<DOC>
[House Journal, 106th Congress, 1st Session, Part 2]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:99quest.wais]
[Page 2501-2508]
[[Page 2501]]
QUESTIONS OF ORDER
QUESTIONS OF ORDER
QUESTIONS OF ORDER
DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT THE FIRST SESSION, ONE
HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
hon. j. dennis hastert of illinois, speaker
jeff trandahl of virginia, clerk
QUESTIONS OF ORDER
privileges of the house
(para. 1.27)
A resolution offered from the floor by the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary as incidental to impeachment constitutes a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX.
The House considered and adopted as a question of the privileges of the
House incidental to impeachment an omnibus resolution in continuation of
authorities originally conveyed by the predecessor-House for the conduct
of a trial in the Senate of the impeachment of President Clinton,
including the appointment of managers on the part of the House for the
trial in the Senate, the notification to the Senate thereof, and the
granting to the managers of resources and authorities to exhibit the
articles and try the case.
On January 6, 1999, Mr. HYDE, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX,
rose to a question of the privileges of the House and submitted the
following resolution (H. Res. 10):
H. Res. 10
Resolved, That in continuance of the authority conferred in
House Resolution 614 of the One Hundred Fifth Congress
adopted by the House of Representatives and delivered to the
Senate on December 19, 1998, Mr. Hyde of Illinois, Mr.
Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Mr. McCollum of Florida, Mr.
Gekas of Pennsylvania, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Buyer of
Indiana, Mr. Bryant of Tennessee, Mr. Chabot of Ohio, Mr.
Barr of Georgia, Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mr. Cannon of
Utah, Mr. Rogan of California, and Mr. Graham of South
Carolina are appointed managers to conduct the impeachment
trial against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States, that a message be sent to the Senate to inform
the Senate of these appointments, and that the managers so
appointed may, in connection with the preparation and the
conduct of the trial, exhibit the articles of impeachment to
the Senate and take all other actions necessary, which may
include the following:
(1) Employing legal, clerical, and other necessary
assistants and incurring such other expenses as may be
necessary, to be paid from amounts available to the Committee
on the Judiciary under applicable expense resolutions or from
the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives.
(2) Sending for persons and papers, and filing with the
Secretary of the Senate, on the part of the House of
Representatives, any pleadings, in conjunction with or
subsequent to, the exhibition of the articles of impeachment
that the managers consider necessary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX, and recognized Mr. HYDE and Mr. SCOTT for 30 minutes each.
After debate,
By unanimous consent, the previous question was ordered on the
resolution to its adoption or rejection.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House agree to said resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. CONYERS demanded that the vote be taken by the yeas and nays,
which demand was supported by one-fifth of the Members present, so the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device.
It was decided in the
Yeas
223
<3-line {>
affirmative
Nays
198
para.1.28
[Roll No. 6]
So the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said resolution was agreed to
was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
____________________
privileges of the house
(para. 78.23)
A resolution asserting that a Senate bill contained provisions in
derogation of the constitutional prerogative of the House to originate
revenue legislation gives rise to a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX. The House returned to the Senate a bill proposing
to amend the federal criminal code to proscribe the importation of
large-capacity ammunition-feeding devices, items which were dutiable
under separate tariff law and the ban on importation of which would
result in revenue loss.
On July 15, 1999, Mr. PORTMAN rose to a question of the privileges of
the House and submitted the following resolution (H. Res. 249):
H. Res. 249
Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 254) entitled the
``Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and
Rehabilitation Act of 1999'', in the opinion of this House,
contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of the
first article of the Constitution of the United States and is
an infringement of the privileges of this House and that such
bill be respectively returned to the Senate with a message
communicating this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Mr. PEASE, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX, and recognized Mr. PORTMAN and Mr. RANGEL, each for thirty
minutes.
After debate,
FRIDAY, JULY 16 (LEGISLATIVE DAY OF THURSDAY, JULY 15), 1999
On motion of Mr. PORTMAN, the previous question was ordered on the
resolution to its adoption or rejection.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House agree to said resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. PEASE, announced that the yeas had it.
So the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said resolution was agreed to
was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
Ordered, That the Clerk notify the Senate thereof.
____________________
point of order
(para. 89.28)
Under clause 1(c) of rule XV, half of the 40 minutes for debate on a
motion to suspend the rules is reserved for opposition.
The Chair does not assess the degree of a Member's opposition to a
motion to suspend the rules, but only whether the Member qualifies at
the outset to control the time reserved for opposition (where that
challenge is presented).
