<DOC>
[House Journal, 105th Congress, 2d Session, Part 2]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:98quest.wais]
[Page 2755-2786]
[[Page 2755]]
QUESTIONS OF ORDER
DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT THE SECOND SESSION, ONE
HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
hon. newt gingrich of Georgia, speaker
robin h. carle of virginia, clerk
QUESTIONS OF ORDER
privileges of the house
(para.2.4)
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 January 28, 1998, Mr. GERHARDT, rose to a question of the
privileges of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res.
341):
H. Res. 341
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 files with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert don't 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.; and
Whereas, Mr. Robert Dornan made unsubstantiated charges of
improper voting from a business, rather than a resident
address; underage voting; double voting; and large numbers of
individuals voting from the same address; and
Whereas, these charges are without merit, as it was found
that those voting from the same address including United
States Marines residing at a marine barracks and nuns
residing at a 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 directing the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to compare its 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, for over eight months, has
engaged in a manual check of its paper files and has provided
worksheets containing supplemental information on that manual
check to the Committee on House Oversight; and
Whereas, the Committee's investigation has been extended
far beyond a review of those who actually voted in this
contested election; and
Whereas, the district attorney of Orange County had ended
his investigation and an Orange County grand jury has refused
to return any indictments and allegations of a conspiracy to
engage in voter fraud have been proven groundless; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight has received a
report from the Secretary of State of California, in response
to the committee's request, which yielded no new information;
and
Whereas, the committee's requests have caused this contest
to be needlessly extended for four additional months while
the Secretary of State of California provided no new
information regarding the citizenship status of registrants
or voters; 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 required to make judgments concerning those
votes; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight has after 13
months of review and investigation failed to present any
credible evidence demonstrating that Congresswoman Sanchez
did not win this election and continues to pursue never
ending and groundless areas of investigation; and
Whereas, contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is oth4er
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 the election contest concerning the 46th
District of California is dismissed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. NUSSLE, ruled that the resolution
constitutes a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
Mr. SOLOMON moved to lay on the table the resolution.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay on the table the resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. NUSSLE, announced that the nays had it.
Mr. SOLOMON 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
214
When there appeared
<3-line {>
Nays
189
para.2.5
[Roll No. 2]
So the motion to lay on the table the resolution 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.26.3)
A Member rose to a question of personal privilege under rule IX on the
basis of press accounts concerning allegations by other Members that he
had been ``buying votes.''.
On March 26, 1998, Mr. SHUSTER rose to a question of personal
privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. CALVERT, pursuant to clause 1 of rule IX,
recognized Mr. SHUSTER for one hour.
Mr. SHUSTER made the following statement:
``Mr. Speaker, many years ago, Joseph McCarthy in Wheeling, West
Virginia stood up and waved papers and said he had the names of 57
Communists in government. Well, he got lots of headlines but, of course,
he was eventually proved to be a liar. I am reminded of that event,
although I certainly make no such charge here today.
``Mr. Speaker, three of our colleagues have made numerous statements
in the media that we have been, quote, `buying votes,' to get them to
support our BESTEA transportation legislation in exchange for projects
which we have given them. Indeed, conversely, that we have been
threatening Members that if they did not vote with us, they would not
get the projects.
``Let me make this very clear. I challenge these Members to name one
person, one person whom I went to and said they will get a project in
exchange for their vote. I challenge them to name one person who I
threatened that they not get a project if they voted against us.
``Indeed, if we look back at the battle we had here last year on the
budget resolution where we had our transportation amendment, I urges my
colleagues to go look at Members who voted against us and then look at
the projects they are receiving today. This is simply a blatant
falsehood.
``Now, no doubt many Members support our legislation because it is
important to their district because it is important to America, because
they are getting projects that they have requeste4d and which have been
vetted through our 14-point requirement.
``It seems that in life sometimes there are those who, when one takes
a different view from their view, they must somehow ascribe some base
motivation. They simply cannot believe that because someone disagrees
with them, that another's motives can be as pure as theirs. Indeed,
sometimes it seems as though the smaller the minority they represent,
the more incensed they become, because they view themselves as more
pure, more righteous, more sanctimonious than the larger
[[Page 2756]]
majority of us who are mere mortals. But, I do not ascribe any of these
motives to our colleagues. I prefer to believe that they simply are
misinformed.
``Mr. Speaker, the supreme irony, the supreme irony is that the three
individuals who have been attacking us, attaching our motives, attacking
our integrity, have submitted projects to us for their own congressional
district.
``Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Oberstar], ranking member of the full committee.''
Mr. OBERSTAR was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]
for yielding.
``Mr. Speaker, I join in the gentleman's indignation, to put it
mildly, over these attacks that are totally unjustified, unfounded, and
inappropriate for Members of this body to make.
``First of all, the projects in question have gone through a very
thorough and careful vetting process according to a 14-point outline
that the committee fashioned, which includes a requirement that the
project be on the State's priority or State's future project development
list. The points that are included in the review of projects are all the
points that States use to measure validity of projects that their
transportation departments will fund.
``After reviewing all of these projects and insuring that they meet
standards accepted by States and that these are projects necessary in a
Member's district, we accept the Member's judgment as to what is
necessary for his or her district, and those projects are included in
this package, as was done in 1991 in the previous transportation bill.
``Mr. Speaker, I could understand Members disagreeing with the
process, but I do not approve, I am offended by the use of language and
by the accusations made. The gentleman from Pennsylvania had been a
vigorous advocate for transportation since before he was elected to
Congress in 1972 and since taking his place on the then-Committee on
Public Works and Now-Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Under his chairmanship, he has waged a nationwide campaign for increased
investment in the Nation's portfolio of bridges, highways, buses,
transit systems, but above all, its safety.
``The Gentleman's drive to increase spending out of the highway trust
fund, tax dollars that have been collected at the pump but not paid into
projects for which driving America had already teen taxed, is clear and
well known and widely respected, open and clear for everyone to review.
``So when the gentleman from Pennsylvania or I, together on a
bipartisan basis, present our program to our respective caucuses and to
this body and ask for their support, we do so very clearly, very openly,
without any hidden agenda. And for Members then to say that they have
been somehow browbeaten, whipped into line, or threatened is totally
inappropriate and totally untrue.
``As a strong and vigorous advocate for his viewpoint, I respect the
gentleman from Pennsylvania and I respect those who take a differing
viewpoint. They are entitled to that viewpoint. They are also entitled
to the fair share of funding that we have designated without any
questions, without any squid pro quo.
``We respect and always have respected the Members' right to vote
their district and their conscience. We would ask them, and I do not
think there is anything inappropriate to ask a Member to support this
legislation, but we respect their right not to.
``Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania had conducted
himself with the highest dignity, with the appropriate character of a
Member of Congress of this distinguished body, in the same manner that
he has done for his 26 years in the House of Representatives. I join him
in reproving those who have used such inappropriate language. It is an
assault upon the integrity of the chairman of this committee, a Member
who has championed the cause for all of America for better
transportation, better investment in the future of our economy, and I
salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania.''.
Mr. SHUSTER rose and said;
``Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota
for those words.''
Mr. TRAFICANT rose and said:
``Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?''
Mr. SHUSTER said:
``I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.''
Mr. TRAFICANT was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Shuster] for being a chairman and taking care of the jurisdictional
authority which he is in charge of. I am tired of the `pork barrel'
labels on the gentleman from Pennsylvania and on the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
``Mr. Speaker, I had five bridges in the original ISTEA bill, and one
of the major news networks came to my district and said, boy, you are
getting all of this pork. And I said, come on down. Then I showed them
bridges with a sway, with a 2-ton weight limit. The next bridge down had
a 5-ton weight limit. And I got those bridges built. I got the money for
them. And they are still not built; they are now under process. That is
how many years it takes.
``Well, I want to announce here that as soon as the wrecking crew
appeared on the Center Street Bridge, the first time the backhoe hit one
of the steel structures, the bridge collapsed.
``They said, thank god citizens were not killed. Enough of this pork
barrel madness. Ohio had 28 major projects announced last year, and my
district did not get one of them; and I have the most infrastructure
needs in the country. No Member of Congress should go home and flout
this pork barrel if they are not taking care of it. Because that is why
we are elected.
``And by God, I am just glad we are building the Center Street bridge
and no one in my district got hurt. I want to say this as a former Pitt
grad, my colleague stands for what a chairman should be; and all
chairmen should deal with their jurisdictional authority and dispatch
the duties like he has.
``I stand with him, proud to be associated with him, and I commend him
and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] for the fine job they
have done on this bill.
Mr. SHUSTER reclaimed his time and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement.''
Mr. OBERSTAR rose and said:
``Mr. Speaker, if the Chairman would continue to yield, let me just
emphasize once again, never on our side or on the chairman's side of the
aisle was any Member told that conclusion of their project was
contingent upon or dependent upon their vote. No Member was asked how
they intended to vote in advance. Projects were included for Members on
the basis of the merits of the project, not on how they would vote.
``Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.
Washington, DC, March 7, 1996.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shuster: Recently, the Oklahoma Department of
Transportation submitted an authorization request to your
Committee to extend the Broken Arrow Expressway from I-44
southeast approximately 8.0 miles to the Tulsa County Line.
I am forwarding the enclosed request on to your Committee
for its consideration. I am confident that the merit of the
project will speak for itself.
Sincerely,
Steve Largent,
Member of Congress.
____
Information Requests for Transportation Projects State of Oklahoma
Project Description: SH 51 (Broken Arrow Expressway)
extending from I-44 southeast approximately 8.0 miles to the
Tulsa County Line.
evaluation criteria and responses are as follows
Name and Congressional District of the Primary Member of
Congress sponsoring the project, as well as any other Members
supporting the project (each project must have a single
primary sponsoring Member).
U.S. Representative Steve Largent.
Identify the State or other qualified recipient responsible
for carrying out the project.
Oklahoma Department of Transportation.
Is the project eligible for the use of Federal-aid funds
(if a road or bridge project, please note whether it is on
the National Highway System)?
This project is eligible for Federal-aid funds and it is on
the National Highway System.
Describe the design, scope and objectives of the project
and whether it is part of a larger system of projects. In
doing so, identify the specific segment for which project
[[Page 2757]]
funding is being sought including terminus points.
Design/Scope: Reconstruct the existing 4 lane highway and
add 2 additional lanes to provide a 6 lane facility. This
project will complete the final improvements to upgrade the
Broken Arrow Expressway which connects the Tulsa central
business district with Broken Arrow, Oklahoma and the
residential developments in the western portion of Wagoner
County. The specific section we are requesting funding for
extends from I-44 southeast 8.0 miles to the Tulsa/Wagoner
County Line.
What is the total project cost and proposed source of funds
(please identify the federal, state, or local shares and the
extent, if any, of private sector financing or the use of
innovative financing) and of this amount, how much is being
requested for the specific project segment described in item
#4?
The estimated total cost of this project is $160,000,000
and the average daily traffic volume on this section of
highway is in excess of 78,000 vehicles daily.
Does the project have national or regional significance?
This project is on the National Highway System and it
serves as a connector route between I-44, I-444, I-244, US
64, US 169 and the Muskogee Turnpike. Consequently, this
highway serves both local commuter traffic and interstate
travel which makes it significant from a national and
regional level.
Has the proposed project encountered, or is it likely to
encounter, any significant opposition or other obstacles
based on environmental or other types of concerns?
Although an environmental assessment has been completed on
this project, a reassessment will be required. The EA
includes the mainline, but does not include the interchange
at US 169. Clearance of the SH 51/US 169 interchange will
likely require intermodal issues and a major investment study
(MIS).
Describe the economic, energy efficiency, and
environmental, congestion mitigation and safety benefits
associated with completion of the project.
Widening this expressway to 6 lanes, reconstructing the
major clover leaf interchanges, and providing full
directional interchanges will significantly increase
capacity, reduce congestion and improve the safety of this
major highway serving the Tulsa metropolitan area.
Has the project received funding through the State's
Federal aid highway apportionment, or in the case of a
transit project, through Federal Transit Administration
funding? If not, why not?
The State of Oklahoma has expended in excess of $34,000,000
in State and Federal funds on this project to perform
preliminary engineering work, acquire right-of-way, relocate
utilities, and reconstruction work on several sections of the
highway in the past few years.
Is the authorization requested for the project an increase
to an amount previously authorized or appropriated for it in
federal statue (if so, please identify the statute, the
amount provided, and the amount obligated to date), or would
this be the first authorization for the project in a federal
statute? If the authorization requested is for a transit
project, has it previously received appropriations and/or
received a Letter of Intent or entered into a Full Funding
Grant Agreement with the FTA.
The authorization requested for this project would be the
first one received by the State of Oklahoma on the Broken
Arrow Expressway.
____
Washington, DC, February 25, 1997.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shuster: Enclosed, please find a copy of an
ISTEA funding request by the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, which we both represent. As the attached proposal
indicates, the City of Charlotte is seeking funds for a South
Corridor Transitway, one of the first of its kind in the
United States. This project would link Uptown Charlotte to
Southeast Charlotte via a 13.5 mile express bus transitway,
relieving traffic congestion and providing improved access to
the City's Uptown area.
We respectfully submit this proposal by the City of
Charlotte and ask for your due consideration of this request.
Please do not hesitate to contact either one of us with
questions or concerns. We would both be pleased to speak with
you further concerning this project.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sue Myrick,
Member of Congress.
Melvin Watt,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 6, 1997.
Hon. Thomas E. Petri,
U.S. House of Representatives, Chairman-Subcommittee on
Surface Transportation, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Petri: I encourage you to read the
following testimony and letter. The enclosed detail very
carefully the importance of Oklahoma's surface
transportation.
I request that you give the State Highway 51 demonstration
project proposal your full consideration.
In advance, I would like to thank you and your colleagues
on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for your
diligence and hard work on the upcoming ISTEA
reauthorization.
Sincerely yours,
Tom A. Coburn, MD,
Member of Congress.
____
State of Oklahoma,
Office of the Governor,
Oklahoma, OK, February 21, 1997.
Hon. Thomas E. Petri,
U.S. House of Representatives, Chairman-Subcommittee on
Surface Transportation, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Petri: The significance of our surface
transportation system should not be under estimated. Careful
investment in our infrastructure increases productivity and
economic prosperity at local and regional levels. Despite the
importance of our transportation system to the nation's
economic health, investment has fallen well short of what is
truly needed. Dealing with these needs will require numerous
approaches, including special project funding.
As you begin the monumental task of reauthorizing the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISETA), we, the undersigned, wish to lend our support to the
following special funding request which is in addition to our
existing obligation limit and is critical to the
transportation needs of the State of Oklahoma.
SH 51 extending from Coweta east approximately 14.6 miles
to Wagoner, Oklahoma.
We commend your committee for its role in enacting ISTEA
and for the subsequent improvements made with the passage of
the National Highway System Bill last year. A sound national
transportation policy is critical to our state's economy and
our nation's ability to compete globally. To that end we urge
you to evaluate our request and take the appropriate action.
Sincerely,
Frank Keating,
Governor.
Neal A. McCaleb,
Secretary of Transportation.
Herschal Crow,
Chairman, Oklahoma Transportation Commission.
____
Demonstration Project Testimony, State Highway 51, Wagoner, Oklahoma
Submitted by: the Honorable Tom A. Coburn, U.S. House of
Representatives and Neal A. McCaleb, Secretary of Transportation, State
of Oklahoma
State Highway 51 (SH 51): SH-51 extending east from Coweta
to the Arkansas border, has been identified as a
Transportation Improvement Corridor. Eastern Oklahoma has an
ever increasing population. Tourism has also increased in the
Fort Gibson Lake and Tahlequah areas. These two factors form
the basis of why reconstruction of SH-51 is of foremost
concern.
The route has a high accident rate and contains bridges
that are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. For
projected traffic, this two lane route with no shoulders is
unacceptable, and could ultimately curb any future economic
growth in the northeastern region of Oklahoma.
In addition to tourism dollars, the highway also serves as
a major travel corridor and commuter route extending from the
Tulsa Metropolitan area east to Broken Arrow, Muskogee and
the Arkansas state line.
SH-51 is crucial to the region's business, industry and
labor, because it provides access to the Tulsa metropolitan
area, McClellan Kerr Navigational System, and several
recreational areas in eastern Oklahoma.
Nationally significant, SH-51 connects with I-44, I-244,
the Muskogee Turnpike, US-412 and other major routes in
eastern Oklahoma.
It is essential that SH-51 be expanded to four lanes to
increase capacity, promote tourism, boost economic growth,
and to improve safety and congestion. This project is
estimated to cost $63 million, and although the state has
expended nearly $34 million to improve this corridor, it is
simply not enough in view of the overall critical needs of
the entire highway system.
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Surface
Transportation Information Requests for Transportation Projects, State
of Oklahoma
Project Description: SH 51 extending from Coweta east
approximately 14.6 miles to Wagoner, Oklahoma.
Evaluation Criteria and Responses are as follows:
Name and Congressional District of the Primary Member of
Congress sponsoring the project, as well as any other Members
supporting the project (each project must have a single
primary sponsoring Member).
Response to No. 1: U.S. Representative Tom Coburn.
Identify the State or other qualified recipient responsible
for carrying out the project.
Response to No. 2: Oklahoma Department of Transportation.
Is the project eligible for the use of Federal-aid funds
(if a road or bridge project, please note whether it is on
the National Highway System)?
Response to No. 3: This project is eligible for the use of
Federal-aid funds, but it is not on the National Highway
System.
Describe the design, scope and objectives of the project
and whether it is part of a
[[Page 2758]]
larger system of projects. In doing so, identify the specific
segment for which project funding is being sought including
terminus points.
Response to No. 4: Design/Scope: Reconstruct to 4 lanes.
The objectives of this project is to continue improving SH 51
from Tulsa extending west approximately 59.0 miles to
Tahlequah, Oklahoma. The specific section for which we are
requesting funding extends from Coweta east 14.6 miles to
Wagoner, including the Wagoner bypass.
What is the total project cost and proposed source of funds
(please identify the federal, state, or local shares and the
extent, if any, of private sector financing or the use of
innovative financing) and of this amount, how much is being
requested for the specific project segment described in Item
No. 4?
Response to No. 5: The estimated total cost of this project
is $63,000,000.00 and we are requesting $50,400,000.00 in
Federal-aid funds. The State of Oklahoma will provide
$12,600,000.00 in matching funds to finance this project.
Of the amount requested, how much is expected to be
obligated over each of the next 5 years?
Response to No. 6: All of the funds we are requesting can
be obligated over the next 5 years.
What is the proposed schedule and status of work on the
project?
Response to No. 7: The environmental clearance has been
completed on this project. However, a reassessment may be
necessary. Following completion of the environmental
reassessment, right-of-way and design plans will be prepared
and this takes approximately 2 years. Right-of-way
acquisition will then take about 18 months to complete.
Construction contracts should be ready for letting within 4
to 5 years.
Is the project included in the metropolitan and/or State
Transportation Improvement Program(s), or the State long-
range plan and, if so, is it scheduled for funding?
Response to No. 8: The right-of-way acquisition and utility
relocations for one section of this project are currently on
the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and funding
is scheduled for these items. The entire project limit,
however, is identified as one of the transportation
improvement corridors in the Statewide Intermodal
Transportation Plan (long range plan). Due to the high cost
of this project and the State's limited funds, the remaining
construction, right-of-way, and utility phases of this
project are not currently scheduled.
Is the project considered by State and/or regional
transportation officials as critical to their needs? Please
provide a letter of support from these officials, and if you
cannot, explain why not.
Response to No. 9: This project is considered critical to
the economic growth of the eastern region of Oklahoma which
generates a large amount of tourism in the Fort Gibson Lake
and Tahlequah areas. The highway also serves as a major
travel corridor and commuter route extending from the Tulsa
Metropolitan area east to Broken Bow, Muskogee and the
Arkansas State Line.
Does the project have national or regional significance?
Response to No. 10: This project is regionally significant
because it provides access to the Tulsa metropolitan area,
McClellan Kerr Navigational System, and several recreational
areas in eastern Oklahoma. SH 51 is also nationally
significant because it connects with I-44, I-244, the
Muskogee Turnpike, US 412, and other major routes in the
eastern section of Oklahoma.
Has the proposed project encountered, or is it likely to
encounter, any significant opposition or other obstacles
based on environmental or other types of concerns?
Response to No. 11: The environmental clearance has been
completed on this project. However, a reassessment is likely.
We do not anticipate any major opposition or other obstacles
that will delay construction of this project.
Describe the economic, energy efficiency, environmental,
congestion mitigation and safety benefits associated with
completion of the project.
Response to No. 12: Widening SH 51 to a 4 lane highway will
increase capacity, promote tourism and economic growth in the
region, and improve the safety and congestion along this
major highway serving the eastern region of Oklahoma.
Has the project received funding through the State's
Federal-aid highway apportionment, or in the case of a
transit project, through Federal Transit Administration
funding? If no, why not?
Response to No. 13: During the past few years the State has
expended in excess of $34,000,000.00 to improve this corridor
between I-44 in Tulsa and the Arkansas State Line. However,
because the overall critical needs of the entire highway
system far exceeds the limited funding levels, this project
from Coweta to Wagoner has not received funding through the
State's Federal-aid highway apportionments.
Is the authorization requested for the project an increase
to an amount previously authorized or appropriated for it in
federal statute (if so, please identify the statute, the
amount provided, and the amount obligated to date), or would
this be the first authorization for the project in federal
statute? If the authorization requested is for a transit
project, has it previously received appropriations and/or
received a Letter of Intent or entered into a Full Funding
Grant Agreement with the FTA?
Response to No. 14: This is the first authorization we have
requested for this project.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, March 10, 1997.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, House Committee on Transportation, Rayburn House
Office Building.
