H 5598 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 25, 1995

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Mr.

Lundregan, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed

without amendment a concurrent resolution of the House of the following

title:

H. Con. Res. 72. Concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.

REGARDING THE ETHICS PROCESS

IN THE HOUSE

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the Speaker’s announced policy of May

12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. SCHROEDER] is recognized for

60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the

Speaker very much for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I take the floor really

rather sadly, because as we get ready

to go home for Memorial Day break, I

want to talk a bit about a letter that a

group of us feel we have been forced to

sign, and I think we would like to talk

a bit about why we feel that we were

forced to sign this letter. We certainly

hope something is going to be done

about this letter when we come back.

This letter was addressed to both

NANCY JOHNSON and JIM MCDERMOTT,

care of the Committee on Ethics, and it

is about the issue of the pending matters in front of the Committee on Ethics that appear, according to news

printed stores, to be in deadlock.

You know, we started this year with

the big check, the big check that we

saw from Rupert Murdoch going to the

Speaker for $4.5 million. And then, all

of a sudden the Speaker said oh, no, no,

no, we tore up that deal, and it is only

going to be $1, and he would not sign

the contract until there was some

agreement with the Committee on Ethics about this.

Well, we still have not heard anything from the Committee on Ethics

that this has been approved, and yet

today we saw announcements that he

was going off on a 35 city tour come

August break, sponsored, I assume, by

the same company that is doing the

book. And there are an awful lot of issues around that.

Congressman DOGGETT and I are

going to talk a bit about this, because

I think one of the real resources we

have in this House is the gentleman

from Texas, who I believe was not only

on the supreme court, but was head of

the Committee on Ethics.

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentlewoman

will yield, I do approach this whole

issue from a little different perspective

from some of my colleagues who have

been here for a longer time, coming

here new, having at the beginning of

this year just finished up a 6-year period on the Texas Supreme Court,

chairing its Ethics Task Force, wanting to be sure that this process is fair

to the Speaker or to anyone else who

might be accused in this body of ethical lapse, ethical wrongdoing.

I have not participated in any of the

earlier letters or the press conferences,

because it had been my hope that this

ethics process, which is set up to be a

nonpartisan and I think has been nonpartisan in the past, would operate,

would provide due process.

Yet almost from the outset, the response to the complaints that have

been filed there from the Speaker has

been one of attempting, instead of really providing a reasonable defense, has

been one of attacking the accuser, even

to the point of intimidation, of saying

well, we will pass legislation here that

would require anyone who complains

about ethics to pay the attorney’s fees

of the person against whom the complaint is made.

That seems to me to be the kind of

special legislation that serves to intimidate, rather than to clarify and to

ensure that this House meets the highest ethical standards that I think this

Nation has a right to demand.

Then, leaving and entrusting this responsibility to the Committee on Ethics, we were first told they were just

too busy, because they had their contract on America and they did not have

time to look at the contract with Rupert Murdoch; that there was not time

enough to pass the contract and consider that other contract, that $4.5 million book deal that was looming out

there. They did not have time to consider that.

So we waited through the 100 days for

the contract to be passed, and justice

was really delayed. Then the congressional recess came along. Well, we are

taking a little vacation. We do not

have time to look at these very serious

ethical charges against the Speaker

over the book deal because of the fact

that we are on recess. So justice was

again delayed.

Now apparently justice is going to be

delayed through another congressional

recess with the chair of the committee

saying that it will be sometime after

Memorial Day, and I would inquire of

the gentlewoman, apparently there is

some discussion in the Washington

Post that there is a deadlock and the

goal may be justice delayed, justice denied by never giving us an answer on

these very serious charges that we

wanted the Speaker to have due process. But process is due now to respond

to these charges, is it not?

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for his insight on this, because

you are fresher from the outside, having dealt with these issues in other forums. I must say to those of us who

have more gray hair and have been

around this is puzzling, because for

those of us on the inside, we have no

idea whether this is justice denied or

delayed, or is this justice totally deadlocked.

If it is totally deadlocked, and again

we do not know, because all of these

hearings are in secret and we only

know what we read in the paper, if it is

totally deadlocked, how do we move

this off dead center? How does anything go forward? Does this then become a way that our ethics rules mean

nothing if there is real deadlock? Does

deadlock give you the right to go ahead

and do anything you want to then?

So I am a little perplexed.

Mr. DOGGETT. May I inquire of the

gentlewoman, since I am new to this

body, concerning the way these matters have been handled in this House

before? This is not the first Speaker

against whom charges have been made,

nor is it the first Member of this House

against whom charges have been made.

When those kind of events have happened in the past, might you inform

the House today and the American people about how the House has assured

that there would not be a biased investigation?

