[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 46 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1627-H1629]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of personal privilege.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I am standing here in the People's House 
at the center of freedom, and it is clear to me that for America to be 
healthy, our House of Representatives must be healthy. The Speaker of 
the House has a unique responsibility in this regard.
  When I became Speaker of the House, it was the most moving day I 
could have imagined. It was the culmination of a dream. Little did I 
know that only 2 years later, I would go through a very painful time.
  During my first 2 years as Speaker, 81 charges were filed against me. 
Of the 81 charges, 80 were found not to have merit and were dismissed 
as virtually meaningless. But the American public might wonder what 
kind of man has 81 charges brought against him?
  Under our system of government, attacks and charges can be brought 
with impunity against a Congressman, sometimes with or without 
foundation. Some of these charges involved a college course I taught 
about renewing American civilization.
  I am a college teacher by background. After years of teaching, it 
never occurred to me that teaching a college course about American 
civilization and the core values that have made our country successful 
could become an issue. However, as a precaution, I received the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's approval in advance for 
teaching the course, and I accepted no payment for teaching the course.
  Nonetheless, the course became embroiled in controversy. The most 
significant problem surfaced not from teaching the course but from 
answering the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's inquiries.
  Before the 1994 election, the committee asked questions, and I 
submitted a letter in response. The committee agreed that this letter 
was accurate. Later, I hired a law firm to assist me in answering 
additional questions coming from the committee. A letter developed by 
the law firm became the heart of the problem. I signed that letter, and 
it became the basis for a later, longer letter signed by an attorney. I 
was deeply saddened to learn almost 2 years later that these letters 
were inaccurate and misleading.
  While the letters were developed and drafted by my former attorneys, 
I bear the full responsibility for them, and I accept that 
responsibility.

[[Page H1628]]

  Those letters should not have been submitted. The members of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct should never have to worry 
about the quality and accuracy of information that that committee 
receives. Mainly because these two letters contradicted my own earlier 
and correct letter, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
spent a great deal of time and money to figure out exactly what 
happened.
  For this time and effort, for which I am deeply sorry and deeply 
regret, I have agreed to reimburse the American taxpayers $300,000 for 
legal expenses and costs incurred by the committee in its 
investigation.
  It was the opinion of the committee and my own opinion that had 
accurate information been submitted in those two letters, the 
investigation would have ended much sooner with less cost to the 
taxpayer. It was not based on violation of any law or for the misuse of 
charitable contributions. There was no finding by the committee that I 
purposely tried to deceive anyone. To me, it simply seemed wrong to ask 
the taxpayers to pay for an investigation that should have been 
unnecessary. That is why I voluntarily agreed to reimburse the 
taxpayers.
  Never before in history has a Member of Congress agreed to be 
responsible for the cost of an investigation conducted by a committee 
of the House. This $300,000 reimbursement is not a fine, as some have 
asserted. The settlement itself and the report of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct makes it clear that it is a reimbursement 
of legal expenses and costs only.
  The committee and its special counsel did not stipulate how the 
reimbursement should be paid. One option is to pay completely with 
campaign funds. As a matter of law, the attorneys tell me there is 
little question that my campaign has the legal authority under existing 
law and committee rules to pay the reimbursement.
  The second option is to pay by means of a legal defense fund. The 
committee has previously determined that Members may set up such a 
fund.
  A third option is to sue the law firm and apply the proceeds to the 
reimbursement.
  And the fourth option is to pay completely with personal funds.
  As we considered these options, we sought to do what was right for 
the House as it relates to future precedents and for reestablishing the 
trust of the American people in this vital institution. My campaign 
could have paid the entire amount, and it would have been legal and 
within past precedents of the House. Yet, on reflection, it was clear 
that many Americans would have regarded this as another example of 
politics as usual and of avoiding responsibility.