On August 3, 1999, Mr. ROHRABACHER, made a point of order pending
consideration of the bill H.R. 1907, and said:
Mr. RHORABACHER made a point of order against the division of time,
and said:
``With all fairness here, claiming opposition is not what
the question is. If the gentlewoman from Ohio is indeed
opposed to the bill, she deserves to have this time as
compared to someone who is unwilling to say that they are
opposed to the bill.''
Ms. LOFGREN was recognized to speak to the point of order and said:
``Mr. Speaker, if I may, I have reservations about the
changes made today. I hope that I can be convinced that they
are adequately made by the time the debate is over.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. MILLER of Florida, overruled the point of
order, and said:
``At this point, the Chair does not question the motives of
the Member.
[[Page 2502]]
The Member has stated she is in opposition to the
bill.''
____________________
privileges of the house
(para. 126.15)
A resolution alleging an unacceptable imbalance in certain international
trade, and calling on the President to respond to it in specified ways,
does not give rise to a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
A resolution expressing Congressional sentiment that the President take
specified action to achieve a desired public policy, even though
involving executive action under a revenue law that had been the
prerogative of the House to originate, does not present a question of
the privileges of the House but, rather, is a legislative matter to be
considered under ordinary rules relating to priority of business.
On November 4, 1999, Mr. VISCLOSKY rose to a question of the
privileges of the House and submitted the following resolution:
Resolution Calling on the President to Abstain From Renegotiating
International Agreements Governing Antidumping and Countervailing
Measures
Whereas under Art. I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the
Congress has power and responsibility with regard to foreign
commerce and the conduct of international trade negotiations;
Whereas the House of Representatives is deeply concerned
that, in connection with the World Trade Organization
(``WTO'') Ministerial meeting to be held in Seattle,
Washington, and the multilateral trade negotiations expected
to follow, a few countries are seeking to circumvent the
agreed list of negotiation topics and reopen debate over the
WTO's antidumping and antisubsidy rules;
Whereas strong antidumping and antisubsidy rules are a
cornerstone of the liberal trade policy of the United States
and are essential to the health of the manufacturing and farm
sectors in the United States;
Whereas it has long been and remains the policy of the
United States to support its antidumping and antisubsidy laws
and to defend those laws in international negotiations;
Whereas the current absence of official negotiating
objectives on the statute books must not be allowed to
undermine the Congress' constitutional role in charting the
direction of United States trade policy;
Whereas, under present circumstances, launching a
negotiation that includes antidumping and antisubsidy issues
would affect the rights of the House and the integrity of its
proceedings;
Whereas opening these rules to renegotiation could only
lead to weakening them, which would in turn lead to even
greater abuse of the world's open markets, particularly that
of the United States;
Whereas, conversely, avoiding another divisive fight over
these rules is the best way to promote progress on the other,
far more important, issues facing WTO members; and
Whereas it is therefore essential that negotiations on
these antidumping and antisubsidy matters not be reopened
under the auspices of the WTO or otherwise: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives calls upon the
President--
(1) not to participate in any international negotiation in
which antidumping or antisubsidy rules are part of the
negotiating agenda;
(2) to refrain from submitting for congressional approval
agreements that require changes to the current antidumping
and countervailing duty laws and enforcement policies of the
United States; and
(3) to enforce the antidumping and countervailing duty laws
vigorously in all pending and future cases.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HANSEN, spoke and said:
``The Chair will entertain argument as to whether the resolution
constitutes a question of privilege.
Mr. VISCLOSKY was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity and would point out, as
was stated in the resolution, we have a responsibility under Article I,
Section 8, as far as the conduct of trade policy. In the 103rd Congress,
the United States Congress did act and the President signed into law
what the agenda of the WTO Seattle round of negotiations should be.
``It is clear that our trading partners now want to usurp the position
we have taken in statutory language in the United States of America by
debating whether or not we are to eliminate or weaken our anti-dumping
and anti-subsidy duties. That is contrary to the announced policy and
statutory policy of the United States of America.
``This is not a trivial matter. In 1947, under the Bretton Woods
negotiations, the GATT condemned anti-dumping and anti-subsidy
activities.
``I am very concerned that if a resolution is not brought forth to a
vote on this floor, our constitutional prerogatives will be usurped, and
I would ask that the Chair rule in my favor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HANSEN, ruled that the resolution
submitted did not present a question of the privileges of the House
under rule IX, and said:
``The resolution offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky)
calls upon the President to address a trade imbalance in the area of
steel imports. Specifically, the resolution calls upon the President to
refrain from participation in certain international negotiations, to
refrain from submitting certain agreements to the Congress and to
vigorously enforce the trade laws.