The Speaker charges bias, he says

these are all politically motivated

charges. Can you tell us what the best

way is to get at those charges and determine whether they are blessed or

whether they represent a selling of

public office?

Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman

from Texas makes a very good point.

Obviously, the Committee on Ethics is

half and half of each party. No matter

what the makeup on this floor is, it is

half and half.

There have been some serious

charges, as we all know, and we are not

happy about them, but there have been

serious charges in the past against

major and senior Members around here,

and everyone I remember, from the

late 1970’s on, ended up getting an outside counsel, because the idea was we

needed to get it out of here.

I think if you flipped it and we

stopped talking about how personal it

was here, if you moved it from under

this dome and took it to the other end

of Pennsylvania Avenue and said that

the President had some problems with

his Cabinet or himself and he said he

would let his own people decide that,

that would not work. So they get outside counsel, too. In every prior case I

remember getting outside, independent

counsel when there has been someone

of the gravitas of the Speaker.

I would also think that everybody always says these motives are politically

driven, or whatever. I do not know if

they are or are not. It would seem to

me if you are so sure they were that

politically motivated and there was

nothing to them, you would be more

happy to get an outside counsel, because that would then clear the air

once and for all.

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentlewoman

will yield, if the real concern, the real

motivation were to get away from politics and really get to the bottom and

find out if public office has been sold,

whether it was for $4.5 million or whatever the amount involved, whether

there had been abuse of public office,

whether there had been a violation of

the ethics standards that the American

people have every right to demand that

this body, all the Members of this

body, Democrat and Republican alike,
May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5599

abide by, would not the best way to get

to the bottom of that be to get someone, not a Member of this body, not

owing allegiance to either party, but to

get to the bottom of it, just as quickly

as possible, and someone, of course,

who would have the power not to take

little snippets over the press or to take

little sound bites over television,

snidely attacking one’s critics, but

rather could put people under oath, ask

them to raise their hand, ask them to

place a hand on the Bible, and put

them under oath, so we can know the

truth, so that their veracity can be

tested and get to the very bottom of

the charges and determine whether

they were justified or not.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I totally agree

with the gentleman from Texas. I am

very glad that he is saying that, because that to me just seems to be the

way to solve this once and for all. It

has been the way we have traditionally

solved it over and over again. There

certainly is enough to do in this body

without having all of these other issues

swirling around and giving this place a

taint. Certainly politicians do not need

any additional taint.

So it seems to me that it would be

very logical to get it out of here, so we

could get on with the normal business

of what is going on. But I must also say

one of the things that I am troubled by

and the gentleman kind of touched it,

was that anyone who asked the questions we are asking gets attacked.

That really puzzles me. Like we are not

allowed to even speak about this. Free

speech is now gone on this issue, that if

you stand up and ask a question such

as our distinguished whip has, there

were implications that I read in some

of the press clips today that there must

have been something terribly wrong

with the whip, that maybe he needed

counseling or maybe he was psychologically fixated or whatever.

b 1315

I do not think he is psychologically

fixated. He is an officer of this House,

trying to retain some dignity and ethical standards and have people look outside. So I suppose we are going to be

accused of something tomorrow.

Mr. DOGGETT. Down in Texas, it is

said that, if you do not have the facts

on your side on a case, you argue the

law. And if you do not have the law on

your side either, then you attack the

attorney or the complainant on the

other side. That seems to be what is occurring here: That lacking the facts to

support a position, to defend a position

in public, lacking the law, since the

ethical standards are set out for all

Members in this regard, that instead of

relying on the law or the facts, that

the Speaker chooses to attack those

that complain against him.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. That is right.

And I would like to engage with some

more colloquy with the gentleman

from Texas.

Let me go back to this letter that he

gentleman from Texas and I and other

Members signed today, because I think

it is important that we have the record

very clear, what it is that we have put

in there.

This is going toward the city tour

that was being written up. We asked,

No. 1, whether the ethics committee

had approved the book deal as the

Speaker said that they would before he

did anything and, if not, then how can

they organize these tours before they

made that decision? We thought that

was a very important issue.

No. 2, we were asking who pays for

this tour. A 36-city tour is very, very

expensive. Is it funded out of his advance. What is going on? We were told

he was only going to get a dollar. I do

not think a dollar is going get you to 36

cities. Do you know what? He has got

another book. If you can figure out

how to do 36 cities on one dollar, boy,

has he got a book there.

Mr. DOGGETT. There are airlines

down where I come from that advertise

peanuts fares, that you can actually fly

around the country for peanuts or you

can take somebody else along. But you

are going to get a dollar and you can

fly to 35 cities around the country.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Nobody has got

that kind of fare. You cannot even buy

a bag of peanuts most places for much

less than a dollar. That is a real question that we have.

