[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 46 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1699-H1702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PRIDE IN THE SPEAKER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Metcalf). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] 
is recognized for 30 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on an issue that is not 
only important to me but also I think very important to this Chamber 
and also very important to the people of America.
  I could not help but take note of the statements of our previous 
speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] on the problems 
that we are having right now with China, with the influence peddling.
  Of course, Mr. Cunningham brought up some very good points but also 
some very disturbing points about possible influence that Communist 
Chinese have been seeking in the United States of America.
  We, of course, have been reading with horror over the past few weeks 
some of the concerns about investigations of people looking into 
scandals on whether this White House actually sold access to the 
Communist Chinese. That is something that we all have to be paying very 
close attention to, especially in this body, because of the 
constitutional role that we play, the oversight that we play. Nothing 
has been proven yet. I think that is very important to say. But at the 
same time the gentleman from California brings up some very good points 
and some points that we have to be concerned about.
  I do want to say that one of the things that has disturbed me over 
the past few months, as we have been talking about some of the scandals 
that have been arising concerning the dealings with China and 
concerning other scandals that have just been absolutely horrifying to 
me as a United States Representative and as an American and as a 
father, are some of these moral equivalency arguments that have been 
trotted out there.
  At times we have been told that the possibility of selling access to 
China, the possibility of a lot of these other things that have been 
going on somehow is morally equivalent to what the Speaker was charged 
with earlier. I have been outrages for quite some time at that, because 
history will plainly show, and the Speaker's critics certainly know 
this even though they make disingenuous arguments, that there is no 
moral equivalency.
   The Speaker submitted 50,000 documents to the Ethics Committee, told 
the truth in those documents, but the fact is that one of those 50,000 
documents contradicted another statement that he had made in the 
document production to the Ethics Committee. Because of that, he agreed 
to a fine that today he decided to take care of.
  Let me just say that I am here today to praise the Speaker of the 
House for what he decided to do in bringing, I believe, honor on this 
House. I can tell you right now, the Speaker and certainly others know 
that I have always spoken my mind when addressing the Speaker of the 
House.
  Two weeks ago, I did it in a very, very public way, in a very public 
confrontation. And I even suggested that if things did not change 
regarding the direction of the House leadership, that we might have to 
look in new directions. I have been very pleased with what has been 
going on for the past few weeks, but I also have said that if things go 
wrong again in the future, I will speak my mind again.
  So tonight I come here not as a mindless cheerleader of the Speaker, 
not as a political lap dog or a party line parrot, but instead as a 
U.S. Congressman, as an American citizen, and as a father who is proud 
of what the Speaker of the House did today.

  I believe in his actions today that his character really did shine 
through, and it is so difficult teaching my two boys about character 
when there seem to be so few people in public view that seem to be 
worthy of emulating. But when I teach my 9-year-old boy, Joey, and my 
6-year-old boy, Andrew, about accountability and personal 
responsibility and stepping up to the plate and looking somebody in the 
eye and being straightforward with them and taking full accountability, 
I will give the example of what the Speaker of the House did today on 
April 17, 1997.
  I wanted to read a release that talks about what he did. It said, in 
an example of accountability, Newt Gingrich announced that he will 
reimburse taxpayers in full, using $300,000 of his own personal funds. 
In order to fulfill his promise, Gingrich has secured a loan from Bob 
Dole to be repaid in full in a timely manner. The Speaker said, my wife 
and I, Marianne, decided that whatever the consequences, we had to do 
what was best, what was right, morally and spiritually. We had to put 
in 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, and that is why we came to the conclusion of our own 
choice, without being forced, that I have the moral obligation to pay 
the $300,000 out of personal funds and 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.
  Now, let me just say that as a practical matter, I do disagree with 
what the Speaker did today. But let me qualify that. I disagree because 
of the precedent that it might set. But at the same time I am very 
proud that he recognized that it might set a bad precedent in the 
future and, therefore, he wants to bring about a resolution that would 
take care of that, but, more importantly, for he and his wife and his 
family's future, this could have some very devastating consequences. 
But he decided that at this point in history, that it was the best 
thing to do, not for himself, not for his party, but for the U.S. 
Congress and for America.
  We do live in a very, very cynical age. I am absolutely horrified 
when I read accounts in the newspaper of how Americans believe that 
White Houses have always sold access to the Lincoln bedroom. I am 
absolutely shocked when I hear that Americans believe

[[Page H1700]]

that Presidents have always sold access to Air Force One and used it as 
a reward.
  I am horrified when I hear that Americans actually believe that 
everybody does it, that everybody sells access, that everybody is 
willing to open themselves up to foreign influence, that everybody is 
willing to possibly change foreign policy based on money coming in.
  That is not the case. No other administration has ever done things to 
the level that this administration has. And that is an undisputed fact.