``As the Chair ruled on October 10, 1998, a similar resolution
expressing the legislative sentiment that the President should take
specified action to achieve a desired public policy on trade does not
present a question affecting the rights of the House, collectively, its
safety, dignity or the integrity of its proceedings within the meaning
of rule IX. In the opinion of the Chair, the resolution offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) is purely a legislative
proposition properly initiated by introduction through the hopper under
clause 7 of rule XII.
``Accordingly, the resolution offered by the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky) does not constitute a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX and may not be considered at this time.''.
Mr. VISCLOSKY appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the decision of the Chair stand as the judgement of the House?
Mr. LaHOOD moved to lay the appeal on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HANSEN, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not
present and not voting.
A quorum not being present,
The roll was called under clause 6, rule XX, and the call was taken by
electronic device.
Yeas
218
When there appeared
<3-line {>
Nays
204
para. 126.16
[Roll No. 566]
So the motion to lay the appeal on the table was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said motion was agreed to was,
by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
____________________
privileges of the house
(para. 126.17)
A resolution alleging an unacceptable imbalance in certain international
trade, and calling on the President to respond to it in specified ways,
does not give rise to a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
On November 4, 1999, Mr. WISE rose to a question of the privileges of
the House and submitted the following resolution:
Resolution Calling on the President To Abstain From Renegotiating
International Agreements Governing Antidumping and Countervailing
Measures
Whereas under Art. I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the
Congress has power and responsibility with regard to foreign
commerce, and the conduct of international trade negotiations;
Whereas the House of Representatives is deeply concerned
that, in connection with the World Trade Organization
(``WTO'') Ministerial meeting to be held in Seattle,
Washington, and the multilateral trade negotiations expected
to follow, a few countries are seeking to circumvent the
agreed list of negotiation topics and reopen debate over the
WTO's antidumping and antisubsidy rules;
Whereas the Congress has not approved new negotiations on
antidumping or antisubsidy rules and has clearly, but so far
informally, signaled its opposition to such negotiations;
Whereas strong antidumping and antisubsidy rules are a
cornerstone of the liberal trade policy of the United States
and are essential to the health of the manufacturing and farm
sectors in the United States;
Whereas it has long been and remains the policy of the
United States to support its
[[Page 2503]]
antidumping and antisubsidy laws
and to defend those laws in international negotiations;
Whereas, under present circumstances, launching a
negotiation that includes antidumping and antisubsidy issues
would affect the rights of the House and the integrity of its
proceedings;
Whereas the WTO antidumping and antisubsidy rules
concluded in the Uruguay Round have scarcely been tested
since they entered into effect and certainly have not proved
defective;
Whereas opening these rules to renegotiation could only
lead to weakening them, which would in turn lead to even
greater abuse of the world's open markets, particularly that
of the United States;
Whereas conversely, avoiding another divisive fight over
these rules is the best way to promote progress on the other,
far more important, issues facing WTO members; and
Whereas it is therefore essential that negotiations on
these antidumping and antisubsidy matters not be reopened
under the auspices of the WTO or otherwise: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives calls upon the
President--
(1) not to participate in any international negotiation in
which antidumping or antisubsidy rules are part of the
negotiating agenda;
(2) to refrain from submitting for congressional approval
agreements that require changes to the current antidumping
and countervailing duty laws and enforcement policies of the
United States; and
(3) to enforce the antidumping and countervailing duty laws
vigorously in all pending and future cases.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HANSEN, spoke and said:
``The Chair will entertain brief argument as to whether the resolution
constitutes a question of privilege.''.
Mr. WISE was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, this resolution I attempt to bring up calls on the
President to abstain from renegotiating international agreements
governing antidumping and countervailing measures.
``The arguments I make are very simple. According to article I,
section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress has the power and the
responsibility relating to foreign commerce and the conduct of
international trade negotiations. An important part of Congress'
participation in the formulation of trade policy is the enactment of
official negotiating objectives against which completed agreements can
be measured when presented for ratification.
``This Congress, in 1994, ratified an agenda for the Seattle World
Trade Organization Ministerial Conference that is about to take place,
and that agenda included only agricultural trade services, trade, and
intellectual property protection. The agenda, specifically enacted into
Federal law as Public Law 103-465, did not include antidumping or
antisubsidy rules.
``What Congress is concerned about here is that a few countries are
seeking to circumvent the agreed list of negotiating topics and open
debate over the WTO's antidumping and antisubsidy rules, most notably
applied to steel in the past few months. The Congress has not approved
new negotiations on these---- ''.