People will also answer, but he is

doing it on his break, so what is your

problem? The problem is, Members of

Congress are not allowed to take corporate sponsors and have them do their

vacation and are not allowed to do

those kinds of tours without having

some kind of an ethics signing off saying it is okay.

We are also asking questions about,

are there any conflicts of interest? Who

is paying for the tour and is there any

conflict of interest vis-a-vis legislation

in front of this body, because we understand, if it is Mr. Murdoch, Mr.

Murdoch has some very, very important interests in this body on the telecommunications issues and many others.

And then we are also asking, what

other kinds of activities will he be

doing on this tour? My understanding

is under the rules you cannot have

someone else pay for your travel

around America to do political events

So that if the gentleman from Texas

were to come to my State to speak at

universities, for example, and they paid

your fare to give your speech, you

could not do a fund raiser for me or

anything else because then the universities would be underwriting that. So

we asked those kind of questions, too.

We went on to ask for more details to

find out what is happening. It is very

frustrating to have your constituents

asking you these questions and all you

can say is, well, I may be a Member but

we are not allowed in. It is all in secret. We only know that we read in the

paper, and we are very troubled by

these things, too.

I wanted to ask the gentleman from

Texas about what he can make out of

all of this. I know he got so frustrated

he signed a letter, too.

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, it is a very serious matter that we talk about. It is

disturbing to not have action, to see

justice delayed. But as I look over

some of the news reports about this

tour, on a lighter note, it sounds like

one of these, a concert tour, the notion

that Rupert Murdoch and the Speaker

together have this joint venture and

that this will be the biggest thing since

the Eagles went on tour. I know they

packed a whole stadium down in Austin, TX. I want to be sure that Austin

gets included. I am sure you want

Boulder and Denver included on the

tour, especially if questions will be permitted so that the people these can ask

questions about all this.

I do not know whether they will put

out T shirts for the Speaker—Murdoch

tour on not, so that everyone can share

and know all the sites where this tour

is being conducted. But it is a mighty

strange thing to right in the middle of

what is supposed to be a district work

period to have, I guess, some major

publishing company of Mr. Murdoch finance this 35-city tour with T shirts

and promotions and whatever else

might be involved, unless and lest anyone think as well that we lack humor

in this or that we lack bipartisanship,

I am wondering if the gentlewoman is

familiar with today’s New York Daily

News.

Today’s New York Daily News quotes

Kevin Phillips, a Republican political

analyst, who says, ‘‘You have to wonder whether Gingrich is’’——

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a

parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I

yield to the gentleman from Illinois

[Mr. PORTER] for a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

BURTON of Indiana). The gentleman

will state it.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I would

inquire as to whether this discussion is

within the rules of the House or outside the rules of the House?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members should not engage in debate concerning matters that may be pending

in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a

parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I

yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.

DOGGETT] for a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. DOGGETT. In March of this year,

Speaker GINGRICH announced that

under the speech and debate clause applying to this Congress that Members

were free to speak on any subject at

any time. I am wondering if that pronouncement does not control in a situation that applies to the Speaker as

well.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

‘‘Speech and debate’’ clause does not
H 5600 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 25, 1995

apply with respect to the subject of the

parliamentary inquiry just asked by

the gentleman from Illinois.

The Chair will again state that Members should not engage in debate concerning matters that may be pending

in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. DOGGETT. One aspect that we

have not discussed thus far in the

course of this colloquy about this very

serious matter with reference to Mr.

Murdoch are the interests that Mr.

Murdoch has pending here in Congress

and has had pending during this session

of the Congress.

The gentlewoman will recall that

there was a special provision passed

here with regard to taxes, with regard

to health insurance for the self-employed. And while that bill had a very

important and salutary purpose, to try

to help those who are self-employed

with the cost of health insurance, since

this Congress is doing little or nothing

about the health needs of American

citizens, there was a provision tacked

into it to pay for that provision that

concerned various deals with minority

broadcasters. I am wondering if the

gentlewoman recalls that there were 19

business transactions around this

country that were encompassed by that

provision. And when it went out of this

House, the very body that we are

speaking in, and over to the Senate, all

19 of those deals were disapproved.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Yes. I am aware

of that. The gentleman makes a very

good point, because that was one of the

many issues that made us all wonder

what was happening.

As I recall, and let me ask the gentleman from Texas if this is right,

when we went out of here, our assumption was in that bill it was totally

clean, that we voted for a totally clean

bill, and this body had made the decision there should be no special tax

breaks vis-a-vis affirmative action

deals that had been done like they had

been done in the past, where people

were really enriched that really were

not benefiting by that. And then we

were very surprised when it came back.

Mr. DOGGETT. Surprised, indeed.

