Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 11 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 11 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H330-H333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this
session, the House adopted a new rule which says the Congressional
Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of remarks made during
the proceedings of the House, subject only to technical, grammatical,
and typographical corrections authorized by the Member making the
remarks involved.
In the Congressional Record that we received this morning, reflecting
yesterday's proceedings, at page H301 in the transcript of the remarks
of the Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman from Florida, there are two
changes that were made between what he, in fact, said and what is in
the Record.
The first change is as follows:
He said yesterday with regard to the statements of the gentlewoman
from Florida about the book of the Speaker, ``It is the Speaker's
opinion that innuendo and personal references to the Speaker's conduct
are not in order.''
That has been altered and that does not appear verbatim in the
Congressional Record. Instead, it says, ``It is the Speaker's opinion
that innuendo and critical references to the Speaker's personal conduct
are not in order.''
Additionally, later on in response to a parliamentary inquiry from
the gentleman from Missouri, the Speaker pro tempore said, as I
recollect it, ``it has been the Chair's ruling, and the precedents of
the House support this, a higher level of respect is due to the
Speaker.''
In the Congressional Record that has been changed to ``a proper level
of respect.''
Now, I do not believe that changing ``personal'' to ``critical'' and
``proper'' to ``higher'' is either technical, grammatical, or
typographical. Both make quite substantive changes. Indeed, Mr.
Speaker, it seems to me that by the standard that the Speaker yesterday
uttered, the gentlewoman from Florida was judged, but if you take
today's standard of revised, illegitimately revised version that is in
the Record, there would be no objection to what the gentlewoman from
Florida said.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair might respond to the gentleman.
The Chair would recite from the manual that in accordance with
existing accepted practices, the Speaker may make such technical or
parliamentary insertions, or corrections in transcript as may be
necessary to conform to rule, custom, or precedent. The Chair does not
believe that any revision changed the meaning of the ruling.
The Chair would under the circumstances inform the House on behalf of
the Parliamentarian that the new rule is as it might apply to the role
of the Chair will be examined.

parliamentary inquiries

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled, and I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The Speaker cited previous references to
the House rules and manual. That predates the rules change adopted this
year. This is not simply a case of making a technical change in a
ruling. We are talking also about substantive changes in the debate in
the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has made it very clear, the Chair
would say to the gentleman.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, the Chair has not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has made it clear that the
Parliamentarian plans to examine this issue.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a further
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In the first instance, I thought the
Speaker was the responsible ruler in this situation, while the
Parliamentarian advised him.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Second, I want to know, are you telling
me that this new change in which you say that it has to be verbatim, in
fact, does not mean that, because two very important changes were made
in the transcript from yesterday to today?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has informed the gentleman that
this issue is going to be examined in consultation with the
Parliamentarian.
Mr. DINGELL. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. DINGELL. Can you inform this Member and the House of what the
meaning of the reexamination is?
You are informing the House that the issue is going to be reexamined.
Yesterday the Speaker then presiding made a ruling which now appears in
the precedents of the House. It interpreted the precedents of the
House. It related to the rights, the behaviors, the dignities of the
Members, and it dictated the future course of conduct of Members of
this body.
Is the Chair informing us that the rulings of the Chair yesterday
stand, that the rulings of the Chair yesterday have been changed
without approval by the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the Chair might respond to the gentleman.
Mr. DINGELL. I would like to persist in my parliamentary inquiry. Or
that the rulings of the Chair of yesterday are going to be reexamined?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must reiterate that the principles
of decorum in debate relied on by the Chair yesterday with respect to
words taken down are not new to the 104th Congress.
First, clause 1 of rule XIV establishes an absolute rule against
engaging in personality in debate where the subject [[Page H331]] of a
Member's conduct is not the pending question.
Second, it is the long and settled practice of the House over many
Congresses to enforce that standard by demands from the floor that
words be taken down under rule XIV. Although the rule enables the Chair
to take initiative to address breaches of order, the Chair normally
defers to demands that words be taken down in the case of references to
Members of the House. On occasion, however, the Chair has announced
general standards of proper reference to Members, as was the case on
June 15, 1988. There, in response to a series of 1-minute speeches and
special order debates focusing on the conduct of the Speaker as the
subject of an ethical complaint and on the motives of the Member who
filed the complaint, the Chair stated as follows:

Thus, the Chair would caution all Members not to use the 1-
minute period or special orders, as has already happened, to
discuss the conduct of Members of the House in a way that
inevitably engages in personalities.

