[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 26, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E99-E100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 26, 2005

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, not long ago, a Congressman from Ohio entered 
into the Congressional Record a recent newspaper account concerning his 
legal proceeding against Representative Jim McDermott, my friend and 
colleague from Washington State. I was struck by this.
  This story began with two newspaper accounts over 7 years ago. If we 
are going to reflect on this, I think it is only fair that Members of 
the House and the American people have access to the same basic 
information, so they can make up their own minds.
  In this spirit, I am entering into the Record, and I would urge 
everyone to read, newspaper accounts carried by the New York Times and 
the Atlanta Journal Constitution. These stories disclosed efforts by 
then-Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich and Republican Members to skirt 
an agreement Gingrich had reached with the Ethics Committee.
  At issue today are substantial issues concerning Free Speech and 
Freedom of the Press. The Courts have yet to render a full and final 
decision. While the legal process is underway, I believe we serve this 
House and the American people best by taking the time to be fully and 
fairly informed.

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 10, 1997]

            Gingrich Is Heard Urging Tactics in Ethics Case

                            (By Adam Clymer)

       On the day in December when Newt Gingrich admitted bringing 
     discredit on the House, his lawyer told Republican leaders 
     that the Speaker had promised an ethics subcommittee not to 
     use his office and his allies to orchestrate a Republican 
     counterattack against the committee's charges.
       That was part of the price for the subcommittee's agreement 
     to accept his admission of guilt and spare him the potential 
     humiliation of a full-scale public trial.
       But that same day, even before the charges had been made 
     public, Mr. Gingrich held a telephone conference call with 
     other House leaders in which he made suggestions for a 
     statement that the leaders would issue immediately after the 
     subcommittee's charges were disclosed.
       He also suggested the timing of various responses to 
     Democratic attacks. The politicians agreed among themselves 
     how they could use their opponents' comments to attack the 
     subcommittee's findings indirectly without technically 
     violating the agreement that Mr. Gingrich's lawyers made with 
     the ethics subcommittee.
       The call was taped by people in Florida who were 
     unsympathetic to Mr. Gingrich and who said they heard it on a 
     police scanner that happened to pick up the cellular 
     telephone transmissions of one of the participants. It was 
     given to a Democratic Congressman, who made the tape 
     available to The New York Times. Mr. Gingrich's office 
     today did not question the authenticity of the 
     conversation, but insisted that it did not violate any 
     agreement with the ethics subcommittee.
       The Speaker and his allies acknowledged at the time that 
     their conversation was a bit ``premature,'' since the 
     subcommittee had not yet even voted on the charges against 
     Mr. Gingrich. Nevertheless, they talked about how to handle 
     inevitable Democratic attacks, how to time the day's events 
     with newspapers, news agencies and the evening television 
     news in mind, and--above all--how to avoid making all that 
     look as if Mr. Gingrich was pulling the strings.
       In the Dec. 21 conversation, Mr. Gingrich's lawyer, Ed 
     Bethune, said, ``it is very important for me to be able to 
     say to the special counsel and if necessary to the committee 
     members that we--and by that I mean the other attorney, Randy 
     Evans, and I, and Newt--have done everything in our power to 
     try to stop all things that might be construed in any way as 
     an orchestration attempt by Newt Gingrich.''
       Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Bethune and the others discussed their 
     tactics in a conference telephone call, a transcript of which 
     was made available by a Democratic Congressman hostile to Mr. 
     Gingrich who insisted that he not be identified further.
       The Congressman said the tape had been given to him on 
     Wednesday by a couple who said they were from northern 
     Florida. He quoted them as saying it had been recorded off a 
     radio scanner, suggesting that one participant was using a 
     cellular telephone. They said it was recorded about 9:45 A.M. 
     on Dec. 21.
       The tape, in which the voices of Mr. Gingrich and other 
     Republican leaders are clearly recognizable, was plainly a 
     recording of a conversation that took place before the 
     subcommittee released its charges and Mr. Gingrich's 
     admissions.
       The call capped a week of elaborate plea-bargaining over 
     the framing of the charges--and Mr. Gingrich's admission--
     that the Speaker had brought discredit on the House by giving 
     untrue information to the ethics committee and by failing to 
     get proper legal advice about the way he used money from tax-
     exempt foundations for a college course and televised town 
     meetings with political overtones.
       Mr. Gingrich's admission of guilt avoided a full-scale 
     trial in which the details would have been televised 
     nationally. In return, the committee's special counsel, James 
     M. Cole, insisted on a promise that the Speaker would not use 
     his allies to mount a counterattack against the 
     subcommittee's case, since its rules forbade Mr. Cole and 
     members from answering such attacks.
       The tone of the conversation was optimistic. The Speaker 
     and the other leaders believed that a coordinated response 
     could enable them to limit political fallout.
       And the talk, one of many that day, ended on a light note. 
     After the basic outlines of the statement the leaders would 
     issue had been agreed on, Representative Dick Armey of Texas, 
     the majority leader, had another suggestion for how Mr. 
     Gingrich could handle the menacing accusation that he had 
     deliberately lied to the committee: ``I am not

