After a plea
from Rep. Nancy Johnson to put aside ''the crippling partisanship and animosity
that has surrounded us,'' the House Tuesday overwhelmingly backed her ethics
committee's reprimand and $300,000 fine for Speaker Newt Gingrich.
''It is the
most severe penalty ever against a sitting speaker,'' said Johnson. ''It is
also appropriate. No one is above the rules of the House of Representatives.''
Her colleagues
voted 395-28 to sanction Gingrich for his admitted ethical lapses. But the move
won't force the speaker to give up his post.
The bipartisan
decision Tuesday capped a two-year battle over Gingrich's conduct that often
dissolved into political feuding of startling dimensions - including
bare-knuckled battles in Johnson's northwestern Connecticut district.
Johnson, a New
Britain Republican, called on lawmakers ''to learn and grow from this solemn
occasion'' and ''end the partisan rancor that has come to surround this case
and this House.''
Though other
charges against Gingrich remain on the ethics committee's agenda, Johnson will
no longer have to deal with them. She finished up her service on the panel
Tuesday.
Johnson said
her panel ''found that Rep. Gingrich brought discredit to the House by failing
to get appropriate legal advice to ensure that his actions would be in
compliance with tax law and to oversee the development of his letters to the
committee to insure they were accurate in every respect.''
''Each member
of Congress, especially those in positions of leadership, shoulders the
responsibility of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety,'' she said.
''Rep. Gingrich failed to exercise the discipline and caution of his office and
so is subject to penalty today.''
Johnson
pointed out that the ethics panel has never before reprimanded a member for
making false statement to it unless it found an intent to mislead. In Gingrich's
case, it stopped just short of saying he knowingly lied.
Monetary
sanctions have never before been slapped on a member who was not personally
enriched by his actions, said Johnson, adding that no findings indicated
Gingrich made any money from his political dealings.
Johnson said
her committee never lost sight of the need for ''full and complete disclosure
of every fact in this case and a bipartisan recommendation. We accomplished
both, even though it would have been easy for Republicans or Democrats to walk
away from the process at many stages. We didn't because we believe in this
institution and in the ethics process.''
The ethics
committee ''was forced to conduct its work against a harsh backdrop of
political warfare,'' said Johnson.
''It's the
first time ever that members of the ethics committee have been the target of
coordinated partisan assaults in their districts. Coordinated political
pressure on members of the ethics committee by other members is not only
destructive of the ethics oversight process but it is beneath the dignity of
this great institution and those who serve here,'' Johnson said.
Johnson has
come under withering criticism from two potential opponents in 1998 for her
handling of the case. They say she delayed proceedings and sought to help
Gingrich survive the probe.
But Johnson
has frequently praised her committee's work and taken credit for pushing the
case to completion despite the atmospherics surrounding it.
Johnson called
on legislators before Tuesday's vote to reject ''the partisanship and animosity
that has so deeply permeated the work of the House'' and back the ethics recommendation.
''We cannot
afford the harsh partisanship that has become too much a part of our lives,''
Johnson said.
Johnson,
elected in 1982, represents the sixth district, which includes Bristol, New
Britain, Torrington, the Litchfield hills and the Farmington River valley.
Here's an earlier story that lays it out a little more:
January 17,
1997
By STEVE
COLLINS
The
surprisingly cohesive House Ethics Committee displayed on national television Friday
agreed on a deal with Speaker Newt Gingrich that will almost certainly lead to
his reprimand and a $300,000 penalty.
The sanction,
considered harsh by lawmakers, will allow Gingrich to remain as the top
congressional leader for another term if the rest of the House endorses it
Tuesday.
U.S. Rep.
Nancy Johnson, the New Britain Republican who heads the ethics panel, said
there had been ``some serious misunderstandings'' before the hearing but her
eight-member panel came together for its finale.
``The speaker
of the House must be held to the highest ethical standards,'' said a
stern-looking Johnson. ``No one is above the rules of the House.''