                              {time}  2030

  I think that had to weigh heavily on the Speaker's mind, because when 
the Speaker of the House came forward and made his decision, it was not 
something he had to do.
  The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, in fact, told him he 
could repay it any way he wanted to under certain guidelines, that it 
did not have to come out of personal funds.
  In fact, if you look back to the history, the 200-year history of the 
House of Representatives, the fact that he was even fined for this 
mistake, for this technical error, and that is what it was, is 
unprecedented, has never occurred before, and the only time that 
someone is to pay based on a mistake is when that person made a 
financial gain because of ethical violation.
  And not one person has been able to come forward with a straight face 
and say that the Speaker of the House gained one penny based on his 
attorney's technical error.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Will the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] 
yield for one moment?
  The gentleman I think has mischaracterized the term ``fine'' with a 
voluntary payment, and the Speaker has stated that the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct attempted to put a fine, that he would 
have fought it in court if it was a fine.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. And I certainly do apologize for that. That is just 
like last year when we heard the radicals on the left talking about 
cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts and actually we were increasing spending 
on Medicare, increasing funding for school lunch programs, increasing 
funding on just about every program that you can increase funding on 
except for military programs. Of course, the leftists, the radicals 
called those cuts and in fact they were not cuts, and I made a similar 
mistake here because there was not a fine, the Speaker was simply going 
to reimburse the American taxpayers for the investigation.
  Something else happened today, and it encouraged me, and this was 
that Senator Bob Dole stepped forward and decided that he wanted to 
help the Speaker out any way he could and offered to loan him the money 
with interest because that needed to be done for technical reasons. But 
Bob Dole, the former Senate majority leader, 1996 Republican 
Presidential nominee, issued this statement today.
  I applaud the decision by the Speaker beginning to pay with personal 
funds and taking responsibility for his actions and making this 
difficult decision despite other options for payment. He has yet again 
shown himself to be a man of integrity. And let me tell you that is 
coming from a man of incredible integrity himself as a senior leader of 
the Republican Party. I am pleased that our highest ranking official 
has chosen to set an example of accountability and ethics for the 
Nation through his words and action. For that reason and many more Newt 
is a friend, and I am pleased that I can be of assistance.
  I consider this not only an opportunity to support a friend but a 
long-term investment for the future of our party that today we bring 
this story to a close. An ever united Republican Party moves forward 
with his positive vision for the next millennium, as articulated by one 
of our most effective leaders Newt Gingrich. It certainly was a great 
statement from a great man.
  Today there was another statement from NRCC Chairman John Linder, who 
said that the Republican Party of the majority will now move forward. 
Newt will lead us to our goals of balancing the budget, improving 
safety for our schools and communities, saving Medicare and providing 
tax relief for all Americans. But he ended with an ominous warning.

  He said, knowing that the American people side with our ideas and our 
ideology, the Democrats will have nothing to do but fall back on 
vicious attacks.
  I have got to say, unfortunately, before the ink was dried on that 
statement the vicious attacks began in this Chamber. I was disheartened 
to see that they decided since they could not attack the Speaker 
because the Speaker had not only abided by the law but had gone well 
beyond what the law required, that instead they would viciously smear 
the great name of Bob Dole.
  They attacked an honorable man who fought in World War II and almost 
gave his life to free Europe from the Nazis. He left part of himself on 
the fields of Europe. He went on to fight through years of physical 
struggle and still, even through his physical struggle, served America 
for over 40 years.
  In fact, this President himself gave Bob Dole the highest honor that 
the United States of America can give to any citizen. But he was 
savagely attacked today by desperate, vicious minorities who will do 
anything to seize power, the minority. The minority party has done it 
before. They will continue to do it.
  It was interesting today, though, that the architect of the attack 
was none other than the man who a few years back said we will do 
anything we can do to destroy Newt Gingrich because we know that Newt 
Gingrich is the nerve center of the Republican Party and the 
conservative movement. He said that himself, and he continues to prove 
just how desperate the Democratic Party, let me say the radicals in the 
Democratic Party are.
  You see, over the last 2 years they have filed 81 ethics charges 
against the Speaker. Eighty have been dismissed. This one technical 
violation based on a mistake by the Speaker's attorney is the only 
ethics charge that he even had to acknowledge. Eighty out of eighty-one 
have been dismissed.
  I have got to say if one ethics charge was filed against me or other 
Members of this Chamber, it would be devastating. I just cannot imagine 
going through week after week after week, 81 charges.
  If that is not bad enough, the unions, radicals on the left and other 
organizations, spent over $100 million vilifying this man, who they say 
is the nerve center of the conservative movement.
  Mr. Speaker, I just cannot imagine what it would be like to have 81 
ethics charges filed against me over 2 years, have $100 million spent 
to personally try to destroy me, and how could I continue to fight.
  I have got to tell you, everybody in our party has said that if that 
happened to any of us we probably would not have the stamina to go on. 
I do not know how anybody does it. He has been vilified in a way that 
no other American has been vilified in the past quarter century, and 
yet he continues.
  From the first day, the gentleman from California I am sure can 
illuminate some facts on this, too, the first day the attacks began and 
they continued unabated. In fact, before he was even sworn in ever as 
Speaker, Time magazine ran a cover story and they had a cartoon of him 
dressed up as a Gingrich and the title was ``The Gingrich that stole 
Christmas.'' Now, this was before he was even elected Speaker of the 
House, ``The Gingrich that stole Christmas.''
  Do you know what is so frightening, what is so dangerous about what 
he said he wanted to do, that it would destroy the radical left's grip 
on power in Washington, DC. This is all about power because what did he 
say he wanted to do? He wanted to cut taxes for middle class Americans 
and what did that do? That took money out of Washington, DC, out of the 
hands of politicians, out of the hands of bureaucrats, out of the hands 
of Washington power brokers and returned it back to middle class 
families like mine, like yours, and like others. He wanted to pass a 
balanced budget amendment.

