<DOC>
[House Journal, 105th Congress, 1st Session, Part 1]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:97quest.wais]
[Page 2309-2325]
QUESTIONS OF ORDER
QUESTIONS OF ORDER
QUESTIONS OF ORDER
DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT THE FIRST SESSION, ONE
HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
hon. newt gingrich of Georgia, speaker
robin h. carle of virginia, clerk
[[Page 2309]]
QUESTIONS OF ORDER
privileges of the house
(para.1.5)
After a quorum of Members-elect has been established at the
organizational session of the House, nominations for election of the
Speaker are of the highest privilege and take precedence over a
resolution offered as a question of the privileges of the House
(proposing an interim election of a Speaker pro tempore pending an
ethics investigation of a nominee for Speaker).
Questions of order decided by the Clerk of the previous Congress
concerning the priority of business at the organizational session of the
House are subject to appeal by any Member-elect.
The House laid on the table an appeal from the ruling of the Clerk.
On January 7, 1997, Mr. FAZIO, rose to a question of the privileges of
the House, submitted a resolution and said:
``Madam Clerk, I rise to a question of the highest constitutional
privilege. I offer a resolution which calls for the postponement of the
election of the Speaker of the House until the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct completes its work on the matters concerning
Representative Newt Gingrich of Georgia. The resolution requires the
House to proceed immediately to the election of an interim Speaker who
will preside over the House until that time.
``I ask for the immediate consideration of the resolution.''.
The Clerk ruled that the election of a Speaker took precedence over
the consideration of said resolution, and said:
``Section 30 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which is
codified in section 25 of title 2, United States Code, reads in part as
follows:
``At the first session of Congress after every general election of
Representatives, the oath of office shall be administered by any Member
of the House of Representatives to the Speaker; and by the Speaker to
all Members and Delegates present, and to the Clerk, previous to
entering on any other business.
``This has been the law since June 1, 1789.
``The precedent recorded in Hinds' Precedents of the House at volume
1, section 212, recites that, `at the organization of the House the
motion to proceed to the election of a Speaker is of the highest
privilege.' On that occasion, the Clerk stated that ``the duty of the
House to organize itself is a duty devolved upon it by law, and any
matter looking to the performance of that duty takes precedence in all
parliamentary bodies of all minor questions.
``The Clerk cites both the statute and the precedent as controlling
her decision, consistent with the modern practice of the House, to
recognize nominations for Speaker.''.
Mr. FAZIO appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question being put, viva voce,
Shall the decision of the Clerk stand as the judgment of the House?
Mr. BOEHNER 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 Clerk announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. FAZIO 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
222
<3-line {>
affirmative
Nays
210
para.1.6
[Roll No. 2]
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.4.5)
A resolution originated by privileged report of the Select Committee on
Ethics pursuant to clause 4(e)(3) of rule X in the 105th Congress gave
rise to a question of the privileges of the House.
Pending the consideration of a resolution as a question of the
privileges of the House addressing the official conduct of a Member, the
Speaker pro tempore enunciated standards of decorum in debate.
On January 21, 1997, Mrs. JOHNSON, rose to a question of the
privileges of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res.
31; Rept. 105-1):
In the Matter of Representative Newt Gingrich
Resolved, That the House adopt the report of the Select
Committee on Ethics dated January 17, 1997, In the Matter of
Representative Newt Gingrich.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. BEREUTER, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
Pending consideration of said resolution,
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. BEREUTER, made the following statement:
``Before we proceed, the Chair will have a statement about the
decorum expected of the Members.
``The Chair has often reiterated that members should refrain from
references in debate to the conduct of other Members where such conduct
is not the question actually pending before the House, either by way of
a report from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or by way
of another question of the privileges of the House.
``This principle is documented on pages 168 and 526 of the House
Rules and Manual and reflects the consistent rulings of the Chair in
this and in prior Congresses. It derives its force primarily from
clause 1 of rule XIV which broadly prohibits engaging in personality in
debate. It has been part of the rules of the House since 1789.
``On the other hand, the calling up of a resolution reported by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or the offering of a
resolution as a similar question of the privileges of the House,
embarks the House on consideration of a proposition that admits
references in debate to a Member's conduct. Disciplinary matters by
their very nature involve personalities.
``Still, this exception to the general rule against engaging in
personality--admitting references to a Member's conduct when that
conduct is the very question under consideration by the House--is
closely limited. This point was well stated on July 31, 1979, as
follows:
While a wide range of discussion is permitted during debate
on a disciplinary resolution, clause 1 of rule XIV still
prohibits the use of language which is personally abusive.
``This is recorded in the Deschler-Brown Procedure in the House of
Representatives in chapter 12 at section 2.11.
``On the question now pending before the House, the resolution
offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Members should confine
their remarks in debate to the merits of that precise
[[Page 2310]]
question. Members should refrain from remarks that constitute
personalities with respect to members of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct or the Select Committee on Ethics or with respect to
other sitting Members whose conduct is not the subject of the pending
report. Finally, Members should exercise care to maintain an atmosphere
of mutual respect.
``On January 27, 1909, the House adopted a report that stated the
following:
It is the duty of the House to require its Members in
speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will
permit the House to conduct its business in an orderly manner
and without unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among
its Members.
``This is recorded in Cannon's Precedents in volume 8 at section
2497.
``The report adopted on that occasion responded to improper
references in debate to the President, but it articulated a principle
that occupants of the Chair over many Congresses have held equally
applicable to Members' remarks toward each other.
``The Chair asks and expects the cooperation of all Members in
maintaining a level of decorum that properly dignifies the proceedings
of the House.''.
By unanimous consent, the time for debate was extended by 30 minutes.
Whereupon,
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. BEREUTER, recognized Mrs. JOHNSON of
Connecticut for 90 minutes.
When said resolution was considered.
After debate,
On motion of Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, 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. BEREUTER, announced that the yeas had
it.
Mr. CARDIN demanded a recorded vote on agreeing to said resolution,
which demand was supported by one-fifth of a quorum, so a recorded vote
was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device.
Yeas
395
It was decided in the
Nays
28
<3-line {>
affirmative
Answered present
5
para.4.6
[Roll No. 8]
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.
____________________
point of order
(para.26.11)
To a bill prohibiting a specified set of medical procedures, an
amendment proposed in a motion to recommit prohibiting a superset of
such procedures is not germane.
The House laid on the table an appeal from the ruling of the Speaker pro
tempore.
On March 20, 1997, Mr. CANADY, made a point of order against the
motion to recommit, and said:
``Mr. Speaker, the fundamental purpose of the underlying bill, H.R.
1122, deals with a very limited class of abortions, specifically
partial-birth abortions. This is one specific type of procedure as
defined in the bill.
``The fundamental purpose of the motion to recommit amendment deals
with any abortion procedure done post-viability. It purports to cover a
much broader class of procedures than the one procedure specifically
prohibited in this bill.
``Therefore, since the fundamental purpose of the motion to recommit
purports to deal with a class of procedures that is broader than the one
procedure in the underlying bill, a proposition on a subject different
from that under consideration, it is not germane to the bill and I
insist on the point of order.''.
Mr. HOYER was recognized to speak to the point of order, and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for recognizing me on the point of
order.
``Mr. Speaker, this amendment is offered for the purpose, as it says,
of limiting all late-term abortions, of prohibiting all late-term
abortions, including abortions to which the gentleman spoke. We believe
it does in fact expand upon but is inclusive of the procedures to which
the gentleman's bill speaks. We believe it is an effort and an
opportunity for the Congress to say that not only the late-term partial
birth to which the bill speaks but that all procedures to effect late-
term abortions ought to be prohibited. They ought to be prohibited as
the policy of the United States of America.
``It does provide, as does the underlying bill, with certain
exceptions: The life of the mother, as is consistent with the bill on
the floor. It also expands upon that to say serious adverse health
consequences as well.
``We believe in that context and, frankly, got an initial judgment as
it was offered in the Committee on the Judiciary that this amendment was
believed initially to be in order.
