House Approves Punishment of Gingrich, 395-28

WASHINGTON —  The House reached a somber conclusion in a wrenching two-year ethics investigation Tuesday, voting overwhelmingly to issue a formal reprimand and assess a $300,000 penalty against Speaker Newt Gingrich for repeated ethical lapses.

The historic roll call marked the first time that a House speaker has faced the dishonor of being formally punished for violating ethical standards.

The vote was 395 to 28, providing a resoundingly bipartisan finale to an investigation that has riven the House along party lines since the Georgia Republican assumed the speakership in January 1995.

Twenty six Republicans--including six from California--and two Democrats voted against the punishment, mostly because they thought the penalty too harsh. Five Democrats abstained.

The charges centered on allegations that Gingrich was not vigilant about avoiding improper commingling of his political and charitable enterprises and that he presented false information to the committee.

Most members described the punishment, recommended by the House Ethics Committee, as a fair sanction and one that should allow the House to move beyond the drama that has dogged it for two years.

“Representative Gingrich failed to exercise the discipline and caution of his office and so is subject to penalty today,” said Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), who chairs the Ethics Committee. “But if our action today fails to chasten this body and bring a halt to the crippling partisanship and animosity that has surrounded us, then we will have lost an opportunity to learn and grow from this solemn occasion.”

Gingrich had no public comment. He was not in the House chamber for the debate and did not watch it on television, an aide said. Instead, he was taking part in a series of meetings in his office.

Gingrich’s punishment, while unprecedented for the House’s top leader and the man third in line to the presidency, is nonetheless light enough to allow Gingrich to retain his job as speaker. But some Republicans say that he will have to work hard to restore his moral authority as a leader and to put to rest concerns that he has been too damaged to serve effectively.

Tuesday’s reprimand “will be the first step in his rehabilitation,” said Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.). “The next steps are up to him.”

What’s more, this is not likely to be the end of Gingrich’s problems. The panel is making all its documents concerning possible tax law violations by Gingrich available to the Internal Revenue Service. Additional charges are still pending before the Ethics Committee. And Gingrich may walk straight into a new ethical briar patch if he decides to pay his penalty out of campaign funds rather than from personal funds.

Some Republicans have urged him privately to use political funds, fearing that the penalty sets a precedent that could bankrupt other members in the future. But publicly, many have acknowledged that Gingrich could create a big political problem for himself if he does not use his own money.

Rep. Michael P. Forbes (R-N.Y.), asked if the House had seen the end of ethical controversies surrounding the speaker, said: “I would hope so but I’m not convinced of it. I don’t think anybody is.”

And Democrats, despite calls for bipartisanship that dominated President Clinton’s inaugural Monday, may not let the matter lie.

“Democrats will continue to point out the hypocrisy of Republicans’ talking about getting rid of institutional corruption and keeping as speaker a man who has been reprimanded,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

Tuesday’s extraordinary debate was conducted with decorum and ceremony that is often lacking on the House floor, where lawmakers’ byplay is usually either more desultory or more raucous.

The 90-minute debate began with the presiding officer, Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-Neb.), issuing unusual words of warning to members to “exercise care to maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect.”

The debate was solemn and the press gallery was packed. But the public and other House members seemed less riveted: The public gallery and the House floor had plenty of empty seats.

The investigation of Gingrich, which began in late 1994 with a complaint filed by his Democratic opponent, centered on a college course that Gingrich taught from 1993 to 1995 with financial support from nonprofit foundations.

The ethics panel found--and Gingrich admitted--that he had brought discredit to the House by providing false information to the committee on the links between the course and GOPAC, a political action committee he headed, and by failing to obtain adequate legal advice to ensure that he was complying with federal tax laws prohibiting the use of tax exempt funds for partisan purposes.

James M. Cole, the special counsel to the committee, said that Gingrich’s violations were part of a pattern of behavior that was either “intentional” or “reckless” over a number of years. “Mr. Gingrich showed a disregard and lack of respect for the standards of conduct that applied to his activities,” Cole said in his report.

During Tuesday’s debate, many Republicans tried to minimize the charges, noting that the committee did not find that Gingrich had lied intentionally when he submitted documents denying that GOPAC had anything to do with his course--when in fact the group was heavily involved in planning and fund-raising for the course.

Rep. Steven H. Schiff (R-N.M.) said that the inaccurate documents were submitted as a result of clerical mistakes that he called “a comedy of errors.”

But Democrats saw the matter as less benign. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) charged that the mistaken documents were submitted by Gingrich “not because of a comedy of errors but because he thought he could get away with it.”

No one tried to change the recommended penalty, although several Republicans complained that they thought it was too harsh. They argued that in past ethics cases members were reprimanded only if they had been found to have intentionally misled the committee.

The investigation has “exposed some flaws, some sloppiness, some things that should be done better,” said House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas). “But it has not exposed corruption, lawlessness or personal profit.”

DeLay was one of the 26 Republicans to vote against the punishment recommended by the committee. The California Republicans who voted “no” were John T. Doolittle (R-Rocklin); Wally Herger (R-Marysville); Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon); Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands); Howard P. McKeon (R-Santa Clarita) and Ron Packard (R-Oceanside).

“I consider this action against the speaker excessive and unwarranted,” Packard said.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) abstained, but declined in an interview to explain her decision.

In a closed-door meeting with House Republicans before the vote, Gingrich urged his colleagues to approve the recommended punishment.

However, several members reported that much of that hourlong session focused on Republicans’ anxieties about the precedent being set by the stiff penalty being imposed by the committee.

“The overwhelming consensus in there today is that the $300,000--any amount of money--is wrong,” Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) told reporters outside the meeting. “It’s a precedent that could come down on anybody.”

On the volatile question of how Gingrich will pay the penalty, aides said that he will decide within the next week or two whether to use campaign funds or pay from his own personal accounts. His lawyers are reviewing legal precedents to see whether it is legal to use campaign funds.

Gingrich has more than enough money in his campaign coffers to pay the penalty. In its most recent financial disclosure filing, the Friends of Newt Gingrich reported cash on hand of $1,013,923 as of Nov. 25, 1996.

It would be more of a stretch if he used personal funds, but he has reported substantial income in recent years. He receives a congressional salary of $171,500 a year. His most recent financial disclosure form says that he collected $471,348 in net book royalties in 1995, when his book “To Renew America” made the bestseller list.

Gingrich’s disclosure form, filed in May 1996, shows that he and his wife held assets valued between $302,000 and $857,000.

Times staff writers Faye Fiore, Gebe Martinez and Marc Lacey contributed to this story.

* CAMPAIGN FINANCE: Clinton challenges GOP to join ban on “soft money.” A11

* APPOINTEE RESIGNS: Liaison with Taiwan steps down amid donor inquiry. A11