Because though there were 19 transactions that were disapproved, when it

came back from conference committee,

there was one deal that was approved

and that one deal was for Mr. Rupert

Murdoch. I guess just a coincidence

perhaps with what had been going on in

the dealings with Mr. Murdoch having

been involved in book deals with the

Saudis, with book deals with Margaret

Thatcher, with book deals with the

daughter of Deng Xiaoping in China,

just a coincidence that one of the many

deals that he would benefit from that

are the subject of action in this House

and this Congress of the United States

at the same time that all of these concerns were raised about a book deal in

this House, that he is the only one in

the whole country who gets his special

deal cut out.

Does the gentlewoman remember the

debate about that measure here on the

floor of the House and the fact that

when you say surprise, surprise indeed,

because there was never one word mentioned. And again, had it not been for

careful journalism, we would never

have known it was even in there, because it did not say Rupert Murdoch. It

simply changed a date in the bill,

tucked away a hidden provision in secret, done in secret, never mentioned

on the floor of this House, to benefit

Rupert Murdoch and no one else.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman

remembers it very well. And I also remember the very distinguished Senator

who had put it in who believes in those

programs. He was very candid. He said

I believe in these programs, that is why

I have put this special thing in. Being

totally surprised it was the only one

that survived and said it survived because she heard there had been someone pressuring for it besides herself

that had much more prominence.

I want to ask the gentleman from

Texas, I am still not sure what was just

said to us. I guess we are not allowed

to talk about anything in front of the

blank committee. Can we say the

word?

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I

have a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state it.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Can we say ‘‘ethics committee’’ on the floor? Can we

say the words ‘‘ethics committee’’ on

the floor? Can we say the name of committee?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is the

mention of the conduct that may be

under consideration within that committee that is questionable.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. So we can say

‘‘ethics committee’’ on the floor?

I have another parliamentary inquiry. Can we put the content of our

letter to the committee in the RECORD

at this point?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Chair is not aware of the content of

that letter.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. So the Chair

would have to preapprove. How would I

make a motion? Would I ask unanimous consent for the Chair to read the

letter?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The content of the letter would be judged on

the same basis as the conduct of speech

on the floor of the House.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. So how would I

make my unanimous-consent request

then? I would ask unanimous-consent

to put in the RECORD the letter that we

have drafted, but you are telling me it

is subject to approval of the Chair?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The response that was made earlier stated

quite clearly, Members should not engage in debate concerning matters that

may be pending in the Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct. And the

letter would have to meet the same requirement; that is, if the letter addresses conduct of another Member.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, if I

may go one step further. I am still a

little confused, because there is no way

the gentleman from Texas and I can

discuss conduct or anything going on

in the committee because it is all

quiet, it is all silent, and we are not allowed in. What the Chair is saying is,

this would be about anything going to

the committee.

Clearly, we cannot discuss discussions that we are not party to, we have

not seen, and we are not allowed to

participate in, even as an audience or

as a passive listener.

b 1330

I am perplexed. Are these new rules?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

BURTON of Indiana). The Chair will read

from an annotation of clause 1 of rule

XIV:

Members should refrain from references in

debate to the official conduct of other Members where such conduct is not under consideration in the House by way of a report of

the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or as a question of privilege of the

House.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the

Chair.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if I

might make a related parliamentary

inquiry, because I referred to it generally earlier, but I would like to be

sure that the Speaker is clear about

the nature of my inquiry, about the

rights of Members on this floor, on

March 8, right here, the Speaker, the

gentleman from Georgia, NEWT GINGRICH, said, and I quote:

The fact is Members of the House are allowed to say virtually anything on the House

floor, routinely do. It is protected, and has

been for 200 years. It is written into the Constitution under the speech and debate clause.

My inquiry to the Chair is whether

the Speaker’s pronouncement controls

in the discussion that the gentlewoman

from Colorado and I are having, and

that others may choose to have about

the Speaker, or was the Speaker just

mistaken in his constitutional analysis?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

BURTON of Indiana). The Chair is unaware that the Speaker has ever uttered those pronouncements from the

chair in the House of Representatives.

Mr. DOGGETT. I think they were

just across the hall here in the Rayburn Room, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the

Chair is aware that the Speaker, the

gentleman from Georgia, until very recently gave daily pronouncements

there. This is a transcript, verbatim. I

would not misquote the Speaker. I

would be glad to provide the Chair, in

connection with my parliamentary inquiry, his commitment to freedom of

expression, which surely must apply to

discussion of his own conduct.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Chair has relied on past rulings and

statements from the Chair regarding

parliamentary inquiries and not on

statements outside the Chamber.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. A parliamentary

inquiry, Mr. Speaker. So the only thing
May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5601

we can look to are statements said inside the Chamber about Members’

rights to discuss these issues?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Decorum in debate is governed by rule XIV,

and there are countless annotations

under that rule in the House Rules

Manual. Those are the sources on

which the Chair has to rely.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Where would the gentleman and I go to

be able to have this discussion? Are we

allowed to have this discussion anywhere? The gentleman and I, as I understand, are not allowed to go to the

committee, because we are not members. Is that correct?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Chair, unfortunately, cannot treat that

as a parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I must say to the

gentleman, I am perplexed, because apparently we cannot talk about an entity that oversees the rules that supposedly govern us, but we cannot go

there and we cannot talk abut it. I am

a little troubled by what we have just

learned.