``We believed that initial judgment was in fact correct. We believed
this gives an opportunity for Members not only to speak to the instant
issue raised by the particular 1122 bill, but also importantly gives to
Members the opportunity to express their view that all late-term
abortions, not just one procedure, but that procedure and all procedures
to effect post-viability abortions be outlawed, be illegal, be against
the policy of the United States of America, except in very limited
circumstances.
``Because of that, Mr. Speaker, Members will have the opportunity to
express themselves as being against late-term abortions, which is the
context, I suggest to the Speaker, in which this debate has occurred and
proceeded.
``Because of that, this gives Members the opportunity to particularly
but more broadly, as Mr. Canady did in fact correctly observe, express
themselves on limiting all procedures for late-term abortions.
``For that reason, we think it expands upon, he is correct, expands
upon and makes more broad the prohibition on late-term abortions. It is
for that reason that we think it critically important that the Chair
rule that this is in fact in order so that Members can appropriately--
because we believe it to be in order--express themselves in opposition
to late-term abortions. ''.
Mr. EDWARDS was recognized to speak to the point of order, and said:
``Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida stated his point of order
very rapidly and I want to be clear on this.
``Is the parliamentary point of order on the point that the bill
before the House only prohibits one type of abortion procedure, but the
motion of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] would actually
prohibit more types, in fact all types of late-term abortion procedures?
``Is that the point of order that the gentleman from Florida is trying
to make and objecting to letting the measure of the gentleman from
Maryland up on the floor?''.
Mr. CANADY was recognized to speak further to the point of order, and
said:
``Mr. Speaker, the point of order is the fundamental purpose of the
underlying bill, H.R. 1122, deals with a very limited class of abortion,
specifically partial-birth abortions.
``One specific type of procedure in the bill is what is dealt with in
H.R. 1122. The fundamental purpose of the motion to recommit, in
contrast to that, deals with any abortion procedure done post viability.
It, therefore, purports to cover a much broader class of procedures.
``I believe that the impact of the motion to recommit would
essentially be nil, because although it purports to affect a broader
class of procedures, due to the exceptions contained in the motion to
recommit, it is essentially meaningless.''.
Mr. EDWARDS was recognized to speak further to the point of order,
``Mr. Speaker, I guess going back to my original question to the
Speaker, the point of order is being made on the basis that the bill
before the House simply outlaws one type of abortion procedure, the
motion made by the gentleman from Maryland would actually ban many other
types of late-term-abortion procedures, and the gentleman from Florida
objects to that being voted upon in the House; is that correct, Mr.
Speaker?''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. McINNIS, sustained the point of order,
and said:
``The Chair hopes to clarify this point in the Chair's ruling. The
Chair is now prepared to rule.
[[Page 2311]]
``The gentleman from Florida makes a point of order that the amendment
proposed in the instructions with the motion to recommit offered by the
gentleman from Maryland is not germane.
``The pending bill prohibits a certain class of abortion procedures.
``The amendment proposed in the motion to recommit prohibits any or
all abortion procedures in certain stages of pregnancy. It
differentiates between the stages of pregnancy on the basis of fetal
viability. In so doing, the amendment arguably addresses a subset of the
category of pregnancies addressed by the bill. Still, by addressing any
or all abortion procedures, the prohibition in the amendment exceeds the
scope of the prohibition in the bill.
``The bill confines its sweep to a single, defined class of abortion
procedures. Thus, even though the amendment differentiates between
pregnancies on narrower bases than does the bill, the amendment also, by
addressing any or all abortion procedures, broadens the prohibition in
the bill.
``One of the basic lines of precedent under clause 7 of rule 16, the
germaneness rule, holds that a proposition addressing a specific subject
may not be amended by a proposition more general in nature. As noted in
section 798f of the House Rules and Manual, this principle applies even
when both propositions address a common topic.
``Thus, on March 23, 1960, the Chair held that an amendment to
criminalize the obstruction of any court order was not germane to a bill
to criminalize only the obstruction of court orders relating to the
desegregation of public schools.
``On the reasoning reflected in this line of precedent, the Chair
holds that the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit is not
germane to the bill. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and
the motion to recommit is not in order.''.
Mr. HOYER appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question being,
Will the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Mr. CANADY 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. McINNIS, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. HOYER 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
265
<3-line {>
affirmative
Nays
165
para.26.12
[Roll No. 63]
So the motion to lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the
Chair was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the motion to lay on the table
the appeal of the ruling of the Chair was agreed to was, by unanimous
consent, laid on the table.
____________________
words taken down
(para.29.7)
Remarks in debate to the effect that campaign donors enjoy preferential
access to leadership, but not alleging undue influence or a ``quid pro
quo'' between legislative action and money received, are not
unparliamentary.Under clause 1 of rule XIV, remarks in debate should be
addressed to the Chair and not to persons in the gallery.Under clause 8
of rule XIV, it is not in order in debate ``to introduce to or to bring
to the attention of the House'' persons in the gallery.
On April 9, 1997, Mr. MILLER of California, addressed the House and
during the course of his remarks,
Mr. DeLAY demanded that certain words be taken down.
The Clerk read the words taken down as follows:
If you give $10,000, you can have a meeting. You know what
you get, ladies and gentlemen? You get seats in the gallery.
You the public get seats in the gallery. You know what big
donors get? They get access to leadership power and
decisions. That is under the existing system, and that is why
we are saying it has to be reformed. Two years ago we watched
as top lobbyists sat in the majority whip's office and
drafted legislation to the Clean Water Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GUTKNECHT, held the words taken down not
to be unparliamentary, and said:
``The Chair is prepared to rule.
``In the opinion of the Chair, there was no direct reference to a
Member specifically performing a quid pro quo. Therefore, the Chair
will rule that the words are not unparliamentary.
``The Chair would, however, admonish all Members that it is a
violation of the House rules to address the people in the galleries. It
is also a violation both of the rule and the spirit of the rules to
challenge or question other Members' personal motives.''.
Accordingly,
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GUTKNECHT, recognized Mr. MILLER of
California, to proceed in order.
____________________
words taken down
(para.34.5)
It is not in order in debate to refer to the official conduct of a
Member where such conduct is not the question actually pending before
the House by way of a report from the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct or another question of the privileges of the House, even though
such question previously might have been pending before the House.
On April 17, 1997, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, during one minute speeches
addressed the House, and during the course of his remarks,
Mr. SOLOMON demanded that certain words be taken down.
The Clerk read the words taken down as follows:
I am surprised to see my Republican colleagues on the floor
today congratulating Speaker Newt Gingrich for doing
something he should have done months ago, paying $300,000 for
lying to Congress. Speaker Gingrich admitted to bringing
discredit on the House of Representatives. He has admitted to
lying to this House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. KOLBE, held the words taken down to be
unparliamentary, and said:
``The words of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] constitute a
personality against the Speaker. Under the precedents, the debate should
not go to the official conduct of a Member where that question is not
pending as a question of privilege on the House floor. The fact that the
House has addressed a Member's conduct at a prior time does not permit
this debate at this time. Therefore, the gentleman's words are out of
order.
``Without objection, the gentleman's words will be stricken from the
Record.''.
Mr. DOGGETT objected to the words being stricken from the
Congressional Record.
The question being,
Will the gentleman's words be stricken from the Congressional Record?
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the gentleman's words be stricken from the Congressional Record?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. KOLBE, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. DOGGETT demanded a recorded vote on agreeing to the gentleman's
words being stricken from the Congressional Record, which demand was
supported by one-fifth of a quorum, so a recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device.
Yeas
227
Nays
190
When there appeared
<3-line {>
Answered present
3
para.34.6
[Roll No. 82]
So, the motion to strike the words from the Congressional Record was
agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said motion was agreed to was,
by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. KOLBE, by unanimous consent, recognized
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia to proceed in order.
Mr. SOLOMON objected to the gentleman of Georgia [Mr. Lewis]
proceeding in order.
Mr. DOGGETT moved that the gentleman be allowed to proceed in order.
Mr. SOLOMON moved to lay the motion on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay on the table the motion to allow the gentleman of
Georgia [Mr. Lewis] to proceed in order?