                              {time}  1200

  A lawsuit against the lawyers who prepared the two documents is a 
future possibility for me as a citizen, but that option could take 
years in court. A legal trust fund was in many ways the most appealing. 
There is more than adequate precedent for such a fund. Many friends 
from across the entire country had called to offer contributions. Many 
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle felt that this was the 
safest approach. Yet on reflection it was clear that a legal trust fund 
would simply lead to a new controversy over my role.
  I have a higher responsibility as Speaker to do the right thing in 
the right way and to serve responsibly. I also must consider what the 
personal payment precedent would mean to this House as an institution. 
Many Members in this Chamber, on both sides of the aisle, have raised 
serious concerns, citing the fear that a personal payment will 
establish a precedent that could financially ruin Members who were 
assessed costs incurred by special counsels. In the current 
environment, who could feel safe? There should be no precedent that 
penalizes the spouses and children of our Members, but that is what 
this option could effectively do. This is something we must address.
  Yet the question still remains. What is the right decision for me and 
my wife personally, for my family, for this institution, and for the 
American people?
  Marianne and I have spent hours and hours discussing these options. 
She is here too today. Let me just say that I have never been prouder 
of Marianne than over the last few months. Her ability to endure the 
press scrutiny, to live beyond the attacks, to enjoy life despite 
hostilities, has been a remarkable thing to observe and a wonderful 
thing to participate in. But she always came back to the same key 
question: What is the right thing to do for the right principles? 
Through the difficult days and weeks as we reviewed the options, it was 
the courage of her counsel which always led me to do my best. Marianne 
and I decided whatever the consequences, we had to do what was best, 
what was right, morally and spiritually. We had to put into perspective 
how our lives had been torn apart by the weight of this decision. We 
had to take into account the negative feelings that Americans have 
about government, Congress, and scandals. We had to take into account 
the responsibility that the Speaker of the House has to a higher 
standard.
  That is why we came to the conclusion, of our own choice without 
being forced, that I have a moral obligation to pay the $300,000 out of 
personal funds; that any other step would simply be seen as one more 
politician shirking his duty and one more example of failing to do the 
right thing.
  Therefore, as a person of limited means, I have arranged to borrow 
the money from Bob Dole, a close personal friend of impeccable 
integrity, and I will personally pay it back. The taxpayers will be 
fully reimbursed. The agreement will be completely honored. The 
integrity of the House ethics process will have been protected. This is 
my duty as Speaker, and I will do it personally.
  I will also ask the House to pass a resolution affirming that this is 
a voluntary action on my part and that it will establish no precedent 
for any other Member in the future. It is vital that we not go down the 
road of destroying middle-class Members by establishing any personal 
burden in a nonjudicial system.
  It is important to put decisions about politics and Government in 
perspective. This past year I have experienced some personal losses. I 
lost my father, and my mother lost her husband of 50 years. My mother, 
due to serious health problems, is being forced to move into assisted 
living. My mother has lost her home, her husband, and her life as she 
knew it.
  This week before making this decision I visited my mother in her 
hospital in Harrisburg. I should say she is now out and is in the 
assisted living facility. I asked her how she could handle these 
setbacks with such a positive attitude. She said,

       Newtie--she still calls me that. I do not think I am ever 
     going to get to Mr. Speaker with my mother--she says, Newtie, 
     you just have to get on with life.

  Coming back from Harrisburg, I realized that she gave me strength and 
made me realize that for Marianne and myself, moving on with our lives, 
in the right way, by doing the right thing was our most important goal.
  Let me make clear: We endure the difficulties, and the pain of the 
current political process, but we believe renewing America is the great 
challenge for our generation. I said on the day I became Speaker for 
the second time that we should focus on the challenges of race, drugs, 
ignorance and faith. Over the past few months, I have met with 
Americans of all backgrounds and all races as we discussed new 
approaches and new solutions. I am convinced that we can enter the 21st 
century with a renewed America of remarkable power and ability.
  This is a great country, filled with good people. We do have the 
capacity to reform welfare and help every citizen move from welfare to 
work. We do have the potential to help our poorest citizens move from 
poverty to prosperity. We do have the potential to replace quotas with 
friendship and set-asides with volunteerism. We can reach out to every 
American child of every ethnic background, in every neighborhood, and 
help them achieve their Creator's endowed unalienable right to pursue 
happiness. We cannot guarantee happiness, but we can guarantee the 
right to pursue.
  Recently, I had a chance to have breakfast with the fine young men 
and women of the 2d Infantry Division in Korea where my father had 
served. Today South Korea is free and prosperous because young 
Americans, for 47

[[Page H1629]]

years, have risked their lives in alliance with young Koreans.
  I was reminded on that morning that freedom depends on courage and 
integrity; that honor, duty, country is not just a motto, it is a way 
of life. We in this House must live every day in that tradition. We 
have much to do to clean up our political and governmental processes. 
We have much to do to communicate with our citizens and with those 
around the world who believe in freedom and yearn for freedom. 
Everywhere I went recently, in Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Taipei, 
Seoul, and Tokyo, people talked about freedom of speech, free 
elections, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, the right to own 
private property, and the right to pursue happiness through free 
markets.
  We in this House are role models. People all over the world watch us 
and study us. When we fall short, they lose hope. When we fail, they 
despair.
  To the degree I have made mistakes, they have been errors of 
implementation but never of intent. This House is at the center of 
freedom, and it deserves from all of us a commitment to be worthy of 
that honor.
  Today, I am doing what I can to personally live up to that calling 
and that standard. I hope my colleagues will join me in that quest.
  May God bless this House, and may God bless America.

                          ____________________