The ethics
panel voted 7-1 to recommend the reprimand and fine to their colleagues. The
only dissenter, Republican Lamar Smith of Texas, was a last-minute addition to
the committee who likened the speaker's conduct to running a yellow light.
Gingrich
admitted he created tax-exempt foundations to fund programs aimed at advancing
his political agenda. He also confessed to providing ``inaccurate, incomplete
and unreliable'' information about his activities to the ethics committee.
Johnson said
she found it ``deeply disturbing'' that Gingrich's extensive letters to her
committee contained ``glaring, even stark, contradictions of fact.''
The speaker's
lawyer, Randy Evans, blamed Gingrich's busy schedule and his other attorneys
for the errors. But Johnson said she is stunned the speaker exercised ``such a
casual degree of oversight.''
Special
counsel James Cole said the bipartisan, four-member investigatory subcommittee
believed the proper penalty for Gingrich's conduct fell somewhere between a
reprimand and censure. A censure would force the speaker from his powerful
perch.
It opted to
support a reprimand with the additional requirement of $300,000 reimbursement
from Gingrich to cover a portion of the tab for the costly ethics
investigation. Cole said misinformation from the speaker delayed the probe and
added to its expense.
Cole said
Gingrich ``should make sure he pays it in an ethical manner. It is up to him to
do it in the right way.'' He said if the speaker fails to raise the cash
properly ``there's a chance of being back here.''
Johnson called
the penalty ``tough and unprecedented compared with past cases.''
``We have come
up with a fair result and a fair resolution of the matter,'' said Cole. He said
if proof exists that Gingrich lied, he would urge censure or more.
Summarizing
the panel's findings, Cole said, ``Over a number of years and in a number of
situations, Mr. Gingrich showed a disregard and lack of respect for the
standards of conduct that applied to his activities.''
Cole said that
while ``bells and whistles'' of warning were going off, ``Mr. Gingrich ran a
very lot of yellow lights, some orange lights.''
Rep. Steve
Schiff, a New Mexico Republican, said the subcommittee succeeded in ignoring
``the political currents swimming around us.'' He said the ``reprimand plus''
penalty is appropriate.
But Schiff
added that Gingrich's friends will think the panel's recommendation unduly
harsh and the speaker's foes won't be satisfied unless the Georgia Republican
``is drawn and quartered after being boiled in oil.''
The six-hour
hearing featured lengthy statements by Cole and lawyers for Gingrich presenting
their respective takes on the case, then short comments by members of the
panel, then a period of questions and answers. After retreating behind closed
doors briefly, the panel voted on sanctions late Friday.
It represents
the culmination of a case filed in Sept. 1994 and in the hands of a special
counsel for more than a year. In the past month, the ethics committee almost
splintered, with its members holding competing press conferences and dueling
almost daily about the proper procedures to follow.
Johnson, who
had come under harsh criticism, diplomatically called it ``a difficult
environment.''
``We've had
our storms,'' said Rep. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the
panel since a Washington congressman resigned this week amidst allegations he
turned over an illegally obtained tape recording of a cellular phone
conversation to two newspapers.
Rep. Porter
Goss, the Florida Republican who led the investigatory subcommittee, praised
Johnson for her ``extraordinary perseverance, patient and commitment'' in
bringing the ethics panel through its troubles.
Schiff
complimented Johnson simply ``for getting us here.''
Rep. Nancy
Pelosi, a California Democrat, criticized Johnson and the GOP for preventing a
full hearing where Cole could present witnesses and explain the case in detail.
But she also thanked Johnson for the cooperative spirit on display Friday.
Johnson
appeared relieved to have the hearing behind her. Her service on the ethics
panel ends Tuesday.
Another story, focused on Johnson:
January 10,
1997
By STEVE
COLLINS
In her two
decades of political life, U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson has never attracted the kind
of attention she's getting these days.
And she surely
wishes it wasn't so.
Two potential
rivals for the New Britain Republican's congressional seat are already on the
attack - and Democrats across the country have Johnson in their crosshairs.
Plainville
professor Charlotte Koskoff, who nearly upset Johnson at the polls last year,
called her leadership of the badly split House Ethics Committee ``very, very
sad.''