[[Page 2312]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. KOLBE, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. DOGGETT 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
223
<3-line {>
affirmative
Nays
199
para.34.7
[Roll No. 83]
So, the motion to lay on the table the motion for the gentleman of
Georgia [Mr. Lewis] to proceed in order was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said motion was agreed to was,
by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
____________________
point of personal privilege
(para.34.12)
The Speaker rose from the floor to a question of personal privilege
under rule IX on the basis of newspaper articles concerning an order of
the House that he reimburse certain costs occasioned by the character of
his responses in an official-conduct case.
On April 17, 1997, the SPEAKER rose to a question of personal
privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. KOLBE, pursuant to clause 1 of rule IX,
recognized the SPEAKER for one hour.
The SPEAKER made the following statement:
``Mr. Speaker, I am standing here in the People's House at the center
of freedom, and it is clear to me that for America to be healthy, our
House of Representatives must be healthy. The Speaker of the House has a
unique responsibility in this regard.
``When I became Speaker of the House, it was the most moving day I
could have imagined. It was the culmination of a dream. Little did I
know that only 2 years later, I would go through a very painful time.
``During my first 2 years as Speaker, 81 charges were filed against
me. Of the 81 charges, 80 were found not to have merit and were
dismissed as virtually meaningless. But the American public might wonder
what kind of man has 81 charges brought against him?
``Under our system of government, attacks and charges can be brought
with impunity against a Congressman, sometimes with or without
foundation. Some of these charges involved a college course I taught
about renewing American civilization.
``I am a college teacher by background. After years of teaching, it
never occurred to me that teaching a college course about American
civilization and the core values that have made our country successful
could become an issue. However, as a precaution, I received the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's approval in advance for
teaching the course, and I accepted no payment for teaching the course.
``Nonetheless, the course became embroiled in controversy. The most
significant problem surfaced not from teaching the course but from
answering the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's inquiries.
``Before the 1994 election, the committee asked questions, and I
submitted a letter in response. The committee agreed that this letter
was accurate. Later, I hired a law firm to assist me in answering
additional questions coming from the committee. A letter developed by
the law firm became the heart of the problem. I signed that letter, and
it became the basis for a later, longer letter signed by an attorney. I
was deeply saddened to learn almost 2 years later that these letters
were inaccurate and misleading.
``While the letters were developed and drafted by my former attorneys,
I bear the full responsibility for them, and I accept that
responsibility.
``Those letters should not have been submitted. The members of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct should never have to worry
about the quality and accuracy of information that that committee
receives. Mainly because these two letters contradicted my own earlier
and correct letter, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct spent
a great deal of time and money to figure out exactly what happened.
``For this time and effort, for which I am deeply sorry and deeply
regret, I have agreed to reimburse the American taxpayers $300,000 for
legal expenses and costs incurred by the committee in its investigation.
``It was the opinion of the committee and my own opinion that had
accurate information been submitted in those two letters, the
investigation would have ended much sooner with less cost to the
taxpayer. It was not based on violation of any law or for the misuse of
charitable contributions. There was no finding by the committee that I
purposely tried to deceive anyone. To me, it simply seemed wrong to ask
the taxpayers to pay for an investigation that should have been
unnecessary. That is why I voluntarily agreed to reimburse the
taxpayers.
``Never before in history has a Member of Congress agreed to be
responsible for the cost of an investigation conducted by a committee of
the House. This $300,000 reimbursement is not a fine, as some have
asserted. The settlement itself and the report of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct makes it clear that it is a reimbursement
of legal expenses and costs only.
``The committee and its special counsel did not stipulate how the
reimbursement should be paid. One option is to pay completely with
campaign funds. As a matter of law, the attorneys tell me there is
little question that my campaign has the legal authority under existing
law and committee rules to pay the reimbursement.
``The second option is to pay by means of a legal defense fund. The
committee has previously determined that Members may set up such a fund.
``A third option is to sue the law firm and apply the proceeds to the
reimbursement.
``And the fourth option is to pay completely with personal funds.
``As we considered these options, we sought to do what was right for
the House as it relates to future precedents and for reestablishing the
trust of the American people in this vital institution. My campaign
could have paid the entire amount, and it would have been legal and
within past precedents of the House. Yet, on reflection, it was clear
that many Americans would have regarded this as another example of
politics as usual and of avoiding responsibility.
``A lawsuit against the lawyers who prepared the two documents is a
future possibility for me as a citizen, but that option could take years
in court. A legal trust fund was in many ways the most appealing. There
is more than adequate precedent for such a fund. Many friends from
across the entire country had called to offer contributions. Many of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle felt that this was the safest
approach. Yet on reflection it was clear that a legal trust fund would
simply lead to a new controversy over my role.
``I have a higher responsibility as Speaker to do the right thing in
the right way and to serve responsibly. I also must consider what the
personal payment precedent would mean to this House as an institution.
Many Members in this Chamber, on both sides of the aisle, have raised
serious concerns, citing the fear that a personal payment will establish
a precedent that could financially ruin Members who were assessed costs
incurred by special counsels. In the current environment, who could feel
safe? There should be no precedent that penalizes the spouses and
children of our Members, but that is what this option could effectively
do. This is something we must address.
``Yet the question still remains. What is the right decision for me
and my wife personally, for my family, for this institution, and for the
American people?
``Marianne and I have spent hours and hours discussing these options.
She is here too today. Let me just say that I have never been prouder of
Marianne than over the last few months. Her ability to endure the press
scrutiny, to live beyond the attacks, to enjoy life despite hostilities,
has been a remarkable thing to observe and a wonderful thing to
participate in. But she always came back to the same key question: What
is the right thing to do for the right principles? Through the difficult
days and weeks as we reviewed the options, it was the courage of her
counsel which always led me to do my best. Marianne and I decided
whatever the
[[Page 2313]]
consequences, we had to do what was best, what was right, morally and
spiritually. We had to put into perspective how our lives had been torn
apart by the weight of this decision. We had to take into account the
negative feelings that Americans have about government, Congress, and
scandals. We had to take into account the responsibility that the
Speaker of the House has to a higher standard.
``That is why we came to the conclusion, of our own choice without
being forced, that I have a moral obligation to pay the $300,000 out of
personal funds; that any other step would simply be seen as one more
politician shirking his duty and one more example of failing to do the
right thing.
``Therefore, as a person of limited means, I have arranged to borrow
the money from Bob Dole, a close personal friend of impeccable
integrity, and I will personally pay it back. The taxpayers will be
fully reimbursed. The agreement will be completely honored. The
integrity of the House ethics process will have been protected. This is
my duty as Speaker, and I will do it personally.
``I will also ask the House to pass a resolution affirming that this
is a voluntary action on my part and that it will establish no precedent
for any other Member in the future. It is vital that we not go down the
road of destroying middle-class Members by establishing any personal
burden in a nonjudicial system.
``It is important to put decisions about politics and Government in
perspective. This past year I have experienced some personal losses. I
lost my father, and my mother lost her husband of 50 years. My mother,
due to serious health problems, is being forced to move into assisted
living. My mother has lost her home, her husband, and her life as she
knew it.
``This week before making this decision I visited my mother in her
hospital in Harrisburg. I should say she is now out and is in the
assisted living facility. I asked her how she could handle these
setbacks with such a positive attitude. She said,
Newtie--
She still calls me that. I do not think I am ever going to get to Mr.
Speaker with my mother--she says,
Newtie, you just have to get on with life.
``Coming back from Harrisburg, I realized that she gave me strength
and made me realize that for Marianne and myself, moving on with our
lives, in the right way, by doing the right thing was our most important
goal.
``Let me make clear: We endure the difficulties, and the pain of the
current political process, but we believe renewing America is the great
challenge for our generation. I said on the day I became Speaker for the
second time that we should focus on the challenges of race, drugs,
ignorance and faith. Over the past few months, I have met with Americans
of all backgrounds and all races as we discussed new approaches and new
solutions. I am convinced that we can enter the 21st century with a
renewed America of remarkable power and ability.