Mr. KOLBE was recognized and said:
``Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the gentleman
to speak beyond the matter of whether or not this is a matter of
personal privilege?''.
Mr. WISE was further recognized and said:
``The Chair asked for arguments, and I am responding to the Chair.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. Hanson spoke and said:
``The debate should be confined to whether or not this constitutes a
question of privilege under rule IX.''
Mr. WISE was further recognized and said:
``Then I will happily deal directly with the gentleman's response.
Incidentally, the 10,000 steelworkers who have been laid off in this
country would like to have this matter brought up, but I will deal with
the narrow approach that the gentleman requests.
``Section 702 of House rule IX, entitled ``General Principles,''
concludes that certain matters of business arising under the
Constitution, mandatory in nature, have been held to have a privilege
which supersedes the rules establishing the order of business. And, Mr.
Speaker, before I was interrupted, I was making those points about those
rules which cannot be superseded.
``This is a question of the House's constitutional authority and is,
therefore, privileged in nature. The WTO antidumping and antisubsidy
rules concluded in the Uruguay Round have scarcely been tested since
they have been entered into effect and have certainly not been proven
effective. Opening these rules to negotiation only leads to weakening
them, which in turn leads to even greater abuse of the world's markets.
``There is precedent for bringing H. Res. 298 out of committee and to
the House floor immediately. For instance, H. Con. Res. 190 was brought
to the floor on October 26 under suspension of the rules because it
concerned the upcoming Seattle Round, and this measure only had 13
cosponsors, while our comeasure has 228 cosponsors. The majority of this
House should be heard.
``And, as I point out, thousands of steelworkers from Weirton to
Wheeling to Follensbee, who have been laid off during the course of
these antidumping and antisubsidy rules not being effectively applied,
are saying now to the President, please do not step back and please do
not weaken them any further. Stand up for workers in this country. That
is the grounds upon which I assert the privilege.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HANSEN, ruled that the resolution
submitted did not present a question of the privileges of the House
under rule IX, and said:
``The resolution offered by the gentleman from West Virginia calls
upon the President to address a trade imbalance in the area of imports.
Specifically, the resolution calls upon the President to refrain from
participation in certain international negotiations, to refrain from
submitting certain agreements to the Congress, and to vigorously enforce
the trade laws.
``As the Chair stated on October 10, 1998, and earlier today, a
resolution expressing the legislative sentiment that the President
should take specific action to achieve a desired public policy end does
not present a question affecting the rights of the House, collectively,
its safety, dignity, or the integrity of its proceeding within the
meanings of rule IX. In the opinion of the Chair, the resolution offered
by the gentleman from West Virginia is purely a legislative proposition
properly initiated by introduction through the hopper under clause 7,
rule XII, to be subsequently considered under the normal rules of the
House.
``Accordingly, the resolution offered by the gentleman from West
Virginia does not constitute a question of the privileges of the House
under rule IX, and may not be considered at this time.''.
Mr. WISE appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the decision of the Chair stand as the judgement of the House?
Mr. KOLBE moved to lay the appeal on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HANSEN, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. WISE demanded a recorded vote on agreeing to said motion, which
demand was supported by one-fifth of a quorum, so a recorded vote was
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device.
It was decided in the
Yeas
216
<3-line {>
affirmative
Nays
201
para. 126.18
[Roll No. 567]
So the motion to lay the appeal on the table was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said motion was agreed to was,
by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
____________________
privileges of the house
(para. 126.19)
A resolution alleging an unacceptable imbalance in certain international
trade, and calling on the President to respond to it in specified ways,
does not give rise to a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
On November 4, 1999, Mr. KUCINICH rose to a question of the privileges
of the House and submitted the following resolution:
Resolution Calling on the President to Abstain From Renegotiating
International Agreements Governing Antidumping and Countervailing
Measures
Whereas under Art. I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the
Congress has power and responsibility with regard to foreign
commerce
[[Page 2504]]
and the conduct of international trade negotiations;
Whereas the House of Representatives is deeply concerned
that, in connection with the World Trade Organization,
(``WTO'') Ministerial meeting to be held in Seattle,
Washington, and the multilateral trade negotiations expected
to follow, a few countries are seeking to circumvent the
agreed list of negotiation topics and reopen debate over the
WTO's antidumping and antisubsidy rules;
Whereas the built-in agenda for future WTO negotiations,
which was set out in the Uruguay Round package ratified by
Congress in 1994, includes agriculture trade, services trade,
and intellectual property protection but does not include
antidumping or antisubsidy rules;
Whereas the Congress has not approved new negotiations or
antidumping or antisubsidy rules and has clearly, but so far
informally, signaled its opposition to such negotiations;
Whereas strong antidumping and antisubsidy rules are a
cornerstone of the liberal trade policy of the United States
and are essential to the health of the manufacturing and farm
sectors in the United States;
Whereas it has long been and remains the policy of the
United States to support its antidumping and antisubsidy laws
and to defend those laws in international negotiations;
Whereas an important part of Congress' participation in the
formulation of trade policy is the enactment of official
negotiating objectives against which completed agreements can
be measured when presented for ratification;
Whereas the current absence of official negotiating
objectives on the statute books must not be allowed to
undermine the Congress' constitutional role in charting the
direction of United States trade policy.