``She's really
blown it,'' said Bristol businessman Jim Griffin, who lost to Johnson in 1988
but hopes for a rematch in 1998.
Johnson has
guided the ethics panel the past two years as it maneuvered through a political
minefield to issue rulings on a series of complaints about House Speaker Newt
Gingrich's conduct.
Most were
settled unanimously behind closed doors after much wrangling, which Johnson
insists is evidence of her strong, fair
leadership.
But one last
complaint remains - and history may hinge on it.
The pace of
the assault against Gingrich has quickened as the stakes have risen. Now the
partisan rancor that has long infected the House has publicly riven Johnson's
10-member committee as well.
Paul Gigot, a
conservative commentator for The Wall Street Journal, called it ``a public
blood feud.''
``What you
have is total, global, nuclear war. It's impossible to overestimate the
poisonous air in the Ethics Committee,'' Gigot said.
At least three
Democrats among the five serving on Johnson's ethics panel have sharply
criticized her in recent days.
Rep. Jim
McDermott of Washington said Johnson's willingness to buckle to Gingrich's
needs indicate she is ``throwing herself on a hand grenade for the speaker.''
Rep. Nancy
Pelosi of California charged Johnson with abusing her power when she canceled a
week-long hearing into the case after Democrats griped about details.
Rep. Ben
Cardin of Maryland joined Pelosi in telling Johnson he was ``particularly
troubled'' by her abrupt decision to cancel the hearings.
Whatever the
merits of the Democrats' arguments, Johnson has certainly failed to keep her
committee from falling apart. Its five Democrats and five GOP members have been
dueling in public for days now.
Journalist
John Barry, who wrote the definitive book on the downfall of former Democratic
Speaker Jim Wright, once described the ethics panel as possessing ``vast
power.''
It serves, he
said, as ``investigator, grand jury, prosecutor, jury, judge and appeals
court.''
With the kind
of clout, Johnson's committee holds Gingrich's political fate in its grasp.
Soon, probably
next Sunday, the panel will recommend a penalty
for the misconduct the speaker admits he engaged in. There may a public
hearing Friday and perhaps Saturday.
It is likely
the committee will urge a reprimand that would let Gingrich retain his
position. But it can urge censure or ouster and thereby toss Gingrich from the
nation's third highest political office.
Griffin said
the ethics hearing on Gingrich this week and the subsequent decision on
sanctions ``may be Nancy's last chance to salvage respectability for her
chairmanship, but I don't think she's up to the task.''
He said he
expects ``a grotesque finale'' to a case Johnson has mishandled from the start.
``There will
be no redemption for her,'' said Griffin, ``because she's made up her mind. You
have to be an idiot or Nancy Johnson to believe what Newt is saying.''
Koskoff said
Johnson has been on ``the wrong side'' of the Gingrich case all along and won't
switch now.
She said her
former foe's refusal to extend the ethics committee's deadline despite a
request from most of its members and the special counsel it hired is ``frankly
unfathomable. It's all mind-boggling.''
Johnson has
perhaps shown too much haste.
But she only
agreed to stay on the panel into the new year, when her term expired, because
Democrats agreed the matter would be over by Jan. 21. At that point, Johnson
could finally quit.
Any delay and
the case could go on forever, as Republican ethics panel member David Hobson of
Ohio said.
What happens
next in the tangled matter is, of course, impossible to predict.
Johnson could
yet shock everyone with her ruling on Gingrich. Or perhaps she can break
through the political fog and convince the mainstream of America that a
chastened Gingrich deserves no more than a reprimand.
But one thing
is sure: that Johnson will be mighty happy to leave the ethics committee
behind.
She said there
are plenty of more pressing issues her constituents would like to have her
working on, from tax policy to health care. The Gingrich case is, for her, just
a terrible distraction.
Johnson has
represented northwestern Connecticut's sixth district since 1982. The district
includes Bristol, New Britain, Torrington, the Litchfield hills and the
Farmington River valley.