``This is a great country, filled with good people. We do have the
capacity to reform welfare and help every citizen move from welfare to
work. We do have the potential to help our poorest citizens move from
poverty to prosperity. We do have the potential to replace quotas with
friendship and set-asides with volunteerism. We can reach out to every
American child of every ethnic background, in every neighborhood, and
help them achieve their Creator's endowed unalienable right to pursue
happiness. We cannot guarantee happiness, but we can guarantee the right
to pursue.
``Recently, I had a chance to have breakfast with the fine young men
and women of the 2d Infantry Division in Korea where my father had
served. Today South Korea is free and prosperous because young
Americans, for 47 years, have risked their lives in alliance with young
Koreans.
``I was reminded on that morning that freedom depends on courage and
integrity; that honor, duty, country is not just a motto, it is a way of
life. We in this House must live every day in that tradition. We have
much to do to clean up our political and governmental processes. We have
much to do to communicate with our citizens and with those around the
world who believe in freedom and yearn for freedom. Everywhere I went
recently, in Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Taipei, Seoul, and Tokyo,
people talked about freedom of speech, free elections, the rule of law,
an independent judiciary, the right to own private property, and the
right to pursue happiness through free markets.
``We in this House are role models. People all over the world watch us
and study us. When we fall short, they lose hope. When we fail, they
despair.
``To the degree I have made mistakes, they have been errors of
implementation but never of intent. This House is at the center of
freedom, and it deserves from all of us a commitment to be worthy of
that honor.
``Today, I am doing what I can to personally live up to that calling
and that standard. I hope my colleagues will join me in that quest.
``May God bless this House, and may God bless America.''.
____________________
point of order
(para.73.15)
To a bill to reconcile spending to budgetary targets, an amendment
proposing to place a contingency against a separate bill (not then
pending) to reconcile revenues to budgetary targets is not germane.
On June 25, 1997, Mr. THOMAS, made a point of order against the motion
to recommit, and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order that the amendment is not
germane to the bill.
``Mr. Speaker, the budget process provisions prospectively amend
another bill; that is, H.R. 2014, the Revenue Reconciliations Act of
1997, specifically section 11204(c). It suspends provisions in the
Internal Revenue Code that are added by H.R. 2014 and is, therefore,
beyond the scope.''.
Mr. STENHOLM was recognized to speak to the point of order and said:
``Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the point of order. I will couple
it with a parliamentary inquiry. It was my understanding, since the item
in question is the enforcement mechanisms of the budget, what this
motion to recommit includes is the entire Minge-Barton amendment that
was denied an opportunity to be on the floor under the rule.
``In the colloquy that occurred this morning, it was my understanding,
and at least my friends on the other side of the aisle who acceded to
this, that this would eventually be heard in a separate bill on the
floor by July 24. In so doing, it would then be coupled, assuming it
passes, would be coupled with the reconciliation bill so that the final
conference report would include, if the House chooses to include this in
the language of the bill, would be voted upon.
``My question, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, how can it be out of
order for us to consider this amendment today when it will be in order
to consider it on July 24?''
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. DREIER, responded to the inquiry, and
said:
``The Chair would respond by saying that he cannot make a
determination as to what the legislative situation would be at some
future date 3 weeks from now.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. DREIER, sustained the point of order, and
said:
``The gentleman from California makes a point of order that the
amendment contained in the motion to recommit with instructions is not
germane to the bill. While the test of germaneness in this instance is
measured against the bill as a whole, the Chair notes that a portion of
the amendment makes provisions of another bill not presently before the
House, namely, the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997, contingent on
achieving revenue targets in future fiscal years.
``As such, the amendment is a prospective indirect change in a bill
not yet considered by the House. The Chair holds that the amendment is
thus not germane to the bill, H.R. 2015, and sustains the point of
order.''
____________________
privileges of the house
(para.103.24)
A resolution alleging that a named former Member had breached proper
decorum on the floor of the House, and resolving that the Sergeant-at-
Arms be instructed to bar the former Member from the cham
[[Page 2314]]
ber and rooms leading thereto until the resolution of a contested
election to which he was party, gives rise to a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX.
On September 18, 1997, Mr. MENENDEZ, rose to a question of the
privileges of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res.
233):
H. Res. 233
Whereas the privilege of admission to the Hall of the House
or rooms leading thereto is subject to the requirements of
proper decorum;
Whereas concern has arisen that the privilege of admission
to the Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto has become
the subject of abuse;
Whereas Representative Menendez of New Jersey has given
notice pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX of his intention to
offer a question of the privileges of the House addressing
that concern;
Whereas these circumstances warrant an immediate
affirmation by the House of its unequivocal commitment to the
principle that every person who exercises the privilege of
admission to the Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto
assumes a concomitant responsibility to comport himself in a
manner that properly dignifies the proceedings of the House;
Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms is instructed to remove
former Representative Robert Dornan from the Hall of the
House and rooms leading thereto and to prevent him from
returning to the Hall of the House and rooms leading thereto
until the election contest concerning the forty-sixth
district of California is resolved.
The SPEAKER ruled that the resolution submitted did present a
question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
Mr. STEARNS moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay the resolution on the table?
The SPEAKER announced that the nays had it.
Mr. STEARNS demanded a recorded vote on agreeing to the motion to
table the resolution, which demand was supported by one-fifth of a
quorum, so a recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device.
Yeas
86
It was decided in the
Nays
291
<3-line {>
negative
Answered present
3
para.103.25
[Roll No. 414]
So the motion to lay the resolution on the table was not agreed to.
The motion to reconsider said vote whereby the motion to lay the
resolution on the table was not agreed to was, by unanimous consent,
laid on the table.
The SPEAKER, pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule IX, recognized Mr.
MENENDEZ for thirty minutes.
On motion of Mr. MENENDEZ, by unanimous consent, the time for debate
on said resolution was 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by Mr.
MENENDEZ and Mr. SOLOMON.
After debate,
On motion of Mr. SOLOMON, by unanimous consent, the time for debate on
said resolution was increased by an additional six minutes, equally
divided and controlled by Mr. MENENDEZ and Mr. SOLOMON.
After further 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 announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. MENENDEZ demanded a recorded vote on agreeing to said resolution,
which demand was supported by one-fifth of a quorum, so a recorded vote
was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device.
Yeas
289
It was decided in the
Nays
65
<3-line {>
affirmative
Answered present
7
para.103.26
[Roll No. 415]
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.119.15)
A resolution proposing directly to dispose of a contest over the title
to a seat in the House upon the expiration of a specified day gives rise
to a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
On October 23, 1997, Mr. GEPHARDT, rose to a question of the
privileges of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res.
276):
H. Res. 276
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California by the Secretary of State of
California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th district of California met on February 26, 1997 in
Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County,
California and has not met since that time; and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting
from a business, rather than a resident address; underage
voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number
of individuals voting from the same address. It was found
that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks
and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal
residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of
the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different
individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age;
and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the
records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on
February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records
pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and
Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are
now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials
already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of
State of California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th district of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th district and all the
information it needs to make judgments concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now therefore be it;
Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 29, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House having
immediate precedence under rule IX, and recognized Mr. GEPHARDT and Mr.
THOMAS for thirty minutes each.
After debate,
On motion of Mr. GEPHARDT, 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 nays had it.
Mr. GEPHARDT 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.
Yeas
204
It was decided in the
Nays
222
<3-line {>
negative
Answered present
1
para.119.16
[Roll No. 525]
So the resolution was not agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said resolution was not agreed
[[Page 2315]]
to was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
____________________
privileges of the house
(para.122.9)
A resolution proposing directly to dispose of a contest over the title
to a seat in the House upon the expiration of a specified day gives rise
to a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
On October 29, 1997, Mr. GEPHARDT, rose to a question of the
privileges of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res.
287):
H. Res. 287
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California by the Secretary of State of
California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas a Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in
Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County,
California and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting
from a business, rather than a resident address; underage
voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number
of individuals voting from the same address. It was found
that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks
and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal
residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of
the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different
individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age;
and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the
records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on
February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records
pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and
Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are
now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials
already in the Committees possession by the Secretary of
State of California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make judgments concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now therefore be it:
Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
Mr. SOLOMON moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay the resolution on the table?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, announced that the yeas had it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER 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.