Whereas the WTO antidumping and antisubsidy rules concluded
in the Uruguay Round have scarcely been tested since they
entered into effect and certainly have not proved defective;
Whereas opening these rules to renegotiation could only
lead to weakening them, which would in turn lead to even
greater abuse of the world's open markets, particularly that
of the United States;
Whereas conversely, avoiding another divisive fight over
these rules is the best way to promote progress on the other,
far more important, issues facing WTO members; and
Whereas it is therefore essential that renegotiations on
these antidumping and antisubsidy matters not be reopened
under the auspicies of the WTO or otherwise: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives calls upon the
President--
(1) not to participate in any international negotiation in
which antidumping or antisubsidy rules are part of the
negotiating agenda;
(2) to refrain from submitting for congressional approval
agreements that require changes to the current antidumping
and countervailing duty laws and enforcement policies of the
United States; and
(3) to enforce the antidumping and countervailing duty laws
vigorously in all pending and future cases.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HANSEN, spoke and said:
``The Chair will entertain a brief argument as to whether the
resolution constitutes a question of privilege. Let me caution the
Members, debate should be limited to the question of order, and may not
go to the merits of the proposition being considered.''.
Mr. KUCINICH was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, this resolution has privilege because only the House
has the authority to alter existing revenue provisions. Allowing the
administration to negotiate antidumping and countervailing duty laws
would further diminish the loss of the constitutional power the House
has suffered over time. Under article 1, section 7 of the Constitution,
the House of Representatives has the authority to originate revenue
provisions, not the Senate, the administration or the U.S. trade
representative. By not giving the administration the clear message that
Congress has antidumping and countervailing duty laws, that those laws
are not to be placed on the table for negotiations, we are essentially
allowing the administration to act on authority it does not have.
Furthermore, section 702 of House rule IX entitled General Principles
concludes that certain matters of business arising under the
Constitution, mandatory in nature, have been held to have a privilege
which superseded the rules establishing the order of business. This is a
question of the House's constitutional authority and is therefore
privileged in nature. The WTO antidumping and antisubsidy rules
concluded in the Uruguay Round have scarcely been tested since they
entered into effect and certainly have not proved effective. Opening
these rules to renegotiation could only lead to weakening them which in
turn leads to even greater abuse of the world's open markets,
particularly that of the United States.
``There is a precedent, Mr. Speaker, for bringing H. Res. 298 out of
committee and onto the House floor immediately. For instance, H .Con.
Res. 190 was brought to the floor on October 26 under suspension of the
rules because it concerned the upcoming Seattle Round. This measure had
only 13 cosponsors, while H. Res. 298 has 228 cosponsors. The majority
of the House should be heard.''.
Mr. TRAFICANT was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a privileged motion. I will not be
offering mine nor asking for a vote. But I want to take 30 seconds with
the Congress. The Congress is allowing trade practices to endanger
America. Illegal trade cannot be tolerated, and the purpose of these
exercises is to make sure the administration and Congress looks at
those.''.
Ms. KAPTUR was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in support of the resolution and
to say that I would merely beg the leadership to allow this vote to
occur, because over 228 of our Members have asked for it. I think to
bottle this up and not allow a vote is truly not in the best spirit of
this House when in fact the Constitution provides that trade-making
authority rests in the House, in the Congress, and all revenue measures
begin here in the House. With what is going to happen at the end of the
month in Seattle and the beginning of December, we want to send a strong
message to our trade negotiators, we do not want them opening up the
antidumping and countervailing duty provisions of our trade laws.