Hon. Thomas Petri,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Rayburn
House Office Building.
Hon. Jim Oberstar,
Ranking Democratic Member, House Committee on Transportation,
Rayburn House Office Building.
Hon. Nick Rahall,
Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Surface
Transportation, Rayburn House Office Building.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Members: On February 25,
1997, the North Carolina Delegation forwarded to your
attention copies of the State of North Carolina's highway
transportation project priorities.
Included in this package, there were two funding requests
that are of particular concern to our districts, the Ninth
and Twelfth Districts of North Carolina. These requests
regarded funding for construction of the Eastern and Western
Outer Loops in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
The completion of the Outer Loop is the foremost road
priority for our region during consideration of
transportation funding this year. The purpose of this letter
is to formally inform you of our strong support for this
critical transportation need for the City of Charlotte.
We thank you in advance for your consideration of this
request. Please do not hesitate to contact either of us if we
can provide you with further information regarding the Outer
Loop project.
Sincerely,
Sue Myrick,
Member of Congress.
Melvin Watt,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, August 20, 1997.
Chairman Bud Shuster,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shuster: We are writing to express our strong
support for the I-40 cross bridge project, which was
submitted to the Surface Transportation Subcommittee in
February. This project is important not only to the State of
Oklahoma, but also to the Nation.
The I-40 cross bridge is in a critical state of disrepair.
There are serious safety concerns surrounding the continued
use of this bridge. Due to these concerns Oklahoma inspects
this particular bridge every six months; other bridges are
inspected only once every two years.
It is critical to the State and to the Nation that this
bridge remains open. Recently, the Oklahoma Department of
Transportation determined that approximately 102,000 cars
cross this bridge every day. Furthermore, 61% of all the
trucks that cross this bridge are out of state trucks.
Clearly, this bridge is heavily traveled by more than just
Oklahomans.
Both the Governor of Oklahoma and the Secretary of
Transportation have endorsed this project and have made it
the number one transportation priority for the State of
Oklahoma. Unfortunately, due to the magnitude of the project,
Oklahoma does not have the funds to tackle it at this time.
We are committed to working with our state officials to
ensure that this project receive the attention and funding it
needs. We would greatly appreciate your consideration of the
merits of this project. The I-40 cross bridge is indeed vital
to both Oklahoma and the overall interstate system. Please
let us know if we can provide you with additional
information.
Sincerely,
Rep. J.C. Watts, Jr.
Rep. Ernest Istook, Jr.
Rep. Steve Largent.
Rep. Frank Lucas.
Rep. Wes Watkins.
Rep. Tom Coburn.
Mr. SHUSTER spoke and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.''.
____________________
point of personal privilege
(para.43.16)
A Member rose to a question of personal privilege under rule IX on the
basis of press accounts containing statements impugning his character
and motive by alleging intentional violation of rules as chairman of a
committee conducting an investigation.
On May 12, 1998, Mr. BURTON rose to a question of personal privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, pursuant to clause 1 of rule IX,
recognized Mr. BURTON for one hour.
Mr. BURTON made the following statement:
``Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege deals with statements made in
[[Page 2759]]
three editorials published in newspapers within the last week. The
editorials contain statements which reflect directly on my reputation
and integrity and specifically allege deceptive actions on my part and
impugn my character and motive.''.
``The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HELFLEY SPOKE AND SIAD:
``The Chair has examined the press accounts which serve as the basis
of the gentleman from Indiana's question of personal privilege and is
satisfied that the gentleman states a proper question of personal
privilege.
``Therefore, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is recognized for
1 hour.''.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana spoke and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
``Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleagues that I regret having to
take this time out of our very busy schedule. I will not take the whole
hour, but I think it is extremely important that the issues I am going
to talk about be made available to my colleagues and to anyone else who
is interested.
``I rise today to take a point of personal privilege and to discuss
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's investigation into
illegal campaign contributions and other crimes. My conduct as chairman
has been criticized by many of my Democratic colleagues. Those
criticisms have been echoed in the press so I am taking this point of
personal privilege to lay out for the American people the facts about
this investigation.
``The fact is that this committee has been subjected to a level of
stonewalling and obstruction that has never been seen by a congressional
investigation in the history of this country. This investigation has
been stonewalled by the White House. This investigation has been
stonewalled by the Democratic National Committee. This committee has
seen over 90 witnesses, 90, either take the fifth amendment or flee the
country to avoid testifying, more than 90.
``The fact that all of these people have invoked their fifth amendment
right to avoid self-incrimination is a pretty strong indication that a
lot of crimes have been committed. Tomorrow the committee will vote on
immunity for four witnesses, all of whom have previously invoked their
right against self-incrimination. The Democrats on the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight have voted once to block immunity and
keep these witnesses from testifying. I hope that tomorrow they will
reconsider and vote to allow this investigation to move forward as it
should.
``This investigation has seen enough obstruction and enough
stonewalling for a lifetime. Before tomorrow's vote, I want to lay out
for the American people and my colleagues what has happened in this
investigation over the last year, the stalling and the delaying tactics
that have been used against us and what has brought us to this point. I
want to give a comprehensive summary of events so I am not going to
yield to my colleagues during this speech.
``I became chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight in January of 1997. The President said he would give his full
cooperation to all congressional investigations of illegal foreign fund-
raising, including ours. So why are we conducting this investigation?
Because there is very strong evidence that crimes were committed.
``Let us take a look at some of the allegations that compelled us to
begin this investigation: that the DNC had accepted millions of dollars
in illegal foreign campaign contributions; that $3 million of the $4.5
million in contributions attributed to John Huang had to be returned
because of suspicions about their origins; that the Chinese Government
had developed and implemented a plan to influence the elections in the
United States of America; that Charlie Trie, a friend of the President's
from Arkansas, had funneled close to $700,000 in contributions
associated with a Taiwanese cult to the President's legal defense fund;
that Charlie Trie's Macao-based benefactor had wired him in excess of $1
million from overseas banks; that Charlie Trie was behind roughly
$600,000 in suspicious contributions to the Democratic National
Committee; that Pauline Kanchanalak and her family funneled a half a
million dollars to the Democratic National Party from Thailand; that
Chinese gun merchants, Cuban drug smugglers and Russian mob figures were
being invited to intimate White House events with the President in
exchange for campaign contributions; that the former associate Attorney
General received $700,000 from friends and associates of the President,
including $100,000 from the Riady family at a time when he was supposed
to be cooperating with a criminal investigation.
``These are serious allegations about serious crimes. The Justice
Department recently brought indictments against three of these
individuals and a fourth, Johnny Chung has pled guilty.
``In January 1997, I sent letters to the White House requesting copies
of all documents relating to this investigation. I asked for documents
regarding John Huang, Charlie Trie, White House fund-raisers, et cetera.
I gave the White House a chance to cooperate. Chairman Clinger, who
preceded me, had written to the White House in October of 1996, and
requested all documents regarding John Huang. Press reports had
indicated that the White House had already assembled these documents and
had them in boxes at the White House before the end of 1996.
``The entire month of February passed and we received only a trickle
of documents from the White House. In March it was clear that the White
House was not going to comply voluntarily. The President had offered his
cooperation at the beginning of the year, but the White House refused to
turn over documents to the committee. The White House campaign of
stalling had begun. So I issued a subpoena for the documents. I held a
meeting with the President's new White House counsel, Mr. Charles Ruff.
Mr. Ruff assured me that the President would not assert executive
privilege over any of the documents. The White House continued to resist
turning over documents despite the lawful subpoena that we sent to them.
``Despite the earlier assurances, they told us they intended to claim
executive privilege, even though they had said previously the President
would not on over 60 documents that were relevant to the fund-raising
scandal. It had always been White House policy not to claim executive
privilege whenever personal wrongdoing or potential criminal conduct was
being investigated. President Clinton's own counsel, Lloyd Cutler, had
reiterated this policy early in the Clinton administration. But now
President Clinton was using executive privilege to block our
investigation.
``The month of April passed and little or no progress had been made in
getting the documents we called for in our subpoena. This was more than
four months after my first document request had been sent to the White
House.
``In May, I was compelled to schedule a committee meeting to hold
White House counsel Charles Ruff in contempt of Congress. More than four
months had passed since I asked for the President's cooperation in
producing documents and there had been nothing but stalling and more
stalling. It was only with this sword hanging over their heads that the
White House finally began to make efforts to comply with our subpoena.
``Mr. Ruff agreed to turn over all documents required by the subpoena
within 6 weeks. He also agreed to allow committee attorneys to review
documents on their privilege log to determine if the committee needed to
have them. We reviewed those documents. We did need many of them.
``After months of stalling, we finally got some of them. By June, Mr.
Ruff provided me with a letter stating that the White House had and I
quote, `to the best of his knowledge, end of quote,' turned over every
document in their possession required by the subpoena. We would find out
later that that was not true.
``All the while we were struggling to get documents from the White
House, I was subjected to a steady stream of mudslinging and vicious
personal attacks from Democratic operatives and others close to the
President. The DNC, which at the time was resisting complying with our
subpoena, was spending thousands of dollars conducting opposition
research on my background to try to intimidate me. They produced a
scurrilous 20-page report detailing every trip I had ever taken, the
contributions I had received over the
[[Page 2760]]
years, my financial disclosure statements and anything else they could
find.
``This document, which made outrageous and untrue accusations against
me, was faxed around to reporters in an effort to drum up negative
publicity about me and intimidate me. So much for cooperation with a
legitimate congressional campaign investigation.
``In March, the week my committee's budget was to be voted on by the
House, a former executive director of the Democratic National Committee
made a slanderous accusation that I shook him down for campaign
contributions. His accusation was printed on the front page of the
Washington Post. His actions, which are completely untrue and absurd on
their face, became the subject of a Justice Department investigation.
``As it turns out, this individual, Mark Siegel, was a former Carter
White House aide, a former DNC executive director, a Democratic fund-
raiser and a Democratic lobbyist. More importantly, it became known
later that he is a close friend and business associate of then-White
House attorney Lanny Davis.
``His accusations were clearly politically motivated and timed to hurt
the chances for approval of our budget for the investigation. So much
for cooperation from the Democrats.
``Other sleazy accusations were being dished out to the press by
anonymous Democratic agents. One reporter from my home State received
derogatory information about me in an unmarked manila envelope without
any return address. One Washington reporter got an anonymous phone call
and was told to go to a phone booth, a phone booth in the Rayburn
Building, and look in the back of the phone book. He went to that phone
booth and found an envelope of defamatory information about me glued to
the inside of the back of the phone book.
``Talk about cloak and dagger. This is the type of smear campaign that
every committee chairman who has attempted to conduct oversight of the
White House has been subjected to.
``They attempted to smear the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], they
attempted to smear Chairman, former Congressman Bill Clinger, they
attempted to smear Senator D'Amato, they attempted to smear Senator Fred
Thompson, they even attempted to smear FBI Director Louis Freeh when he
sought to convince the Attorney General to appoint an independent
counsel. And, of course, Mr. Starr has been smeared, and everybody else
that has investigated any aspect of the White House.
``What does this kind of behavior by the Democratic Party say to the
American people? Is this cooperation? Were these smear campaigns
orchestrated by the White House? That is something the American people
have a right to know.
``In February of 1997, my staff learned, by reading The Washington
Post, that the White House had sought a briefing from the FBI about the
evidence it had gathered about Chinese efforts to infiltrate our
political system and to affect the outcomes of elections. For obvious
reasons, the FBI resisted giving such a briefing. The criminal
investigation potentially implicated members of the White House staff.
``I learned from discussions with FBI Director Louis Freeh that at a
time he was traveling in the Middle East, senior officials at the
Justice Department attempted to provide this information about the
ongoing criminal investigation to the White House, that was part of the
investigation, a move that the FBI adamantly opposed.
``According to Director Freeh, when his staff learned that the Justice
Department lawyers were planning on giving this information to the White
House, Director Freeh's chief of staff called him on his airplane
halfway around the world in a last-ditch effort to stop the transfer of
this information to the White House, which could have potentially
jeopardized the investigation. Director Freeh was forced to make an
emergency phone call to the Attorney General from his plane in the
Middle East to intervene and stop that process.
``When the Attorney General testified before our committee in
December, she told a different version of events. She testified that she
initiated the call to Director Freeh on his airplane to consult with him
about providing the information to the White House. However, when
Director Freeh testified the next day, he confirmed that it was he who
initiated the call, after his staff warned him that the FBI was being
circumvented so that sensitive information could be provided to the
White House against the FBI's wishes.
``Now, let us go back to the White House. The stonewalling and the
obstruction from the White House did not stop following our agreement
with Mr. Ruff, the President's chief counsel. The letter I received in
June of 1997 from Mr. Ruff assured me that, quote, to the best of his
knowledge, all documents relevant to our investigation had been provided
to the committee. Unfortunately, these assurances were hollow. They were
false.
``Throughout the summer, boxes of newly discovered documents dribbled
into the committee offices. Often, when the documents contained damaging
revelations, they were leaked to the press before being provided to the
committee. On one occasion, on a Friday night, we got about 12 boxes of
documents. We did not even open them until the next Monday. But in the
Saturday morning papers there was information that was in those boxes in
the papers, and the White House was accusing us of leaking the
information when we had not even opened the boxes.
``When this happened, the documents were normally given to reporters
late on a Friday or over a busy weekend to try to deaden their impact on
the American people.
``It was not unusual to receive documents pertaining to a White House
or a DNC employee shortly after that employee was deposed. This forced
us, on a continuing basis, to consider redeposing witnesses, costing
additional time and money.
``In the Senate, Senator Thompson faced the same obstacles. Last July,
the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs heard 2 days of testimony
from DNC Finance Director Richard Sullivan. The evening following
Sullivan's testimony, after he testified, the White House delivered
several boxes of documents shedding new light on Sullivan's activities.
The chairman of the committee in the other body was so infuriated that
he canceled his agreement allowing the White House to provide documents
voluntarily and he issued his first subpoena to the White House.
``On August 1, more Richard Sullivan documents turned up at the
Democratic National Committee. The DNC turned over several boxes of
memos and handwritten notes from the filing cabinet in Sullivan's
office.
``The idea that the DNC could have overlooked drawers and drawers of
relevant documents right in Richard Sullivan's office strains
credibility. The Senate was forced to redepose Mr. Sullivan.
``The final straw came in October when the White House videotapes were
discovered. The White House had in its possession close to 100
videotapes of the President speaking and mingling with subjects of our
investigation at DNC fund-raisers and White House coffees. The President
could be seen at the White House fund-raisers with John Huang, James
Riady, Pauline Kanchanalak, Charlie Trie, and many others.
``In one tape the President could be seen introduced at a fund-raiser
to Charlie Trie and several foreign businessmen as ``The Trie Team.''
This was serious evidence that the White House had withheld from
Congress and the Justice Department investigation for over 6 months.
``Despite the fact our subpoena clearly ordered the production of any
relevant videotapes, the White House had, for 6 months, failed to reveal
their existence. It was only under pressure from a Senate investigator,
who had received a tip from a source, that the White House admitted to
the existence of the tapes. In other words, they did not turn over the
fund-raising tapes until their hand was caught in the cookie jar.
``Charles Ruff has said publicly that he was informed of the existence
of the tapes on Wednesday, October 1. Now, remember this. The
President's counsel said he was informed of the existence of the tapes
on Wednesday, October 1. He met with Attorney General Janet Reno on
Thursday, October 2, the day after he found out about the tapes. He did
not inform the Attorney General at that meeting that the tapes existed
and that they had not been turned over
[[Page 2761]]
to the Justice Department. I believe he had an obligation to do so.
``Now, this was a critical week, because the Attorney General was in
the process of deciding whether to seek the appointment of an
independent counsel and she had to make her decision on Friday, October
3. So the President's counsel knew about the tapes on the 1st, he talked
to the Attorney General on the 2nd, she had to make her decision on the
3rd, but he did not tell her about it. And so she made the decision not
to appoint an independent counsel. Had she known about those tapes, her
decision might have been otherwise.
``On Friday, the Attorney General released a letter declining to
appoint an independent counsel. The tapes were not released until the
Justice Department--until the weekend. Another stonewalling. In other
words, Mr. Ruff had a face-to-face meeting with the Attorney General. He
failed to disclose to her that the fund-raising videotapes existed and
allowed her to make a very important decision on an independent counsel
without having any knowledge of them.
``That is just wrong. It is obstruction of our investigation and all
these investigations.
``I called Charles Ruff and the other attorneys from the White House
counsel's office to testify before our committee in November, to answer
for their failure to produce these tapes. Under questioning from a
committee attorney, White House Deputy Counsel Cheryl Mills admitted
that she and White House Counsel Jack Quinn had withheld from the
committee for 1 year an important document related to the investigation
of political uses of the White House database.
``The document in question was a page of notes taken by a White House
staffer that indicated the President's desire to integrate the White
House database with the DNC's database, which is not legal. This
document had a direct bearing on the subcommittee's investigation.
Cheryl Mills admitted that she had kept the document in a file in her
office for over a year, based on a legal sleight of hand. Her behavior
in this instance was another in a long string of incidents that
reflected the White House's desire to stall and delay congressional
investigations of its alleged misconduct. This kind of behavior is
inexcusable for a White House attorney and a public servant.
``It was not the only time the subcommittee has faced obstructionism.
The White House official most directly responsible for developing the
controversial database was Marsha Scott. Committee attorneys had to
attempt to depose Ms. Scott on three separate occasions to overcome her
refusal to answer questions.
``This April, Ms. Scott was subpoenaed to attend a deposition. She
arrived for the deposition, began to answer questions, and then abruptly
got up and walked out of the deposition. This committee has never seen a
witness who was under subpoena walk out in the middle of a deposition.
``The subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
McIntosh], was forced to call an emergency meeting of the subcommittee
at 8 o'clock that night to force Ms. Scott to return and answer the
questions.
``This is typical of the kinds of obstruction this committee has
encountered while dealing with this White House.
``The White House strategy was accurately described in a recent New
York Post editorial as `The Four Ds: Deny, Delay, Denigrate and
Distract.' It appears that the White House's game plan has been to stall
and obstruct legitimate investigations for as long as possible and then
criticize the length of the investigations, all the while attacking the
investigators.
``It has been fairly noted by a number of leading editorial pages that
if the President and his subordinates would simply cooperate and tell
the truth, these investigations could be wrapped up quickly. The
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight continued to have White
House documents dribble in as late as last December, 6 months after
Charles Ruff had certified they had given us everything.
``Since January of last year, I have been seeking information from the
Justice Department about its investigations into allegations that the
Government of Vietnam may have attempted to bribe Commerce Secretary Ron
Brown to influence policy on the normalization of relations with
Vietnam, even though we had not had complete reporting on the 2,300 or
2,400 POWs and MIAs left behind.
``The New York Times reported that the Justice Department had received
evidence of international wire transfers related to the case, that there
was money transferred from Hanoi to another bank. There was information
in the papers about that. Despite the fact that the Justice Department
had closed the case, they were resisting providing any information to my
committee.
``On Tuesday, July 8, because the Justice Department would not give me
the information, I sent a subpoena to the Attorney General and the
Justice Department demanding this information.
``Now, get this: 3 days later, after I sent a subpoena to the Attorney
General, on Friday, July 11, my campaign had an FBI agent walk in and
give us a subpoena for 5 years of my campaign records. Although Mr.
Siegel had made his allegations against me in March, there had been no
signs of any investigative activity within the Justice Department until
I sent a subpoena to the Attorney General about Mr. Brown and that FBI
report.
``Was this a case of retaliation? That is a question the American
people have a right to have answered, and I think I do, too.
``This committee has faced obstructions from the White House. That is
obvious. It is also true that this committee has faced serious
obstructions from other governments in this world.
``We tried to send a team of investigators to China and Hong Kong
earlier this year. There are important witnesses that need to be
interviewed to find out who is behind major wire transfers of money that
wound up being funneled into campaigns in this country. The Chinese
Government turned us down flat. They would not give visas to our
investigators.
``We attempted to get information from the Bank of China about who
originated the wire transfers of hundreds of thousands of dollars to
Charlie Trie, Ng Lap Seng and others. The Bank of China told us they are
an arm of the Chinese Government and they would not comply with our
subpoena.
``I wrote to the President and asked for his assistance to break
through this logjam with the Chinese Government. We have received no
answer and no assistance whatsoever from the White House.
``My friends on the Democratic side of the aisle are fond of
complaining about the number of subpoenas I have issued. For the record,
I have issued just over 600 since the investigation began a year-and-a-
half ago. There is a very simple reason that I have been compelled to
issue that many subpoenas. This committee has received absolutely no
cooperation from more than 90 key witnesses and participants in efforts
to funnel foreign money into U.S. campaigns. And many of these people
are personal friends of the President, many of these people worked in
the White House, and they have taken the Fifth or fled the country.
``More than 90 witnesses have either taken the Fifth to avoid
incriminating themselves or fled the country to avoid testifying because
they possibly are involved in criminal activity.
``The Justice Department did not receive much cooperation either.
Director Freeh, when he testified before the committee last December,
told us that they had issued over 1,000 subpoenas from the FBI.
``Fifty-three people have taken the fifth. These include Webb Hubbell,
the President's hand-picked Associate Attorney General; John Huang, the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce, who was in the White House over
100 times during the President's first term; and Mark Middleton, a high-
level aide in the office of the White House Chief of Staff.
``I want to be clear about what this means. High-level appointees of
the President have exercised their fifth amendment rights against self-
incrimination in criminal investigations, in crimes. These people do not
want to testify because they do not want to admit to the commission of
any crime that they may have been involved in. And these are people that
have worked in the White House close to the President, his friends.