Mr. DOGGETT. It does seem to be peculiar, Mr. Speaker, because one would

hope and one would think that we

could rely on the official pronouncements of the Speaker of the House concerning the right of Members, that he

says has been protected for 200 years

under the U.S. Constitution, to discuss

matters, and that those matters ought

to apply to him as well as to other people. In compliance with the ruling of

the Chair, I would hope that the gentlewoman might discuss with me a little bit this whole question of freedom

of expression.

I certainly do not want to leave the

topic of Mr. Murdoch, because that is

clearly not covered by the Chair’s rulings. I think that needs to be explored

further, given the nature of the letter

that has been submitted today.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentlewoman, is it not truly vital to this institution that we be able to engage in

discussions, in debate and colloquy,

about the standards of conduct that

people express? I know, I heard many

people say last year, before I ever came

to this body, they were not content

with business as usual, that they wanted real change here; that they wanted

constructive change, that they wanted

Members of this Congress, certainly

the Speaker of the House, to abide by

the same ethical standards that they

expected of the people that they went

to church with and went to temple

with, that they should have to meet

those standards.

If we cannot debate that here on the

floor of the House, and we cannot go

into the secret committee meeting

that the public does not get a chance

to observe, how can we really fulfill

that responsibility that the American

people have said ‘‘Change business as

usual’’?

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I stand here shaking my head with the gentleman from

Texas, because I do not know. I must

say, I am very troubled by this. I have

never, never wanted to violate the

rules of the House. I have never heard

of this type of thing coming out, saying ‘‘Oh, no, no, you cannot do that.’’

I remember when I was studying law,

they used to have these things called

the star chamber and things like that

in England, and that was one of the

things that our forefathers and

foremothers came over to say ‘‘We are

not going to do that.’’

I thought the speech and debate

clause was in the Constitution, and it

said on the House floor we could all engage in speech and debate about issues.

However, I would certainly think issues governing the body that we are

part of would be very important. It

would almost be like saying to doctors,

or to lawyers, ‘‘You cannot talk about

the ethics procedure governing lawyers

or doctors.’’ I hope they do, and I hope

they as a profession are out there policing themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

gentleman from Texas [Mr. DOGGETT],

did he have those kinds of laws when

he was on the Supreme Court and when

he was in the ethics—what kind of laws

did he have about people being able to

discuss issues?

Mr. DOGGETT. To be candid with the

gentlewoman, Mr. Speaker, there has

been a tendency across this country for

people to protect their own. One of the

concerns that I had about our process

in Texas was that it was not open

enough. Our commission, the task

force that I headed, actually recommended that the process be opened

up more in Texas, because people would

lose confidence in their judiciary, in

the impartiality of their judiciary, if

they could not see the process transpiring. There may be some situations with

a frivolous complaint, where it is appropriate initially to evaluate it in secrecy. I do not say secrecy has no

place.

However, with matters of this type

dragging on for months without due

process, it seems to me that the public

is entitled to know a little more, and

surely the Members of this House

ought to be able to come here in front

of the American people and have a legitimate debate, given the history of

this country and its commitment to

freedom of expression, given the pronouncement of the Speaker himself

right here in this building on March 8

that Members of Congress could say

anything, and that they usually do

about these matters; an intelligent, an

incisive discussion of how it is that we

can assure the highest ethical standards, which are demanded of the Speaker and demanded of me and the gentlewoman from Colorado and of every

Member of this House.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I am totally

agreeing with the gentleman. I am very

saddened, because I always remember

the things about Caesar’s wife and so

forth; if you are in public office, you

are held to a higher standard. Therefore, I think it is incumbent upon all of

us to engage in that, and to have a little sunshine.

Government is not a fungus, it can

thrive in sunshine. What we are saying,

we cannot even get into that. I almost

feel like it is deja vu. I am back to

where I came. When I joined this body

22 years ago this was going on in the

committee I was assigned to. It was all

closed. Nothing ever went on in public.

All sorts of things transpired. I remember a young freshman and myself would

try to sit in on those Members, and

they would call the Sergeant at Arms

and threaten to drag us out, and all

sorts of things. We got all that kind of

opened up, and now I see things closing

back down in a limited fashion. I do

not think that is what the American

people wanted to see here.