Yeas
218
It was decided in the
Nays
200
<3-line {>
affirmative
Answered present
1
para.122.10
[Roll No. 537]
So the motion to lay the resolution 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.
____________________
point of order
(para.122.21)
Pursuant to section 426(b)(4) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, a
Member who makes a point of order under section 425 of the Act and
satisfies the threshold burden specified in section 426(b)(2) of the Act
by citing language in the bill as the source of an unfunded
intergovernmental mandate is recognized to control one-half of the 20
minutes provided for debate on the question of consideration.
Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act 1974, as
disposition of a point of order raised under section 425 of the Act, the
Chair puts the question of consideration with respect to the proposition
that is the object of the point of order.
On October 29, 1997, Mr. ENSIGN, made a point of order pending
resolving the House into the Committee on the Whole House on the state
of the Union for consideration of H.R. 1270, and said;
``Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a point of order under section 425 of
the Budget Act on the basis that the provision beginning on page 56,
line 15 of said bill imposes an unfunded intergovernmental mandate on
state governments,
``Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office states in its cost
estimate of H.R. 1270, dated September 25, 1997, that H.R. 1270 contains
intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that if this bill were enacted the New York Power Authority, a
publicly owned utility, would be required to pay $180 million in the
year 2002. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act set a threshold of $50
million for 1996, annually adjusted for inflation. Therefore, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates that these mandates would impose
costs on state governments exceeding the threshold. Mr. Speaker, I
demand a ruling by the Chair that sustains my point of order against
H.R. 1270 because it clearly violates the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
that forbade unfunded mandates on state and local governments.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. CAMP, responded to the point of order,
and said:
``The gentleman from Nevada makes a point of order that the bill
violates section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
``In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of the Act, the gentleman must
specify precise language in the bill on which he predicates his point or
order. Having met the threshold burden to identify specific language in
the bill, the gentleman from Nevada and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration under
section 426(b)(4).
``Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the Act, after debate, the Chair
will put the question of consideration, to wit: `Will the House now
consider the bill?'.
``The gentleman from Nevada is recognized for ten minutes and the
gentleman from Colorado is recognized for ten minutes.''.
After debate,
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House now consider the bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. CAMP, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. ENSIGN 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 4, rule XV, and the call was taken by
electronic device.
Yeas
312
When there appeared
<3-line {>
Nays
105
para.122.22
[Roll No. 542]
So the House decided to consider said bill.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the House agreed to consider
said bill was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
____________________
privileges of the house
(para.123.32)
A resolution proposing directly to
[[Page 2316]]
dispose of a contest over the title to a seat in the House upon the
expiration of a specified day gives rise to a question of the privileges
of the House under rule IX.
On October 30, 1997, Mr. MENENDEZ, rose to a question of the
privileges of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res.
290):
H. Res. 290
Whereas Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California by the Secretary of State of
California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
found to be largely without merit, including his charges of
improper voting from a business, rather than a residential
address; underage voting; double voting; and charges of
unusually large numbers of individuals voting from the same
address. It was found that those accused of voting from the
same address included a Marines Barracks and the domicile of
nuns; that business addresses were legal residences for the
individuals, including the zoo keeper of the Santa Ana Zoo;
that duplicate voting was by different individuals; and that
those accused of underage voting were of age; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the privacy rights of United States citizens have
been violated by the Committee's improper use of those INS
records;
Whereas the INS itself has questioned the validity and
accuracy of the Committee's use of INS documents;
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the
records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on
February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records
pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and
Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are
now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials
already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of
State of California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and have all the information they
need regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information they need to make a judgment concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to produce or
present any credible evidence sufficient to change the
outcome of the election of Congresswoman Sanchez and is now,
in place of producing such credible evidence, pursuing never
ending and unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has after nearly one year
not shown or provided any credible evidence sufficient to
demonstrate that the outcome of the election is other than
Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now therefore be it:
Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
Mr. SOLOMON moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay the resolution on the table?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. MENENDEZ 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.
Yeas
212
It was decided in the
Nays
198
<3-line {>
affirmative
Answered present
3
para.123.33
[Roll No. 558]
So the motion to lay the resolution 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.123.35)
A resolution proposing directly to dispose of a contest over the title
to a seat in the House upon the expiration of a specified day gives rise
to a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
On October 30, 1997, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, rose to a question of the
privileges of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res.
291):
H. Res. 291
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California by the Secretary of State of
California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California has met only on February 26, 1997
in Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County,
California, and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be without merit; charges of improper voting
from a business, rather than a resident address; underage
voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number
of individuals voting from the same address. It was found
that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks
and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal
residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of
the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different
individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age;
and
Whereas the Committee House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are
now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials
already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of
State of California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make judgments concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
Mr. SOLOMON moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay the resolution on the table?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, announced that the yeas had it.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD 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.
Yeas
216
It was decided in the
Nays
200
<3-line {>
affirmative
Answered present
3
para.123.36
[Roll No. 559]
So the motion to lay the resolution on the table was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said motion was agreed to
[[Page 2317]]
was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
____________________
privileges of the house
(para.123.37)
A resolution proposing directly to dispose of a contest over the title
to a seat in the House upon the expiration of a specified day gives rise
to a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
On October 30, 1997, Ms. NORTON, rose to a question of the privileges
of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res. 292):
H. Res. 292
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez has been duly elected to represent
the 46th District of California; and
Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California met only on February 26, 1997 in
Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County,
California, and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting
from a business, rather than a resident address; underage
voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number
of individuals voting from the same address. It was found
that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks
and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal
residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of
the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different
individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age;
and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the
records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on
February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records
pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and
Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are
now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials
already in the Committees possession by the Secretary of
State of California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make judgments concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now therefore be it;
Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
Mr. SOLOMON moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay the resolution on the table?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, announced that the yeas had it.
Ms. NORTON 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.
Yeas
214
It was decided in the
Nays
187
<3-line {>
affirmative
Answered present
4
para.123.38
[Roll No. 560]
So the motion to lay the resolution 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.123.39)
A resolution proposing directly to dispose of a contest over the title
to a seat in the House upon the expiration of a specified day gives rise
to a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
On October 30, 1997, Mr. CONDIT, rose to a question of the privileges
of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res. 293):
H. Res. 293
Whereas Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas a Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California met on February 26th, 1997 in
Washington, D.C. on April 19th, 1997 in Orange County,
California, and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
Whereas the Committee on the House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas or review; and
Whereas, the Committee on the House Oversight should
complete its review of this matter and bring the matter
forward for the House of Representatives to vote upon and now
therefore be it:
Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
Mr. SOLOMON moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay the resolution on the table?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. CONDIT 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.
Yeas
212
It was decided in the
Nays
190
<3-line {>
affirmative
Answered present
4
para.123.40
[Roll No. 561]
So the motion to lay the resolution 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.123.41)
A resolution proposing directly to dispose of a contest over the title
to a seat in the House upon the expiration of a specified day gives rise
to a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
On October 30, 1997, Mr. BECERRA, rose to a question of the privileges
of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res. 294):
H. Res. 294
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California by the Secretary of State of
California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
[[Page 2318]]
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in
Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County,
California and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting
from a business, rather than a resident address; underage
voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number
of individuals voting from the same address. It was found
that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks
and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal
residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of
the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different
individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age;
and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, the Committee's request, has been doing a manual check
of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the
records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on
February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records
pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make judgments concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now therefore be it;
Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
Mr. SOLOMON moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay the resolution on the table?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. BECERRA 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.