``No industry in this country has suffered more than the steel
industry and been forced to restructure. It has the most modern
production in the world. Yet we continue to lose thousands and thousands
of jobs, even over this last year. It is absolutely essential that our
negotiators hear this, and it is not the executive branch's
responsibility, it is our responsibility to enforce the laws that we
pass. And so we ask and beg of the leadership of this institution,
please allow us to bring up this resolution which allows us to instruct
our negotiators as the Constitution intended. There are 228 Members of
this institution that want to be allowed to be given voice and this
resolution brought to the floor. I rise in strong support of the
resolution.''.
Mr. DOYLE was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I also have a privileged resolution which I will not
offer and will not ask for a vote on, but I do want to speak in support
of the resolution.
``Mr. Speaker, denying a vote on this resolution denies the will of
the majority of this House. A majority of Members on both side of the
aisle, 228, are cosponsors of this legislation. This resolution is
intended to respond to a negotiating ploy by Japan and a few other
countries. These countries are trying to jump-start negotiations on the
antidumping and countervailing duty laws mostly as a negotiating tactic.
``Japan would like the world to forget about their closed
telecommunications, financial services and agricultural markets by
raising false issues about unfair trade remedies. Failing to pass this
resolution supports the trade objectives of Japan and not the trade
objectives of the United States.
``Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of this privileged resolution,
and ask that we be allowed to have a vote on it.''.
Mr. KLINK was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I also have a privileged resolution, which I will not
insist on calling up, instead speaking on behalf of this resolution
instead.
``Mr. Speaker, I would recommend to the Members the rules of the House
of Representatives, which says the privileges of the House as
distinguished from that of the individual Member include questions
relating to its constitutional prerogatives in respect to revenue
legislation and appropriations, and it goes on to other sorts of things.
``Furthermore, in Section 664 of rule IX, entitled ``General
Principles,'' as to the precedent of question of privilege, it states
`as the business of the House began to increase, it was found
necessary to give certain important matters a precedent by
rule. Such matters were called privileged questions.'
``Section 664 goes on saying,
[[Page 2505]]
`certain matters of business arising under the constitutional
mandatory in nature have been held to have privilege, which
has superseded the rules established in the regular order of
business.'
``I would say, Mr. Speaker, if you read the Constitution, under
article I, section 7, all bills for raising revenues shall originate in
the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments as on other bills.
``Clearly what we are talking about with this trade and the
countervailing duties and the antidumping is that there are tariffs that
are levied. That is the raising of revenue. That is the privilege of the
House of Representatives, not of the Senate, not of the administration,
not of the trade ambassador; but it is the privilege of this House of
Representatives.
``When these dump products are levied, a tariff is put on them, those
tariffs are revenue raisers, they are paid directly to the U.S.
Treasury; and by us allowing negotiations to be weakened and our trade
laws weakened to let in more dump product, the House would be turning
over the power to the executive branch given exclusively to us under the
Constitution.
``Now, this resolution has privilege because only the House has the
authority to alter existing revenue provisions. Allowing the
administration to negotiate these issues is the House giving that
constitutional duty up.
``In addition, I would recommend as great reading to the Members
article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
`The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,
duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for
the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposes and excises shall be uniform
throughout the Nation. The Congress also shall regulate
commerce with foreign nations and among the several states
and with the Indian tribes.'
``What we are talking about here is not only the revenue that is
taken, but it is trade policy. An important part of Congress'
participation in the formulation of trade policy is the enactment of
official negotiating objectives against which completed agreements can
then be measured for their ratification.
``Congress exercised that power back in 1994 when we ratified the
agenda for the Seattle WTO Ministerial, which included agricultural
trade; it included services trade and intellectual property protection.
The agenda, specifically enacted into Federal law as Public Law 103-465,
did not include antidumping or antisubsidy rules.
``Congress is concerned that a few countries are seeking to circumvent
the agreed list of negotiated topics and reopen debate over the WTO's
antidumping and antisubsidy rules. The current absence of official
negotiating objectives on the statute books must not be allowed to
undermine what is the House of Representatives' constitutional district.
We have a constitutional role, and it is, under the rules of this House,
our extraordinary power to step in and make sure that is not taken away
from us by the administration, by the trade representatives, or by
anyone else.
``Mr. Speaker, if that is not a point of privilege of this House, then
none exists.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HANSEN, ruled that the resolution
submitted did not present a question of the privileges of the House
under rule IX, and said:
``Because the arguments raised here were addressed in the Chair's
ruling of October 10, 1998, for the reasons stated in the Chair's
previous rulings, the resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) does not constitute a question of the privileges of the House
under rule IX and may not be considered at this time.''.
Mr. KUCINICH appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the decision of the Chair stand as the judgement of the House?
Mr. KOLBE moved to lay the appeal on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HANSEN, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. KUCINICH demanded a recorded vote on agreeing to said motion,
which demand was supported by one-fifth of a quorum, so a recorded vote
was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device.