However, I want to ask the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Speaker, let us

just think about this. I guess we have

committed a great faux pas, and I

know there are going to be people here

tracking us for the next 10 days. We did

not know we could not come here and

have this discussion. What do you

think you are going to be called, partisan, fixated? What do you think you

are going to be called the next 10 days?

Mr. DOGGETT. It is hard to guess. I

know some were supposed to need to

see their analysts just for having the

audacity to make ethical complaints. I

do find all this—I am still trying to

learn the rules here as a brand new

Member, not having been a part of the

system that existed.

If those are the rules, it seems to me

we need, if within these very restrictive rulings it is permissible to do so,

to look at those rules, to look at the

way the ethics process is done here,

and see whether we are really fulfilling

our responsibility to the American people to assure the highest ethical standards.

I suppose if there is not another opportunity to do that, and we are precluded from doing that here, perhaps in

the midst of this tour that is going to

take place that we have written about

today, this tour that is like a rock star

tour to go gallivanting around the

country, 35 or 36 different cities in your

State I am sure, and in mine, that perhaps we could go out and talk with the

American people ourselves during the

course of that tour and ask them for

their thoughts as to whether they

think their elected representatives,

Democrat and Republican alike, ought

to be able to stand there on the floor of

the House, ought to be empowered by

the voters across this country to stand

here on the floor of the House and at

least be able to discuss the ethics of

the Speaker of the House, the third

most powerful person in the entire

country, and who may think he is even

more powerful than being No. 3.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, the

gentleman has just thought of the perfect symbol for this tour. How about a

gag, with the 35 cities, and we could

have a gag. I think we have had a gag
H 5602 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 25, 1995

order. I guess we cannot talk about

some of the issues that drove us to sit

down and write this letter.

Mr. Speaker, we laugh about this,

but I find it very sad, because we go

around the world and talk about how

great our country is and how wonderful

it is, and we believe in free speech, and

we believe that we are all big enough

to be able to deal with these issues in

the open, and we are finding, I guess,

some backsliding on that; that anybody who asks questions gets called

some names, or that all sorts of innuendo was made. I do not know how we

are going to be able to police ourselves

if that continues on.

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentlewoman

will continue to yield, I do not want to

call names, but I do think, and I want

to comply with the ruling of the Chair,

I think it is within the ruling that we

do have to go back and take up one

name, and that is Mr. Rupert Murdoch.

I am not talking about the $4.5 million

book deal. I am talking about Mr.

Murdoch and his legislative interest

here.

We have talked about the fact that of

all the people in the world, he is the

one that got the special hidden tax

break, the tax break this House was

never told about. He made tens of millions of dollars that were at stake

there. That has already happened this

year. That is one gift that he has already gotten, with all the influence

that he has with the Speaker and other

Members of the House, is this special

tax break, corporate welfare.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman is

absolutely correct. As the gentleman

also knows, about telecommunications——

Mr. DOGGETT. I wanted to inquire of

the gentlewoman about that.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I can hardly get

through the building where my office is

for all the high-priced lobbyists.

Mr. DOGGETT. Is it true there are

more telecommunication lobbyists

here than there are Members?

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I think there are.

You can tell them because they have

better shoes. They have much better

shoes.

Mr. DOGGETT. Is not one of those

key issues in the telecommunications

bill, which I believe is being marked

up, perhaps, even as we speak for consideration there in the Committee on

Commerce, one of the real issues about

those foreign shoes that are there,

about whether or not the media of

America are going to be owned, foreign

ownership, by people like Rupert

Murdoch?

Mrs. SCHROEDER. That is exactly

right. Let us face it. There are two

things going on here that we understand he has a great interest in. No. 1,

we understand that he has been talking

about maybe being able to buy the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or

some of the programming, or whatever.

I am not too sure I want him owning

Big Bird. Big Bird was one of the few

things that was on for my kids. That

has been at least in the process as an

interest, that he was interested in.

He has not come and talked to me. I

am way low on the totem pole. My average campaign contribution is 50

bucks. Murdock does not bother with

poor white trash like me.

The other thing that I understand

that he is very interested in is the foreign ownership issues. We have not allowed foreign ownership of our communications, because we felt it was very,

very important for national defense,

for a lot of things. They are trying to

change that, along with maybe other

things that I am sure he has an interest in. When you get to be that big a

guy, with that much money, megabucks and gigabucks all over the place,

I am sure there are a lot of other interests that you and I do not know about,

also. It just looks like a conflict, shall

we say.

Mr. DOGGETT. On the same day that

the letter is filed that we are now, apparently, going to be denied an opportunity to talk about with one committee of this House, another committee

of this House is there marking up a

telecommunications bill, deciding

whether Rupert Murdoch and other foreign interests can come in and can

take over the media outlets which report what it is we can and cannot say

on the floor of this House.

