to be sort of a natural. We do have that.
  But committee chairmen, in the survey that we had that was sent back, 
overwhelmingly supported the idea of maintaining the elimination of 
proxy voting. My friend was entirely right on that statement. I thank 
him for his compliment.
  Mr. GEKAS. I thank the gentleman. This is a historic day. Speaker 
Jonathan Dayton in 1797, the Speaker of the House duly elected by a 
political process then in the Fifth Congress, would be proud of us if 
he were here today. We have adopted rules, put our election of 
committee people into action, and now we are prepared for the work of 
the people and the agenda of the 105th Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because we are 
about to begin the work of the people's business and all is not right 
in the House of the people. All is not right with the person who is 
supposed to lead the 105th Congress to do the business of the people. 
There is a cloud hanging over the chair of the Speaker, a cloud that 
has never existed in the history of this Chamber of the people, a 
chamber that is constitutionally charged to carry out the sacred 
business of representative democracy.
  And yet, we are asked to carry on the people's business like nothing 
happened, like we haven't swept anything under the rug, like the faint 
odor of a political deal is not seeping into this hallowed Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the time when a fellow Texan, Jim 
Wright sat up there under similar circumstances. There was a time when 
a cloud hung over his head, when the position of the Speaker, the chair 
of the third highest elected representative of the people was called 
into question.
  And, Speaker Jim Wright did the right thing. Speaker Wright did what 
was good for the House of Representatives and the Nation. He cleared 
the skies over the speaker's chair. He took himself out of the way of 
interrupting the legislative course that we now are charged with 
setting. He didn't wait for the Ethics Committee to find a stain on the 
Speaker's chair. He knew in his conscience what was best for the 
country and so does every Member in this body.
  Do we really want to begin the 105th Congress with the first mark on 
the Speaker's chair? I think not and I'm sure all right thinking 
Members feel the same. Jim Wright knew how to bow out with a sense of 
class and what a true ``higher ethical standard'' for the Speaker 
really is.
  Do we really want to return to the ``in your face'' style of politics 
on the very first day of this new Congress? Do we really want to begin 
a new Congress waiting to see what the Speaker's fate is for his 
admitted ethical transgressions? Do we really want to be lead by 
someone who is destined to be disciplined by the 105th Congress?
  I respectfully submit that the example of former Speaker Jim Wright 
is one that needs to be the model for this righteous body. Anything 
less is an insult to the dignity and the integrity of the office of 
Speaker.
  Mr. Wright acted on behalf of his country and stepped aside, Mr. 
Gingrich also knows the right thing to do.

                          ____________________