[[Page 2762]]
``Thirty-eight witnesses have either fled the country or refused to
make themselves available to be interviewed in their countries or their
residence. There has never before in the history of this country been a
congressional investigation that has had to investigate a scandal that
is so broad and so international in scope. There has never before been a
congressional investigation that has seen and had over 90 witnesses
refuse to cooperate or flee the country.
``The fact that we have had so many non-cooperating witnesses is the
reason that we have had to issue so many subpoenas. For instance,
Charlie Trie, even though he has returned to the United States, has
refused to cooperate with the committee. To overcome this problem, we
had to issue 117 subpoenas to banks, phone companies, businesses, and
other individuals to get information that Mr. Trie could have provided
himself to us and to the committee. We have had to issue 60 subpoenas to
attempt to get information about Ted Sioeng.
``Ted Sioeng and his family have given $400,000 to the Democrat
National Committee. They have also given $150,000 to Republican causes.
Not only has Ted Sioeng fled the country, but more than a dozen people
associated with them have left as well. I mean, they are all heading for
the hills. If Ted Sioeng would come back to the United States and
cooperate with this investigation, we would not have to issue all of
these subpoenas.
``Eighty percent of the subpoenas I have issued have been targeted to
get information about half a dozen individuals who have been implicated
in this scandal and who have taken the fifth amendment to avoid
testifying.
``Just to be clear, more than 90 people have taken the fifth amendment
or fled the country. That is scandalous. It has never happened before in
the history of this country. Friends of the President, friends of the
administration, contributors, leaders from other countries, have all
headed for the hills. This is unprecedented. This should be a clear
indication to people of the extent of the lawbreaking that occurred
during the last campaign.
``At this point, I would like to say a few things about the release of
the Webster Hubbell tapes, which we read about in the papers last week.
First, Webster Hubbell was the Associate Attorney General of the United
States. He was hand-picked by President Clinton to serve as one of the
highest law enforcement officers in our land. Within a year, he was
forced to resign in disgrace because of a criminal investigation into
fraud at his law firm. He was eventually convicted and served 18 months
in prison.
``Between the time he resigned, between the time he left the Justice
Department and he was convicted, about 6 or 7 months later, he received
$700,000 in payments from friends and associates of the President's for
doing little or no work; and many people believe that was hush money.
One hundred thousand dollars came from the Riady family in Indonesia,
owners of the Lippo Group. This payment came within a few days of 10
meetings at the White House, some including the President himself,
involving the President, John Huang, James Riady, and Webster Hubbell.
Serious allegations have been made that this $700,000 was hush money
meant to keep Mr. Hubbell silent. A criminal investigation is underway.
And Mr. Hubbell was just indicted for failure to pay almost $900,000 in
taxes.
``The American people have a right to know what happened. They have a
right to know why Mr. Hubbell received this money and what he did for
it. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and people do not shell out
$700,000 for nothing. We would expect the President's hand-picked
appointee to a powerful Justice Department position would be the first
to volunteer to cooperate with the congressional investigation.
``Instead, Mr. Hubbell, a close friend of the President, former leader
at the Justice Department, has taken the fifth amendment and remains
silent. This has forced us to seek other sources of information. And
that is why I subpoenaed the prison tapes of Mr. Hubbell's phone
conversations.
``Out of 150 hours of conversations, my staff prepared just over 1
hour for release to the public, private conversations that had nothing
to do with our investigation, and we screened those out. What was
contained in that hour of conversations raises troubling questions.
Given the seriousness of the allegations, this material deserves to be
on the public record.
``On these tapes, we hear Mrs. Hubbell say that she fears that she
will lose her job at the Interior Department if Mr. Hubbell takes
actions that will hurt the Clintons. We heard Mrs. Hubbell say that she
feels she is being squeezed by the White House. Webster Hubbell states,
after she says that, that ``I guess I must roll over just one more
time.'' ``Roll over one more time.'' These statements raise very
disturbing questions about the conduct of the White House and the
conduct of the Hubbells. The American people have a right to know the
answers.
``Let me say a couple things about the charges of selective editing.
Mistakes were made in the editing process. As chairman, I take
responsibility for those mistakes. But they were just that, innocent
mistakes. In the process of editing 149 hours of personal conversations,
the staff cut out a couple of paragraphs that should have been left in.
Here are a few points to be kept in mind. We are not talking about
transcripts. What were prepared were logs of the conversations, logs,
summaries of information on the tapes. They were not verbatim
transcripts and they were never identified as such. They were logs of
where these conversations came from out of the 150 hours of tapes that
was condensed on to one.
``Exculpatory statements about both Mrs. Clinton and other Clinton
administration officials were left in the logs. In one case, an
exculpatory statement by Mr. Hubbell about Mrs. Clinton was underlined
to highlight it. The tapes were never altered. This charge has been
repeated time and time again by the Democrats and it is false. The tapes
were not altered.
``Once the tapes were made public, reporters were allowed to listen to
and record the appropriate sections of the tapes in their entirety.
These sections included the statements about Mrs. Clinton and Mr.
Hubbell that have been complained about. How can anyone argue that there
was an intent to deceive when reporters were allowed to listen to the
comments I have been accused of deleting?
``Finally, in an effort to end once and for all these charges of
selective editing, I have released the tapes of these 50 conversations
in their entirety, even though I did not want to because there is
personal stuff in there that I did not think should be in the public
domain, but the integrity of the investigation had to be maintained.
``What I find most unfortunate is that this incident has detracted
from the important facts about the Hubbell tapes that it appears that
Mr. Hubbell and his wife were under a great deal of pressure to keep
their mouths shut. This is something that absolutely must be
investigated. It is something that the American people absolutely have a
right to know. She felt she was being squeezed by the White House, and
he felt he had to roll over one more time. He had to roll over one more
time.
``And when we have over 90 people fleeing the country or taking the
fifth amendment, we have to wonder if Mr. Hubbell is only one of a
number that are scared to talk, that are afraid to say anything because
of pressure from the White House.
``This brings us to tomorrow's committee meeting. Tomorrow we will try
to break through this stone wall one more time by granting immunity to
four witnesses. The Justice Department has agreed to immunity. The
Justice Department has agreed to immunity. They have been thoroughly
consulted. The Justice Department has already immunized two of these
witnesses themselves. There is no reason to oppose immunity. Yet 19
Democrats on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight voted in
lock step against immunity. They voted to prevent these witnesses from
telling the truth to the American people.
``I want to tell the American people a little bit about who these
witnesses are. Two of these witnesses were employees of Johnny Chung.
They were involved in his conduit contribution schemes, bringing money
from illegal sources into the DNC. They were involved in setting up many
of his meetings at the White House and with other government officials.
``Kent La is a very important witness. He is a business associate of
Ted Sioeng, one of the people that had fled the country. He is the U.S.
distributor
[[Page 2763]]
of Red Pagoda Mountain cigarettes. Ted Sioeng has a major stake in these
cigarettes. This is the best selling brand of cigarettes in China. This
company is owned by the Communist Chinese Government. It is the third
largest cigarette selling in the world. This company is owned by the
Chinese Government, and it is a convenient way to funnel money into
campaigns in the United States by Ted Sioeng, Kent La, and others.
``Ted Sioeng and his associates gave $400,000 in contributions to the
Democrat National Committee. Of that amount, Kent La gave $50,000. Was
that money from Red Pagoda cigarettes from the Chinese Communist
Government? We need to find out. The American people have a right to
know.
``Every witness that we have spoken to says that `If you want to
understand Ted Sioeng, you have got to talk to Kent La.' And that is one
of the people we want to talk to, but we have to get immunity for him
first. Kent La has invoked the fifth amendment. He will not testify
without immunity. But the Democrats on our committee will not grant him
immunity. The Democrats have voted to block immunity. I cannot, for the
life of me, understand why they want to do that.
``This is not a partisan issue. Ted Sioeng did not just give money to
Democrats, he gave to both sides. He gave $150,000 to Republican causes
as well as the Democrats. So this is not a partisan issue with Kent La
and Ted Sioeng. It seems very clear that most of this half a million
dollars donated by Ted Sioeng and his associates came from profits of
selling Chinese cigarettes around the world. Kent La is the one
individual who can tell us if this is true or not. I do not understand
why my colleagues want to keep this witness from testifying and protect
a major Communist Chinese cigarette company, especially when the
gentleman from California, who has been such a forceful advocate of
reducing smoking here in the United States, is one of those voting
against immunity.
``We have a number of good members on my committee on both sides of
the aisle. I think we have conscientious members, both Democrat and
Republican, who are outraged by some of the things that have happened
during the last election. I hope all of my colleagues are thinking long
and hard about their votes, and I hope that they will reconsider and
support immunity tomorrow.
``Now, in conclusion, I have tried throughout this discussion to try
to make clear to the American people and my colleagues that this is an
investigation that has faced countless obstacles, stone walls. We have
faced obstruction from the White House. We have faced stalling from the
Democrat National Committee. We have faced non-cooperation from foreign
governments. We have had over 90 people take the fifth amendment or flee
the country because they did not want to testify because of criminal
activity.
``However, we will continue. There are very serious allegations of
crimes that have been committed, and the American people have a right to
know. I hope that tomorrow we will start to tear down the stone wall by
granting immunity to these four witnesses and getting on with the
investigation. None of this should be covered up. The American people
have a very clear right to know if our government was compromised. They
have a right to know if foreign contributions influenced our foreign
policy, if it endangered our national defense. These are things the
American people have a right to know, and we are going to do our dead
level best to make sure they get that right and they get to know it.''.
____________________
privileges of the house
(para.45.7)
A resolution alleging intentional violation of House rules by a Member
and ``disapproving'' that conduct gives rise to a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX.
On May 14, 1998, Mr. GEPHARDT, rose to a question of the privileges of
the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res. 431):
H. Res. 431
Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has noted
that, although the power to conduct investigations is
inherent in the legislative process, that power is not
unlimited, may be exercised only in aid of the legislative
function, and cannot be used to expose for the sake of
exposure alone;
Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has further
noted that the investigative power of Congress contains ``no
general authority to expose the private affairs of
individuals without justification in terms of the functions
of Congress'';
Whereas Representative Burton is the only member in the
history of the House of Representatives who has had the power
to unilaterally issue subpoenas and the power to disclose
information obtained therefrom, and has abused these powers;
Whereas the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has
determined that it is improper to alter a House document if
such alteration changes the meaning or extensively modifies
the document;
Whereas the Speaker of the House of Representatives has
correctly and steadfastly called for adherence to the Rule of
Law and emphasized that no man is above the law;
Whereas those upon whom the House of Representatives has
bestowed its Constitutional power to investigate must abide
by the Rule of Law, and must exercise the investigative power
fairly and judiciously and in a manner that will preserve the
dignity of the House and reflect credit thereon.
Whereas the Rules of the House of Representatives provide
that documents and other materials obtained pursuant to a
Committee subpoena are records of the Committee that may not
be publicly disclosed by a chairman without authorization by
the Committee;
Whereas the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
has adopted procedures governing the public disclosure of
documents and other materials obtained pursuant to a
Committee subpoena;
Whereas pursuant to a Committee subpoena, Representative
Burton obtained from the Department of Justice tape
recordings of the telephone conversations engaged in by
Webster Hubbell while in prison;
Whereas the Department of Justice advised Representative
Burton of his responsibility to pay special regard to the
sensitive nature of the tape recordings, which recordings the
Department of Justice could not lawfully disclose to the
public;
Whereas Representative Burton intentionally violated the
Rules of the House of Representatives and the procedures of
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and
displayed an utter disregard for both the privacy rights of
those involved and the ability of the Bureau of Prisons to
perform its functions effectively by publicly disclosing the
tape recordings and transcripts of telephone conversations
between Webster Hubbell and his wife, other family members,
friends, and attorneys;
Whereas the transcripts publicly disclosed by
Representative Burton in violation of the Rules of the House
of Representatives and the procedures of the Committee had
been altered and selectively edited so as to mislead Members
of the House of Representatives and the public, distort the
public record; impair the ability of the House of
Representatives to perform its legislative and oversight
functions, and violate the integrity of Committee
proceedings.
Whereas the materials publicly disclosed by Representative
Burton in violation of the Rules of the House of
Representative and the procedures of the Committee contained
conversations between a husband and wife pertaining to
family, personal, medical, and marital problems;
Whereas, through these actions, his failure to abide by the
Rule of Law, and his consistent abuse of the investigative
powers of the House of Representatives, Representative Burton
has brought discredit upon the House of Representatives: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of
the manner in which Representative Burton has conducted the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's investigation
of political fund-raising improprieties and possible
violations of law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. NEY, ruled that in the opinion of the
Chair, the resolution constitutes a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX.
Mr. ARMEY moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay on the table the resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. NEY, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. GEPHARDT 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
223
When there appeared
<3-line {>
Nays
196
para.45.8
[Roll No. 153]
So the motion to lay the appeal on the table was agreed to.
[[Page 2764]]
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said motion was agreed to was,
by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
____________________
point of order
(para.52.16)
Pursuant to section 426(b)(4) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, a
Member who makes a point or 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-helf of the 20
minutes provided for debate on the question of consideration.
Pursuant to section 426 (b)(3) of the Congressionla Budget Act of 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 June 4, 1998, Mr. SOLOMON made a point of order against
consideration of the conference report under section 425 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and said:
``Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget
Act, the language on which this point of order is premised is contained
in section 502 of subtitle A of title 5, `Reductions in payments for
Administrative Costs for Food Stamps' of the conference report.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SUNUNU, responded to the point of order
and said:
``The gentleman from New York makes a point of order that the
conference report violates section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, and according to section 426(b)(2) o9f the Act, the
gentleman must specify the precise languate of his objection in the
conference report on which he predicates this point of order.
``Having met this threshold burden, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon) and a Member opposed will control 10 minutes of debate.
Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the Act and after debate, the Chair
will put the question of consideration, to wit: Will the House now
consider the conference report?''
After debate,
The question being put, viva, voce,
Will the House now consider said conference report?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SUNUNU, announced that the nays had it.
Mr. STENHOLM 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
324
When there appeared
<3-line {>
Nays
91
para.52.17
[Roll No. 203]
So it was the decision of the House to consider said conference
report.
____________________
point of order
(para.55.9)
Pursuant to section 426(b)(4) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, a
Member who makes a point of order under section 426(a) of the Act and
satisfies the threshold burden specified in section 426(b)(2) of the Act
by citing language in the resolution that waives the application of
section 425 of the Act 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 of 1974,
as disposition of a point of order raised under section 426(a) 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 June 10, 1998, Mr. NADLER, made a point of order during the remarks
of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. McInnis], and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against consideration of House
Resolution 462. Section 425 of that same Act, added by the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995, states that a point of order lies against
legislation which (1) imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of $50
million annually against state or local governments, and (2) does not
publish prior to floor consideration, a Congressional Budget Office
estimate of any unfunded mandates in excess of $50 million annually for
state and local entities or in excess of $100 million annually for the
private sector. Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that
the Rules Committee may not waive this point of order. On page 2, lines
13 through 15 of House Resolution 462, all points of order are waived
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Therefore, I make a point of order that this rules may not be considered
pursuant to section 426, as added by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. DUNCAN, responded to the point of order,
and said:
``The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the
resolution under section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of the Act, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler] has met the threshold burden to identify specific
waiver language in the resolution for the point of order.
``Under section 426(b)(2) of the Act, the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Nadler and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on
the question of consideration. 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 resolution?''.
____________________
point of order
(para.55.10)
Where the Speaker pro tempore has announced that the nays prevailed on a
voice vote on the question of consideration of a resolution, remarks
uttered without recognition do not constitute intervening business such
as to preclude an objection to the voice vote for lack of a quorum.
On June 10, 1998, Mr. McINNIS, rose and said:
``Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to----''
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. DUNCAN, spoke and said:
``Does the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. McINNIS, recognize that the
noes prevailed on the pending vote?''
Mr. McINNIS was recognized to speak and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused as to the order.''
Mr. NADLER spoke and said:
``Mr. Speaker, we continued. The vote is over.''
Mr. McINNIS spoke and said:
``I have the Floor, Mr. Speaker, and I make a point of order to that
point.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. DUNCAN, spoke and said:
``The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. McINNIS has the floor.
``Does the gentleman from Colorado object to the vote?''
Mr. McINNIS spoke and said:
``Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. DUNCAN, announced:
``The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. McINNIS, objects to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and makes the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
``A quorum is not present. Under the rule, the yeas and nays are
ordered. Those in favor will vote aye----''
Mr. NADLER spoke and said:
``Mr. Speaker, business intervened. Speech intervened. He did not ask
for the vote or object to the quorum until the Chair asked about it. I
object to this. He has gone on, all right.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. DUNCAN, said:
``The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. McINNIS, objected to the vote. The
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. McINNIS, objected to the vote.''
Mr. NADLER spoke and said:
``Mr. Speaker, business intervened. Before he objected to the vote, he
started saying he asked 30 minutes for speaking time, et cetera. We had
already progressed. He did not object to the vote.''
[[Page 2765]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. DUNCAN, said:
``There was not business that intervened. The gentleman from Colorado,
Mr. McINNIS, did not have the floor for debate since the pending voice
vote was against consideration.
``The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. McINNIS did not have the floor for
debate. The gentleman from Colorado objected to the vote.''
Mr. McINNIS spoke and said:
``That is correct, Mr. Speaker. I had the floor. I was on my feet and
had the floor.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. DUNCAN, said:
``The Chair will repeat, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. McINNIS, has
objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.''
Mr. NADLER spoke and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. DUNCAN, said:
``The gentleman makes the point of order that a quorum is not
present.''
Mr. NADLER spoke and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I object on the ground that the Record will show, if
the Clerk will read the Record, that the gentleman had gone on to
another subject, had already started talking about something else, and
did not, did not object on the ground that a quorum is not present until
the Speaker asked him, do you not want to object that a quorum was not
present?
``The vote was already over and cannot be continued at this point. I
make a point of order.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. DUNCAN, said:
``The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. McINNIS, had not been recognized to
debate the resolution since the House had not voted to consider the
resolution. therefore, no intervening business had been transacted.''
``Does the gentleman from New York, Mr. NADLER, insist on appealing
the ruling of the Chair?''
Mr. NADLER spoke and said:
``Mr. Speaker, no, I do not.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. DUNCAN, said:
``The gentleman from New York, Mr. NADLER, has withdrawn his appeal of
the ruling of the Chair.
____________________
point of order
(para.74.8)
The Speaker pro tempore sustained a point of order against a motion to
recommit proposing an amendment to replace one revenue provision in the
pending unreported bill with another such provision, on the ground that
it provided an ``increase or decrease in revenues'' in the coming fiscal
year before adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget for that
year in violation of section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
The House laid on the table an appeal from the ruling of the Speaker pro
tempore.
On July 24, 1998, Mr. HASTERT, made a point of order pending
consideration of the motion to recommit with instruction made by Mr.
BERRY.
Mr. HASTERT was recognized on his point of order and he yielded to Mr.
THOMAS who spoke and said:
``Mr. Speaker, contained among the numerous provisions in the motion
to recommit is striking the medical savings accounts. Notwithstanding
the gentleman's representation that this will save billions of dollars a
year, the Congressional Budget Office says that simply is not so. In
fact, it will save less than $1 billion a year. That is the point on
which the point of order turns, because the gentleman's addition of the
acceleration of the self-employed deduction in fact scores more than $1
billion and therefore is subject to a 303 Congressional Budget Act point
of order. It in fact increases the budget before the final budget is
adopted in a given fiscal year. It applies clearly in this particular
instance. A point of order, therefore, lies against the gentleman and I
would urge the Chair to sustain the 303(a) Congressional Budget Act
point of order.''.
Mr. CARDIN was recognized to speak to the point of order and said:
``If I understand the gentleman from California's point is that the
striking of the medical savings account provision would not save as much
money as accelerating the self-employed insurance deduction by 4 years.
``Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a document that
has been received from the Joint Committee on Taxation that shows that
striking the medical savings account provision will save $4.1 billion,
the self-employed health insurance deduction would cost $3.4 billion,
for a net revenue savings to the treasury of $687 million.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore said:
``The gentleman from Maryland may insert the documents after the point
of order but not during debate on the point of order.
Mr. CARDIN spoke further and said:
``Mr. Speaker, on that point, if I am correct, the point of order is
being raised as it relates to having----''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. KOLBE, said:
``That is correct. The Chair must rely on what is being said to the
Chair and so insertion into the Record during the debate on the point of
order is not in order at this time.''.
Mr. CARDIN spoke further and said:
``I would just quote into the Record the document from the Joint
Committee on Taxation dated July 23, 1998, and would be glad to make it
available to the Parliamentarian.''.
Mr. THOMAS was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, on the point just registered, this is the House and not
the Senate. The Senate just read 10-year numbers, the House operates on
5-year numbers, and the point of order still stands.''.
Mr. CARDIN was recognized further and said:
``Mr. Speaker, let me put into the record the 5-year numbers. The 5-
year numbers on striking the medical savings account provision would
save $1.3 billion, the self-employed would cost $1.2 billion, for a net
savings to the treasury of $56 million.''.
Mr. THOMAS was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is reading from a document that I do not
believe is current. Would he cite the number and the date?''.
Mr. CARDIN spoke further and said:
``If the gentleman would yield, it is dated July 23, 1998.''.
Mr. THOMAS spoke further and said:
``I tell the gentleman the numbers I just read come from a Joint Tax
Committee publication July 24, 1998. But the gentleman is not bad being
only one day behind.''.
Mr. CARDIN spoke further and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I have the July 25 numbers.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. KOLBE, spoke and said:
``Does the gentleman from Illinois insist upon his point of order?''.
Mr. HASTERT spoke and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. KOLBE spoke and said:
``The amendment proposed in the motion to recommit would strike one of
the revenue provisions from the bill. The amendment also would insert an
alternate revenue change. In this latter respect, the amendment
`provides an increase or decrease in revenues' within the meaning of
section 303 of the Budget Act.