That is one very big interest, in addition to the great tax break that he got,

that the gentleman from Australia has

at stake here. In between signing book

deals, there is the matter of a few tens

of millions here, and then I guess with

the telecommunications, we are not

talking about tens of millions or hundreds of millions, we are talking about

billions and billions of dollars that are

at stake. That is why all these hundreds of lobbyists are around here, is

that not correct?

b 1345

Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman is

absolutely right. The very puzzling

thing is there are areas where you

know you should not go, the black

areas and the white areas. Then there

is this big gray area. When you look at

this, if these lobbyists want to give you

money, it must be in the open, it must

be recorded, they must file it at the

Federal Election Commission so you

can see it. But the issue is can they

give it to you in another way so it is

way beyond the limits, like could they

fund a tour for the gentleman from

Texas of 35 cities, setting up public relations for him everywhere he goes. It

would be worth zillions of dollars. Who

knows what that is worth?

But obviously they would be way beyond a campaign limit, and could that

possible influence the gentleman? We

do not know those issues. But those are

the things that are out there and those

are the things that trouble an awful lot

of us here.

We hear, well, people have not talked

about this before. Maybe no one has

been quite this creative, who knows?

But I do not like it. I am frustrated by

it.

Mr. DOGGETT. I would ask the gentlewoman, there may be some people,

and I am sure that was a concern with

this letter, who view themselves as little more than a butler for the superrich, the kind of people who go around

with a tray saying, ‘‘Here, Jeeves,’’ or

‘‘Here, whoever it might be,’’ and for

whom $4.5 million is little more than a

good tip.

When you have something at stake,

and the gentlewoman mentioned the

Public Broadcasting System, the only

really quality children’s programming

in this country, and yet there are people right there in the well of the House

who stood up and attacked it as socialist television, who criticized the Big

Bird lobby, and yet are there not some

of those super-rich from other parts of

the world who if they can take over the

Public Broadcasting System and can

run it as a giant commercial enterprise

instead of a truly publicly supported

television system like we have in

Texas and a public radio network, a national radio network that is public

that all the people have a chance to

participate in without commercial enterprise, should that happen, would $4.5

million for a book deal not be little

more than a good tip?

Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman

makes a very interesting point. As you

know the gentlewoman, I think, a couple of weeks ago was called a socialist

by a Member on the other side of the

aisle, and I said to them, ‘‘You can call

me whatever you want. I believe in free

speech. It doesn’t bother me.’’ But the

interesting thing is I thought he was

for socialism of the rich. Socialism of

the rich is a whole new concept but

that is kind of what we are seeing. How

do we give these benefits to the rich

who already have more than they

should ever have?

But I think the gentleman from

Texas and I have probably been gagged

and shut up and we probably cannot

talk about too much more or they are

going to put us away.

Mr. DOGGETT. I suspect that that is

rather true. I know the gentlewoman

shares my commitment to a truly free

enterprise system. But that free enterprise system relying on private capital,

relying on the hard work of millions of

American families who have made this

the greatest country in the world, that

can be perverted when people get special favors here and they say they are

for free enterprise and against socialism, but they do not really want free

enterprise. They are willing to pay out

substantial amounts of money to those

who would peddle influence in the most

sacred institution of this country, who

would pay out millions of dollars because they have billions and trillions

at stake.

That is the kind of thing that motivates a letter to say, let’s not delay

justice. The American people demand

justice. They demand justice even if it

involves a person who says he is the
May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5603

third most important person in this entire country.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I just want to end

this by saying, the gentleman that preceded us in this well was talking about

many of our veterans. It is Memorial

Day that we are breaking for. I must

say they gave their lives for this wonderful, great Government and not for

the best Government money can buy.

All we want to make sure is that we

are not finding a new way for people to

be able to buy this Government.

We get frustrated with this Government, sometimes this Government

makes us absolutely nuts, but I must

say overall I will take this Government

against any other one in the world. I

am going to do everything I can to

make sure everybody has a fair chance,

everybody has a fair shot, and that we

do not surrender to new clever ways

that lobbyists find to get their time.

Mr. Speaker, I am now going to turn

the podium over to my distinguished

colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. SKAGGS].

I wish everyone also a happy Memorial Day.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

BURTON of Indiana). The gentleman

from Colorado may control the balance

of the hour designated by the leadership.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OVERSIGHT ACT

Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to

join Mr. SCHIFF, my colleagues from

New Mexico and a former district attorney, in introducing a bill to safeguard our constitutional rights as we

fight terrorism.

