The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Congressional Page Scandal

[Tease]

Rep. THOMAS P. O'NEILL, (D) Massachusetts, Speaker of the House: Mr. Crane, I have been instructed by the members of the House, your peers, to read to you the following resolve. Resolve One, that Daniel -- Representative Daniel B. Crane be censured. Mr. Gerry Studds, I have been instructed by a vote of the Congress of the United States, your peers, to read the following to you. Resolve One, that Representative Gerry E. Studds be censured.

[Titles]

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The House of Representatives today voted to censure two of its members for having sexual relations with teenaged congressional pages. For Congressman Daniel Crane, Republican of Illinois, the relations were with a 17-year-old girl in 1980. For Congressman Gerry Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, the year was 1973 and the relations were with a 17-year-old male. He was also accused of making homosexual advances toward two other male pages. Both men admitted the charges when first revealed last week. The votes today in both cases were near unanimous: 421 to 3 in Crane's case; 420 to 3 against Studds. In voting censure, the House stiffened the punishment of reprimand recommended by its ethics committee, which had investigated the two cases.The Republican minority leader, Robert Michel, made the motion to change it to censure, which requires the member to stand at the front of the House while a formal censure motion is read by the Speaker. That was done in both cases this afternoon. The severest penalty the House can levy against one of its own is expulsion. It was a difficult session for all members of the House today, and the debate which preceded each vote reflected that. We're going to show you extended excerpts from the proceedings, beginning with those on Representative Crane, who was the first to speak.

Rep. DANIEL B. CRANE, (R) Illinois: This is one of the most difficult moments in my life, and it has been an unparalleled ordeal for my family. We pay for our sins in life and in making my peace I take comfort that our Lord promised me forgiveness 70 times seven. It is less easy for us to forgive ourselves or our brothers, but I have asked for and received the forgiveness of those I hurt most -- my wife and my family. I have asked my friends and neighbors to forgive me as well. But, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet apologized to my colleagues in this body for the shame I have brought down on this institution. Before any action is taken and regardless of the action this body takes, I want the members to know that I am sorry and that I apologize to one and all. Thank you. [applause]

Rep. LOUIS STOKES, (D) Ohio: Mr. Speaker, based on its investigation the committee reached two central conclusions. First, the House must set itself the highest standard of conduct given its special responsibility for congressional pages. Second, the conduct of Representative Crane and Representative Studds constituted a serious breach of these standards and required strong condemnation. The committee recognized that the members involved have not been charged or convicted of any criminal violations. The age of consent in Virginia and in the District of Columbia where these acts occurred is 16, but the committee strongly concluded that the members of the House must be held to a higher standard than the criminal law. The House has a special relationship of trust with the teenaged pages that it employs. The committee believed that only one standard of conduct could be considered appropriate: no sexual relationship between a page and a member of the House can be regarded as acceptable behavior. No sexual advance by a member to a House page can be tolerated.

Rep. FLOYD SPENCE, (R) South Carolina: The committee decided that the violations were serious, that punishment was required, that the information had to be made public. So the committee has recommended strong action to this House. I know that some might say we should do more, but, Mr. Speaker, your committee has not made these recommendations lightly.The men we judge today are elected members of this body.They live and die by their public reputations. Mr. Speaker, the public disclosure of the facts of these cases has already placed an indelible stain on the reputation and names of these members. How much more can you do to someone, whatever you call it, in the way of a punishment? These individuals will go down in history as condemned by the institution they served in.

Rep. JULIAN DIXON, (D) California: As judges the committee had a responsibility to ask the question if there were mitigating or aggravating circumstances. And in these two cases there are mitigating circumstances. Both members have admitted the charges; all parties involved have testified under oath that the acts were consensual, and it is certainly an iffy question as to if in fact any crime has been committed.

Rep. BARBER CONABLE, (R) New York: This report demonstrates quite clearly that the behavior that was involved here was exceptional and not the rule. That's what makes news, Mr. Speaker, and therefore it is terribly important that we try to put it in an appropriate perspective showing that we are concerned about the standards of this body and its members and that we are willing to take appropriate action to be sure that the public understands that such conduct is exceptional and not the rule.