It was decided in the
Yeas
214
<3-line {>
affirmative
Nays
204
para. 126.20
[Roll No. 568]
So the motion to lay the appeal on the table was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said motion was agreed to was,
by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
____________________
privileges of the house--return of senate bill
(para. 135.34)
A resolution asserting that a Senate bill contained provisions in
derogation of the constitutional prerogative of the House to originate
revenue legislation gives rise to a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX. The House returned to the Senate a bill that
effectively amended the internal revenue laws concerning the tax
treatment of certain military compensation.
On November 18, 1999, Mr. WELLER rose to a question of the privileges
of the House and submitted the following resolution (H. Res. 393):
H. Res. 393
Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 4) entitled the
``Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights
Act of 1999'', in the opinion of this House, contravenes the
first clause of the seventh section of the first article of
the Constitution of the United States and is an infringement
of the privileges of this House and that such bill be
respectfully returned to the Senate with a message
communicating this resolution.
When said resolution was considered.
After debate,
By unanimous consent, the previous question was ordered on the
resolution to its adoption or rejection, and under the operation
thereof, the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the resolution was agreed to
was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
Ordered, That the Clerk notify the Senate thereof.
____________________
privileges of the house--return of senate bill
(para. 135.36)
A resolution asserting that a Senate bill contained provisions in
derogation of the constitutional prerogative of the House to originate
revenue legislation gives rise to a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX. The House returned to the Senate a bill that, in
pertinent part, prescribed the tax treatment of certain public-sector
retirement plans.
On November 18, 1999, Mr. WELLER rose to a question of the privileges
of the House and submitted the following resolution (H. Res. 394):
H. Res. 394
Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 1232) entitled
the ``Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections
Act'', in the opinion of this House, contravenes the first
clause of the seventh section of the first article of the
Constitution of the United States and is an infringement of
the privileges of this House and that such bill be
respectfully returned to the Senate with a message
communicating this resolution.
When said resolution was considered.
After debate,
By unanimous consent, the previous question was ordered on the
resolution to its adoption or rejection, and under the operation
thereof, the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the resolution was agreed to
was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
Ordered, That the Clerk notify the Senate thereof.
____________________
SUBPOENAS RECEIVED PURSUANT TO RULE L
On February 3, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SHIMKUS, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 27, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules
[[Page 2506]]
of the House that I received a
grand jury subpoena for documents issued by the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the privileges and precedents of the House.
Sincerely,
Sally Asseff.
____________________
On February 23, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. PEASE, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
U.S. Congress,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 27, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House that I received a
subpoena for documents and testimony issued by the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
will make the determinations required by Rule VIII.
Sincerely,
Bill McCollum,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On March 1, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. PEASE, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, February 18, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII of the House that I received a subpoena for
documents and testimony issued by the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined to comply with the subpoena to the extent
that it is consistent with Rule VIII.
Sincerely,
Bill McCollum,
____________________
On March 22, 1999, the SPEAKER laid before the House a communication,
which was read as follows:
March 19, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII (8) of the Rules of the House that I received a
subpoena for a deposition duces tecum issued by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia in the case of
Jordan v. Sabretech, Inc.
After consultation with the Office of the General Counsel,
I have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the privileges and precedents of the House.
Sincerely,
Kathie Eastman.
____________________
On April 12, 1999, the SPEAKER laid before the House a communication,
which was read as follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 30, 19999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House, that I received a
subpoena for documents and testimony issued by the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined to comply with the subpoena to the extent
that it is consistent with Rule VIII.
Sincerely,
David M. Delquadro,
Assistant Director, Administration
and Information Division.
____________________
On April 13, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SWEENEY, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 8, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House that I received a
subpoena for documents and testimony issued by the Circuit
Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit of Florida In and For
Manatee County, Florida.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined to comply with the subpoena to the extent
that it is consistent with Rule VIII.
Sincerely,
Laura Griffin,
Case Manager.
____________________
On April 14, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 7, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII (8) of the Rules of the House that I received a
subpoena (duces tecum) issued by the Superior Court of
Bulloch County, Georgia, in the case of Griffin v. Zimnavoda.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the privileges and precedents of the House.
Sincerely,
Jack Kingston,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On May 3, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. BIGGERT, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House Republican Conference,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 30, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I write to notify you pursuant to L.