The tragic bombings in Oklahoma

City, 2 years earlier in New York City,

awakened all of us to the fact that

America is not immune to terrrorist

acts. This has quite appropriately

prompted the President and many

Members of Congress to suggest additional steps to prevent terrorism and

to make punishment for terrorist acts

swifter and more certain. It is essential

for Congress to see that we are doing

all we should do to prevent the horror

and tragedy of another Oklahoma City.

But talk about stepped-up

counterterrorism efforts has also

raised among the public the concern

that law enforcement agencies may

slip over proper constitutional boundaries in combating terrorism, that

their actions to keep us safe may sometimes collide with the Constitution’s

wise restraints that keep us free.

The bill we are introducing today,

the Constitutional Rights Oversight

Act, responds to these concerns.

The bill would establish a top-level

inspector general for counterterrorism

activities to head a new independent

office, to be responsible for ensuring

that Federal counterterrorism activities comply with constitutional standards.

The most important feature of the

new inspector general will be the crosscutting scope of the authority of this

office. Unlike the existing inspectors

general of various departments, this

new IG will have oversight authority

for many different agencies. The new

IG will review the counterterrorism activities of agencies as diverse as the

Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

In short, this new inspector general

will have the authority not simply to

review the actions of a Department,

but to watch the counterterrorism activities of all agencies, to assure their

adherence to the Constitution and

their full respect for constitutional

rights.

Besides the power to review, the new

inspector general would have the power

to act, in two significant ways.

First, agencies would be required to

keep this new inspector general informed of requests for judicial or administrative authorization for searches

wiretaps, and similar surveillance activities. The new inspector general

would be kept similarly informed

about deportation actions related to

the right against terrorism.

In connection with all these proceedings, the new inspector general could

make suggestions, or oppose the requested authorizations, to the extent

appropriate in order to protect constitutional rights.

Second, the new IG would receive

public complaints about alleged or potential violations of constitutional

rights. Upon receiving these complaints, the IG could require relevant

agencies to respond.

Finally, the new IG will be responsible for submitting periodic reports to

the President and the Congress concerning the observance of constitutional requirements, and the protection of constitutional rights, in connection with Federal counterterrorism

activities, and to make suggestions for

improvements.

But just as important as these particular powers I think will be the restraining effect of the mere existence

of this new IG. The requirements for

immediate constitutional accountability that the office would impose on

counterterrorism, investigations

should serve to deter any tendency a

Government official might have to be

casual about constitutional safeguards.

Mr. Speaker, the American public

has a very real stake in being protected

from terrorism. It also has a high stake

in seeing that the Government doesn’t

cut constitutional corner in providing

that protection. We do not need to

trade our constitutionally protected

rights, including the rights to privacy,

free assembly, and free speech, for enhanced protection from terrorists. If

we should make that mistake, terrorism will have achieved a victory.

As with all other law enforcement efforts in our country, in fighting terrorism the Government must balance the

need for security with the rights of the

people. Sadly, our history provides several examples of the Federal Government compromising basic constitutional rights to thwart perceived national security threats.

The FBI’s clandestine COINTELPRO

Program provides but one stark example of such governmental arrogance. In

the name of national security, then-Director J. Edgar Hoover presiding over a

program of unauthorized surveillance

and harassment of those who legitimately protested government policies.

Given this history, there are serious

concerns in the country about giving

expanded investigative powers to Federal authorities.

We are introducing the Constitutional Rights Oversight Act to help ensure that protection of civil liberties is

part of the counterterrorism debate.

The House should consider this measure as part of any counterterrorism

legislation that comes to the floor. By

its enactment, Congress can demonstrate our commitment to protecting both public safety and personal

freedom and will provide the right response to the public’s fears both of violence and of Government abuse of civil

rights. A nation which so reveres its

constitution deserves no less from its

Government.

MEDICARE AND THE FEDERAL

fBUDGET

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS]

is recognized for 20 minutes.

RECOGNIZING OUR VETERANS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the Speaker. I

know the Speaker has appointments he

has to make. I appreciate his willingness to stay and be here for these special orders, and also to thank those

that are working on behalf of the

House so that we have this opportunity.

I do not often seek the opportunity

to address the House in a special order,

but I do so today to talk about our

Federal budget and what we as the

Budget Committee have done to try to

get our financial house in order.

But I first want to say that as I listened to the gentleman from California

[Mr. DORNAN] in talking about the

atrocities that took place with Americans under captivity by the Japanese

during World War II, I just could not

help but think how important it is that

that story be told, as gruesome as it is,

and that the families of those men

know that we will not be silenced in

making sure that the truth be told.

When I think of Memorial Day and

the men and women who gave their life

to this great country, I know, as someone who never served in the armed

forces, that when I look at the flag behind me, that the flag means a great

deal to me obviously as a Member of

Congress and as an American citizen.

But to someone who fought in battle,

the American flag means something

more than we could ever imagine.