``Because this revenue change would occur during fiscal year 1999, a
year for which a budget resolution has yet to be finalized, the
amendment violates section 303(a)(2) of the Act.
``The point of order is sustained.''.
Mr. CARDIN appealed the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. ARMEY moved to lay the appeal on the table.
The question being put, viva voice,
Will the House lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. KOLBE, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. ACKERMAN 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 XT, and the call was taken by
electronic device.
Yeas
222
When there appeared
<3-line {>
Nays
204
para.74.9
[Roll No. 337]
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
[[Page 2766]]
was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
____________________
privileges of the house
(para.94.21)
A resolution comprising four articles of impeachment against an
independent counsel (who is designated by law as an executive officer
removable by impeachment) gives rise to a question of the privileges of
the House under rule IX.
On September 23, 1998, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, rose to a question of
the privileges of the House and called up the following resolution (H.
Res. 545):
H. Res. 545
Impeaching Kenneth W. Starr, an independent counsel of the
United States appointed pursuant to 28 United States Code
Sec. 593(b), of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved that Kenneth W. Starr, an independent counsel of
the United States of America, is impeached for high crimes
and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of
impeachment be exhibited to the Senate;
Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the name
of itself and of all the people of the United States of
America, against Kenneth W. Starr, an independent counsel of
the United States of America, in maintenance and support of
its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
In his conduct of the office of independent counsel,
Kenneth W. Starr has violated his oath and his statutory and
constitutional duties as an officer of the United States and
has acted in ways that were calculated to and that did usurp
the sole power of impeachment that the Constitution of the
United States vests exclusively in the House of
Representatives and that were calculated to and did obstruct
and impede the House of Representatives in the proper
exercise of its sole power of impeachment. The acts by which
Independent Counsel Starr violated his duties and attempted
to and did usurp the sole power of impeachment and impede its
proper exercise include:
(1) On September 9, 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth W.
Starr transmitted two copies of a ``Referral to the United
States House of Representatives pursuant to Title 28, United
States Code, Sec. 595(c).'' As part of that Referral, Mr.
Starr submitted a 445-page report (the ``Starr Report'') that
included an extended narration and analysis of evidence
presented to a grand jury and of other material and that
specified the grounds upon which Mr. Starr had concluded that
a duly elected President of the United States should be
impeached by the House of Representatives. By submitting the
Starr Report, Mr. Starr usurped the sole power of impeachment
and impeded the House in the proper exercise of that power in
various ways, including the following:
(a) In preparing the Starr Report, Mr. Starr misused the
powers granted and violated the duties assigned independent
counsel under the provisions of Title 28 of the United States
Code. Section 595(c) does not authorize or require
independent counsel to submit a report narrating and
analyzing the evidence and identifying the specific grounds
on which independent counsel believes the House of
Representatives should impeach the President of the United
States. By submitting the Starr Report in the form he did,
Mr. Starr misused his powers and preempted the proper
exercise of the sole power of impeachment that the
Constitution assigned to the House of Representatives. Mr.
Starr thereby committed a high crime and misdemeanor against
the Constitution and the people of the United States of
America.
(b) In his preparation and submission of the Starr Report,
Mr. Starr further misused his powers and violated his duties
as independent counsel and arrogated unto himself and
effectively preempted and undermined the proper exercise of
power of impeachment that the Constitution allocated
exclusively to the House of Representatives. Mr. Starr knew
or should have known, and he acted to assure, that the House
of Representatives would promptly release to the public any
report that he transmitted to the House of Representatives
under the authority of Section 595(c). With that knowledge,
Mr. Starr prepared and transmitted a needlessly pornographic
report calculated to inflame public opinion and to preclude
the House of Representatives from following the procedures
and observing the precedents it had established for the
conduct of a bipartisan inquiry to determine whether a
President of the United States had committed a high crime or
misdemeanor in office meriting impeachment. Mr. Starr thereby
committed a high crime and misdemeanor against the
Constitution and the people of the United States.
(2) Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr further usurped
and arrogated unto himself the powers that belong solely to
the House of Representatives by using and threatening to use
the subpoena powers of a federal grand jury to compel an
incumbent President of the United States to testify before a
federal grand jury as part of an investigation whose primary
purpose had become and was the development of evidence that
the President had committed high crimes and misdemeanors
justifying his impeachment and removal from office. With
respect to the President of the United States, the only means
by which the holder of that office may be called to account
for his conduct in office is through the exercise by the
House of Representatives of the investigative powers that the
constitutional assignment of the sole power of impeachment
conferred upon it. Mr. Starr improperly used and manipulated
the powers of the grand jury and his office to effectively
impeach the President of the United States of America and to
force the House of Representatives to ratify his decision.
Mr. Starr thereby committed a high crime and misdemeanor
against the Constitution and the people of the United States.
In all this, Kenneth W. Starr has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as an independent counsel of the United
States and subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the
manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Kenneth W. Starr, by such conduct, warrants
impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
In his conduct of the office of independent counsel,
Kenneth W. Starr violated the oath he took to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States of America and
his duties as an officer of the United States and acted in
ways that were calculated to and that did unconstitutionally
undermine the office of President of the United States and
obstruct, impede, and impair the ability of an incumbent
President of the United States to fully and effectively
discharge the duties and responsibilities of his office on
behalf and for the benefit of the people of the United States
of America, by whom he had been duly elected. The acts by
which Mr. Starr violated his oath and his duties and
undermined the office of President and obstructed, impeded,
and impaired the ability of the incumbent President to fully
and effectively discharge the duties of that office include:
(1) Mr. Starr unlawfully and improperly disclosed and
authorized disclosures of grand jury material for the purpose
of embarrassing the President of the United States and
distracting him from and impairing his ability to execute the
duties of the office to which the people of the United States
had elected him. Mr. Starr has thereby committed high crimes
and misdemeanors against the Constitution and people of the
United States.
(2) Mr. Starr engaged in a willful and persistent course of
conduct that was calculated to and that did wrongfully
demean, embarrass, and defame an incumbent President of the
United States and that thereby undermined and impaired the
President's ability to properly execute the duties of the
office to which the people of the United States had elected
him, including not only Mr. Starr's wrongful disclosures of
grand fury material, but also other improper conduct, such as
his actions and conduct calculated to suggest, without
foundation, that the incumbent President had participated in
preparing a so-called ``talking points'' outline to
improperly influence the testimony of one or more persons
scheduled to be deposed in a private civil action. By his
willful and persistent conduct in misrepresenting as well as
improperly disclosing evidence that he had gathered, Mr.
Starr committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the
Constitution and the people of the United States of America.
(3) Mr. Starr intentionally, willfully, and improperly
embarrassed the people and the President of the United States
by including in the Starr Report an unnecessary and improper
and extended detailed, salacious, and pornographic narrative
account of the consensual sexual encounters that a grand jury
witness testified she had with the incumbent President of the
United States. By including the unnecessary and improper
pornographic narrative, Mr. Starr intended to and did
undermine and imperil the ability of the President to conduct
the foreign relations of United States of America and
otherwise to execute the duties of the office to which the
people of the United States had elected him, and he knowingly
and improperly embarrassed the United States as a nation. By
including that narrative, knowing and intending that it would
be published and disseminated, Mr. Starr committed a high
crime and misdemeanor against the Constitution and the people
of the United States of America.
In all of this, Kenneth W. Starr has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as an independent counsel of the United
States and subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the
manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Kenneth W. Starr, by such conduct, warrants
impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
In his conduct of the office of independent counsel,
Kenneth W. Starr violated the oath he took to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States of America and
the duties he had assumed as an office of the United States
and acted in ways that were calculated to and that did
unconstitutionally arrogate unto himself powers that the
Constitution of the United States assigned to the federal
courts; that were calculated to and did undermine the
institution of the grand jury established by the Constitution
of the United States; and that were calculated to and did
undermine and bring into disrepute the office of independent
counsel and
[[Page 2767]]
offices of all those charged with investigating and
prosecuting crimes against the United States. The acts by
which Mr. Starr violated his oath and his duties and by which
he undermined the federal courts and the grand jury and
undermined and demeaned the office and role of all federal
prosecutors include:
(1) Mr. Starr disclosed and authorized and approved the
disclosure and misuse of grand jury materials in violation of
Rule 6(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and
with contempt for the federal courts and for the rights of
those who appear before grand juries of the United States and
of those who are subjects of grand jury investigations.
(2) Throughout his investigations, Mr. Starr abused the
powers of his office and condoned the abuse of those powers
to improperly intimidate and manipulate citizens of the
United States who were interviewed or called to testify
before a grand jury or who were actual or potential targets
of his investigations and to deprive them of rights
guaranteed to all citizens of the United States. Mr. Starr
and subordinates for whose conduct he is responsible further
abused and misused the powers of the office of independent
counsel and the powers of the grand jury to improperly invade
and needlessly intrude upon the privacy of individuals and to
demean the rights guaranteed to all by the First and Fifth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
(3) Throughout his investigations, Mr. Starr has abused and
misused and has authorized and approved the abuse and misuse
of the powers of his office in ways that have demeaned the
prosecutorial office and that have undermined and will
undermine the ability of other prosecutorial officers of the
United States to discharge their duty to take care that laws
of the United States be faithfully executed.
(4) In his conduct of the office of the independent
counsel, Mr. Starr has needlessly and unjustifiably expended
and wasted funds of the United States. Over the past four
years, Mr. Starr has expended more than forty million dollars
($40,000,000) in a relentless pursuit of investigations and
prosecutions that he knew or should have known did not merit
and could not justify such extraordinary expenditures.
By the conduct described in this Article III of these
Articles of Impeachment, Kenneth W. Starr committed high
crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution and the
people of the United States of America.
In all of this, Kenneth W. Starr has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as an independent counsel of the United
States and subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the
manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Kenneth W. Starr, by such conduct, warrants
impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
By his conduct as an officer of the United States of
America, including the conduct described in Articles I
through III of these Articles of Impeachment, Kenneth W.
Starr has violated the oath he took to uphold and defend the
Constitution of the United States of America. He has acted
and persisted in acting in ways that were calculated to and
did embarrass the United States and the people of the United
States before the international community and that were
calculated to and did undermine the ability of the
Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial
Branch to effectively exercise the powers and discharge the
duties assigned to each by the Constitution of the United
States of America. He has unconstitutionally and improperly
exercised powers that were not his to exercise and has acted
in ways that were calculated to and did improperly demean a
President of the United States and diminish the capacity of
the President to effectively discharge the duties that the
people of the United States elected him to perform. He has
unconstitutionally and improperly exercised his powers and
has acted in ways that were calculated to and did demean the
House of Representatives and that have effectively deprived
the House of Representatives of its right to exercise its
sole power of impeachment in a deliberate and bipartisan
manner that was consistent with the procedures and precedents
it had established in prior proceedings and inquiries to
determine whether the President of the United States should
be impeached. He has unlawfully and improperly exercised his
powers in ways that demeaned the institution of the federal
grand jury, that demonstrated contempt of the courts of the
United States and the rules that govern their proceedings,
and that demeaned the office of independent counsel and
offices of all those charged with responsibility for seeing
that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.
By his conduct as an independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr
has committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the
Constitution and the people of the United States.
In all of this, Kenneth W. Starr has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as an independent counsel of the United
States and subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the
manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Kenneth W. Starr, by such conduct, warrants
impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HANSEN, ruled that
``The resolution constitutes a question of the privileges of the House
under rule IX.''.
Mr. LaHOOD moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House lay on the table the resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HANSEN, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida 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
340
When there appeared
<3-line {>
Nays
71
para.94.22
[Roll No. 453]
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.94.23)
A resolution directing a standing committee to release executive-session
material referred to it as such by special rule of the House was held to
propose a change in the rules and, therefore, not to give rise to a
question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
On September 23, 1998, Mr. CONDIT, rose to a question of the
privileges of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res.
546):
H. Res. 546
Whereas the entire communication of the Office of the
Independent Counsel received by the House of Representatives
on September 9, 1998, includes information of fundamental
constitutional importance;
Whereas the American people have a right to receive and
review this communication in its entirety;
Whereas the House Committee on the Judiciary has failed to
make the entire communication available to the American
people; and
Whereas failure to make the entire communication available
to the American people raises a question of privilege
affecting the dignity and integrity of the proceedings of the
House under rule IX of the Rules of the House of
Representatives: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the entire communication received, including
all appendices and related materials, on September 9, 1998,
from an independent counsel, pursuant to section 595(c) of
title 28, United States Code, shall be printed immediately as
a document of the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HANSEN, recognized Members who desired to
be heard on whether the resolution presented a question of privilege.
Mr. SOLOMON was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, questions of privilege under rule IX are those
affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, its dignity,
and the integrity of its proceedings, and the rights, reputation, and
the conduct of Members. A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may not be
raised to effect a change in House rules.
``Mr. Speaker, House Rule 525, which was adopted by the House on
September 11 by a vote of 363 to 63, delegated the authority to review
and release Independent Counsel Starr's report from the House to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
``The House delegated this authority to the Committee on the Judiciary
as an exercise in its rule-making power. Mr. Speaker, the resolution
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] seeks to change
the rule of the House as established in House Resolution 525. Therefore,
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's resolution does not constitute a legitimate
question of privilege.
``Mr. Speaker, let me just cite line 15 of the resolution that passed
the House. It says, `The balance of such material shall be deemed to
have been received in executive session, but shall be released from the
status on September 28, 1998, except as otherwise determined by the
committee.'.
``That is the rule of the House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the
gentleman's resolution does not constitute a legitimate question of
privilege in that change of House rule, and a privilege clearly is not
in order.''.
Mr. DEUTSCH was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished chairman
of
[[Page 2768]]
the Committee on Rules regarding the standard of what privilege is. I
would agree with him completely, that is the standard of what privilege
is.
``I would also say, though, that I believe this resolution clearly
meets that standard, because what is going on right now in the Committee
on the Judiciary with the selective release of information is clearly a
disservice on this House, and is clearly putting this House in
disrepute, which is exactly what the rules of the House in terms of our
privileged resolution are set up to deal with.
``I would say to the gentleman and to the Speaker that this resolution
is clearly exactly why we have privileged resolutions in the House. What
is happening right now in terms of the procedures of the Committee on
the Judiciary, in terms of what has happened with the release of
information, in the partisanship that has occurred within that
committee, is absolutely putting this House into the type of situation,
the type of disrespect that privileged resolutions are exactly in
purpose for using.
``I would urge the Speaker to rule this in order, and I urge its
adoption.
Mr. CONDIT was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I understand the point of the chairman of the Committee
on Rules. This is an attempt to allow all the Members of this House to
have access to the information. It is an attempt to speed the process
along so we can bring it to closure. The American people want us to
bring this issue to closure.
``There is no reason why every Member of this House cannot have that
information. We are not grade school kids. We understand it, and we know
ultimately we need to make a decision. So my intent, Mr. Speaker, is
simply to speed this process along so that we can make a decision and
get back to the business of living our lives and running this
country.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. Hansen, ruled and said:
``The gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] offers House Resolution
546 as a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX. The
resolution would direct the Committee on the Judiciary to release all
executive session material referred to the committee by the House
pursuant to House Resolution 525.
``That resolution was reported to the House by the Committee on Rules
as a privileged rule, and its adoption governs subsequent review and
release of that executive session material referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
``A resolution may not be offered under the guise of a question of the
privileges of the House if it effects a change in the rules or standing
orders of the House or their interpretation. This principle is annotated
in section 662f of the House Rules and Manual. The House has delegated
to the Committee on the Judiciary the final decision-making authority on
the extent of release from executive session of materials contained in
the Independent Counsel's report. Indeed, section 2 of House Resolution
525 establishes a release date for all materials contained in that
report, except as otherwise determined by the Committee on the
Judiciary.
``In an illustrative case under the precedents, even an alleged
refusal by the committee to make certain staff memos available to the
public, and refusal to permit committee Members to take photostatic
copies of committee files, have been held not to constitute questions of
privilege. This principle is annotated in section 662d of the manual.
``To rule otherwise would suggest that valid committee determinations
as to the executive session nature of committee files could be
collaterally challenged under the guise of questions of privileges.
``In the opinion of the Chair, the resolution does not constitute a
question of the privileges of the House within the meaning of rule IX,
and may not be considered at this time.''.
____________________
privileges of the house
(para.105.7)
A resolution reported as privileged by the Committee on the Judiciary
proposing to authorize that committee to investigate whether sufficient
grounds existed for the impeachment of the President and to empower it
with special investigative authorities, gives rise to a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX.
A resolution reported as a question of the privileges of the House may
be called up at any time without regard to the three-day availability
requirement of clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI.
On October 8, 1998, Mr. HYDE, by direction of the Committee on the
Judiciary, called up the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 581):
H. Res. 581
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a
whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the
chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the
rules of the committee, is authorized and directed to
investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds
exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its
constitutional power to impeach William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States of America. The committee
shall report to the House of Representatives such
resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other
recommendations as it deems proper.
Sec. 2. (a) For the purpose of making such investigation,
the committee is authorized to require--
(1) by subpoena or otherwise--
(A) the attendance and testimony of any person (including
at a taking of a deposition by counsel for the committee);
and
(B) the production of such things; and
(2) by interrogatory, the furnishing of such information;
as it deems necessary to such investigation.
(b) Such authority of the committee may be exercised--
(1) by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting
jointly, or, if either declines to act, by the other acting
alone, except that in the event either so declines, either
shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision
the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and
the committee shall be convened promptly to render that
decision; or
(2) by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee.
Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be issued
over the signature of the chairman, or ranking minority
member, or any member designated by either of them, and may
be served by any person designated by the chairman, or
ranking minority member, or any member designated by either
of them. The chairman, or ranking minority member, or any
member designated by either of them (or, with respect to any
deposition, answer to interrogatory, or affidavit, any person
authorized by law to administer oaths) may administer oaths
to any witness. For the purposes of this section, ``things''
includes, without limitation, books, records, correspondence,
logs, journals, memorandums, papers, documents, writings,
drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, reproductions,
recordings, tapes, transcripts, printouts, data compilations
from which information can be obtained (translated if
necessary, through detection devices into reasonably usable
form), tangible objects, and other things of any kind.
The SPEAKER ruled and said:
``The resolution, since reported from the Committee on the Judiciary,
constitutes a question of privilege and may be called up at this
time.''.
Pending consideration of said resolution.
On motion of Mr. HYDE, by unanimous consent,
Ordered, That the time for debate on the resolution be enlarged to two
hours.
When said resolution was considered.
After debate,
On motion of Mr. CONYERS, by unanimous consent,
Ordered, That there be ten minutes of debate time be allocated on the
motion to recommit if offered by Mr. BOUCHER, equally divided between
the proponent and opponent.
After further debate,
para.105.8 call of the house
The SPEAKER recognized Mr. HYDE to move a call of the House.
The call was taken by electronic device, and the following-named
Members responded--
para.105.9
[Roll No. 496]
Thereupon, the SPEAKER announced that 423 Members had been recorded, a
quorum.
Further proceedings under the call were dispensed with.
After further debate,
Mr. HYDE moved the previous question on the resolution to its adoption
or rejection.
Mr. BOUCHER moved to recommit the resolution to the Committee on the
Judiciary with instructions to report the resolution back to the House
forthwith with the following amendment:
Strike the first section and insert the following:
[[Page 2769]]
That (a)(1) The House of Representatives authorizes and
instructs the Committee on the Judiciary (in this Resolution
referred to as the ``Committee'') to take the following steps
within the time indicated in order, fully and fairly, to
conduct an inquiry and, if appropriate, to act upon the
Referral from the Independent Counsel (in this Resolution
referred to as ``the Referral'') in a manner which ensures
the faithful discharge of the Constitutional duty of the
Congress and concludes the inquiry at the earliest possible
time, and, consistent with chapter 40 of title 28, United
States Code, to consider any subsequent referral made by the
Independent Counsel under section 595(c) of such title 28.
(2) The Committee shall thoroughly and comprehensively
review the constitutional standard for impeachment and
determine if the facts presented in the Referral, if assumed
to be true, could constitute grounds for the impeachment of
the President.
(b) If the Committee determines that the facts stated in
the Referral, if assumed to be true, could constitute grounds
for impeachment, the Committee shall investigate fully and
completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of
Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to
impeach the President.
(c) If the Committee finds that there are not sufficient
grounds to impeach the President, it shall then be in order
for the Committee to consider recommending to the House of
Representatives alternative sanctions.
(d) Following the conclusion of its inquiry, the Committee
shall consider any recommendation it may commend to the
House, including--
(1) one or more articles of impeachment;
(2) alternative sanctions; or
(3) no action.
The Committee shall make such a recommendation sufficiently
in advance of December 31, 1998, so that the House of
Representatives may consider such recommendations as the
Committee may make by that date.
(e) If the Committee is unable to complete its assignment
within the time frame set out in subsection (d), a report to
the House of Representatives may be made by the Committee
requesting an extension of time.
After debate,
On motion of Mr. SENSENBRENNER the previous question was ordered on
the motion to recommit with instructions.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House recommit said resolution with instructions?
The SPEAKER announced that the nays had it.
Mr. BOUCHER 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
198
<3-line {>
negative
Nays
236
para.105.10
[Roll No. 497]
So the motion to recommit with instructions was not agreed to.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House agree to said resolution?
The SPEAKER announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER 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.
It was decided in the
Yeas
258
<3-line {>
affirmative
Nays
176
para.105.11
[Roll No. 498]
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.107.9)
A resolution alleging a failure of aggressive execution of certain
Federal trade laws as impugning the integrity of the House, and calling
on the President to take specified actions with respect to imports of
steel, does not give rise to a question of the privileges of the House
under rule IX.
