After Gingrich Storm, a Frail Calm

WASHINGTON — Declaring an uneasy truce in a two-year political blood feud, House Republicans and Democrats on Saturday expressed new resolve to put House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s ethics case behind them.

The desire to “bring some peace to the House,” in the words of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), marks a surprisingly quick turnaround after 28 months of partisan--and personal--rancor that at times threatened the chamber’s ability to conduct its affairs.

The urge to move on, uttered in almost wistful tones by several lawmakers, came after the House Ethics Committee recommended Friday that the speaker “reimburse” the House $300,000 for the cost of the probe and that he receive a formal reprimand for various ethical lapses during his House career.

Gingrich had no public comment Saturday, but he has also indicated a desire to put the matter behind him: He has admitted breaking House rules in connection with the case, and his attorneys have signaled that he will not contest the proposed punishment.

In interviews, members from both sides of the aisle said they expect the House to overwhelmingly approve the committee’s proposed sanctions when the matter is put to a floor vote on Tuesday.

At the same time, they warned that the yen for comity could be obscured by a final round of political recrimination during the debate preceding the vote.

“I will certainly vote for a reprimand,” said Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas), a Gingrich ally. “But I also feel a combination of relief and hope that this will bring to a closure this whole episode. My great desire is to move ahead and do the people’s business.”

Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento) echoed those sentiments but cautioned that a fractious floor debate could occur if Republicans continue to make light of Gingrich’s transgressions, or if Democrats do not let up on their scathing attacks on the Georgia Republican.

“Anything can ignite a food fight in this place,” Matsui said. “If they downplay it, that may provoke a reaction on our side; if we overstate it, that could provoke a reaction on the other side.”

Behind the scenes, however, there are signs of a desire by Republicans and Democrats alike to engage in serious fence-mending.

Democrats are discussing whether to abandon an effort to force a House vote on a resolution condemning the actions of Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), who chairs the Ethics Committee. Democrats have charged that Johnson was such a staunch Gingrich partisan that she violated House rules in her handling of the case.

Republicans, meanwhile, are mulling over whether to abandon the notion of filing ethics charges against Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), who was the ranking Democrat on the ethics panel until he stepped down amid accusations that he leaked a clandestine tape-recording of a cellular telephone conversation in which Gingrich discussed with allies strategies to combat the ethics charges.

Although some Republicans, including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of Huntington Beach and Lamar Smith of Texas, want the House to impose a less severe punishment on Gingrich, observers do not expect the idea to take hold. Smith was the lone dissenter in the 7-1 vote by the ethics panel to impose the $300,000 penalty along with a reprimand.

“My impression is that the clarity and strength of [special counsel James M.] Cole’s presentation and report cut short any serious efforts by the Republicans to adopt any punishment less than that recommended by the Ethics Committee,” said congressional scholar Thomas E. Mann, director of governmental studies at the Brookings Institution.

“It’s over. It’s a done deal,” Mann said.

But apparently not for everyone.

A few Democrats are not content with the proposed sanctions and evidently intend to continue clamoring for Gingrich’s resignation as speaker.

“Three hundred thousand dollars and a public reprimand is pretty steep for what his supporters claimed was mere ethical ‘jay-walking’ or an ethical ‘speeding ticket,’ ” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas.) “Speaker Gingrich is paying more than most Americans pay for a house in a desperate effort to keep his power over this House. But since the speaker can’t buy back his integrity, he should step aside immediately.”

Mann agreed that a case could be made for Gingrich’s resignation as speaker. Never in the history of the House has a leader received a reprimand, he noted.

“But so what? If Gingrich is vulnerable, the process will take care of itself,” he said.

House Democrats, he added, “would be very well advised to tone down now. It’d be a tactical mistake on their part to just keep firing on this. Now’s the time to try to pull back and make the House run. And it’s going to require extraordinary efforts on both sides.”

On Saturday morning, House Democratic leaders met with Reps. Pelosi and Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), the two minority members of the Ethics investigative subcommittee that prepared the case against Gingrich.

“The leadership assured them that we are going to be supportive of their decision . . . and we expect most, if not all, of our caucus will be supportive as well,” said a senior leadership aide.

As the full Ethics Committee was wrapping up its 5 1/2-hour hearing Friday, Pelosi seemed be speak for the other seven committee members when she said:

“I hope that on Tuesday we could have a day of moving forward as well, where we can put this behind us. . . . To my friends who want a pound of flesh, that’s not what this is about.

“There’s nothing in it for the institution,” she continued. “It just stirs up future battles. And I hope that on Tuesday we will be able to move on to doing the other work that the American people have sent us here to do rather than having a Treaty of Versailles where we’re just getting ready for the next war.”

Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House GOP Conference, agreed. “The American people are ready for this to be over,” he said. “Republicans and even most Democrats want to get on with the business of Congress.”