Deschler, 3 Deschler's Precedents of the United States House
of Representatives ch. 11, Sec. 14.8 (1963), that I have been
served with an administrative agency subpoena (in my capacity
as Chairman of the House Republican Conference) issued by the
Federal Election Commission. The subpoena seeks information
and documents relating to Conference activity from 1996.
Sincerely,
J.C. Watts, Jr.,
Chairman.
____________________
On May 3, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. BIGGERT, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
April 30, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you pursuant to L.
Deschler, 3 Deschler's Precedents of the United States House
of Representatives ch. 11 Sec. 14.8 (1963), that I have been
served with an administrative agency subpoena issued by the
Federal Election Commission.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner.
____________________
On May 3, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. BIGGERT, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
April 30, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you pursuant to L.
Deschler, 3 Deschler's Precedents of the United States House
of Representatives ch. 11, Sec. 14.8 (1963), that I have been
served with an administrative agency subpoena issued by the
Federal Election Commission.
Sincerely,
Barry Jackson,
Chief of Staff.
____________________
On May 13, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. BONO, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
Washington, DC, May 13, 1999.
Hon. Newt Gingrich
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a grand jury subpoena ad
testificandum issued by the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.
Sincerely,
Alana Christensen,
Deputy District Director.
____________________
On June 24, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Washington, DC, June 18, 1999.
Hon. Dennis J. Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a trial subpoena (for testimony)
issued by the Circuit Court for Houston County, Alabama in
the case of Floyd v. Floyd, No. DR-1998-000040.
[[Page 2507]]
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.
Sincerely,
Joe Williams,
District Aide.
____________________
On June 29, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. PEASE, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 29, 1999,
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker, This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House that I received a
subpoena for documents issued by the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined to comply with the subpoena to the extent
that it is consistent with Rule VIII.
Sincerely,
Anna G. Eshoo.
____________________
On July 12, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GOODLATTE, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Washington, DC,
July 8, 1999.
Hon. Dennis J. Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a trial subpoena (for testimony)
issued by the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida in
the case of State v. Bush, No. 96006912GF10A.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.
Sincerely,
Reva Britan,
Congressional Aide.
____________________
On July 12, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GOODLATTE, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Washington, DC,
July 8, 1999.
Hon. Dennis J. Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a trial subpoena (for testimony)
issued by the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida in
the case of State v. Bush, No. 96006912GF10A.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.
Sincerely,
Susan B. Lewis-Ruddy,
Director of Constituent Services.
____________________
On July 27, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HILL of Montana, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
July 23, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House that I received a
subpoena for documents and testimony issued by the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined to comply with the subpoena to the extent
that it is consistent with Rule VIII.
Sincerely,
Gary L. Ackerman,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On July 29, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. NUSSLE, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 27, 1999.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House and I received a
subpoena for documents and testimony issued by the superior
Court of the District of Columbia.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
will make the determinations required by Rule VIII.
Peter T. King.
____________________
On September 8, 1999, the SPEAKER laid before the House the following
communication from Jack Katz, Office of Payroll of the Office of the
Chief Administrative Officer:
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, August 24, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House that I received a
subpoena for documents issued by the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Florida.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined to comply with the subpoena.
Sincerely,
Jack Katz,
Office of Payroll.
____________________
On September 15, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. PEASE, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
U.S. House of Representatives,
September 13, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House that my office has
received a subpoena for documents issued by the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, State of Maryland.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined to comply with the subpoena.
Sincerely,
Roscoe G. Bartlett,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On September 23, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. TANCREDO, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 21, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House that my office has
received a subpoena for documents issued by the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined to comply with the subpoena.
Sincerely,
Phil English
Member of Congress.
____________________
On November 1, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. PETRI, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 27, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House that I have received a
subpoena for documents issued by the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
will make the determinations required by Rule VIII.
Sincerely,
James M. Eagen III,
Chief Administrative Officer.
____________________
On November 1, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. PETRI, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 26, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House that the Custodian of
Records, House Recording Studio has received a subpoena for
documents issued by the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
will make the determinations required by Rule VIII.
Sincerely,
John M. Allen,
Director, Office of Communications Media.
____________________
On November 9, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALDEN, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, November 2, 1999.
Hon. Dennis J. Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to rule VIII of the Rules
[[Page 2508]]
of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a trial subpoena issued by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan in the case of U.S. v. Fayzakov, No. 99-CR-50015.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.
Sincerely,
Lucretia Presnall,
Staff Assistant.
____________________
On November 10, 1999, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, November 2, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a trial subpoena issued by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan in the case of U.S. v. Fayzakov, No. 99-CR-50015.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.
Sincerely,
Barbara Donnelly,
Assistant District Director.