The Chair will not render an opinion anticipating the effect of a
successful appeal from a prospective ruling on a pending question of
order, as any future question of order would be subject to arguments
citing or distinguishing prior precedent.
The House laid on the table an appeal from the ruling of the Speaker pro
tempore.
On October 10, 1998, Mr. VISCLOSKY, rose to a question of the
privileges of the House and called up the following resolution:
Resolution
A resolution, in accordance with House Rule IX, Clause 1,
expressing the sense of the House that its integrity has been
impugned because the anti-dumping provisions of the Trade and
Tariff Act of 1930, (Subtitle B of title VII) have not been
expeditiously enforced;
Whereas the current financial crises in Asia, Russia, and
other regions have involved massive depreciation in the
currencies of several key steel-producing and steel consuming
countries, along with a collapse in the domestic demand for
steel in these countries; Whereas the crises have generated
and will continue to generate surges in United States imports
of steel, both from the countries whose currencies have
depreciated in the crisis and from steel producing countries
that are no longer able to export steel to the countries in
economic crisis;
Whereas United States imports of finished steel mill
products from Asian steel producing countries--the People's
Republic of China, Japan, Korea, India, Taiwan, Indonesia,
Thailand, and Malaysia--have increased by 79 percent in the
first 5 months of 1998 compared to the same period in 1997;
Whereas year-to-date imports of steel from Russia now
exceed the record import levels of 1997, and steel imports
from Russia and Ukraine now approach 2,500,000 net tons;
Whereas foreign government trade restrictions and private
restraints of trade distort international trade and
investment patterns and result in burdens on United States
commerce, including absorption of a disproportionate share of
diverted steel trade;
Whereas the European Union, for example, despite also being
a major economy, in 1997 imported only one-tenth as much
finished steel products from Asian steel producing countries
as the United States did and has restricted imports of steel
from the Commonwealth of Independent States, including
Russia;
Whereas the United States is simultaneously facing a
substantial increase in steel imports from countries within
the Commonwealth of Independent States, including Russia,
caused in part by the closure of Asian markets;
Whereas there is a well-recognized need for improvements in
the enforcement of United States trade laws to provide an
effective response to such situations: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, That the House of
Representatives calls upon the President to--
(1) take all necessary measures to respond to the surge of
steel imports resulting from the financial crises in Asia,
Russia, and other regions, and for other purposes;
(2) pursue enhanced enforcement of United States trade laws
with respect to the surge of steel imports into the United
States, using all remedies available under those laws
including offsetting duties, quantitative restraints, and
other authorized remedial measures as appropriate;
(3) pursue with all tools at his disposal a more equitable
sharing of the burden of accepting imports of finished steel
products from Asia and the countries within the Commonwealth
of Independent States;
(4) establish a task force within the executive branch with
responsibility for closely monitoring United States imports
of steel; and
(5) report to the Congress by no later than January 5,
1999, with a comprehensive plan for responding to this import
surge, including ways of limiting its deleterious effects on
employment, prices, and investment in the United States steel
industry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. CALVERT, recognized Members who desired
to be heard on whether the resolution presented a question of
privileges of the House.
Mr. VISCLOSKY was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I offer this question of privilege to bring attention
to a catastrophic situation facing this Nation. The trade laws that the
Congress has enacted over the last 60 years are designed to ensure that
American workers are not hurt by unfair and illegal trade practices.
Congressional intent, as represented by the Trade and Tariff Act of
1930, is being ignored at the present time.
``The U.S. steel industry and its workers are suffering because the
Asian and Russian financial crises have led those countries to dump
their steel on our market. The U.S. has been reluctant to stop this
illegal practice. Steel that was formerly produced for domestic
consumption in Asia is now being shipped to the United States where it
is sold at prices below the cost of production. Steel prices in the
United States have fallen 20 percent in the last 3 months alone.
``The European Union has protected itself and its steel industry
against dumping by erecting temporary barriers to steel imports during
the crisis. Their steel industry is weathering the
[[Page 2770]]
storm. In America, the demand for domestic steel has decreased
dramatically in mills in Alabama, West Virginia, Utah, Ohio, Iowa,
Indiana, and workers have been laid off because of the decreased demand
for American steel. American workers should not have to pay the price
of the administration's refusal to enforce trade laws which the
Congress has enacted and supports. This impinges on the integrity of
this House.
``American steel workers, the most efficient in the world, cannot
continue to be besieged by foreign steel products while waiting
indefinitely for trade cases to be settled. Damage to the American
steel industry is extensive, severe and rapidly growing. We need to
protect our American steel workers by stemming the tide of illegally
dumped steel, and the administration's failure to act again directly
impinges on the integrity of this House.''.
Mr. BERRY was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the steel crisis that is
escalating out of control and is having a devastating effect on the
people of the First Congressional District of Arkansas as well as
people around the country. I am a free trader so long as the rules of
free trade are rigorously enforced. Fair trade is imperative to support
free trade.
``What is not fair is the export of the Asian and Russian crisis to
our shores. Currently Japanese and Russian and other foreign steel
companies are unable to sell their excess capacity at home. These
foreign steel producers are dumping their products on the U.S. market
by selling at prices less than their cost and below those in their home
markets.
``As a result, this growing steel import crisis is causing injury to
our domestic steel companies and the industry. It is threatening the
jobs of people in the First Congressional District of Arkansas and
across America. As a result, the steel imports in May 1998 increased
28.5 percent from their level of the previous year. Through June 1998
the imports from Japan were up 113.7 percent, while imports from Korea
rose 89.5 percent.
``Mr. Speaker, we need to protect American workers and American
industry by stopping the illegal dumping of steel from other countries.
Now is the time to act. We have the responsibility and the opportunity
to correct this problem, and I assure my colleagues that I will do
everything I can to help. We can win, but we must fight.''.
Mr. TRAFICANT was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I am not addressing and will not address the
deplorable plight and condition of the steel industry at this time. But
I believe there are some precedents in legal arguments concerning the
privileges of the House and its Members to advance privileged
resolutions. I would like to make those arguments, and I want to make
it clear through the legislative intent and history of today's request
for a vote that we are challenging past precedents on the rulings and
questions of privilege, and today's efforts are another step forward to
bring back to the powers of the House those which the Constitution
deems are within the jurisdictional authority of the House.
``Having said that, specifically article I, section 8 clearly states
that Congress shall regulate commerce with foreign nations. Congress.
Not the White House, not the Trade Rep, not the World Trade
Organization. Although they can assist the Congress, they do not have
the mandated authority to undertake the actions necessary for remedy in
this condition. And I hope Congress is listening. I know they want to
get out of here. But let us not talk about steel. Let us talk about the
Constitution.
``Having said that, I believe that this matter of privilege today is
within the scope of the United States House of Representatives for the
following reasons. While I admit past precedents did not destroy the
powers of Congress, the decisions of past Congresses, as upheld by the
Chair, have diminished the Congress, specifically the House of the
people. In that regard, the legal question is, if congressional powers
are being diminished and there is a condition that does not lend itself
to remedy by the House who has the mandated power to remedy, then the
resolution must be heard on cause.
``So the Traficant appeal is saying, by the nature of past decisions,
Parliamentarians and the Chair have upheld denying the resolutions of
privilege, while I maintain that decision has created a diminishing
power and authority that is duly granted to the Constitution, duly
granted to the Members of the House of Representatives, and strips us
of those powers specifically. That is what my question of a ruling is
on.
``In closing, ladies and gentlemen, this is more than some trickery
here. I want to say this to every Member in the House. We have
delegated our authority. What we have not delegated has been usurped,
and both sides of the aisle has allowed that to happen, and by not
challenging this today and reversing past precedents, we in fact have
diminished and destroyed what powers we are granted under the
Constitution.''.
Mr. OBERSTAR was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, the resolution under consideration, I believe, does
constitute a question of privileges of the House, because the trade
laws that the Congress has enacted over the last 60 years are designed
to ensure that American workers are not hurt by unfair and illegal
dumping of manufactured products, including steel. Congressional intent
as represented by the Trade and Tariff Act of 1930, is being
specifically ignored.
``This is not a partisan matter. It is a matter that concerns Members
on both sides of the aisle. It is not a matter limited to the present
administration in Washington, the Clinton administration. It is an
issue that has spread over several administrations, going back to the
1970s, the Carter administration, later the Reagan administration, the
Bush administration. This Congress, through our congressional steel
caucus, on a bipartisan basis has advocated vigorous action against
unfairly traded steel.
``Shortly after the end of World War II a famous American historian
and journalist, John Gunther, wrote:
What makes America a great nation is the fact that it can
roll over 90 million tons of steel ingots a year, more than
Great Britain, prewar Germany, Japan, France and the Soviet
Union combined.
``Gunther wrote:
This is a steel age.
``We still live in that steel age. Steel is still the most versatile
building material in an industrial society. We are the world's most
efficient producer of steel. American steel industry has lost 350,000
jobs over the last decade, has closed over 450 plants, modernized its
facilities to the tune of $50 billion of investment. We have gone from
10 man hours to produce a ton of steel in 1981 to 1\1/2\ to 3 hours
depending on the type of steel today to produce a ton of steel compared
with 4\1/2\ to 5 hours in Japan, 6\1/2\ hours in the European Union and
10 hours in Russia. And yet steel from those countries is being sold in
the United States at below cost of production in the country of origin,
and this administration, like previous administrations, until prodded by
Congress, has not acted decisively to protect our domestic industry, our
basic building block security industry.
``We need to act. This resolution that we propose as a point of
privilege calls on the administration to act, we ought to bring that
resolution to the House floor before this session of Congress adjourns,
and I urge the Chair to rule in the interests of working men and women
of America in the steel valley, the Mon Valley of Pennsylvania-Ohio, and
the taconite industry of northern Minnesota and northern Michigan and in
the interest of America's standing in the world community as a powerful
economic force.''.
Mr. NEY was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I stand today to support this Visclosky privileged
resolution which expresses the sense of the House that the integrity of
our anti-dumping provisions of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1930 have not
been enforced.
``My colleague from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) I think has eloquently and
adequately expressed the ability of this Congress to consider this
privileged resolution.
``Trade laws that were enacted 60 years ago, Mr. Speaker, were
designed to protect American workers. That is what this government did.
It designed laws to protect American workers so they are not hurt by
unfair trade practices.
``The U.S. steel workers and the steel industry are suffering in one
of the
[[Page 2771]]
worst ways in recent modern times because the Asia and Russia financial
crisis has led those countries to illegally dump their steel on the
market. It could not be any clearer.
``Steel that was formerly produced for domestic consumption in Asia is
now being shipped to the United States where it is sold at prices below
the cost of production. Steel prices have fallen 20 percent in the last
3 months alone. The Europeans have protected itself and the steel
industry against dumping by erecting temporary barriers on steel
imports. So Europe has stood up for its workers; that is what Europe has
done, Mr. Speaker. The European steel industry will weather the storm
while the American steel industry and its workers are announcing new
layoffs daily.
``We need to push for this resolution. We need to push the White House
to do everything they can to stop illegal dumping practices that are
damaging our steel industry.
``In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask where is the Congress? Where is the
White House? Where is the United States Government? Today we have a
chance to answer those questions. We are here, by supporting the
Visclosky resolution, to finally stand up for steel workers, to stand up
for working Americans, to stand up for families in this country and to
stand up for the United States. This is mandatory, it is a must, it is
the right thing to do.
``Mr. Speaker, I support the Visclosky privileged resolution.''.
Mr. HINCHEY was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word on this resolution because I
think the issue that is raised is critically important to the Members of
this House and to the people of this country, and it is one that we
ought to have a full and complete debate on. The reason I say that is in
recognition of the statements that have been made just a few moments ago
with regard to the impact that the dumping of steel is having on
congressional districts and the people in those congressional districts,
the workers in those congressional districts and their families across
the country. This is an aggravated symptom of a much larger problem
however.
``Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a global economic crisis, and
one of the features of that global economic crisis is the propensity of
some nations in the world suffering the effects of deflation to attempt
to dump their products, both manufactured products and commodities, on
to the markets of other countries. We are in a most vulnerable position
indeed to this particular activity, and we have not done nearly enough
to protect our economy from the effects of this kind of dumping.
``One of the things that we ought to do immediately is to petition the
Federal Reserve to reduce interest rates substantially so that we may
buttress our economy from the effects of this kind of dumping and the
larger effects of the global economic crisis.
``In addition to that, we have a major issue that is currently before
the Congress with regard to the International Monetary Fund which this
Congress has not yet addressed. We need to increase the funding for the
IMF, and if we were to do so, that increase in funding would make it
less likely that resolutions of this nature would have to be brought to
the floor.
``We are in an important issue right now. We need to decide this
issue, bring that question of IMF funding before on the floor so that we
can have a full and complete debate on it.
``The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the Members that the
issue before the Members is neither the advisability of the United
States trade policy nor the actions of the administration on trade, but
rather the procedural question of whether the resolution offered by the
gentleman from Indiana constitutes a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX. The Chair would ask Members to confine their
arguments to that issue.''.
Mr. KUCINICH was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of a privileged motion for H. Con.
Resolution 328 which provides Congress with an opportunity to protect
the American steel worker and the American steel industry. I am in
concurrence with previous speakers who cited the Constitution of the
United States with respect to Congress' ability to protect commerce in
this country and to protect the jobs of the people whom we serve.
``Mr. Speaker, I think that we are here as a Congress to say that
Congress needs to take action on the crisis posed by cheap subsidized
steel imports from developing countries that are trying to earn foreign
exchange to repay their own onerous debts. American steel is under
siege, and we need to stand up for American steel and for American jobs.
``So, therefore, I rise in favor of the privileged motion for H. Con.
Resolution 328. I ask the Chair to grant the privileged motion.
Otherwise I ask Members to vote for a motion to appeal a ruling of the
Chair and vote for H. Con. Resolution 328. It is important that we stand
up for America and stand up for American steel.''.
Mr. DOYLE was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I rise to be heard on the question of privilege offered
by the gentleman from Indiana. The resolution under consideration
constitutes a question of privilege of the House because trade laws
enacted by the House over 60 years ago are being ignored. These laws
were specifically designed to ensure that American workers are not hurt
by unfair and illegal dumping of manufactured products including steel.
``I am sorry to say that the congressional intent, as represented by
the Trade and Tariff Act of 1930, is specifically ignored. This is an
external crisis caused by steel dumping in the U.S. by foreign producers
for whom any price for steel is higher than the price they would get at
home.
``Because of a result of the Asian and Russian financial crisis, there
is no market for steel in their home countries. This is a crisis
addressable by laws currently in effect which are not being enforced.
``U.S. steel remains very competitive. But steel was being dumped in
the U.S. at below the cost of production, which is illegal and a
violation of the laws that the Legislative Branch has enacted. U.S.
trade laws are supposed to be enforced by the Executive Branch. The
administration has failed to stop these illegal activities, and the
dignity of this House is being impugned. I urge the support of the
resolution.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. CALVERT, ruled that the resolution
submitted did not present a question of the privileges of the House
under rule IX, and said:
``The Chair is prepared to rule on whether the resolution offered by
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] presents a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX.
``The resolution offered by the gentleman from Indiana calls upon the
President to address a trade imbalance in the area of steel imports.
Specifically, the resolution calls upon the President to pursue enhanced
enforcement of trade laws, to establish a task force on monitoring
imports, and to submit a report to Congress by the date certain on that
matter.
``A resolution expressing the legislative sentiment that the President
should take specified action to achieve desired public policy end does
not present the question affecting the rights of the House,
collectively, its safety, dignity, or integrity of its proceedings as
required under rule IX.
``In the opinion of the Chair, the resolution offered by the gentleman
from Indiana is purely a legislative proposition, properly initiated
through the introduction in the hopper under clause 4 of rule 22.
``The Chair will note a recent relevant precedent on this point. On
February 7, 1995, Speaker Gingrich ruled, consistent with the landmark
ruling of May 6, 1921 by Speaker Gillett, that a resolution invoking the
legislative powers enumerated in the Constitution and requiring a
multifaceted evaluation and report by the Comptroller General on the
proposed support of the Mexican pesos did not constitute the question of
the privileges of the House.
``In his ruling, Speaker Gingrich stated: `Were the Chair to rule
otherwise, then any alleged infringement by the Executive Branch, even,
for example, through the regulatory process conferred on Congress by the
Constitution would give rise to a question of the privileges of the
House.'.
``Although constitutional prerogatives have not been invoked in the
text of the resolution before us today, the principle put forth in the
1995 ruling is nevertheless pertinent, as evidenced by the debate on
this question. To permit
[[Page 2772]]
a question of the privileges of the House addressing presidential trade
policy through the mere invocation of the Constitution would permit any
Member to advance virtually any legislative proposal as a question of
the privileges of the House.
``Accordingly, the resolution offered by the gentleman from Indiana
does not request constitute a question of the privileges of the House
under rule IX and may not be considered at this time.''.
Mr. VISCLOSKY appealed the ruling of the Chair.
Will the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia, 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. CALVERT, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not
present and not voting.
A quorum not being present,
The roll was called under clause 4, rule XV, and the call was taken by
electronic device.
Yeas
219
When there appeared
<3-line {>
Nays
204
para.107.10
[Roll No. 512]
So the motion to lay the appeal on the table was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said motion was agreed to was,
by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
____________________
privileges of the house--return of senate bill
(para.112.39)
A resolution asserting that a Senate bill contains provisions raising
revenue in derogation of the constitutional prerogative of the House to
originate such bills gives rise to a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX. The House returned to the Senate a bill amending
the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 to create a new basis
for applying import restrictions on products derived from tigers or
rhinoceroses.
On October 15, 1998, Mr. CRANE rose to a question of the privileges of
the House and submitted the following resolution (H. Res. 601):
H. Res. 601
Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 361) entitled the
``Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1998'', in the
opinion of this House, contravenes the first clause of the
seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of
the United States and is an infringement of the privileges of
this House and that such bill be respectfully returned to the
Senate with a message communicating this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GUTKNECHT, ruled that the resolution
submitted did present a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX, and recognized Mr. CRANE for thirty minutes.
After debate,
On motion of Mr. CRANE,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. GUTKNECHT, announced that the yeas had
it.
So the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said resolution was agreed to
was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
Ordered, That the Clerk notify the Senate.
____________________
privileges of the house
(para.118.4)
A resolution asserting constitutional prerogatives stemming from the
grant of electoral votes for President to the District of Columbia in
the 23d amendment to the Constitution, and resolving that the
(statutory, nonvoting) Delegate from the District of Columbia be
permitted to cast a vote in the House on a resolution impeaching the
President, is tantamount to a change in the rules in the House and,
therefore, does not give rise to a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX.
On December 18, 1998, Ms. NORTON, rose to a question of the privileges
of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res. 613):
H. Res. 613
Whereas rule IX of the Rules of the House of
Representatives provides that questions of privilege shall
arise whenever the rights of the House collectively or the
Members individually in their representative capacity are
affected;
Whereas under the precedents, customs, and traditions of
the House pursuant to rule IX, a question of privilege has
arisen in cases involving the constitutional prerogatives of
the House and of Members of the House; and
Whereas the House is prepared to consider a resolution
impeaching the President, and the Delegate to the Congress
from the District of Columbia seeks to assert the
constitutional prerogative to cast a vote in the
consideration of the resolution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,
SECTION 1. PROVIDING VOTE FOR DELEGATE FROM THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA IN CONSIDERATION OF PRESIDENTIAL
IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTIONS.
Pursuant to section 2 of article I of the Constitution and
the twenty-third article of amendment thereto granting the
people of the District of Columbia the right to vote in
presidential elections, the Delegate to the Congress from the
District of Columbia shall be permitted to cast a vote in the
House of Representatives in the same manner as a member of
the House in the consideration by the House of any resolution
impeaching the President or Vice President of the United
States.
SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Section 1 shall apply with respect to any resolution
impeaching the President or Vice President of the United
States that is considered by the House of Representatives
after the adoption of this resolution.
Ms. Norton was recognized and said:
``Mr. Speaker, most Americans do not know and most people in the
world are unaware that the residents of the Nation's Capitol do not
have any representation in the Senate and cannot vote on this floor.
``But the Constitution of the United States, in its 23rd amendment,
does give to the residents of the District the right to vote for
President and Vice President of the United States. The same
Constitution that gives the District the right to vote for President
must recognize the right of District residents to representation for a
vote on removal of the President.
``I have submitted a narrowly-tailored resolution, along with a legal
memorandum, for a narrowly-tailored right. I am not here asking for the
delegate vote in the Committee of the Whole at this time. I am not
asking for a House vote. I am asking to vote only on impeachment, in
order to perfect the rights of District residents under the 23rd
amendment. The House has abundant authority to grant me this right at
this time.
``Clause 2 of the 23rd amendment gives the House the power to enforce
the amendment through legislation. My resolution is that legislation.
The District clause, as this body so often reminds us, gives Members
full authority over the District of Columbia, and the impeachment
clause gives Members unilateral authority, or the sole power of
impeachment.
``The 23rd amendment explicitly treats the District as a State for
purposes of electing the President and the Vice President.
``I ask for this right in the name of half a million people, the only
Americans who pay Federal income taxes who do not have full
representation in the Congress. They are a third per capita in Federal
income taxes. Their one right that is explicitly mentioned in the
Constitution is the right to vote for President and Vice President.
``The decision to expel a President from office is as important as
the decision to elect the President to office. Indeed, the decision to
expel him is more momentous. There are no partial rights in the
Constitution. It is unconstitutional and irrational to interpret the
23rd amendment to afford a vote for President, but no vote on whether
to impeach a President.
``Let this process begin on a high note of fairness. In the name of
the half million American citizens who happen to live in the Nation's
Capital, I ask for the vote in these impeachment proceedings, Mr.