Rep. NEWT GINGRICH, (R) Georgia: We are not here to punish Dan Crane, nor later will we be here to punish the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Studds. We're not a jury. We are here to repair the integrity of the United States House of Representatives and our focus should not be on the two members. Our focus should not be on what they are going through and what has happened to them.We represent the most important bastion of freedom on this planet. That freedom survives only because decent, simple, everyday human beings across this planet say, "When I elect someone they're my leader." This has been the people's house for 200 years. We are in deep trouble as a society.Part of that trouble is reflected by the people here because we are a pretty accurate reflection of the people's house. People are looking for a guidepost as to how they should live, how their institutions should behave, who they should follow. Our decisions aren't made today about two individuals. Our decisions are made today about the integrity of freedom, about belief in your leaders, about the future of this country, about what we should become. In that setting, and with no malice towards any individual, with no feeling of ill will towards any individual, I cannot see how reprimand is in any way adequate.

Rep. HENRY J. HYDE, (R) Illinois: We sit here to find a punishment to fit the breach. And so in searching our souls for the appropriate punishment I ask you to consider this situation in its totality, in its entire context. I suggest to you that Dan Crane would rather have lost an arm at the shoulder than have to tell his wife and have to greet his wife, as he did, with the media there. I suggest that Dan Crane would rather have died of a heart attack than have to face his six children, to face his father, to face his wife's family, to face his family, to face his friends and to face his constituency, to face his colleagues, to face his peers and to face all of the country. I suggest that all life is about is to earn the esteem of your fellow man.That's what we're here for. That's why we run for election. That's why we get out press releases; that's why we get up in the morning. Just to earn the esteem of our fellow man. And that's lost to Dan Crane. He isn't embarrassed. He's humiliated. He's disgraced, and it endures! It isn't over. It'll never be over. It'll be over as long as he lives, and it'll be over after he lives. It'll be with him. It'll be with his family as long as they live. You can't know what disgrace is, you can't imagine, unless you live it, unless it's happened to you. And imagine, if you will, Dan Crane facing his children as they grow up and say, "Daddy, what happened? I heard about it at school." Every shred of dignity will be stripped away from Dan Crane, and it will endure. I suggest to you that compassion and justice are not antithetical. They're complimentary. The Judeo-Christian tradition says, "Hate the sin and love the sinner." We're all on record as hating the sin, some more ostentatiously than others. I think it's time to love the sinner.

Rep. GEORGE M. O'BRIEN, (R) Illinois: There is no question that all the punishment that could be meted out to Dan Crane has already been meted out and without any degree of mercy. And there is no question that he is my friend, but by tonight I doubt that I'll be his. Now, getting back to Henry Hyde's comment about the totality of the thing and the feelings we have.I would like to just talk directly to the issues of what it's like at home. I cannot speak for Massachusetts and certainly not the 10th District. I cannot speak for Illinois, but I can speak for the 4th District. And I think that the people in the 4th District, if I tell them that this particular offense, these particular offenses, merit only the lowest category of penalty that this House can administer, I'm not going to understand that.

Rep. ROBERT DAVIS, (R) Michigan: I would hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will not take advantage of this regrettable situation by engaging in a holy crusade. Is there anyone here who believes that he has not already suffered immeasureably? Just how much does this body feel we must punish a person? In the absence of treason or felonious wrongdoing, it is not our place to determine whether one of our colleagues should remain in Congress. In this case, that judgment belongs with the people of the 19th District of Illinois.

Rep. WILLIAM CARNEY, (R) New York: The House is not on trial today. Two members are.The House has proven itself worthy of the American trust today in the fact that we're here, inasmuch as that we investigated this occurrence, inasmuch as we brought forth the facts to the public. Now, what I'm concerned about is we might have some prejudice that we shouldn't have. We might be concerned about whether the people in our districts will understand the punishment. I don't think we're allowed to do that. We have to go forward and give those two members an honest and decent consideration. We can't consider what the public will think about our election next November. We can't consider what the public would perceive to be as not justice.We have to consider what justice is.