  That was called radical. And yet, we are $5.6 trillion in debt. That 
is the debt, my colleagues, that will be passed on to our children and 
our grandchildren, my boys, and your children.
  These were not radical concepts. They were not radical concepts, 
unless you were a radical who believed that we could continue to tax 
Americans over 50 percent for every dollar that

[[Page H1701]]

they earned and you believed that a $5.6 trillion debt was a debt that 
was sufficient enough to pass on to our children.
  And you know, the Medicare demagoguery was the worst of all. The 
President's own task force said that Medicare would be bankrupt in 5 
years.
  The Speaker, I think, did an incredible job in trying to put together 
a plan that AARP and others could agree on; and yet, he was vilified, 
again, by attack ads, by Members on the left.
  When you had the Washington Post saying it was a good idea, that the 
Democrats were engaged in demagoguery, you had the New Republic, which 
is usually a left wing magazine, saying that the Speaker was right, 
that he showed courage in trying to save Medicare, and you had Ted 
Koppel on ``Nightline'' run an entire show called ``Mediscare,'' 
talking about how the President had proposed similar reforms a few 
years ago before the Speaker did.
  And yet, the President turned around with the help of the unions and 
those on the left and savagely attacked the Speaker for trying to save 
Medicare for my father, who just had a double bypass operation, for my 
mother, for my grandparents, and for my other elderly friends and 
constituents.
  I hope that this will end. I hope that we can move forward as a 
country, and I certainly hope that this horrible chapter is over in the 
life of the Speaker because he conducted himself very honorably today. 
And I can say today that I am very honored that we did elect him again 
as Speaker of the House.
  I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] who I know 
has some comments on his dealings with the Speaker.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We have all worked for people that we respect and 
believe that have vision on both sides of the aisle. And I would like 
to state that we had our Republican Caucus just before the decision was 
made about the Speaker and before the Speaker made the decision to come 
forward to the body.
  The Speaker's own legal advisors, the special prosecutor that looked 
into the allegations, came before the caucus and told the Speaker that 
if he wanted to fight every one of the allegations in that one ethics 
violation that he would win 100 percent, he could fight them and he 
would win because they had no basis.
  And yet, the left leadership of the Democrat Party wanted its pound 
of flesh and, for them to give us a bipartisan agreement, had to have 
the extra pound of flesh and the Speaker had to agree to pay the 
$300,000.
  Knowing that he could win, why would not the Speaker do it? Because 
on both sides of the counsel, they told him, Mr. Speaker, you will win, 
but at what cost; and what the gentleman just covered, we would have 
been in the year of disruption, with the Democrats demagoguing, with 
the Democrats attacking and partisan rhetoric, because they want the 
power here in Washington, DC.

