Gingrich Inquiry Stirs Concern in GOP : Congress: Republicans are standing up for the speaker amid ethics probe. But they also seek to put distance between him and their legislative agenda.

Even as House Republicans staunchly defended the man they call “the father of the revolution,” they conceded Thursday that the broadening ethics investigation of House Speaker Newt Gingrich threatens to derail the GOP legislative agenda.

“That’s a concern of mine and I think he shares that concern as well,” said Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.).

“Let’s face it,” said Rep. David M. McIntosh (R-Ind.), “what’s going on is an outrageous attempt to reverse the results of the election of 1994.”

The two influential freshmen were expressing a sentiment shared by many other Republicans a day after the House Ethics Committee said Gingrich had violated House rules by misusing official resources and ordered an investigation by a yet-to-be-named special counsel.

The Ethics Committee met Thursday for final work on its report that the speaker from Georgia had violated House rules by misusing official resources and would appoint a special counsel to investigate allegations that he improperly used tax-deductible donations to finance a college course that he taught.

The report was not expected to be released nor was the counsel expected to be named until next week.

As the House opened for business Thursday morning, Republicans rushed to defend Gingrich, expressing confidence in the man whose agenda propelled the GOP to victory last November.

“This effort to destroy Newt Gingrich is not about finding the truth,” Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said. “Instead of joining with us to balance the budget, liberal Democrats have launched a smear campaign meant to derail our legislative agenda.”

“They’re not going to bring him down. He’s going to remain strong,” DeLay added. “But the revolution would continue even if they brought him down.”

Yet as they stood up for their leader, House Republicans began subtly hedging their bets--using a variety of aphorisms to put distance between their conservative legislative agenda and the man so closely identified with it.

Weldon likened the speaker to “an engineer who gets the train rolling. . . . But an engineer is not more powerful than the train.”

“What we are trying to do is bigger than Newt Gingrich,” he said. “That’s the bottom line. I don’t think we have to rely on Newt. Those issues transcend Newt Gingrich.”

The intent of the Democrats, McIntosh said, “is to knock out the leader. But a lot of us are very committed to the ideas--independent of the leadership.”

Democrats wasted little time capitalizing on the Ethics Committee’s decision.

“The speaker of the House is the third highest office in the land,” said Rep. David E. Bonior (D-Mich.). “He should be setting an ethical standard for everyone else to follow, not looking for loopholes to see how much he can get away with.”

*

Bonior, one of Gingrich’s most ardent critics, plans to file another ethics complaint against Gingrich related to Federal Election Commission allegations.

The commission has filed a lawsuit alleging that GOPAC, a political action committee headed by Gingrich, violated federal campaign laws. The agency claims GOPAC spent more than $500,000 to help elect congressional candidates--including $250,000 to reelect Gingrich himself--in 1989-90. GOPAC was prohibited to do so during that period because it was not registered as a federal political action committee and did not abide by requirements for federal PACs.

Democrats denied GOP accusations that they were engaged in a vendetta against Gingrich.

“This is not get-even time,” said Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.). “The Democrats don’t have to do anything to Newt. All we have to do is stand back and let Newt be Newt.”

Gingrich led a relentless campaign against then-Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas) in the late 1980s that resulted in an ethics inquiry and forced Wright to resign in disgrace in 1989.

The Ethics Committee’s vote Wednesday night to hire an outside counsel evoked memories on both sides of the aisle of the Wright incident. But DeLay heatedly rejected such parallels.

“To compare the Gingrich investigation to the Wright investigation is like comparing a gnat to a hippopotamus,” he said.

The soon-to-be-hired independent counsel will be asked to investigate allegations that Gingrich improperly used tax-deductible donations to finance his teaching of a college course. But with the committee’s acquiescence, the investigation could broaden into a more thorough review of Gingrich’s political and fund-raising affairs, centering on GOPAC.

The review by an outside counsel will lead to a decision to either file formal charges or dismiss the case. If the committee finds the speaker guilty of major violations, it would recommend punishment to the House that would range from a reprimand to expulsion.

One person who was not surprised by the increasing ambivalence among House Republicans toward Gingrich was James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at the American University.

“They were very upset with him” even before the latest ethics developments, Thurber said. He noted that many House GOP members had heard voter complaints during the Thanksgiving recess about Gingrich’s stridency.

“And when they got back, there was a great deal of pressure to get Newt not be Newt,” Thurber said.