Yeas
217
It was decided in the
Nays
193
<3-line {>
affirmative
Answered present
4
para.123.42
[Roll No. 562]
So the motion to lay the resolution 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.123.43)
A resolution proposing directly to dispose of a contest over the title
to a seat in the House upon the expiration of a specified day gives rise
to a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
On October 30, 1997, Ms. HOOLEY, rose to a question of the privileges
of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res. 295):
H. Res. 295
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in
Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County,
California, and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting
from a business, rather than a resident address; underage
voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number
of individuals voting from the same address. It was found
that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks
and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal
residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of
the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different
individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age;
and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are
now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials
already in the Committees possession by the Secretary of
State of California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make judgments concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now therefore be it;
Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
Mr. SOLOMON moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay the resolution on the table?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, announced that the yeas had it.
Ms. HOOLEY 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.
Yeas
212
It was decided in the
Nays
197
<3-line {>
affirmative
Answered present
5
para.123.44
[Roll No. 563]
So the motion to lay the resolution 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.123.45)
A resolution proposing directly to dispose of a contest over the title
to a seat in the House upon the expiration of a specified day gives rise
to a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
On October 30, 1997, Ms. WATERS, rose to a question of the privileges
of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res. 296):
H. Res. 296
Whereas as contested election contest has been pending
between Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez and Mr. Robert Dornan
since December 26, 1996; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California has only met on February 26, 1997
and October 24, 1997 in Washington D.C. and on April 19, 1997
in Orange County, California; and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be
[[Page 2319]]
without merit: charges of improper voting from a business,
rather than a resident address; underage voting; double
voting; and charges of unusually large number of individuals
voting from the same address. It was found that voting from
the same address included a Marines barracks and the domicile
of nuns, that business addresses were legal residences for
the individuals, including the zoo keeper of the Santa Ana
zoo, that duplicate voting was by different individuals and
those accused of underage voting were of age; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are
now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials
already in the Committees possession by the Secretary of
State of California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make judgments concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now therefore be it;
Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
Mr. SOLOMON moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay the resolution on the table?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, announced that the yeas had it.
Ms. WATERS 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.
Yeas
214
It was decided in the
Nays
196
<3-line {>
affirmative
Answered present
3
para.123.46
[Roll No. 564]
So the motion to lay the resolution 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.123.47)
A resolution proposing directly to dispose of a contest over the title
to a seat in the House upon the expiration of a specified day gives rise
to a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
On October 30, 1997, Mr. DOOLEY, rose to a question of the privileges
of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res. 297):
H. Res. 297
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California by the Secretary of State of
California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California has met only three times; and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting
from a business, rather than a resident address; underage
voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large numbers
of individuals voting from the same address. It was found
that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks
and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal
residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of
the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different
individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age;
and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are
now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials
already in the Committees possession by the Secretary of
State of California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make judgments concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now therefore be it;
Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
Mr. SOLOMON moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay the resolution on the table?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. DOOLEY 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.
Yeas
208
It was decided in the
Nays
192
<3-line {>
affirmative
Answered present
4
para.123.48
[Roll No. 565]
So the motion to lay the resolution 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.
____________________
point of order
(para.126.36)
To a bill requiring the gathering of data and revision of international
memoranda concerning imported goods produced by forced labor, an
amendment proposed in a motion to recommit requiring changes in tariff
schedules to achieve overall trade reciprocity between China and the
United States is not germane.
To a bill addressing a class of imported goods (those produced by forced
labor), an amendment addressing all imported goods from one specified
country is not germane.
The House laid on the table an appeal from the ruling of the Speaker pro
tempore.
On November 5, 1997, Mr. CRANE, made a point of order against the
motion to recommit with instructions, and said:
``Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit with instructions is not germane
[[Page 2320]]
to the underlying bill. The fundamental purpose or common thread of the
bill is very narrow, and only concerns the monitoring of products made
with forced labor. The range of methods employed in the bill is
similarly narrow.
``The motion, however, deals with the reciprocal tariff treatments of
the products of China. This is clearly not within the very narrow
purpose of this bill. The issue of tariffs is also outside the range of
methods employed in the bill. Therefore, the motion to recommit with
instructions is not germane, and I urge the Chair to sustain the point
of order.''.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi was recognized to speak to the point of
order, and said:
``Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the Committee on Ways and Means
has an opportunity every year to consider this measure and measures just
like it. They choose not to.
``I am appealing to the House because I have heard on too many
occasions from too many Members of this body that we are not given the
chance to do what is right. At every town meeting we attend, when people
ask, how do these unfair things continue to happen, do Members know what
we have to say? We have to say, it is the committee system, the Speaker,
the Committee on Ways and Means committee. They will not let us do that.
``They do not understand that. They cannot find in the Constitution of
the United States where it somehow makes some Members of Congress better
than other Members of Congress; where just a few Members of Congress can
decide whether or not 435 Members, who were each elected by over half a
million American citizens, that they cannot even decide on basic
questions of right and wrong when it comes to trade issues.
``I am asking the Members of this body to step up to the plate. I am
asking them to do tonight what they tell their constituents at their
town meetings. That is, do what is right, regardless of what the
Committee on Ways and Means wants, regardless of what the Speaker wants,
regardless of what the Democratic leadership wants or the Republican
leadership wants. For once, let us do what America wants. Tonight is the
Members' chance.
``I am asking for that opportunity. I hope Members will vote against
tabling this motion. I hope we will bring it to the floor. I hope we
will vote as a Nation to tell the people of China we are sick and tired
of being their chumps.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. QUINN, sustained the point of order, and
said:
``The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] makes the point of order
that the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit is not germane.
The test of germaneness in this situation is the relationship of the
amendment proposed in the motion to recommit to the provisions of the
bill as a whole.
``The bill as perfected authorizes funding for monitoring the
importation into the United States of goods produced by forced labor. It
also requires the reporting of certain information on that topic, and
also expresses the sense of the Congress that the President should
review reciprocal trade relationships on that topic.
``The amendment proposed in the motion to recommit would amend the
tariff schedules of the United States to achieve reciprocity between the
aggregate amount of Chinese tariffs on the American products and the
aggregate amount of American tariffs on Chinese products. The bill
confines its attention to products of forced labor.
``The amendment, although addressing only products of China, extends
its attention to all products, not just those made by forced labor, and
directly imposes tariff treatment, a matter not part of the bill.
``The Chair therefore finds that the amendment is a ``proposition on a
subject different from that under consideration'' within the meaning of
clause 7 of rule XVI. That is, the amendment is not germane. The point
of order is sustained. The motion to recommit is not in order.''.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Mr. CRANE 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. QUINN, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi 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 4, rule XV, and the call was taken by
electronic device.
Yeas
217
When there appeared
<3-line {>
Nays
202
para.126.37
[Roll No. 581]
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.126.42)
A resolution proposing directly to dispose of a contest over the title
to a seat in the House upon the expiration of a specified day gives rise
to a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
On November 5, 1997, Mr. FURSE, rose to a question of the privileges
of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res. 307):
H. Res. 307
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California by the Secretary of State of
California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in
Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County,
California and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
Whereas the House Oversight Committee is now pursuing a
duplicate and dilatory review of materials already in the
Committees possession by the Secretary of State of
California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make judgments concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, as a member of Congress whose election in 1994 was
won by far smaller a majority than that which Ms. Sanchez won
the 46th District race in 1996.
Whereas, as an immigrant myself who proudly became a U.S.
citizen in 1972, I believe that this Republican campaign of
intimidation sends a message to new citizens that their
voting privilege may be subverted. We should encourage new
voters not chill their enthusiasm.
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now therefore be it;
Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of November 7, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. KINGSTON, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House having
immediate precedence under rule IX, and recognized Ms. FURSE and Mr.
THOMAS for thirty minutes each.
After debate,
Mr. THOMAS moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay the resolution on the table?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. KINGSTON, announced that the yeas had it.
Ms. FURSE 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.
[[Page 2321]]
Yeas
217
It was decided in the
Nays
194
<3-line {>
affirmative
Answered present
1
para.126.43
[Roll No. 583]
So the motion to lay the resolution 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.
