Call for Mild Penalty Seen in Gingrich Case

WASHINGTON — The panel that has conducted the probe of House Speaker Newt Gingrich is likely to recommend nothing harsher than a reprimand when the matter comes before the full House Ethics Committee next week, a move that could allow Gingrich to retain his leadership post, sources said Thursday.

Democrats, however, vehemently denied reports that the four-person subcommittee--evenly divided between the two parties--has unanimously endorsed a reprimand.

Meanwhile, some Republican House members are plainly edgy about having to cast their votes for the speakership before the case is fully aired by the Ethics Committee, a situation creating some doubt about Gingrich’s fate. The incoming 105th Congress is scheduled to elect its leaders Tuesday--a day before the Ethics Committee begins a process of determining its recommendation in the Gingrich probe.

Only one House Republican--Michael P. Forbes of New York--so far has said publicly he won’t vote for Gingrich as speaker. But Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), in a statement that also criticized President Clinton for alleged ethical lapses, said Thursday that “it may be prudent for the speaker to step aside, at least temporarily, until these issues are resolved.”

And Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.), said Thursday that at least 20 House Republicans are agonizing over the speakership vote, in part because they worry that Gingrich’s troubles make it harder for the GOP to criticize Clinton on ethics.

“This isn’t an easy question,” Souder said. “Everytime we bring up Clinton, [Democrats] will bring up Gingrich.”

While predicting that Gingrich would win reelection as speaker, Souder also said his colleagues have discussed options ranging from the appointment of an interim speaker to having Gingrich swap jobs with House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).

“The speaker is going to win easily, but people aren’t completely comfortable with this,” said Souder, who added that Gingrich’s support could crumble if there are further damaging revelations. “If there is anything else out there, and if we have not been told the straight truth, it’s over.”

Gingrich cannot afford to lose the support of many Republicans because the GOP controls the House by only a 227-208 margin. Thus, the defection of 20 Republicans would cost him the speakership.

Repeating a tactic used earlier this week, House Republican leaders scheduled a nationwide conference call for their members today to urge support for Gingrich. Also, Gingrich plans to address a Republican caucus Monday night.

Republicans have been hoping that the Ethics Committee will recommend nothing more than a reprimand for Gingrich because that is a punishment that would not force him to automatically relinquish the speakership.

Although a reprimand is among the mildest of any likely punishment for misdeeds the Georgia Republican has acknowledged committing, it would be the first time in history that the House has formally sanctioned its speaker for an ethics transgression.

The Ethics Committee in 1989 issued formal charges against then-Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas), alleging he had improperly enriched himself through a book deal and other financial dealings--allegations spearheaded by Gingrich himself. However, Wright resigned as speaker and from the House before the committee reached the stage of deciding a punishment.

At issue in the Gingrich case is a college course he taught from 1993-95 with financial support from a nonprofit foundation. The ethics panel’s investigative subcommittee found--and Gingrich last month admitted--that he had violated House rules by presenting false information to the committee about the course’s relationship with GOPAC, his political action committee, and by failing to ensure that he complied with laws prohibiting the use of tax-exempt contributions for partisan purposes.

The ethics panel has available to it a wide range of punishments, including mild actions such as a letter of rebuke, which does not require action by the House.

There are three formal punishments traditionally considered by the committee. Of those, a reprimand is the mildest, but it must be debated and voted on by the full House. Censure is harsher, forcing members to give up leadership jobs. Expulsion from Congress is reserved for the most serious misconduct and is considered unlikely in this case.

The two GOP members of the ethics panel’s investigations subcommittee recently gave fellow Republicans a strong signal that they did not believe that the panel would force Gingrich out of the speakership. Reps. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Steven H. Schiff (R-N.M.) said in a letter circulated to all House Republicans earlier this week that they intended to support Gingrich for speaker and that they “know of no reason now, nor do we see any in the normal course of events in the future, why Newt Gingrich would be ineligible to serve as speaker.”

Some sources close to the investigation said Thursday that there had been an understanding among subcommittee members--consisting of Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), as well as Goss and Schiff--that they would not pursue a punishment so harsh that it would cost Gingrich his speakership. These sources said this understanding was reached in negotiations with Gingrich last month that led to his agreement to admit to the alleged rule violations.

But Democrats flatly denied that the subcommittee already had unanimously agreed to recommend a reprimand.

House Minority Whip David E. Bonior (D-Mich.), Gingrich’s chief critic, labeled the report “inaccurate and untrue,” after discussing it with members of the Ethics Committee.

The special counsel for the ethics panel also denied reports that the subcommittee had agreed on what punishment to recommend. “There have been recent press reports concerning the work of the investigative subcommittee and any recommendation might make,” James M. Cole said in a written statement issued Thursday night. “Those statements and reports are not accurate.”

Cole said the ethics panel’s rules did not permit public comment on the committee’s work until it was convened in open session. “All judgments should be withheld pending review of this matter in the course of the open sanction hearing,” he said.

Accusing Republicans of leaking the story, Bonior called it “one more desperate attempt by the Republican leadership to shore up the speaker’s crumbling credibility in the light of his own admission that he lied to Congress and lied to the American people.”

In the meantime, both sides are polishing their arguments about the significance of a reprimand.

“It is not a dishonoring event,” said a senior Republican aide. “It is not going to have an effect. It does not debar him from being speaker.”

But Democrats are ready to pounce. “If he’s the first speaker in history to be reprimanded, we could say this is the most corrupt House in history,” said a House Democratic leadership aide. “We don’t think a reprimand is a very small punishment.”

According to the House historian’s office, the closest thing to the House taking formal ethics action against a speaker came in 1876, when a censure resolution was brought against James G. Blaine, a Maine Republican, in connection with a bribery scandal. The resolution--which came before the House after Blaine left the speaker’s office because his party had lost control of the chamber--did not pass.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

What’s Next for Gingrich

Monday: The House Republican Conference meets in closed-door session to discuss the ethics case involving Gingrich and his bid to win reelection as speaker.

Tuesday: The 105th Congress convenes, and the House votes on whether to reelect Gingrich as speaker.

Wednesday: The House Ethics Committee meets in closed session to receive the findings of its investigative subcommittee, which found that Gingrich presented false information to the committee about a college course he taught, and failed to obtain proper legal advice to ensure that the course complied with tax laws. Gingrich has admitted these missteps.

Dates uncertain: The committee will meet in open session to hear arguments on what kind of punishment, if any, should be imposed on Gingrich. In a closed session, the panel will then make its recommendation. Traditionally, the three formal punishments are a reprimand, censure (which would require Gingrich to give up the speakership) or expulsion from his House seat.

Jan. 21: The deadline for a vote by the full House on the Ethics Committee’s recommendation on punishing Gingrich.

Source: Times Washington Bureau