[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
           RESOLUTION REGARDING AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT IN HAITI

  (Mr. GLICKMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Taylor] for 1 minute.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, before I read the resolution, 
I would like to remind the Speaker and encourage the Speaker to 
continue reading the rules of the House, because in the next paragraph 
or so it clearly states that in earlier Congresses, the Speaker would 
call for this vote immediately. It was only in more recent Congresses 
that the Speaker began to delay for a couple of days on that motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not ruling on the privileged 
status of the resolution; he is simply reading the rule on notice as 
amended in the 103d Congress.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the resolution reads as 
follows:

                               H. Res. --

       Whereas, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution reserves 
     to the Congress the power to declare war; and
       Whereas, numerous press and other reports suggest that the 
     Administration is preparing to deploy military forces of the 
     United States of America to invade the Republic of Haiti in a 
     manner likely to be deemed an act of war; and
       Whereas, the President of the United States has not 
     requested the Congress to authorize the attack of the 
     Republic of Haiti by military forces of the United States; 
     and
       Whereas, the Congress has not specifically authorized the 
     President to use military forces of the United States to 
     invade, assault, or otherwise attack the Republic of Haiti; 
     Now therefore be it
       Resolved, That, as a matter of the constitutional 
     privileges of the Congress to declare war, no military forces 
     of the United States shall be used to invade, assault, or 
     otherwise attack the Republic of Haiti until such time that 
     the Congress has specifically authorized, after having been 
     requested to do so by the President, the use of military 
     forces of the United States to invade, assault, or otherwise 
     attack the Republic of Haiti.

                              {time}  1320

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). The Chair would state at this 
time that the gentleman has notified the House of his intention under 
rule IX.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman has stated that intention under the 
procedures. When would the gentleman's resolution be eligible for 
consideration?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair read previously, the time would 
be at a time or place designated by the Speaker within 2 legislative 
days, if the Speaker, in fact, rules that it is privileged.
  Mr. WALKER. Well, I will ask that question in a moment. But do I 
understand then that the gentleman's resolution could come up on Friday 
when the House is due to be in pro forma session?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would not be in position to 
comment at this time as to when the House will be in session.
  Mr. WALKER. Could it come up on Friday?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Conceivably anything could happen.
  Mr. WALKER. Conceivably.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If that is the next legislative day, yes. It 
is possible.
  Mr. WALKER. Further, the Chair has heard the privileged motion would 
be available to either the majority or the minority leader to bring to 
the floor today; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the Speaker, in fact, ruled that it was a 
privileged resolution.
  Mr. WALKER. That was my parliamentary inquiry. We have heard the 
resolution. Does it constitute a question of privilege which if brought 
to the floor today could in fact be voted on by the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would state to the gentleman that 
the Chair is not ruling at this time. The Chair is not required to 
rule.
  Mr. WALKER. But it becomes a matter of some concern to the membership 
whether or not we get a chance to vote today before the House leaves 
here and get a chance to vote in a timely manner on a matter that may 
relate to our troops going into battle. It is very important to 
understand whether or not it is potentially available to bring the 
language as drafted by the gentleman to the floor yet today. The 
resolution has been read and it would be valuable for the House to know 
whether or not such language does constitute a question of privilege 
that can be brought up later on today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would state to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania that the Chair does not make rulings on hypothetical 
motions until they are in order to be called forth.
  Mr. WALKER. As a further parliamentary inquiry, I am not certain why 
the Chair is ruling it is hypothetical. The gentleman has already 
announced his language to the Chair. The Chair now has that language 
before it. This gentleman's parliamentary inquiry is whether or not 
such language would constitute a question of privilege which could then 
be brought to the floor by the appropriate Members later on today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again state that the 
resolution is not before the House until it is called up. At that 
point, the Chair would rule.
  Mr. WALKER. So the language that was brought by the gentleman under a 
question of privilege would be eligible to be brought to the floor 
later on today by either the majority or the minority leader and at 
that point the Chair would rule upon the language and the House would 
then have the ability, if it did not agree with the ruling of the 
Chair, to appeal the ruling of the Chair at that point; is that 
correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has read the rule and if a 
resolution is offered by the leader, the Chair would then have to rule 
on its propriety at that time.
  Mr. WALKER. Just to clarify then, as a further parliamentary inquiry, 
the language offered by the gentleman from Mississippi could in fact be 
brought to this floor later on today by either the majority leader or 
by the minority leader and at that point the Chair could rule one way 
or the other on whether or not it constitutes a question of privilege 
that could then be debated for an hour. If the Chair were to rule in 
favor of the resolution, it would be debated for an hour and the House 
would get a vote up or down on the questions raised by the gentleman's 
resolution. If the Chair were to rule against the resolution, it would 
in fact be within the power of the House to appeal the ruling of the 
Chair at that point and decide to take up the resolution; is that 
correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman recites correctly the normal 
procedure on questions of privilege.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, by failing to rule, I am making this inquiry, 
is the Chair in effect ruling that the language of section 9 supersedes 
that of 664? Therefore, implicit in the Chair's failure to recognize 
this as a personal privilege would, therefore, mean that the Chair is 
ruling that the 664 language does not supersede?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Again, to the gentleman from Louisiana, the 
Chair is making no such ruling at this time on the issue of privilege. 
Only on the issue of notice as required by the rules of the 103d 
Congress.
  Mr. HAYES. However, by failing to rule, the Chair is implicitly 
making that determination, whether it states it as a rule or not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not agree with the gentleman.
  Mr. HAYES. One more parliamentary inquiry. As I understand the role 
of the Parliamentarian, it is to serve the House as opposed to the 
executive or legislative branch. Is that a correct determination of the 
Parliamentarian's role in the system of government?
  In other words, if not clear, I will repeat it: if there is a 
conflict that appears, that has not been resolved by the Supreme Court, 
appears to be a conflict of the legislative and executive branches, 
what is the role of the Parliamentarian, to act as an objective 
observer or to defend the House of Representatives of the United 
States?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is responding to the gentleman as 
the Chair interprets the rules.
  Mr. HAYES. I thank the Chair very much for the response.

                          ____________________