____________________
point of order
(para.127.40)
To a bill amending a law reported by the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services opposing concessional loans to the People's Republic
of China and outlining principles governing the conduct of industrial
cooperation projects of U.S. nationals in that country, an amendment
proposed in a motion to recommit requiring changes in tariff schedules
to achieve overall trade reciprocity between China and the United
States, a subject within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and
Means, is not germane.
The House laid on the table an appeal from the ruling of the Speaker pro
tempore.
On November 6, 1997, Mr. SOLOMON, made a point of order against the
motion to recommit with instructions, and said:
``Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit with instructions is not germane
to this underlying bill. The fundamental purpose, or common thread, of
the bill is very narrow and only concerns concessional loans to China.
The range of methods employed in the bill is similarly narrow, and the
bill is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Finance.
``The motion, however, deals with the reciprocal tariff treatment of
products of China. This is clearly not within the very narrow purpose of
this bill. The issue of tariffs is also outside the range of methods
employed in this bill and contains matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
``There has been a protocol under previous Democrat leadership and
Republican leadership today that amendments of this nature which would
either raise or lower tariffs or raise or lower taxes are not allowed in
motions to recommit on the floor. They must clear with the Committee on
Ways and Means first.
``Therefore, the motion to recommit with instructions is not germane,
and I urge the Chair to sustain the point of order.''.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi was recognized to speak to the point of
order, and said:
``Mr. Speaker, as much as any Member of this body lives and breathes,
this amendment is very much germane. Mr. Solomon's bill does one thing.
It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to kind of something, do
something about the Chinese Communists. My amendment directs the
Secretary of the Treasury to do something about the gross injustice
between what the Communist Chinese charge American products when our
products go to their country and the fact that they only pay 2 percent
when they come to ours. Why are we doing this? Why were there 5 votes in
the past 2 days? It is because they force abortions, it is because they
are thugs, they do not have religious freedom, they do not have
political freedom. They are selling missiles and weapons to our enemies.
They are buying ports on both ends of the Panama Canal.
``Mr. Speaker, as I said, every bill that we have voted on is trying
to affect Chinese policy. This bill is asking the Secretary of the
Treasury to take steps to affect Chinese policy. My amendment asks the
Secretary of the Treasury to take substantial, realistic steps to affect
Chinese policy. We are only going to get one last chance this session to
do something substantive. As I have pointed out, the Committee on Rules
has voted against bills that they are cosponsors of.
``The Speaker knows I am speaking to the point of order. The gentleman
may not, but you do, Mr. Speaker.
``Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Members of this House to do what each
of us begged for the opportunity to do every other year, and, that is,
stand up for the rights of the American citizens, to strike a blow
against the thugs when we get the chance. Tonight we have a chance.
Tonight we can decide that we will have some lame excuse and go back and
tell the constituents of each of our individual districts, that,
`Doggone it, we couldn't do anything about those Chinese thugs because
the Rules Committee said we weren't germane.' Or we can say that there
are some things more important than the rules of the House in the
integrity of this Nation, simple things like right and wrong, simple
fairness for the American working people. That is more important than
the rules of the House that can be changed at any moment. That is what I
am asking Members of this body to vote on, and that is why I am asking
Members to vote against tabling this motion and then turn around to vote
for this motion to recommit so that all of these things that have done
nothing will at least be followed up by a measure that does something
for the people of America and gets the attention of the thugs in
Peking.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. BLUNT, sustained the point of order, and
said:
``The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] makes the point of order
that the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit is not germane.
``The test of germaneness in this situation is the relationship of the
amendment proposed in the motion to recommit to the provisions of the
bill as a whole.
``The bill, H.R. 2605, provides that the Secretary of Treasury
instruct the United States Executive Directors to oppose concessional
loans at each international financial institution to the People's
Republic of China, any citizen or national of the People's Republic of
China, or any entity established in the People's Republic of China.
``The amendment proposed in the motion to recommit would amend the
tariff schedules of the United States to achieve reciprocity between the
aggregate amount of Chinese tariffs on American products and the
aggregate amount of American tariffs on Chinese products.
``As noted in section 798c of the House Rules and Manual, to be
germane an amendment should address the same legislative jurisdiction as
is addressed in the bill. Here, although the bill addresses the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the
amendment addresses the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
``On this basis, the Chair finds that the amendment is a `proposition
on a subject different from that under consideration' within the meaning
of clause 7 of rule XVI. That is, the amendment is not germane. The
point of order is sustained. The motion to recommit is not in order.''.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Mr. COX 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. BLUNT, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi 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 4, rule XV, and the call was taken by
electronic device.
Yeas
220
When there appeared
<3-line {>
Nays
192
para.127.41
[Roll No. 604]
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.129.19)
A resolution proposing directly to dispose of a contest over the title
to a seat in the House gives rise to a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX.
On November 8, 1997, Mr. GEPHARDT, rose to a question of the privi
[[Page 2322]]
leges of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res. 315):
H. Res. 315
Whereas, the election contest concerning the 46th District
of California should be dismissed as there is no credible
evidence to show that the outcome of the election is
different than the election of Congresswomen Loretta Sanchez.
Whereas, State of California authorities should continue
their investigation into questionable registration
activities; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should examine
voter registration procedures; and now therefore be it
Resolved, that the contest in the 46th District of
California is dismissed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. CALVERT, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
Mr. SOLOMON moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay the resolution on the table?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. CALVERT, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. GEPHARDT 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.
Yeas
215
It was decided in the
Nays
193
<3-line {>
affirmative
Answered present
2
para.129.20
[Roll No. 620]
So the motion to lay the resolution 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.130.6)
A resolution proposing directly to dispose of a contest over the title
to a seat in the House gives rise to a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX.
On November 9, 1997, Mr. GEPHARDT, rose to a question of the
privileges of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res.
318):
H. Res. 318
Whereas, the election contest concerning the 46th District
of California should be dismissed as there is no credible
evidence to show that the outcome of the election is
different than the election of Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez.
Whereas, State of California authorities should continue an
investigation into any questionable registration activities;
and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should examine
voter registration procedures; and now therefore be it
Resolved, That the contest in the 46th District of
California is dismissed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. EMERSON, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
Mr. BOEHNER moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay the resolution on the table?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. EMERSON, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. OBEY 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 4, rule XV, and the call was taken by
electronic device.
Yeas
218
when their appeared
Nays
194
<3-line {>
affirmative
Answered present
1
para.130.7
[Roll No. 622]
So the motion to lay the resolution 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.
____________________
SUBPOENAS RECEIVED PURSUANT TO RULE L
On March 3, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska,
laid before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, February 27, 1997
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the rules of the House that I have been
served with a subpoena issued by the United States District
Court of the District of Columbia.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I have
determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent
with the privileges and precedents of the House.
Sincerely,
Patricia Ann Schapp,
Office of the Sergeant at Arms.
____________________
On May 21, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. PAPPAS, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
Earl Pomeroy,
Congress of the United States,
North Dakota, May 20, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been
served with a subpoena issued by the District Court of Cass
County, North Dakota.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I will make
the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Joan Carlson,
Eastern Field Director.
____________________
On May 22, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HASTERT, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 12, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L(50) of the Rules of the House that I have been
served a subpoena issued by the Canton Municipal Court, Stark
County, State of Ohio.
After consultations with the General Counsel, I will make
the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Daryl L. Revoldt,
District Staff Director.
____________________
On May 27, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. UPTON, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC,
May 16, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House, that I have been
served with a subpoena issued by the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I have
determined that compliance is consistent with the privileges
and rights of the House.
Sincerely,
Gregory M. Lankler.
____________________
On June 3, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GIBBONS, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 3, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been
served with a subpoena issued by the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Cape May County.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I will make
the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Frank A. LoBiondo,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On June 7, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. PEASE, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
Bryan Cave llp,
Washington, DC, June 3, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you that
pursuant to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have
been served with a subpoena issued by the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.
[[Page 2323]]
After consultation with the General Counsel, I will make
the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
James M. Cole.
____________________
On June 11, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. INGLIS, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 5, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been
served with a subpoena issued by the Circuit Court of the
Twelfth Judicial District, Manatee County, State of Florida.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I will make
the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Laura Griffin.