Speaker.
``Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a resolution affording the District
of Columbia Delegate a vote in impeachment proceedings. The House is
fully empowered to enact my resolution under Article I, Sec. 2, clause
5 of the Constitution (stating that the `House of Representatives . . .
shall have the sole
[[Page 2773]]
Power of Impeachment'); the Twenty-Third Amendment affording the people
of the District of Columbia the right to vote for President of the
United States; and Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 of the Constitution
affording Congress plenary power over the District of Columbia.
``I am seeking to protect the constitutional right of District
residents to vote for President by securing a vote in the impeachment
proceedings only. My resolution is narrowly tailored and would not be a
grant of voting privileges to the Delegate in other proceedings of the
House.
``American citizens living in the District of Columbia participated
in the last two presidential elections by choosing as their electors
three citizens pledged to President Clinton. Unless Congress acts to
remedy the situation under the Twenty-Third Amendment, the District
population will be the only community of American citizens who
participated in the Presidential elections of 1992 and 1996 who will
have no vote at all on impeachment or conviction.
``This constitutional asymmetry not only violates the rights of more
than half a million voters; it is unnecessary. Congress has sufficient
authority under the District Clause and under the enforcement clause of
the Twenty-Third Amendment to grant the District of Columbia Delegate
to the House of Representatives a vote in the House impeachment process
on the House floor. The Supreme Court has liberally construed
enforcement clauses in all of the suffrage amendments to vindicate the
broad and central constitutional purpose of securing equal voting and
participation rights for all Americans.
``The Twenty-Third Amendment put the District of Columbia essentially
on the same level as the states for purposes of presidential elections.
``The purpose of Twenty-Third Amendment was to give Congress the
power to provide the residents of the District an equal role in
selecting the President and the Vice-President. The Amendment allows
District residents to participate in presidential elections on an equal
footing with the states.
``Today, this right can be fully vindicated only by reading the
Twenty-Third Amendment to permit Congress to grant the District of
Columbia Delegate a vote on the Resolution Impeaching William Jefferson
Clinton, President of the United States. Otherwise, the political will
and sovereignty of residents of the District of Columbia in the
selection of the president will be lost in violation of the Twenty-
Third Amendment.
``The legislative history of the Twenty-Third Amendment does not
contradict this conclusion. Apparently because impeachment has been so
rare, there was no discussion of this problem at the time. This is the
first occasion that articles of presidential impeachment will go to the
floor of the House since the Twenty-Third Amendment was added to the
Constitution in 1961. This is a case of first impression.
``The Twenty-Third Amendment is part of our Constitution's
progressive inclusion of all `the governed' in the processes of
government. The Fifteenth Amendment secured the right of African-
Americans to vote. The Nineteenth Amendment extended the right to vote
to women. The Twenty-Fourth Amendment abolished the poll tax. The
Twenty-Sixth Amendment gave the right to vote to 18-year olds. All of
these suffrage amendments have been interpreted liberally to secure the
inclusion of once disenfranchised Americans. As the Supreme Court
stated in Reynolds v. Sims in 1964: `history has seen a continuing
expansion of the scope of the right of suffrage in this country. The
right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the
essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right
strike at the heart of representative government.' 337 U.S. 533 (1964).
``This reasoning applies equally to the Twenty-Third Amendment and
American citizens who happen to live in the nation's capital.
``The case for the Delegate's vote on impeachment would be harder put
if such participation had to be self-executing. But section 2 provides
that, `the Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.' Since Congress is given the instrumental role
in activating and enforcing the Twenty-Third Amendment, it may
interpret that amendment to give the Delegate the right to cast her
vote along with the representatives of all the other states that
participated in the presidential electoral college.
``The Supreme Court has clearly treated impeachment as a political
question solely within legislative competence and control. In Nixon v.
United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the Court rejected an impeached
judge's attack on Senate Impeachment Rule XI, under which the presiding
officer appoints a committee of Senators to `receive evidence and take
testimony.' The Court found that this process of delegating to a
committee was wholly within the Senate's powers because the Senate has
`the sole power to try all Impeachments.' Article I, Section 3, Clause
6. The Court found that the `common sense meaning of the word `sole' is
that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an
individual should be acquitted or convicted.... If the courts may
review actions of the Senate in order to determine whether that body
`tried' an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the Senate
would be `functioning ... independently and without assistance or
interference.'.
``Just as the Senate has the `sole power' to shape and control the
trial process, the House of Representatives has the `sole power of
Impeachment' in the first instance. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5. As
the Nixon Court itself pointed out in discussing the nonreviewability
of the Senate trail, `the word `sole' appears only one other time in
the Constitution--with respect to the House of Representatives' sole
Power of Impeachment.' Thus, like the Senate, the House of
Representatives is free to structure the impeachment proceeding
consistent with its own judgment of constitutional requirements.
``The Delegate's participation on the impeachment articles can thus
be accomplished by way of a House rule. Article 1, Section 5 of the
Constitution generally makes `Each House' both `the Judge of the
Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members' and the sole
body to `determine the Rules of its proceedings.' As precedent, the
House unilaterally granted the Delegate from the District of Columbia
and other Delegates full power to vote in Committee of the Whole
deliberations, a decision upheld against constitutional attack in
Michel v. Anderson. This case, too, presents little constitutional
difficulty because the House is not acting in its bicameral legislative
capacity but rather in its unilateral capacity to `have the sole power
of Impeachment' under Article 1, Section 2. Thus, the House must be
able to design and enforce its own rules for conducting the impeachment
process.
``The Supreme Court has recognized an extremely broad degree of
interpretive powers under congressional enforcement clauses found in
the Constitution's suffrage amendments. In Katzenbach versus Morgan it
upheld the power of Congress, under Section 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment, to override a New York law and grant the right to vote to
all persons who had completed the sixth grade in Puerto Rican schools
regardless of their inability to read or write English. The Court
rejected the argument that Congress' powers under the enforcement
clause were limited only to what the Fourteenth Amendment itself
required, stating rather that: `It is the power of Congress which has
been enlarged. Congress is authorized to enforce the prohibitions by
appropriate legislation. Some legislation is contemplated to make the
amendments fully effective.'
``The Court emphasized that Congress was acting to protect voting
rights and expressed reluctance to interfere with congressional
judgment in this field. The Court said: `It was well within
congressional authority to say that this need of the Puerto Rican
minority for the vote warranted federal intrusion upon any state
interests served by the English literacy requirement. It was for
Congress, as the branch that made this judgment, to assess and weigh
the various conflicting considerations...'
``The Court concluded that any legislation enacted under the
enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was permissible so long
as the enactment `is plainly adapted to [the] end' of enforcing Equal
Protection and `is not prohibited by but is consistent with `the letter
and spirit of the Constitution', regardless of whether Equal Protection
itself dictates such a result.
``Elsewhere, the Court has also found that enforcement clauses give
the Con
[[Page 2774]]
gress the power to act to vindicate voting interests even where a
particular statutory result is not constitutionally required. In South
Carolina versus Katzenbach, the Court upheld Congress' power under
Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment to enact the Voting Rights Act of
1965, which included a ban on literacy tests, the requirement that new
voting rules must be precleared, and the use of federal voting
examiners. The Court stated that `Congress has full remedial powers to
effectuate the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination
in voting.' These powers are defined in these terms: `Whatever
legislation is appropriate, that is, adapted to carry out the objects
the [Reconstruction] amendments have in view, whatever tends to enforce
submission to the prohibitions they contain, and to secure to all
persons the enjoyment of perfect equality of civil rights and the equal
protection of the laws against State denial or invasion, if not
prohibited, is brought within the domain of congressional power.'
``In Oregon versus Mitchell, the Court unanimously upheld the Voting
Rights Act Amendments of 1970, which banned literacy tests for five
years. Using a mere rationality test, the court found that Congress
could rationally have found that these measures were needed to attack
the perpetuation of racial discrimination. In City of Rome versus
United States, the Court upheld Congress' Section 2 power to ban
electoral changes that are discriminatory in effect intentional
discrimination in voting. Thus, the Court found that Congress'
enforcement authority under Section 2 went beyond the strict
requirements of Section 1. The Court stated that it `is clear ... that
under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment Congress may prohibit
practices that in and of themselves do not violate Section 1 of the
Amendment, so long as the prohibitions attacking racial discrimination
in voting are `appropriate.'.
``Because the Twenty-Third Amendment is an attempt to bring voting
rights to a historically disenfranchised population, its enforcement
clause should be read in a very broad way consistent with the Court's
deference to congressional enforcement of suffrage rights. It is also
relevant that the District Clause, contained in Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 17 of the Constitution, provides that Congress shall exercise
`exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever over `the District.'
This `plenary power' has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to give
Congress complete authority over the District. There is thus ample
constitutional basis for Congress having the final authority to define
the meaning of the Twenty-third amendment, given that this is a `case'
involving the District. The courts, at any rate, would, in all
likelihood, treat this matter as a political question solely within the
legislative competence, as impeachment is clearly a political question,
as determined by the Supreme Court in Nixon versus United States, 506
U.S. 224 (1993).'.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, ruled that the resolution
submitted did not present a question of the privileges of the House
under rule IX, and said:
``The resolution offered by the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia seeks to provide the Delegate from the District of Columbia
the right to vote in the House on a resolution of impeachment.
``Pursuant to Title II, section 25(a) of the United States Code, the
Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District of Columbia
is accorded a seat in the House, with the right of debate but not of
voting.
``Under rule XII of the rules of the House, the right of a Delegate
to vote is confined to committee. The Chair will state a basic
principle on proper questions of privilege as recorded on page 366 of
the House Rules and Manual.
``A question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to
affect a change in the rules or standing orders of the House. Altering
the right to vote of a delegate is tantamount to a change in the rules
of the House and is not a proper question of privilege.''.
---o---
privileges of the house--impeaching william jefferson clinton, president
of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors
(para.118.7)
A resolution proposing articles of impeachment of the President gives
rise to a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
A resolution reported as a question of the privileges of the House may
be called up at any time without regard to the three-day availability
requirement of clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI.
Pending the consideration of a resolution impeaching the President, the
Chair enunciated standards of decorum in debate.
On December 18, 1998, Mr. HYDE, rose to a question of the privileges
of the House and called up the following resolution (H. Res. 611):
H. Res. 611
Resolved, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors,
and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited
to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the name
of itself and of the people of the United States of America,
against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States of America, in maintenance and support of its
impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and
manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his
personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of
justice, in that:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before
a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that
oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided
perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury
concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and
details of his relationship with a subordinate Government
employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading
testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought
against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he
allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil
rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the
testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of
evidence in that civil rights action.
In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the
integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.
Article II
In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and
manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his
personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of
justice, in that:
(1) On December 23, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton, in
sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a Federal
civil rights action brought against him, willfully provided
perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to
questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning
conduct and proposed conduct with subordinate employees.
(2) On January 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore
under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth in a deposition given as part of a Federal
civil rights action brought against him. Contrary to that
oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided
perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to
questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning the
nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate
Government employee, his knowledge of that employee's
involvement and participation in the civil rights action
brought against him, and his corrupt efforts to influence the
testimony of that employee.
In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined
the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
[[Page 2775]]
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.
Article III
In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed,
and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that
end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and
agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay,
impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and
testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought
against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or
scheme included one or more of the following acts:
(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil
rights action brought against him to execute a sworn
affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious,
false and misleading.
(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil
rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false
and misleading testimony if and when called to testify
personally in that proceeding.
(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a
scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a
Federal civil rights action brought against him.
(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing
through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson
Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job
assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action
brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the
truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a
time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have
been harmful to him.
(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal
civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and
misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an
affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by
the judge. Such false and misleading statements were
subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication
to that judge.
(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of
events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought
against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in
order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to
potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in
order to corruptly influence the testimony of those
witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by
William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to
the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and
misleading information.
In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined
the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.
Article IV
Using the powers and influence of the office of President
of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation
of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office
of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of
the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional
duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has
engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his
high office, impaired the due and proper administration of
justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened
the authority of the legislative branch and the truth seeking
purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding, in that, as
President, William Jefferson Clinton refused and failed to
respond to certain written requests for admission and
willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn
statements in response to certain written requests for
admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment
inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the
Congress of the United States. William Jefferson Clinton, in
refusing and failing to respond and in making perjurious,
false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions
and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of
impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of
Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.
In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the
integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, spoke and said.
``The Chair would like to read an announcement to all Members.
``Today the House will embark on a resolution of impeachment of the
President of the United States. The Chair would take this occasion to
make an announcement regarding proper decorum during debate in the House
during the pendency of the impeachment resolution.
``As the Speaker announced, with the concurrence of the minority
leader, on September 10, 1998, during the pendency of proceedings in an
impeachment as the pending business on the floor of the House, remarks
in debate may include references to personal misconduct on the part of
the President.
``While limited references in debate to the personal conduct of the
President are allowed, the stricture against personally offensive
references is not totally disabled. To the contrary, this exception to
the general rule against engaging in personality, admitting references
to personal conduct when that conduct is the very question under
consideration by the House, is not limited. The point was well stated on
July 31, 1979, in the analogous circumstances of a disciplinary
resolution involving a sitting Member:
``While a wide range of discussion is permitted during debate, clause
1 of rule 14 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.
``While the impeachment matter is pending on the floor, the Chair
would remind Members that although the personal conduct of the President
is at issue, the rules prohibit Members from engaging in generally
personal abusive language toward the President and, also, from engaging
in comparisons to personal conduct of sitting Members of either House of
Congress.
``The Chair asks and expects the cooperation of the Members in
maintaining a level of decorum that properly dignifies the proceedings
of the House.''.
After debate,
Mr. SENSENBRENNER rose, was recognized for an additional hour under
clause 2 of Rule XIV.
After further debate,
Pending further consideration of said resolution,
para.118.8 order of business--further consideration of h. res. 611
A resolution proposing four articles of impeachment with separate
declarations of impeachment, removal, and disqualification from future
federal office is subject to a demand for a division of the question as
among each article.
On motion of Mr. HYDE, by unanimous consent,
Ordered, That, during further consideration of House Resolution 611,
the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution
to final adoption without intervening motion except: (1) debate on the
resolution for a period not to extend beyond 10 p.m. tonight, equally
divided at the outset and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and one further hour
of debate on Saturday, December 19, 1998, equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary; (2) after such first period of debate, a motion to adjourn;
and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions, which, if
including instructions, shall be debatable for ten minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
Ordered further, That, during consideration of a resolution appointing
and authorizing managers for the impeachment trial of William Jefferson
Clinton, President of the United States, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for a division of the ques
[[Page 2776]]
tion except ten minutes of debate on the resolution equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on the Judiciary. When the House adjourns on Friday, December 18, 1998,
it adjourn to meet at 9 o'clock a.m. on Saturday, December 19.
Pending further consideration of said resolution,
Mr. SOLOMON demanded that the question be divided on each Article of
impeachment contained in the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, announced the question was
divisible and would be divided for the vote by Article.
Pursuant to the foregoing order of the House, the SPEAKER pro tempore,
Mr. LaHOOD, recognized Mr. SENSENBRENNER and Mr. CONYERS for a period
not to extend beyond 10 p.m.
After further debate,
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, pursuant to the previous order of
the House, debate was concluded on House Resolution 611 until Saturday,
December 19, 1998.
---o---
privileges of the house--impeaching william jefferson clinton, president
of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors
(para.119.4)
Under clause 4 of rule I and the settled practice of the House, the
Chair ordinarily decides questions of order, subject to appeal to the
House.
To a resolution reported and pending as privileged, an amendment
proposing to broach nonprivileged matter is not germane.
To a resolution invoking the exclusive constitutional prerogative of the
House to impeach, an amendment proposing an intrinsically different
sanction having no Constitutional source is not germane.
To a resolution pursuing the essentially remedial end of impeachment by
the House, an amendment instead pursuing the punitive end of censure by
the American people and the House is not germane.
To a proposal to impeach, a proposal to censure is not germane.
To a resolution reported as privileged and under consideration as a
question of the privileges of the House, and proposing to exercise the
exclusive constitutional prerogative of the House to impeach the
President as a remedy for stated misconduct, a motion to recommit to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report forthwith an
amendment in the nature of a substitute instead expressing the censure
and condemnation of the American people and the House as punishment for
such misconduct is not germane.
The House laid on the table an appeal from the ruling of the Speaker pro
tempore.
On December 19, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, announced
the unfinished business was the further consideration of the resolution
(H. Res. 611), impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, pursuant to the order of the
House of Friday, December 18, 1998, the resolution was debatable for 1
additional hour equally divided between the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Hyde] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], and the previous
question is ordered on the resolution to final adoption without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
After debate,
Pursuant to the order of the House of December 18, the previous
question was ordered on the resolution.
Mr. BOUCHER moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Judiciary
with instructions to report the bill back to the House forthwith with
the following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
That it is the sense of the House that--
(1) on January 20, 1993, William Jefferson Clinton took the
oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States
faithfully to execute the office of President; implicit in
that oath is the obligation that the President set an example
of high moral standards and conduct himself in a manner that
fosters respect for the truth; and William Jefferson Clinton,
has egregiously failed in this obligation, and through his
actions violated the trust of the American people, lessened
their esteem for the office of President, and dishonored the
office which they have entrusted to him;
(2)(A) William Jefferson Clinton made false statements
concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate;
(B) William Jefferson Clinton wrongly took steps to delay
discovery of the truth; and
(C) inasmuch as no person is above the law, William
Jefferson Clinton remains subject to criminal and civil
penalties; and
(3) William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States, by his conduct has brought upon himself, and fully
deserves, the censure and condemnation of the American people
and this House.
Pending consideration of said motion,
Mr. SOLOMON reserved a point of order against the motion to recommit
with instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, pursuant to the order of the
House of December 18, 1998, recognized Mr. BOUCHER and Mr. SOLOMON for
five minutes each,
After debate,
point of order
(para.119.5)
Under clause 4 of rule I and the settled practice of the House, the
Chair ordinarily decides questions of order, subject to appeal to the
House.
To a resolution reported and pending as privileged, an amendment
proposing to broach nonprivileged matter is not germane.
To a resolution invoking the exclusive constitutional prerogative of the
House to impeach, an amendment proposing an intrinsically different
sanction having no Constitutional source is not germane.
To a resolution pursuing the essentially remedial end of impeachment by
the House, an amendment instead pursuing the punitive end of censure by
the American people and the House is not germane.
To a proposal to impeach, a proposal to censure is not germane.
To a resolution reported as privileged and under consideration as a
question of the privileges of the House, and proposing to exercise the
exclusive constitutional prerogative of the House to impeach the
President as a remedy for stated misconduct, a motion to recommit to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report forthwith an
amendment in the nature of a substitute instead expressing the censure
and condemnation of the American people and the House as punishment for
such misconduct is not germane.
The House laid on the table an appeal from the ruling of the Speaker pro
tempore.
On December 19, 1998, Mr. SOLOMON, made a point of order against the
motion to recommit with instructions, and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against this motion to
recommit on the grounds that it does violate clause 7 of House Rule XVI,
that is the germaneness rule.
``Mr. Speaker, this rule is a rule of the House and it requires
amendments to be germane to the text that one is attempting to amend.
And, Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 611, a resolution impeaching
President Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors, was reported as a
question of privileges of the House under Rule IX. This privileged
status is established by the Constitution in Article I, Section 2, which
grants the House the sole power of impeachment.
``It is also established by numerous precedents in the history of this
House in which resolutions of impeachment have been called up as
privileged matter on the floor.
``Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit contains matter which is not
privileged for consideration by this House. An attempt to insert
nonprivileged matter into privileged matter by amendment clearly
violates the germaneness rules of this House.
``Mr. Speaker, in order to be held germane, an amendment must share a
fundamental purpose with the text one at
[[Page 2777]]
tempts to amend. Impeachment is the prescribed mechanism to address this
conduct by the chief executive, and any other procedure has no
foundation in the Constitution and is not contemplated by the separation
of powers. To attempt to substitute a censure for impeachment is to
violate the overall purpose of the Constitution's impeachment clause.
``Mr. Speaker, the fundamental purpose of the motion to recommit
presently before the House obviously does not conform to the fundamental
purpose of the impeachment resolution. It proposes a different end, a
different result and a different method of achieving that end.
``Mr. Speaker, I urge the Chair to sustain this point of order.
``I ask unanimous consent to insert extraneous matter at this point in
the Record. It is a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to Members from myself and
the incoming chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier].
``Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this House has a
tradition, it has a tradition of nonpartisan rulings by the Chair on
questions of germaneness. Indeed, the parliamentarian of the House is a
nonpartisan officer of the majority and minority party Members. These
recommendations are based on an orderly set of factual rulings from the
past which establish precedents of the future.
``Mr. Speaker, I urge you to continue your reputation of fairness and
sustain this point of order.''.
Mr. MOAKLEY was recognized to speak to the point of order and said:
``Mr. Speaker, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented in offering
this motion. On many occasions the House has debated resolutions to
censure presidents, other executive officials, even private citizens. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, the House has even debated an amendment to convert
articles of impeachment into a censure resolution. In 1830, Mr. Speaker,
no one even questioned the legitimacy of that amendment.
``The Boucher amendment to censure the President is germane to the
articles of impeachment that we find before us.
``Mr. Speaker, in proposing this amendment, we are simply following
the precedents of the House. The 3rd volume of Hinds' Precedents,
section 2367, clearly records that during the impeachment of Judge James
Peck, Representative Edward Everett of Massachusetts offered an
amendment to an impeachment resolution. That amendment stated that the
``House does not approve of the conduct of James Peck'' and goes on to
recommend that he not be impeached. This is, in essence, Mr. Speaker,
what the motion of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] does.