Rep. ED JENKINS, (D) Georgia: Some members are suggesting that these two members should be expelled or that the matter ought to be sent back to the ethics committee for some other nebulous, uncertain punishment.As a lawyer, as a member of the bar for 25 years, as a former federal prosecutor, as a former defense attorney -- as many of you are, I urge this House today to proceed precipitously in a very delicate constitutional area. I beg you to do that. The precedents of the House raise difficult questions as to whether expulsion can be properly, legally justified in the present circumstances. The House has expelled only four members in its entire history: three of those have been for treason; one has been for the commission of a felony, a very serious felony. The cases before us today are serious; they are grievous, but they do not involve the type of high crimes or felonies on which expulsions have been based up to now.

Rep. ROBERT MICHEL, (R) Illinois, House Republican Leader: I look through the records here, too, and I guess next to expulsion the precedents reveal that censure is the most severe form of legislative punishment. I really, I guess, deep down in my heart feel that's too strong, but rather than to buy onto the motion of the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrich, to refer this back again to the committee, to go through whatever else and come up with some other remedy or punishment, I'd rather have this matter dealt with today on the spot. So I'm going to exercise my peremptory right of taking the motion to recommit, which will read as follows.Those of you who want to vote for it can; those who will not, I'm certainly not going to have any quarrel with you because, frankly, I think the committee recommendations are good and sound, and were based on fundamental good reason. What I would simply -- my motion to recommit will simply be that, strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu thereof the following, that "Representative Dan B. Crane be censured, that Representative Dan Crane forthwith present himself in the well of the House for the pronouncement of censure, and that Representative Daniel B. Crane be censured with a public reading of this resolution by the Speaker.

LEHRER: The debate completed later, the vote to censure taken, Congressman Crane then went to the front or well of the House to be formally censured by Speaker Thomas O'Neill.

Speaker O'NEILL: Will the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Daniel B. Crane, kindly appear in the well? Mr. Crane, I have been instructed by the members of the House, your peers, to read to you the following resolve: "Resolve One, that Daniel -- Representative Daniel B. Crane be censured, that Representative Daniel B. Crane forthwith present himself in the well of the House for the pronouncement of the censure, and that Daniel B. Crane be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker." That concludes the censure.

LEHRER: Congressman Studds chose not to address the House today. Last Thursday he did, though, admitting he was a homosexual and that he had had sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page in 1973. He said it was bad judgment, but it was a consensual relationship, one that did not constitute improper sexual conduct nor warrant action by the House. The House ethics committee disagreed with that, and committee chairman Louis Stokes was the one who laid out the case against Congressman Studds this afternoon.

Rep. STOKES: Mr. Speaker, the committee in its deliberations recognized that the conduct of Representative Studds involved a sexual relationship with a teenaged page as well as sexual advances to two others, and in fact in each of these instances the excessive use of alcohol. But 10 years has passed since these events took place, and while the House does not recognize any statute of limitations in considering the official conduct of its members, the House must consider the length of time since the misconduct occurred in deciding upon an appropriate sanction. In addition, Representative Studds has not contested the facts, and has cooperated with the committee's investigation in its efforts to protect the identity of the pages involved. Mr. Speaker, these are not easy judgments to make.They require a judicious balancing of many factors. In the committee's judgment, strong action is required to condemn Representative Studds' conduct.