[[Page E100]]

     sure you are ready for this, but you could quote Larry Gatlin 
     and the Gatlin Brothers.''
       Mr. Gingrich asked, 'Which one is that?''
       Mr. Armey warbled: ``I did not mean to deceive you. I never 
     intended to push or shove. I just wish that you was someone 
     that I love.''
       Today, Lauren Maddox, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gingrich, 
     defended the Speaker's role. She said: ``Newt has always had 
     the right to run for Speaker and campaign. Any statement he 
     made was in no way undermining the work of the committee.''
       She added: ``There was a specific agreement between Newt's 
     lawyers and the special counsel that Newt could brief the 
     leadership. And it was always understood that in turn, the 
     leadership could respond in any way they thought was 
     appropriate.''
       In the December conversation, Mr. Bethune said in a couple 
     of hours, once the subcommittee announced its actions, ``it 
     would also be a time when we are authorized to have the 
     conversation that we are having now, a little prematurely. 
     But I don't think it would be troubling to anyone that we are 
     a little ahead of the gun.''
       Mr. Cole would not comment today, but the conversation 
     itself suggested that the situation at the time seemed more 
     complicated than Ms. Maddox contended.
       Mr. Bethune, who served with Mr. Gingrich in the House for 
     six years and now practices law in Washington, made several 
     efforts to outline the slippery path that all must follow. 
     One ally asked him what the leaders should say about any 
     agreement between Mr. Gingrich and the subcommittee.
       The lawyer replied: ``No. I didn't say there was an 
     agreement. I said there was a delicate process under way and 
     that this is what Newt is going to do, in response to the 
     delicate process. There is no agreement, no deal. We are not 
     authorized to say that.
       ``Now if I can be very delicate here. There is one other 
     constraint,'' Mr. Bethune continued. ``He can run for 
     Speaker, but he must maintain his confidentiality as far as 
     public statements. And then, finally, Newt will not 
     orchestrate, nor will he be--he will not orchestrate any 
     attempt to spin this in such a way that it belies what he is 
     admitting today in the statement of alleged violations.''
       But having barred one door, Mr. Bethune opened a window. 
     ``Having served as a member,'' he said, ``you know when 
     documents become public, I as a member, am entitled to say 
     whatever the hell I want to say about those public documents. 
     1 guess that applies to any of you all who may be 
     listening.''
       The men also talked about how they could use Mr. Gingrich's 
     main adversary, Representative David E. Bonior of Michigan, 
     the House Democratic whip, as a springboard to make arguments 
     that Mr. Gingrich's agreement with the subcommittee would 
     otherwise preclude.
       ``We know that Bonior is going to be having a press 
     conference shortly thereafter, alleging a bunch of things 
     that go too far,'' said Ed Gillespie, communications director 
     of the Republican National Committee. ``Once he has kicked 
     that off, that would give us an opportunity to then go back 
     and refute what he has said, and we have not jumped the gun 
     on opening and we have simply responded.''
       Mr. Gingrich praised the suggestion. ``Ed's very clever.'' 
     he said. ``Bonior, he will undoubtedly say things that are 
     not true, will exaggerate what the committee has done.''
       Representative Bill Paxon of upstate New York, a 
     coordinator of moves by the Republican leadership in the 
     House, said it was essential to have a quick response after 
     the subcommittee released its material.
       The Speaker suggested that a leadership response be put out 
     by 2 or 3 p.m., within a couple of hours of his statement and 
     the subcommittee's statement. ``I'm not an expert,'' he said, 
     but ``at that point we're in by the evening news, catch the 
     morning papers.''
       Then the group went over the statement, with various 
     suggestions offered about how to say that the Speaker had 
     never intentionally misled the ethics committee.
       The Speaker sought to end the cross talk by saying, ``Why 
     don't we pick up Ed's language: `Although there is no charge 
     that Newt intentionally misled the committee, Newt was 
     responsible for the mistakes that were made?' ''
       Ultimately, the statement as issued changed a little. It 
     said, ``it should be noted, and is clear, he did not seek nor 
     intend to mislead the committee.''
                                  ____


