Gingrich Probe Panel Is Expected to Recommend Mild Punishment

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, sources said Thursday.

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

With the incoming 105th Congress scheduled to elect its leaders Tuesday--a day before the Ethics Committee begins the process of determining its recommendation--Republicans have been hoping for a reprimand because that is a punishment that would not force Gingrich to automatically relinquish the speakership.

Yet, although a reprimand is among the mildest of possible punishments 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.

Although only one House Republican so far has said publicly he won’t vote for Gingrich as speaker, others are plainly edgy about casting the speakership vote before the case is fully aired by the Ethics Committee.

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.”

Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.), predicted that Gingrich would win reelection as speaker, but reported great nervousness among colleagues who 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.”

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, 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 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 it had agreed on what punishment to recommend. “There have been recent press reports concerning the work of the Investigative Subcommittee and any recommendation it might make,” James M. Cole said in a written statement issued Thursday night. “Those statements and reports are not accurate.”

Cole said ethics 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.

In Gingrich’s case, Souder said there is widespread expectation among Republicans that the committee will recommend a reprimand and that Gingrich will survive politically if his punishment is no harsher than that.

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), a Gingrich backer, said he thought it was clear no more than a reprimand was warranted when he learned the panel’s findings.

“I said, ‘Thank God, that’s all,’ ” Shays said, recalling a conversation with Gingrich about the findings. “ ‘It seems to me that while this will be embarrassing to you and to us, it is nothing that comes close to saying you shouldn’t be reelected speaker,’ ” Shays said he told Gingrich.