____________________
On June 12, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. TAYLOR, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 11, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been
served with a subpoena issued by the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I will make
the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Wilda E. Chisolm.
____________________
On June 12, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. TAYLOR, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 11, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L(50) of the Rules of the House that I have been
served with a subpoena issued by the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I will make
the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Williams.
____________________
On June 19, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. COOKSEY, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 19, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives, The Speaker's Rooms,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Gingrich: This is to formally notify you
pursuant to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have
been served with a subpoena issued by the Circuit Court of
Hardy County, West Virginia, in the case of West Virginia v.
Cook, Crim. Action No. 97-F-20.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that the subpoena relates to my official
duties, and that compliance with the subpoena is consistent
with the privileges and precedents of the House.
Very truly yours,
Bob Wise,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On June 24, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. JONES of North
Carolina, laid before the House a communication, which was read as
follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 23, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been
served with a subpoena issued by the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.
I will make the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Williams.
____________________
On June 24, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. JONES of North
Carolina, laid before the House a communication, which was read as
follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 23, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been
served with a subpoena issued by the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.
I will make the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Wilda E. Chisolm.
____________________
On July 8, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GOODLING, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 25, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been
served with a subpoena issued by the District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I have
determined that compliance is consistent with the privileges
of the House.
Sincerely,
Betty S. Barnes.
____________________
On July 14, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LINDER, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
Office of the Sergeant at Arms,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 14, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been
served with a subpoena issued by the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I will make
the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Patricia A. Schaap.
____________________
On July 15, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GILCHREST, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct,
Washington, DC, July 15, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing pursuant to Rule L (50) of
the Rules of the House, to supplement the original
notification by Mr. Cole on June 3, 1997 that he had been
served with a subpoena issued by the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, the
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of
Representatives has determined that the subpoena to Mr. Cole
is consistent in part and inconsistent in part with the
rights and privileges of the House and has directed Mr. Cole
to comply with the subpoena to the extent that it is
consistent with the rights and privileges of the House.
Sincerely,
James V. Hansen,
Chairman.
____________________
On September 3, 1997, the SPEAKER laid before the House a
communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives, Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct,
Washington, DC, July 31, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule L of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has been
served with a subpoena (for documents) issued by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts and directed
to the ``Keeper of the Records.''
After consulting with the Office of General Counsel, the
Committee will make the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
James V. Hansen,
Chairman.
____________________
On September 3, 1997, the SPEAKER laid before the House a
communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, August 6, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have received a subpoena (for documents and tes
[[Page 2324]]
timony) issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in the matter of Oxycal Laboratories,
Inc., et al. v. Patrick, et al., No. SA CV-96-1119 AHS (EEx).
The subpoena was directed to ``The Office of Congressman John
D. Dingell.''
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that the subpoena appears not to be
consistent with the rights and privileges of the House and,
therefore, should be resisted.
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell.
____________________
On September 3, 1997, the SPEAKER laid before the House a
communication, which was read as follows:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, August 7, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure has been served with a
subpoena (for documents) issued by the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts and directed to the
``Keeper of Records.''
After consulting with the Office of General Counsel, the
Committee will make the determination required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster,
Chairman.
____________________
On September 3, 1997, the SPEAKER laid before the House a
communication, which was read as follows:
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, August 8, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that the Office of
the Chief Administrative Officer (``CAO'') has been served
with a subpoena (for documents) issued by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts and directed to the
``Keeper of Records.''
After consulting with the Office of the General Counsel,
the CAO will make the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Jay Eagen,
Chief Administrative Officer.
____________________
On September 3, 1997, the SPEAKER laid before the House a
communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
August 18, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Gingrich: This is to formally notify you
pursuant to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have
been served with a subpoena issued by the Third Judicial
Circuit Court of the State of Michigan in the case of Marcus
Management, Inc. v. Robert Marquess, et al., Case No. 97-
715508 CK.
After consultation with the Office of the General Counsel,
I have determined that the subpoena relates to my official
duties, and that compliance with the subpoena is consistent
with the privileges and precedents of the House.
Sincerely,
Lynn N. Rivers.
____________________
On September 29, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. UPTON, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC, September 25, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have received subpoenas for documents and testimony
issued by the U.S. District Courts for the Central District
of California and the District of Columbia, respectively, in
the matter of Oxycal Laboratories, Inc., et al. v. Patrick,
et al., No. SA CV-96-1119 AHS (Eex) (D.D. Cal.) (a civil
dispute between private parties that apparently arises out of
an alleged breach of a settlement agreement).
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that the subpoenas appear, at least in part,
not to be consistent with the rights and privileges of the
House and, to the extent consistent with the rights and
privileges of the House, should be resisted.
Sincerely,
Reid P.F. Stuntz,
Minority Staff Director and
Chief Counsel.
____________________
On September 29, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. EWING, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC, September 25, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have received subpoenas for documents and testimony
issued by the U.S. District Courts for the Central District
of California and the District of Columbia, respectively, in
the matter of Oxycal Laboratories, Inc., et al. v. Patrick,
et al., No. SA CV-96-1119 AHS (Eex) (D.D. Cal.) (a civil
dispute between private parties that apparently arises out of
an alleged breach of a settlement agreement).
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that the subpoenas appear, at least in part,
not to be consistent with the rights and privileges of the
House and, to the extent consistent with the rights and
privileges of the House, should be resisted.
Sincerely,
Reid P.F. Stuntz,
Minority Staff Director and
Chief Counsel.
____________________
On September 29, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. EWING, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 26, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule l (50) of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that the ``Office of Congressman John D. Dingell'' has
received a subpoena for documents and testimony issued by the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
and the District of Columbia, respectively, in the matter of
Oxycal Laboratories, Inc., et al. v. Patrick, et al., No. SA
CV-96-1119 AHS (Eex) (C.D. Cal.) (a civil dispute between
private parties that apparently arises out of an alleged
breach of a settlement agreement).
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that the subpoena appears, at least in part,
not to be consistent with the rights and privileges of the
House and, to the extent not consistent with the rights and
privileges of the House, should be resisted.
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell.
____________________
On September 29, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GRANGER, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 26, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule 1(50) of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have received a subpoena for documents issued by the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
the matter of Oxycal Laboratories, Inc., et al., v. Patrick,
et al., No SA CV-96-1119 AHS (Eex) (C.D. Cal.) (a civil
dispute between private parties that apparently arises out of
an alleged breach of a settlement agreement).
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that the subpoena appears, at least in part,
not to be consistent with the rights and privileges of the
House and, to the extent not consistent with the rights and
privileges of the House, should be resisted.
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell.
____________________
On October 1, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. QUINN, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Committee On Commerce,
Washington, DC, September 26, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that the Committee on Commerce has received subpoenas for
documents and testimony issued by the U.S. District Courts
for the Central District of California and the District of
Columbia, respectively, in the matter of Oxycal Laboratories,
Inc., et al. v. Patrick, et al., No SA CV-96-1119 AHS (EEx)
(C.D. Cal.) (civil dispute between private parties that
apparently arises out of an alleged breach of a settlement
agreement).
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that the subpoenas appear, at least in part,
not to be consistent with the rights and privileges of the
House and, to the extent not consistent with the rights and
privileges of the House, should be resisted.
Sincerely,
Tom Bliley,
Chairman.
____________________
[[Page 2325]]
On October 28, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SNOWBARGER, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 26, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant
to Rule L(50) of the rules of the House that I have been
served with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, in the case
of Ellen Frankel v. Jeffrey Frankel, Index No. 10369/96.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that the subpoena relates to my official
duties, and that compliance with the subpoena is consistent
with the privileges and precedents of the House.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On October 28, 1997, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SNOWBARGER, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 27, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you, pursuant to Rule L
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that the
Congressional Budget Office has been served with a subpoena
issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
After consultation with the General Counsel of the House of
Representatives, I will make the determinations concerning
the subpoena as required under the Rule.
Sincerely yours,
Jennifer L. Smith,
Deputy General Counsel,
Congressional Budget Office.
____________________