         [From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jan. 11, 1997]

  Gingrich Ethics Case: Panel Trusted His Motives, Gingrich Told GOP 
         Allies Tape Reveals Confidence To Seek Speaker's Post

                          (By Jeanne Cummings)

       Washington.--On the morning that Newt Gingrich admitted 
     that he provided inaccurate information to the ethics 
     committee, the speaker told his top advisers that he was 
     convinced the two Republican members of the House ethics 
     subcommittee believed it was not intentional.
       As a consequence, Gingrich moved aggressively forward in 
     his campaign to be re-elected as speaker with less fear that 
     he would later be cut down by the ethics panel.
       The speaker's analysis was laid out in a conference call 
     with his lawyer and top Republican lieutenants who were 
     drafting a statement that would downplay the offense that 
     could cost Gingrich his job: providing ``inaccurate, 
     incomplete and unreliable'' material to the committee.
       The conversation was picked up on a Florida couple's 
     scanner and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Atlanta 
     Journal-Constitution and the New York Times.
       The conference call focused on how the Republican 
     leadership should react to the investigative subcommittee's 
     findings of alleged ethics violations and the speaker's 
     decision to concede them later that day.
       When the speaker's statement admitting the violations was 
     released on a Saturday afternoon, reporters were handed the 
     GOP leadership statement just moments after subcommittee 
     members left a press conference area.
       The subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.). 
     The other members are Rep. Steven Schiff (R-N.M.), Rep. Nancy 
     Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)
       In the taped conversation, which has been confirmed by the 
     speaker's office, Gingrich said: ``I think that if the 
     committee thought I had intentionally misled them, I would 
     not be a candidate for speaker. Goss and Schiff would have 
     called me in and said, `We will actively oppose you.' ''
       House Majority Leader Richard Armey agreed with Gingrich's 
     comments and said: ``We have got to believe they have carried 
     Pelosi and Cardin as far as they can. And in that case, what 
     Newt has just said is absolutely correct. They couldn't have 
     carried them to where they are today if they were not 
     confident they could defend Newt within their own circles.''
       There is no indication on the tape that Gingrich spoke with 
     Goss and Schiff about their conclusions in the case.
       Rich Galen, a spokesman for Gingrich, said the speaker's 
     confidence came from a variety of impressions and experiences 
     throughout the investigation and not any direct conversations 
     with his two Republican colleagues.
       ``The fact that they didn't (confront Gingrich) was 
     something he drew comfort from,'' said Galen.
       Goss and Cardin declined to comment.
       Schiff said that while the speaker has extended contact 
     with the subcommittee members during his two appearances 
     before them, ``there was no external contact.''
       Pelosi said: ``Any characterization of how we ended up 
     where we did is something the leadership could not know.''
       The discussion among Gingrich and his advisers that leads 
     to his remarks about the ethics subcommittee members begins 
     when Gingrich Chief of Staff Dan Meyer asks Gingrich's 
     attorney Ed Bethune if it would be appropriate to include a 
     sentence in the leadership statement saying that the speaker 
     did not intentionally mislead the committee.
       ``It seems that members need to understand that and it then 
     will be fine,'' Meyer inquired.
       Noting that Gingrich had an agreement with the subcommittee 
     not to coordinate an effort to undermine his own admissions, 
     Bethune said, ``Newt cannot be part of crafting any such 
     statement.''
       However, Bethune said ``a member of Congress having 
     received those documents can say anything they want to.''
       The leadership then agreed to include a sentence in their 
     statement that ultimately read: ``It should be noted, and is 
     clear, he did not seek nor intend to mislead the committee. 
     We look forward to working with him as speaker following his 
     re-election on January 7.''

                          ____________________