  And the Speaker's vision is what the gentleman from California was 
talking about and swore to destroy the Speaker because he was the 
leader of the Republican Party, the gentleman from Florida that did the 
same thing. And the leadership has sworn to destroy politically the 
Speaker, because he is so effective.
  I would say to the gentleman, that is wrong; and I think the American 
people think it is wrong, too. But in the face of that, when you look 
at leadership, in the face of attending to the people's business of 
saving Medicare, of providing Medicaid, and balancing a budget and tax 
reform and revising Superfund, where 70 percent does not go to trial 
lawyers, and attending to this House and its functions, the Speaker 
elected not to disrupt the House, not to have this House disabled 
because of partisan attacks, and went through personal sacrifice.
  As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] said, how many of us 
could go through a $300,000 voluntary settlement? That is a mansion in 
a lot of areas. It takes a long time. I could not pay cash for it, and 
it would be devastating.
  So when we talk about leadership, I think it is important to see the 
Speaker's vision that even at the expense of his own personal family 
and Marianne, his beautiful wife, making those decisions right with the 
Speaker, and which he blessed today, I think it is important for the 
American people to see that.
  I would also like to remind the Speaker here tonight that the 
gentleman from Missouri, the minority leader of the Democrat Party, had 
ethics violations that filed improper IRS returns that benefited him 
personally and was found to have ethics violations.

                              {time}  2045

  How did he pay his fine, quote? Out of his campaign funds. But yet 
the speaker choose not today do to that because the Speaker of the 
House should be held high, and he takes full responsibility. That to 
me, Mr. Speaker, is leadership. That is vision, and that is wisdom.
  Today the gentleman had talked about the gentleman from California 
attacking the Speaker, the same gentleman that had vowed to destroy the 
Speaker only last year, and he said that he will do anything he can to 
remove the political strength of the Speaker.
  Is that what the American people want on this body? I do not think 
so.
  The same gentleman from California attacked then Bob Dole, as the 
gentleman mentioned. Is it not a shame that the gentleman from 
California will never ever reach the heights of the accomplishments or 
the values and the respect of the gentleman from Kansas, Bob Dole, and 
neither will he ever lead this body or have the vision of the Speaker 
of the House today, Newt Gingrich.
  And I think it is important to just let me go through real quickly, 
unless you have something you would like to talk about, I would like to 
go through just a few quick points and just mention them.

  This is what the liberal left stands for in this body, the abolition 
of private property and land and application of all rents and lands to 
public purposes to be controlled by the Government. A good example: San 
Diego County, the Government owns over 54 percent. Many States have 
over 80 percent of it owned. A heavily progressive or graduated income 
tax. Abolishment of all rights of inheritance, i.e. the death tax. 
Confiscation of the property of all immigrants and rebels to centralize 
the credit in the hands of the government by means of national bank 
with State capital and exclusive monopoly; i.e., Medicare. The 
centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands 
to the State. The extension of factories, an instrument and production 
owned by the State bringing into cultivation waste lands and soil into 
government control. Equal obligation of all to work and the 
establishment of industrial armies, the unions. The abolition of the 
distinction between town and country, only the government. Free 
education for all, but yet controlled by the government. Class 
distinctions and class warfare to achieve it. Political power, 
property, properly so-called is merely the organized power of one class 
for oppressing the other.
  I would State, Mr. Speaker, and to the gentleman that yielded his 
time, I am reading from the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and 
Friedrich Engels.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his 
remarks on the Speaker, and certainly those final words do give us a 
moment to pause and consider that this is not a personality war, this 
is a war of ideas, war of ideas on who is going to control this country 
in the 21st century. It is going to be the Federal Government getting 
larger and larger, or are we going to finally go back to the ideals of 
Jefferson and Madison who said that the government that governs least 
governs best, or the ideals of Madison who said we have staked the 
entire future of the American civilization not upon the power of 
government but on the capacity of the individual to govern himself, 
control himself and to sustain himself according to the Ten 
Commandments of God.
  It is a war of ideas, a war that is being waged the way Americans 
wage wars, at the ballot box and in the halls of congress, and that is 
the genius of democracy that was passed to us from the Greeks and 
through the Romans, through the British empire up to the United States 
of America.

[[Page H1702]]

  And today as I stood here, which is the epicenter of freedom, a 
center that will ring throughout the ages, and I saw the Speaker of the 
House today step forward and give a splendid example of personal 
responsibility, I was proud not only to be an American but to be a 
Member of this Chamber.
  And I certainly was hoping that my children were watching on TV. It 
was a splendid speech. And the minority leader of the Senate, a 
Democrat, Tom Daschle, also applauded the speaker and said that he 
thought that the Speaker had done what he needed to do. And I also 
looked across the Chamber at my Democratic friends, and I saw several 
good Democrats who applauded the Speaker, who even gave him a standing 
ovation because they knew that, like I, that this was a moment that 
transcended mere politics, mere party labels, mere ideology, and 
instead, we were not looking at the leader of a political party but a 
man who was going to be a leader of a movement that will take us well 
into the next century.

                          ____________________