Rep. GINGRICH: I was prepared to go home and ignore the whole mess. I would have come in this week, and I would have voted for two reprimands. Then Thursday evening the gentleman from Massachusetts came to the floor of the House and made an extraordinary statement. I recommend to every member the full text on page H-5190 of that July 14th statement. It's important to contrast the two members' behavior for just a moment. The gentleman from Illinois came asking forgiveness. The gentleman from Illinois came to the well of the House and admitted he had done wrong and asked for understanding. The gentleman from Massachusetts has a totally different viewpoint. Let me read four paragraphs from the gentleman from Massachusetts' own statement of July 14th. "I do not believe, however, that a relationship which was mutual and voluntary, without coercion, without any preferential treatment express or implied, without harassment of any kind, which was private and which occurred 10 years ago constitutes 'improper sexual conduct' within the meaning of House Resolution 518 and as defined by the committee on standards of official conduct itself in its report of last December. There were for me extraordinarily strong reasons to insist on public hearings with respect to the allegations. My own personal instincts have virtually compelled me to contest the committee's recommendation. I will not contest procedurally the course of action recommended by the committee on standards of official conduct. In so doing, however, I repeat that in my judgment the mutually voluntary private relationship between adults which occurred 10 years ago should not, by any conceivable standard of fairness, rationality, rule or law, warrant the attention or action of the House of Representatives." I read that and I reread that and I reread that. In that statement last Thursday he wiped out 10 years of history, and he stood there 10 years later and he said, as I understand his statement, while it may have been an error of judgment, it was not fundamentally wrong.

Rep. PARREN MITCHELL, (D) Maryland: Fourteen years will elapse when I finish this current term, and I've been here long enough to see several of these procedures take place. And I guess you have to be a member of this body to understand the absolute degradation that is imposed on a member when the House itself even considers judging -- the absolute humiliation and degradation. This House must punish people for wrongdoing. It must. But let us not cannibalize the members. Let's not do that. What did we gain by bringing Mr. Crane down to the well of the House? Already embarrassed, already humiliated, already stripped, already -- unfortunately -- questioned by his family, already -- unfortunately, whether we say so or not -- scorned by the members of this House. So what do we gain?One further attempt to strip him of the little that he had left. It's no difference -- there's no difference between a reprimand and a censure except that the House would cry out, "We haven't humiliated you enough. We must take this further step." It just doesn't make sense. Reprimand Studds, yes; cannibalize him, no.

Rep. STEWART McKINNEY, (R) Connecticut: Ladies and gentlemen of America, one slightly psychotic teenager went to the FBI and the press of the United States and said there was something evil in Congress -- drug selling. Wrong. And that there was something evil between '81 and '82 -- illicit sex. Wrong. Crane, '80; Studds, '73. I would suggest to you that no Rotary Club, Lions' Club, corporate entity, board of directors or anyone else would have spent a million dollars and more investigating this type of process and in fact masochistically beating themselves over the shoulder and then coming forth with the charge of the committee that Lou Stokes, the rest of the committee and Floyd brought, which was their duty to the people of America -- disclosure of the facts.

Rep. STOKES: When I leave the floor now and when I stand up and vote for reprimand, I'm voting my conscience. I've lived -- I've lived with this investigation for a year. None of you in this body can understand the amount of time that I've spent with Joe Califano and Rick Cotton and the other people on this staff. Nobody can understand the hours that Spence and I have spent together, and in spite of that you never have heard a single leak come out of this committee. No one has been humiliated or demeaned or slandered as a result of the investigation that's gone on for a year. But I'm proud of what they did. Whatever action you take today is something you have to take in accordance with your own conscience. I've been in this body long enough to read the temperature here, but every time I put that card in that little box over there I vote in a way where that night I can go to sleep in bed. I'm going to sleep comfortably tonight knowing I've done what is right by both of these men. So I leave it with your conscience as to what you do today, but I thank the men who served with me on this committee. You have been champions. Thank you.

LEHRER: Then, following the vote it was Congressman Studds' turn to hear his censure motion read by Speaker O'Neill.

Speaker O'NEILL: Gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Gerry E. Studds, kindly appear in the well. Mr. Gerry Studds, I have been instructed by a vote of the Congress of the United States, your peers, to read the following to you. "Resolved, one, that Representative Gerry E. Studds be censured.Two, that Representative Gerry E. Studds forthwith present himself in the well of the House for the pronouncement of censure. And, three, that the Representative Gerry E. Studds be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker." This concludes the censure.

LEHRER: As a matter of history, before today the House had censured 21 of its members, only two of those actions coming in the last 50 years. Also, neither of the recent two survived in office. One was defeated for re-election; the other resigned. In the current matter, both congressmen Crane and Studds say they have no intention now of resigning. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.