``The Boucher amendment strikes out the articles of impeachment and,
in a more expansive formulation, states that the ``House does not
approve of the conduct of'' President Clinton. The House went on to
defeat Representative Everett's amendment, but it was offered, it was
debated, and it was voted upon.
``Mr. Speaker, we are asking for the same consideration that the
precedents of the House prove was given before. And furthermore, Mr.
Speaker, the Peck case is not the only time that the House has
considered censure of an individual subject to impeachment.
``In a recent study, the Congressional Research Service reported that
the House has considered censuring executive officials a total of 9
times. And the House also has censured its own Members.
``The Republican-led House has considered numerous resolutions
expressing its disapproval of individuals and their conduct. Just
recently the House condemned travel by Louis Farrakhan and the House
castigated the remarks of Sara Lister, Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Manpower. The House even expressed itself on the President's
assertions of executive privilege. And the House expressed its views on
many other matters.
``Surely, Mr. Speaker, if the House can approve the display of the Ten
Commandments, it can censure the deplorable behavior of President
Clinton, and we are simply asking for that opportunity.
``The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] makes the point of order
that the amendment is nongermane. The amendment could be challenged on
three grounds: First, that it is not germane to amend privileged
material with nonprivileged material; second, that even if censure is
considered as privileged, the fundamental purpose of impeachment is
different from censure; and third, that censure is not a
constitutionally sound remedy.
``On the first argument, Mr. Speaker, the Chair may be tempted to
follow footnote 8 in Deschler's volume 3, chapter 14, section 1.3 which
states that it is not germane to amend impeachment which is privileged
material with censure which is nonprivileged material. But I ask the
Chair to withhold judgment on that. The footnote itself acknowledges
that this is not a matter of precedent because the issue has never
arisen. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of precedent because
the issue has never arisen.
``Moreover, it is clearly established that resolutions of censure have
been considered as privileged in the past.
``In the second volume of Hinds, section 1625, a Mr. A.P. Field was
reprimanded in the well of the House by the Speaker pursuant to a
privileged resolution. And this is not the only case, Mr. Speaker. The
6th volume of Cannons precedents, section 333, records that in 1913, a
Mr. Charles Glover was also brought to the well of the House. He was
reprimanded by the Speaker pursuant to a privileged resolution.
``Mr. Speaker, it is clearly established that resolutions that provide
for censure or reprimand have been considered as privileged in the past.
In sum, it is supported by the precedents that resolutions of censure
have been treated as privileged by this House and, therefore, the
argument that it is not germane to amend privileged matters with
nonprivileged material is not at issue in this case.
``The second line of argument my Republican colleagues use is that
censure has a fundamentally different purpose than impeachment. The
argument is that impeachment is intended to remedy a constitutional
crisis whereas censure is designed to punish.
``Mr. Speaker, let me ask, where is the remedial meaning in phrases
such as ``acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice''
``has brought disrepute on the presidency'' and ``exhibited contempt for
the inquiry''?
``These words of censure are found in the very articles before us.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this language is meant to inflict punishment on
the President, punishment that is at odds with the remedial nature of
impeachment.
``The articles of impeachment also touch on this issue of punishment
by recommending to the Senate that the President be tried, convicted,
removed from office and forbidden to hold any office in the future. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, the House has never, ever recommended to the Senate
that the person being impeached also be prohibited from holding other
office. Even in the highly-charged, politically-motivated impeachment of
President Andrew Johnson, the House did not dare recommend to the Senate
an appropriate punishment.
``The committee clearly intends not only to remedy the situation by
impeaching the President but also intends to punish him by its
disqualification to hold and enjoy office of honor, trust or profit
under the United States.
``The words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 are instructive.
When discussing impeachment, Hamilton uses the word ``punishment'' to
describe being denied future public office. It certainly sounds like
punishment to me, Mr. Speaker.
``Mr. Hamilton also describes that punishment as being ``sentenced to
a perpetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence and honors and
emoluments of this country.'' Clearly, Alexander Hamilton believed that
denial of future public office was intended to be punitive as well as
remedial.
``Mr. Speaker, since this resolution contains both remedial
impeachment and punitive censure, it should be germane to propose
censure alone. The Committee on the Judiciary itself has opened the door
by censuring the President.
``The last argument that is being propounded is that censure is not a
constitutionally sound remedy. I would urge the Speaker not to entertain
this argument. It is well established that the presiding officer does
not pass judgment on the constitutionality of any
[[Page 2778]]
proposed legislation, 8 Cannon section 3031.
``If the Speaker still feels constrained to address the constitutional
question, I remind the Chair that the House has attempted to censure
Federal officials numerous times in the past and has in fact voted to
censure such individuals.
``Not once, Mr. Speaker, not once has there been a successful
constitutional challenge. Clearly, censure is not prohibited by the
Constitution.
``Mr. Speaker, I respectfully remind the Chair that you are ruling on
a profoundly important matter, a matter of whether to allow us a vote of
conscience in the matter of impeachment. In the 210 years of Congress,
210 years that Congress has been in existence, no Chair has ever been
called on to rule whether censure is germane to impeachment. I repeat
that. In 210 years, the Chair has never been called on to rule on that.
Your decision would be the first and the only such decision and will be
recorded in the rule books as such.
``Volume 3 of Deschler's notes, and I quote, ``the issue of whether a
proposition to censure a Federal officer would be germane to a
proposition for his impeachment has not arisen.'' While the Chair was
not asked to rule on the question then, the House has considered an
amendment to the impeachment resolution to censure Judge Peck and in has
in other instances considered censure resolutions as privileged.
``Mr. Speaker, it has happened in the past. I urge the Chair to follow
the weight of House practice and to overrule the point of order.''.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER was recognized to speak to the point of order and
said:
``Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the point of order on the motion
to recommit because it is not germane to House Resolution 611.
``Clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House of Representatives
provides that `no motion or proposition on a subject different from that
under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.' Prior
rulings of the House have held this provision applicable to motions to
recommit with or without instructions. A motion to recommit is not in
order if it would not be in order as an amendment to the underlying
proposition.
``The constitutional prerogatives of the House, such as impeachment
and matters incidental thereto, are questions of high privilege under
rule IX of the House rules.
``A joint or simple resolution evincing the disapproval of the House
is not a question of privilege under the rules of the House.
``Furthermore, the fundamental principle of such a censure resolution
is inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of an impeachment
resolution.
``I would point out to the Chair that the motion to recommit with
instructions that is under consideration here is not even a censure
motion. It is a sense of the Congress resolution, and I would refer the
Chair to the last four lines of their resolution, that William Jefferson
Clinton, President of the United States, by his conduct has brought upon
himself and fully deserves the censure and condemnation of the American
people and this House.
``It says he deserves the censure but it does not censure him.
``We have heard an awful lot about the rule of law during this debate,
which I think has been one of the finest debates that the House of
Representatives has had.
``This is our opportunity to uphold our rules, our laws, and I would
strongly urge the Chair to sustain the point of order.''.
Mr. DELAHUNT was recognized to speak to the point of order and said:
``Mr. Speaker, the argument has been made that censure is
unprecedented, uncommon or unconstitutional. That simply is not the
case.
``In the impeachment of Judge Peck, an amendment was offered that
contained a censure. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley]
spoke to this in his remarks. I want to point out that on many other
occasions the House has chosen censure over impeachment. I would like to
cite a few examples.
``In the case of Judge Speers, the committee report stated, and I am
quoting, `The record presents a series of legal oppressions that demand
condemnation and criticism.' Even in the light of this finding, the
committee did not recommend proceeding with impeachment and the report
containing censure was adopted.
``In the cases of Judge Harry Anderson, Judge Frank Cooper, Judge
Grover Moscowitz, Judge Blodgett, Judge Boarman, Judge Jenkins and Judge
Ricks, the committee recommended censure instead of proceeding with
impeachment.
``The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a long-
standing history in the House of substituting censure for impeachment.
Sometimes, as in the Louderback case, the Committee on the Judiciary
recommends censure and the House rejects that recommendation and votes
impeachment. Other times the committee has recommended censure over
impeachment and the House has agreed with that recommendation. Mr.
Speaker, what is important is that the House has had a choice between
censure and impeachment.
``There is also a long tradition in the House of censuring executive
officers. As we have heard, a recent Congressional Research Service
study found nine instances where the House has attempted to censure
Federal officials. Presidents John Adams, John Tyler, James Polk and
James Buchanan were all subject of censure resolutions. In addition,
Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, Navy Secretary Isaac Toucey,
former War Secretary Simon Cameron, Navy Secretary Gideon Welles, and
Ambassador Thomas Bayard as well, were all subject to censure
resolutions.
``Indeed, private citizens have also been censured by the House. The
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] cited two examples in his
opening argument. The House has also censured a Mr. John Anderson, a Mr.
Samuel Houston, and moved to censure Mr. Russell Jarvis.
``I believe these examples will dispel the myth that censure by the
House is uncommon, unprecedented or unconstitutional.
``The most salient fact is that when the House wants to censure an
individual, both private citizens and executive officers, it can and it
has. There is no constitutional prohibition against such an action, and
the Congress has freely engaged in passing such censures.
``The question before the Speaker is, with this long line of
precedent, can censure be offered as an alternative to impeachment? The
answer is clearly yes. As I cited above, the House has on many occasions
adopted reports from the Committee on the Judiciary that has given the
House the opportunity to express its views, its lack of regard, its
censure, its condemnation, as an alternative to impeaching a judge. The
same model should hold here.
``Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the reason this is such a long-
standing practice and precedent of the House is because it just makes
good common sense. When the House does not feel impeachment is
warranted, but does want to go on the record censuring certain behavior,
it has. One only need look at the precedents.''.
``Mr. Speaker, I urge that you overrule the point of order.''.
Mr. ROGAN was recognized to speak to the point of order and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I join with the gentleman from Wisconsin in rising to a
point of order and also noting the dichotomy in this particular proposal
of censure; that if this were to pass, we would go on record as stating
that the President deserves censure, but the document itself does not
grant censure.
``There are two other interesting areas relating to the proposal
before us. In the House Committee on the Judiciary, when this matter
came before us, the maker of the proposed resolution of censure was the
same maker as the proposal today, the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia. The resolution of censure that was presented to the Committee
on the Judiciary had two distinguishing characteristics that are absent
today.
``In the Committee on the Judiciary, the resolution that was put
before us would have required not only a vote of the House but a vote of
the Senate to bring the condemnation of Congress upon the President.
That is absent here. It also had an additional element. It had an
element of requiring the President to come to Congress and to affix his
signature to the document in recognition of the censure. That too is
absent.
[[Page 2779]]
``Impeachment, and not censure, is properly before the House at this
time. The paradox between the two was demonstrated during our debate in
the Committee on the Judiciary on the proposed resolution of censure.
``In committee I asked the author if there was any language in the
proposal that would preclude any future Congress, by a simple majority
vote, from erasing or expunging the censure from history. I knew in
advance the answer to that question. No. There can be no such language
in a resolution of censure because, under the rules of Congress, this
Congress cannot bind a future Congress.
``What does this mean? It means that any censure adopted by this House
today can be expunged from the record by a simple majority vote of this
House. Now, in a courtroom, convicted felons seek to have their criminal
convictions expunged. When that request is granted, that felon may
truthfully state that he was never convicted of a crime. In the eyes of
the law, the criminal conduct simply never happened when expungement is
granted. It is forgotten.
``A censure resolution of this President today can be erased from our
journals and from our history books forever tomorrow, and it may be done
by a simple majority vote. Censure is a remedy designed for the polls,
it is not a remedy designed for the Constitution. It is a phantom remedy
and the amendment should be turned back.''.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin was recognized to speak to the point of order
and said:
``Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak. But before I do that, I want to
compliment you on the evenhandedness you have displayed in presiding
over this matter.
``Mr. Speaker, the argument that censure is of a fundamentally
different purpose than impeachment has been made; that impeachment is
remedial in nature while censure is punitive in nature. Ordinarily, I
would agree. The words in the censure resolution are meant to be
punishment. But unlike previous articles of impeachment, the impeachment
articles before us also raise the issue of punishment, and it does so in
three ways:
``The articles incorporate language which clearly condemns and, in
effect, censures the President. I quote from the articles: `In all of
this William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his
office and has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his
trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of
law and justice to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States.' This language appears in all four articles of impeachment.
``The article also states that he has, `violated his constitutional
duty', and `willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process.'
If this language were considered on its own, it clearly would be
considered a condemnation and censure of the President.
``Second, and more importantly, last night I looked through the 16
previous articles of impeachment that this House has considered. And for
the first time in the history of the Congress, for the first time in 210
years, this House is taking the additional step and telling the Senate
that not only should the President be tried and removed from office but
also disbarred from ever holding public office again. That language did
not even appear in the articles of impeachment for Andrew Johnson or
Richard Nixon.
``Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. For the first time in the history
of the United States, the House is taking it upon itself to say that the
power of disqualification from office should be invoked. Until today, no
Member of this House has voted to do this. Until today.
``This is important. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, talks about
this very issue. Hamilton says, `Punishment is not to terminate the
chastisement of the offender.' Hamilton goes on to talk about the
offender having been sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the esteem
and confidence, and honors and emoluments of this country when the
person is disqualified from holding public office. While this penalty is
partly remedial, one can only conclude that there is something
inherently punitive in forever disqualifying an individual from holding
public office, and this punishment quality is intentional.
``Third, article 4 states that the President exhibited contempt for
the inquiry. By charging the President with contempt, the articles open
up the possibility for the House to address that contempt.
``Mr. Speaker, the precedents clearly show that contempt can be
remedied by a censure of this House. It is equally clear that contempt
of the House can be addressed by a privileged resolution of censure. The
articles before us contain language that clearly raises the issue of
punishment and censure.
``To a proposition that contains both impeachment and censure, clearly
it is germane to offer a proposition for censure. For rather than
expanding the purpose of the articles of impeachment, our censure
resolution, in a real sense, narrows the focus of the resolution. We do
not expand, we narrow the focus.
``One final point, Mr. Speaker. You have discretion. You can put the
question of germaneness to this body. This is an issue that this body
has never considered before. And in doing so, you could truly let the
people decide.''.
Mr. PEASE was recognized to speak to the point of order and said:
``Mr. Speaker, what is clear from the debate in the Committee on the
Judiciary and on the floor of this House is that the meaning, even the
intent of a resolution of censure is not clear.
``Some contend that its purpose, no matter what it is called, is to
punish the President. Others argue that it is not intended to punish but
merely to state the opinion of the House on the matter. Without
determining which it is, this much is now clear. If its purpose is to
punish the President, no matter how it is captioned, it is a bill of
attainder, that is, special legislation intended to punish and identify
an individual or group without benefit of judicial proceedings, and
constitutionally prohibited.
``I understand that the proposal originally before the committee has
been amended so as not to require Senate action, thus diminishing it
substantially in order to meet the constitutional infirmity. If it is
not intended to punish the President, but merely state our opinions, it
is clearly meaningless, for we have already done that extensively, some
would say exhaustively.
``If anything, the debate of the last few months has brought consensus
on one thing, the centrality of the rule of law to our system of
government. Some contend that the rule of law is best acquitted through
impeachment of the President; others that it will be upheld because of
the President's exposure to proceedings in civil and criminal courts of
this Nation after he leaves office.
``But all of us agree that following the rules is essential. The rules
of this House, as we were reminded yesterday by both our outgoing rules
chairman the gentleman from New York and the incoming rules chairman the
gentleman from California, do not allow the interjection of
nonprivileged matter into privileged matter by amendment. The articles
of impeachment are privileged. The sense of the House resolution is not.
The motion, though perhaps so across the rotunda, is not germane here
and the point of order should therefore be sustained.''.
Mr. RANGEL was recognized to speak to the point of order and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order that has
been made by the gentleman from New York and in support of the motion to
recommit so that this body could have before it the question as to
whether or not we can vote for censure.
``As you look over the rules and precedents of this House, you will
have the broad discretion to include in your ruling the question of
fairness and the question of equity. Mr. Speaker, the whole world is
watching.''.
Mr. BUYER was recognized to speak to the point of order and said:
``Mr. Speaker, if many of my colleagues are sitting here somewhat
confused and scratching their heads and trying to follow this debate and
they think this is a bunch of lawyers speaking lawyerly language, I kind
of agree with them. They are right. I am confused.
``Now, I sat on the Judiciary Committee and I watched this debate. Let
me share with my colleagues why. Here is why I am confused. When the
censure resolution was offered in the Judiciary Committee, I asked
questions of the author about what is its clear in
[[Page 2780]]
tent. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] was very clear to me. He
said the intent of the censure resolution is not to have findings of
guilt and it is not to punish. Then I questioned that, looking at the
four corners of the document and got into the exact words, because it
did have findings of guilt, that the President had egregiously failed,
that he had violated his trust, that he lessened the esteem of his
office, that he brought dishonor to his office and then as a form of
punishment it sought that the President's actions were entitled to
condemnation.
``The reason that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] would
assert that his intent was not to have findings of guilt and not to
punish is because it would have brought it within the clear prohibition
of the Constitution of bills of attainder. Now, even up to yesterday on
this House floor we were still discussing bills of attainder. But now
there is a problem. The problem is that how do they make a censure
resolution germane as an alternative to impeachment? So they have gotten
clever. The cleverness is to change the title but leave the words the
same. It is no longer called a censure resolution, it is now called a
sense of the House. So being clever, they have now tried to distance
themselves from the clear, express constitutional prohibition on bills
of attainder and now say that because this is a sense of the Congress
resolution, it comes under the speech and debate clause.
``That is what is happening here, Mr. Speaker. So now that the same
Members who yesterday in debate said that our intent by this was not to
have findings of guilt and not to punish, if you are confused that now
the same Members are saying that we are having findings of guilt and our
intent is to punish, the same Members are saying that now because they
have changed the title and it is merely now under the speech and debate
clause.
``As one of the legal scholars testified before the Judiciary
Committee, they said that if it is a sense of the Congress, it is the
equivalency of Congress shouting down Pennsylvania Avenue at the
President and saying, `We think what you have done was a bad thing,' and
it has no other clear legal effect.
``Now, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the point of order on the
motion to recommit because censure is not germane as an alternative to
the impeachment resolution. I have great respect for every Member of
this body. I have had opportunities to speak with many of them. I had a
good conversation with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] yesterday
and he and I disagree on this issue.
``I understand the motives and the intentions of the Members of this
House who would like to censure the President for his lack of integrity,
responsibility and violations of the rule of law. I understand their
convictions and that is why they offer this sense of the House
resolution.
``Americans all across the country every day, we all try very hard to
live by the rules, principles and proverbs and we teach them to our
children. What are they? It is called honesty: You tell the truth, be
sincere, do not deceive, mislead or be devious or use trickery. Do not
withhold information in relationships of trust. Do not cheat or lie to
the detriment of others nor tolerate such practice. You honor your oath.
Be loyal. Support and protect your family, your friends, your community
and your country. Do not violate the law and ethical principles to win
personal gain. Do not ask a friend to do something wrong. Judge all
people on their merits. Do not abuse or demean people. Do not use,
manipulate, exploit or take advantage of others for personal gain. Be
responsible and accountable, think before you act, consider the
consequences on all people by your actions.
``You do not blame others for your mistakes.
``Unfortunately, the President did not follow these principles. His
criminal misconduct and dereliction of his executive duties do meet the
constitutional threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors.
``The founders in their infinite wisdom made three coordinate branches
of government in a system of checks and balances. When the President and
the Vice President, Federal judges and other executive officials are
accused of high crimes and misdemeanors, the Constitution gave this body
the express authority as the accusatory body to bring the charges. That
is why many of my colleagues have referred to the House as the grand
jury function. That is accurate. That is why the House is the accusatory
body. There is not a grand jury in this country that can investigate,
prosecute and have findings, guilt and sentence. That is why in the
Constitution they said we accuse and the Senate tries. It is not
expressly authorized for anyone to use censure as an alternative to
impeachment. Impeachment is our only course of action.''.
Mr. HEFNER was recognized to speak to the point of order and said:
``Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why anybody would be confused, this
being an exercise in lawyers here and all the technical things we have
talked about.
``Let me just mention something here. I have been here longer than
most of the people that have talked on this point of order. The most
powerful committee in this House is the Rules Committee. It is the
Speaker's committee. The leadership in this House and the Speaker in
this House dictates the rules that will be considered on this House
floor. Make no mistake about it.
``Now, it has been said that we cannot have a vote on censure because
it is not constitutional. But no one, no one, has shown us why it is
unconstitutional. It is an opinion. Nobody has given us concrete
evidence that it is not constitutional for us to consider censure.
``Now, if that be the case and you want to make the argument that we
want to be fair in these proceedings, well, then you would give us a
vote on censure. The Rules Committee could have met, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Solomon] I think will agree, and you could have crafted
any rule that you wanted. You could have waived any points of order to
have a rule that comes to this floor, and you would have the votes to
enforce the rule that you brought.
``But to say that it is unconstitutional and hide behind the fact that
it is unconstitutional to me says we are going to have a vote for
impeachment to get rid of this President and that is going to be it,
period. We are not going to allow anybody to vote his conscience if it
conflicts with our conscience.
``Now, I do not know about you, but this will be the last time that I
will probably ever speak on the floor of this House of Representatives,
and it has been the greatest privilege of my life. It has been the
greatest privilege of my life to serve on this House of Representatives,
and for every Member of Congress, whether I have agreed with you or not,
if there is anything that I have said over these years that would have
offended anybody, I would ask your forgiveness.
``The President of the United States stood before the whole world and
said, I have sinned and I ask forgiveness, and that is what it is all
about.
``I do not know how you are going to rule on this but just as soon as
I can get finished, I want to go home and go to the Christmas programs
and watch these children stand out front and spell out the name of
Christmas and Jesus Christ. I want to go home and celebrate the birth of
the savior Jesus Christ, the prince of peace, and if people want to stay
here forever and ever and berate the President, then you just have to
let that be your Christmas legacy.
``But if you do not allow us a vote on censure, you are saying to me
our mind is made up and we are going to get this President and we are
not going to give you a vote on it and the deal is cut. If that be the
case, we may as well all go home and have the vote now. But I hope that
the Chair will not rule that this is not germane.
``I thank you very much, God bless you, and have a merry Christmas.''.
Mr. BARR of Georgia was recognized to speak to the point of order and
said:
``Speaker, precedents are important and for precedent in this dispute,
in discussing the germaneness of the motion to recommit, I believe one
of the most important precedents one can turn to is the founder of the
Democrat Party, President Andrew Jackson. His words, indeed, Mr.
Speaker, for purposes of this particular debate are particularly
relevant, because it was President Jackson who was the subject of a
censure motion, and his words printed at great length in the registry
[[Page 2781]]
of the proceedings of this Chamber in 1834 very clearly discuss,
illustrate and stand for the proposition that the very carefully
balanced system of checks and balances and separation of powers in our
government was violated, would be violated then as it is today by any
motion to censure the President as a substitute for impeachment.
``The words of Andrew Jackson should be in our minds today, should be
in these halls today, because they say that a motion for censure as a
substitute for impeachment is offensive to the fundamental work of this
Congress, the fundamental powers of this Congress and the powers of the
presidency.
``This is the precedent, Mr. Speaker, that we should follow today and
rule this motion for recommittal out of order as repugnant and offensive
to the constitutional separation of powers on which our system of
government is based.''.
Mr. TRAFICANT was recognized to speak to the point of order and said:
``Mr. Speaker, there has not been one Member that has addressed the
legal precedents of the challenge to this motion.
``By removing further debate, there is no one else standing. I believe
there is only one governing principle here today because of a lack of
legislative precedents and action, and that is the Constitution. The
Constitution, as has been stated, does not permit censure, but the
Constitution does not prohibit censure.
``Insofar, under my parliamentary inquiry, as there is no legislative
precedence that has been set, and the Founders did not place this with
the elected judges of the Supreme Court, they left it to the elected
Congress, therefore, they choose not to send it to judicial process but
to the political process, and Congress should have the right to work its
political will.
``Therefore, this motion should be defeated on the grounds that there
is no precedence, it is lacking, and it cries out for further
interpretation of the Founders' actions. And the Founders' actions were
clear. They did not want to place it with the Supreme Court judges that
were not responsible to voters; they placed it to the Members of
Congress.
``Mr. Speaker, I ask that this motion be defeated.''.
Mr. BOUCHER was recognized to speak to the point of order and said:
``Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has
answered well the arguments that have been made in support of the point
of order. There is actual precedent for the acceptance by the House of a
resolution of censure as an amendment to the impeachment resolution.
That occurred in the matter of the impeachment of Judge Peck in 1830.
``In response to the argument that censure is nonprivileged material
and that it may not be used to amend privileged material, the gentleman
has pointed to instances in which the House has treated censure as
privileged. And the gentleman persuasively argues that by their own
language the articles of impeachment have a fundamental purpose that is
both remedial and punitive. The punitive language of the censure
resolution is, therefore, not inconsistent with the fundamental purpose
of the articles of impeachment.
``Mr. Speaker, this is a question of first impression. The Chair has
never ruled before on this precise matter. We have had in our Republic
200 years of silence on the question of whether the substitution of a
resolution of censure for the President's conduct to articles of
impeachment shall be considered as germane.
``Given the unprecedented nature of the question, given the
extraordinary gravity of the matter that is now before the House, given
the inherent unfairness of not making a censure alternative available to
the Members and the inherent unfairness of disallowing the consideration
of the House by the American public's clearly preferred outcome for this
inquiry, which is the passage of a resolution of censure, I urge the
Chair to resolve all ambiguities in the rules and all doubts about their
proper application in favor of finding that the resolution of censure is
germane and permitting its consideration by the House.
``A finding of germaneness would do no violence to the precedents of
the House. It would not overturn previous rulings of the Chair. It would
allow us today to give voice to the public's overwhelming desire to put
this unfortunate matter behind us with the stern censure and rebuke
which the President, for his conduct, deserves.
``I thank the Chair for his patience in listening to these arguments,
and I urge his finding that the resolution of censure is germane.
Mr. MOAKLEY was further recognized to speak to the point of order and
said:
``Arguing in the alternative, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Chair for
its patience, arguing the alternative, if the Chair finds some merit in
our argument but is not convinced in the sufficient merit to overrule
the point of order, I respectfully urge the Chair to consider to put the
motion, the question, directly to the House, and there is precedent for
this action.
``One of the issues in deciding the germaneness of censure to
impeachment is the notion that the censure is not privileged, but
impeachment is. On a question of privilege, however, the early practice
of the House was for the House to determine whether it should be
entertained. In fact, the practice was so well established that in 1842
the Speaker, Representative John White of Kentucky, remarked he could
find no instance on record where the Chair had determined what
constituted a question of privilege. On the contrary, he found numerous
instances where the House had settled it. This occasion is described in
the third volume of Hinds' Precedents, section 2654.
``When the Speaker was asked to rule on whether a resolution regarding
charges made by a Cabinet officer about Members of Congress committed a
question of privilege, he said, the Speaker speaking:
`For the Chair to decide in such a case would be an
usurpation on its part, and what the Chair might deem a
breach of privilege, the House may not deem so, and vice
versa.'
``Again, Mr. Speaker, I remind the Chair that this is a question of
first impression. The Speaker has never in the 210 years of history of
the Congress been asked to rule on whether censure is germane on
impeachment. There is no precedence directly on point. The question has
not arisen in the past, although the House has taken up an amendment
that would have converted impeachment to censure in the matter of Judge
Peck.
``Mr. Speaker, in a matter so grave as this, to deny the House a vote
of conscience, I beg the Chair not to base its decision on a narrow and
technical interpretation, and if the Chair cannot see its way to accept
entirely our argument on the merits, I ask the Chair to put the question
directly to the House.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, sustained the point of order, and
said:
``The Chair is prepared to rule.
``Knowing that the House may wish to express its will on this
question, the Chair nevertheless will follow the course set by presiding
officers for at least the past 150 years by rendering a decision from
the Chair.
``The gentleman from New York has made the point of order that the
amendment in the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from
Virginia is not germane to House Resolution 611.
``The rule of germaneness derives directly from the authority of the
House under section 5 in article I of the Constitution to determine its
own rules. It has governed the proceedings of the House for all of its
210-year history. Its applicability to a motion to recommit is well
established. As reflected in the Deschler-Brown Precedents in volume 10,
chapter 28, both at section 1 and at section 17.2, then-Majority Leader
Carl Albert made these general observations about the rule in 1965, and
I quote:
`It is a rule which has been insisted upon by Democrats and
Republicans alike ever since the Democratic and Republican
parties have been in existence.
`It is a rule without which this House could never complete
its legislative program if there happened to be a substantial
minority in opposition.
`One of the great things about the House of Representatives
and one of the things that distinguish[es] it from other
legislative bodies is that we do operate on the rule of
germaneness.
`No legislative body of this size could ever operate unless
it did comply with the rule of germaneness.'.
``At the outset the Chair will state two guiding principles.
[[Page 2782]]
``First, an otherwise privileged resolution is rendered nonprivileged
by the inclusion of nonprivileged matter. This principle is exemplified
in the ruling of Speaker Clark on January 11, 1916, which is recorded in
Cannon's Precedents at volume 6, section 468. Accordingly, to a
resolution pending as privileged, an amendment proposing to broach
nonprivileged matter is not germane.
``Second, to be germane, an amendment must share a common fundamental
purpose with the pending proposition. This principle is annotated in
section 798b of the House Rules and Manual. Accordingly, to a pending
resolution addressing one matter, an amendment proposing to broach an
intrinsically different matter is not germane.
``As the excellent arguments in debate on this point of order have
made clear, these two principles are closely intertwined in any analysis
of the relationship between the amendment proposed in the motion to
recommit and the pending resolution. The Chair thanks those who have
brought their arguments to the attention of the Chair.
``The pending resolution proposes to impeach the President of the
United States. As such, it invokes an exclusive constitutional
prerogative of the House. The final clause of section 2 in Article I of
the Constitution mandates that the House,
`shall have the sole power of impeachment.'
``For this reason, the pending proposal constitutes a question of the
privileges of the House within the meaning of rule IX. Ample precedent
is annotated in the House Rules and Manual at section 604.
``The amendment in the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman
from Virginia proposes instead to censure the President. It has no
comparable nexus to an exclusive constitutional prerogative of the
House. Indeed, clause 7 of section 3 in article I of the Constitution
prescribes that
`judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further
than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and
enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United
States.'
``An instructive contrast appears in clause 2 of section 5 in article
I of the Constitution, which establishes a range of alternative
disciplinary sanctions for Members of Congress by stating that each
House may,
`punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and with the
concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.'
``This contrast demonstrates that, while the constitutional power of
either body in Congress to punish one of its Members extends through a
range of alternatives, the constitutional power of the Congress to
remove the President, consistent with the separation of powers, is
confined to the impeachment process.
``Thus, a proposal to discipline a Member may admit as germane an
amendment to increase or decrease the punishment (except expulsion,
which the Chair will address presently), in significant part because the
Constitution contemplates that the House may impose alternative
punishments. But a resolution of impeachment, being a question of
privileges of the House because it invokes an exclusive constitutional
prerogative of the House, cannot admit as germane an amendment to
convert the remedial sanction of potential removal to a punitive
sanction of censure, as that would broach nonprivileged matter. For this
conclusion the Chair finds support in Hinds' Precedents at volume 5,
section 5810, as cited in Deschler's Precedents at volume 3, chapter 14,
section 1.3, footnote 8.
``The qualitative difference between these two contrasting sources of
disciplinary authority in the Constitution signifies an intrinsic
parliamentary difference between impeachment and an alternative sanction
against the President. The Chair believes that this distinction is
supported in the cited precedents and is specifically discussed in the
parliamentary notes on pages 400 and 401 of the cited volume. An
analogous case emphasizing an intrinsic difference is recorded in
Cannon's Precedents at volume 6, section 236, reflecting that on October
27, 1921, Speaker Gillett held that an amendment proposing to censure a
Members of the House was not germane to a resolution proposing that the
Member be expelled from the House.
``The cited precedent reveals several occasions when the Committee on
the Judiciary, having been referred a question of impeachment against a
civil officer of the United States, reported a recommendation that
impeachment was not warranted and, thereafter, called upon the report as
a question of privilege.
``The occasional inclusion in an accompanying report of the Committee
on the Judiciary of language recommending that an official be censured
has not been held to destroy the privilege of an accompanying resolution
that does not, itself, convey the language of censure.
``The Chair is aware that, in the consideration of a resolution
proposing to impeach Judge James Peck in 1830, the House considered an
amendment proposing instead to express disapproval while refraining from
impeachment. In that instance no Member rose to a point of order, and no
parliamentary decision was entered from the Chair or by the House. The
amendment was considered by common sufferance. That no Member sought to
enforce the rule of germaneness on that occasion does not establish a
precedent of the House that such an amendment would be germane.
``Where the pending resolution addresses impeachment as a question of
the privileges of the House, the rule of germaneness requires that any
amendment confine itself to impeachment, whether addressing it in a
positive or a negative way. Although it may be possible by germane
amendment to convert a reported resolution of impeachment to resolve
that impeachment is not warranted, an alternative sanction having no
equivalent constitutional footing may not be broached as a question of
privilege and, correspondingly, is not germane.
``The Chair acknowledges that the language of House Resolution 611
articulates its proposition for impeachment in language that, itself,
tends to convey opprobrium. The Chair must remain cognizant, however,
that the resolution does so entirely in the framework of the articles of
impeachment. Rather than inveighing any separate censure, the resolution
only effects the constitutional prayer for judgment by the Senate.
``The Chair is not passing on the ultimate constitutionality of a
separate resolution of censure. Indeed, the Chair does not judge the
constitutionality of measures before the House. Rather, the Chair holds
today only that the instant proposal to censure or otherwise admonish
the President of the United States--as it does not constitute a question
of the privileges of the House--is not germane to the pending resolution
of impeachment--an intrinsically separate question of the privileges of
the House.''.
Mr. GEPHARDT 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?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. ARMEY 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. LaHOOD, 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.
It was decided in the
Yeas
230
<3-line {>
affirmative
Nays
204
para.119.6
[Roll No. 542]
So the motion to lay the appeal of the ruling of the Chair 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.
Pursuant to the order of the House of December 18, 1998, the question
was divided by Article.
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House adopt Article I of said resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, announced that the yeas had it.
[[Page 2783]]
Mr. SENSENBRENNER 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
228
<3-line {>
affirmative
Nays
206
para.119.7
[Roll No. 543]
So, Article I of said resolution was adopted.
Accordingly,
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House adopt Article II of said resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER 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
205
<3-line {>
negative
Nays
229
para.119.8
[Roll No. 544]
So, Article II of said resolution was not adopted.
Accordingly,
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House adopt Article III of said resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, announced that the yeas had it.
Mr. SOLOMON 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
221
<3-line {>
affirmative
Nays
212
para.119.9
[Roll No. 545]
So, Article III of said resolution was adopted.
Accordingly,
The question being put, viva voce,
Will the House adopt Article IV of said resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, announced that the yeas had it.
Ms. LOFGREN 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
148
<3-line {>
negative
Nays
285
para.119.10
[Roll No. 546]
So, Article IV of said resolution was not adopted.
A motion to reconsider the votes whereby said Article I and III were
agreed to and Article II and IV were agreed to was, by unanimous
consent, laid on the table.
____________________
SUBPOENAS RECEIVED PURSUANT TO RULE L
On January 27, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, November 14, 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, County
of Los Angeles, State of California.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I have
determined that compliance is consistent with the privileges
and rights of the House.
Sincerely,
William H. Grady,
Administrative Assistant to
Congressman George E. Brown, Jr.
____________________
On January 27, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, November 14, 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 District of Columbia.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I have
determined that compliance with the subpoena relates to my
official duties, and that partial compliance with the
subpoena is consistent with the privileges and precedents of
the House.
Sincerely,
Bill Livingood,
Sergeant at Arms.
____________________
On January 27, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, PC, December 10, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you pursuant to Rule L
(50) of the House that I have been served with a subpoena
duces tecum issued by the Chancery Court of Forrest County,
Mississippi, in the case of Michelle Anderson v. Kade Paul
Anderson, Case No. 94-0711-GN-D.
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 yours,
Beau Gex,
District Director for the
Honorable Gene Taylor.
____________________
On January 27, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, PC, January 6, 1998.
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 my office was served with a subpoena (for documents)
issued by the McLean County, Illinois Circuit Court in the
case of Lack v. Crain, No. 97 L 155, and directed to the
``Keeper of Employment Records''.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.
Sincerely,
Lane Evans,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On January 27, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. layaway, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. House of
Representatives,
Washington, PC, January 13, 1998.
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 been served with a subpoena duces tecum issued by
the Superior Court for the District of Columbia in the case
of Williams v. Psychiatric Institute of Washington.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is not
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House
and, therefore, that the subpoena should be resisted.
Sincerely,
Lisbeth M. McBride.
____________________
On February 3, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GOODLATTE, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, February 2, 1998.
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 my office has been served with a subpoena (for written
testimony and documents) issued by the 63rd District Court
for Val Verde County, Texas, and directed to the ``Custodian
of Records, United States of Representatives.''
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is not
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House
and, therefore, that the subpoena should be resisted.
Sincerely,
Henry Bonilla,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On February 24, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SHAW, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
[[Page 2784]]
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, February 12, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker,
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 been served with a subpoena (for testimony)
issued by the Circuit Court for Marion County, Missouri in
the case of State v. Kolb.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.
Sincerely,
Scott Callicott,
Office Director.
____________________
On February 24, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SHAW, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Washington, DC,
February 18, 1998.
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 United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking the right
to inspect and copy documents in a file of two constituents
maintained by my congressional office.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I have
determined that compliance with the subpoena to allow
inspection and copy of such file is appropriate.
Sincerely,
Harris W. Fawell,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On March 17, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. EMERSON, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct,
Washington, DC, March 16, 1998.
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 Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
(``Committee'') has been served with a grand jury subpoena
(for documents) issued by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts and directed to the Committee's
``Keeper of Records.''
After the consultation with the Office of General Counsel,
the Committee has determined that compliance with the
subpoena is not consistent with the precedents and privileges
of the House and, therefore, that the subpoena should be
resisted.
Sincerely,
James V. Hansen,
Chairman.
____________________
On March 24, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GOODLATTE, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, March 17, 1998.
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 ad testificandum issued by the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, in the case of Raymond Wood v. David L. Cohen,
et al., Case No. 96-3707.
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,
Stanley V. White,
Administrator.
____________________
On April 27, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. NETHERCUTT, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 20, 1998.
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 ad testificandum issued by the
Pasadena Superior Court, in the case of People v. Anthony
Albert Jimenez, Case No. GA 034516.
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,
Joshua D. Cantor.
____________________
On May 12, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SHIMKUS, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Donald N. Mazeau,
46 Fenwood Drive,
Old Saybrook, CT, May 5, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker,
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 been served with a subpoena ad testificandum
issued by the Superior Court for the District of New London,
Connecticut, in the case of FDIC v. Caldrello, No. 0511581.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.
Sincerely,
Donald N. Mazeau,
Former Congressional Aide to
Congressman Sam Gejdenson.
____________________
On May 20, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GIBBONS, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 19, 1998.
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 ad testificandum issued by the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, in the case of
Pointe Properties, Inc., et al. v. Michael J. Bevenour, et
al., Case No. 96-CA-009720.
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,
Cory B. Alexander.
____________________
On June 3, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. PEASE, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 19, 1998.
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 been served with a subpoena duces tecum issued by
the United States District Court for the district of Maine in
the case of Desrosiers v Runyon, No. 97-CV-391-P-C.
I will make the determinations required by Rule 50 in
consultation with the Office of General Counsel.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Cadorette,
Office Manager for John Baldacci.
____________________
On June 3, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. EMERSON, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 27, 1998.
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 duces tecum issued by the 6th Judicial
Circuit for the State of Michigan, in the case of Ann Marie
Reynolds v. Resource Solutions Group, Inc., et al., Case No.
97-002709-CZ.
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,
Dave Camp,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On July 23, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SOLOMON, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 14, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House,
The Capitol, 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 Eastern District of New York.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I will make
the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Peter T. King,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On July 23, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SOLOMON, laid before
[[Page 2785]]
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 15, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
The 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 Eastern District of New York.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I will make
the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Carolyn McCarthy,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On July 23, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SOLOMON, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representativec,
Washington, DC, July 16, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
The 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 Eastern District of New York.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I will make
the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Gary L. Ackerman,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On July 24, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. FORBES, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 23, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Marietta, GA,
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 Eastern District of New York.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I will make
the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Forbes,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On July 30, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GEKAS, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
Washington, DC, July 28, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you pursuant to L.
Deschler, 3 Deschler's Precedents of the United States House
of Representatives ch 11, Sec. 14.8 (1963), that I have been
served with an administrative subpoena issued by the Federal
Election Commission.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner.
____________________
On July 30, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GEKAS, laid before the
House a communication, which was read as follows:
Washington, DC, July 28, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you pursuant to L.
Deschler, 3 Deschler's Precedents of the United States House
of Representatives ch. 11 Sec. 14.8 (1963), that I have been
served with an administrative subpoena issued by the Federal
Election Commission.
Sincerely,
Barry Jackson.
____________________
On September 10, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GUTKNECHT, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
August 6, 1998.
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 Southern District of Ohio.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I will make
the determinations required by Rule L.
Sincerely,
Ted Strickland,
Member of Congress.
____________________
On September 10, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GUTKNECHT, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
4August 12, 1998.
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 for testimony and documents issued by
the Centre County Court, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the
case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Barger.
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,
Shannon Jones.
____________________
On September 10, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GUTKNECHT, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
August 12, 1998.
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 for testimony and documents issued by
the Centre County Court, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the
case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Barger.
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,
Susan Gurekovich.
____________________
On September 10, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GUTKNECHT, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
August 17, 1998.
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 been served with a subpoena ad testificandum
issued by the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California in the case of Headwaters v. County of
Humboldt, No. C-97-3989-VRW.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House
and, therefore, that I should comply with the subpoena.
Sincerely,
Rhonnda Pellegrini.
____________________
On October 7, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. WILSON, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 6, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
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 my office has
been served with a subpoena for documents issued by the
Plymouth Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in
the case of Pert Dickie, et al. V. Kelly Regan, et al..
The subpoena appears to relate to my official duties. I am
currently consulting with the Office of General Counsel to
determine whether compliance with the subpoena is consistent
with the privileges and precedents of the House.
Sincerely,
William D. Delahunt.
____________________
On October 13, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SESSIONS, laid
before the House a communication, which was read as follows:
Peter A. DeFazio,
U.S. House of Representatives,
October 6, 1998.
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 been served with a grand jury subpoena ad
testificandum issued by the United States District Court for
the District of Oregon.
I will make the determinations required by Rule 50 in
consultation with the Office of General Counsel.
Sincerely,
Betsy Boyd,
District Director.
____________________
On October 16, 1998, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. BRADY, laid before
the House a communication, which was read as follows:
[[Page 2786]]
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 14, 1998.
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 the Office of
the Chief Administrator has been served with a subpoena
issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
After consultation with the General Counsel, I will make
the determinations required by Rule L (50).
Sincerely,
Kay Ford,
Associate Administrator, Office
of Human Resources.