Third, longstanding precedents of the House provide that the
stricture against personalities has been enforced collaterally with
respect to criticism of the Speaker even when intervening debate has
occurred. This separate treatment is recorded in volume 2 of Hinds'
Precedents, at section 1248.
Finally, a complaint against the conduct of the Speaker is presented
directly for the action of the House and not by way of debate on other
matters. As Speaker Thomas B. Reed of Maine explained in 1897,
criticism of past conduct of the presiding officer is out of order not
because he is above criticism but, instead, because of the tendency of
piecemeal criticism to impair the good order of the House.
Speaker Reed's rationale is recorded in volume 5 of Hinds' Precedents
section 5188 from which the Chair now quotes as follows:

The Chair submits to the House that allusions or criticisms
of what the Chair did at some past time is certainly not in
order not because the Chair is above criticism or above
attack but for two reasons; first, because the Speaker is the
Speaker of the House, and such attacks are not conducive to
the good order of the House; and, second, because the Speaker
cannot reply to them except in a very fragmentary fashion,
and it is not desirable that he should reply to them. For
these reasons, such attacks ought not be made.

Based on these precedents, the Chair was justified in concluding that
the words challenged on yesterday were in their full context out of
order as engaging in personalities.
The Chair will inform that the Chair is going to proceed with 1-
minutes.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman, the
question has not been responded to.
I want to thank the Chair for his comments. I would like to restate
my parliamentary inquiry.
The question to which I would appreciate the Chair addressing his
attention is: Yesterday the words of the Speaker were definitively put.
The House acted upon the words of the Speaker. The Members on this side
of the aisle voted unanimously to take down the words and to take other
actions against the gentlewoman who at that time held the well.
The Chair has noted, I believe correctly, as has the gentleman from
Massachusetts, that the Record was changed overnight to change the
words of the then-presiding officer of this body.
The words----
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). If the Chair could respond to
the gentleman----
Mr. DINGELL. May I complete my parliamentary inquiry, please, Mr.
Speaker?
The Chair made certain rulings; precedents were quoted; new
precedents were created. Those new precedents which were created have
defined again the rights of all Members of this body.
I am asking whether now the Chair is changing the precedents of the
House, whether the change of the words indicates a change of the
precedents of the House. What are the rights of the Members of this
body with regard to rulings of the Chair?
The Chair made a ruling yesterday. That ruling and matters relative
to it including the words of the Speaker in connection with those words
have now been changed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Based on the precedents the Chair has just
outlined, the Chair does not believe that the intent has in any way
been altered.
Mr. DINGELL. I have not completed my parliamentary inquiry. I ask to
complete my parliamentary inquiry. Am I going to be permitted to
complete this or not?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts; the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. DINGELL. I am asking that I be permitted to complete my
parliamentary inquiry and get a ruling from the Chair, unless the Chair
chooses not to respond.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has ruled.
Mr. DINGELL. No, the Chair has not. Because you have not ruled on my
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ruling of the Chair is that the Record
that has been changed does not significantly change the intent that was
behind that ruling----
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, well then I have a further parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Based on the precedents that the Chair has
provided.
Mr. DINGELL. I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is seeking
a parliamentary inquiry. It is the prerogative of the Chair.
The gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. DINGELL. Am I going to be permitted to ask a parliamentary
inquiry?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order.
The gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mine will be quick, and then he can get
his in there.
My question is this: It has to do with the rule about changing. It is
a two-part question.
Am I correct that the Speaker acknowledges that the Congressional
Record was changed in ways that were not either grammatical,
typographical or technical, changing from ``personal'' to ``critical''
and ``higher'' to ``proper,'' clearly substantive?
The second question is: Is the remedy for the violation of this rule
that the Speaker talks to the Parliamentarian? I am all in favor of
conversation, but I am surprised that a new rule as part of the
Contract With America is breached and has as its remedy a conversation
by the Speaker with the Parliamentarian.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The interpretation of the Chair is that the
modifications that were made based on the precedents that the Chair has
just outlined have not changed the intent.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Does modification mean change?
Mr. WATT or North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in the Judiciary Committee a
couple of weeks ago, we adopted a set of rules which provide that a
hearing can be called only by the committee on 7 days' notice. We
conducted a hearing that was not so called, and the chairman of that
committee advised the committee that the word ``committee'' does not
mean committee, it means chair instead and invited us to seek an
opinion from the Parliamentarian which we did, and the
Parliamentarian's opinion indicated that the word ``committee'' means,
in fact, ``committee.''
My parliamentary inquiry is: Should we take this as an indication, in
conjunction with yesterday, that we are going to make up the rules as
we go along and make technical changes to suit the whims of the chairs
of the committees and whoever is presiding over the House, or can we
rely now on the rules as they are written?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can rely on the rules that have
been written, and we will proceed under the adopted rules of the House.
The gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. I appreciate the Chair recognizing me. I would like to
continue with my parliamentary inquiry.
I hope the Chair will have the goodness to let me complete my inquiry
before I am ruled out of order and required again to take my
seat. [[Page H332]]
My question is: What is now the status of the original ruling by the
previous occupant of the chair in connection with the matter of the 1-
minutes yesterday and the remarks of the gentlewoman from Florida?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not changed at all.
Mr. DINGELL. Have they been changed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the Chair might respond to the
gentleman's parliamentary inquiry----
Mr. DINGELL. May I complete my parliamentary inquiry?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has asked a question, the
Chair wishes to respond to the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. DINGELL. May I complete my parliamentary inquiry?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In response to the gentleman's parliamentary
inquiry, the Chair has interpreted there will not be a change based on
the precedents that have been established. The statement that appeared
in the Record was not different than that that had been provided.
Mr. DINGELL. If there is no change, Mr. Speaker, then why were the
words changed, and what is the impact of the change of the words?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the Chair might respond to
the parliamentary inquiry, the revisions that were made were technical
and not substantive. That is the ruling of the Chair.

The gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am very puzzled when you
tell me they are technical and not substantive.
Would you instruct your Members that you would recognize me and I am
proceeding in regular order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized.
The House will be in order.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The question is this, and it is a very
serious one: When you say that ``personal'' and ``critical'' are the
same thing, we were talking about references to the Speaker. Is it the
Chair's ruling that given the circumstances any personal reference to
the Speaker will inevitably be critical?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Based on the precedents that have been
provided especially during the 1-minute session, which is what came up
under Speaker Reed, it is very clear that these kinds of references are
not in order.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am talking now that there
are two separate questions here, the ruling which my friend from
Michigan was pursuing, and the new rule which the Republicans brought
to this House as part of the Contract that said you do not change the
Congressional Record; that is subsequent to all of the precedents you
are talking about. There are two questions: One, your right to change
the ruling; but, two, separate, the one I am focusing on, your right to
change words in the Congressional Record in ways that are neither
typographical, grammatical or technical, and I submit that changing
``personal'' to ``critical,'' one more sentence, ``personal'' to
``critical,'' and ``higher'' to ``proper'' are none of those. My
question is: Why are you ignoring your new rule and changing the words
in the Congressional Record, because they look better?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will announce that it is obvious
that these kinds of modifications have been raised as a question, and
in the future the Chair will continue to be extraordinarily sensitive
in dealing with these matters.
At this point we will proceed with 1-minute speeches.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, before we start the 1-minute speeches, I
think it is important that we clarify this issue so that Members do not
have the words taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has done that.
Mr. DURBIN. If the gentleman from Illinois might inquire of the
Chair, relative to the ruling of yesterday as modified in today's
Congressional Record, it is unclear to me as to how far Members can go
in reference to any Member of the House including the Speaker in terms
of things that they have done, things that they have said, things that
have been written about them, and it is curious at this point as to how
far we can go in the statements on our 1-minute speeches or in special
orders without transgressing the stated rules of the House.
If I might, I would like to ask the Chair's position as to whether
Members in statements on the floor can make any references to
activities of Members which may raise ethical questions.

{time} 1040

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The Chair must reiterate that
the principles of decorum in debate relied on by the Chair yesterday
with respect to words taken down are not new to the 104th Congress.
First, clause 1 of rule 14 establishes an absolute rule against
engaging in personality in debate where the subject of a Member's
conduct is not the pending question.
Second, it is the long and settled practice of the House over many
Congresses to enforce that standard by demands from the floor that
words be taken down under rule 14. Although the rule enables the Chair
to take initiative to address breaches of order, the Chair normally
defers to demands that words be taken down in the case of references to
Members of the House. On occasion, however, the Chair has announced
general standards of proper reference to Members, as was the case on
June 15, 1988. There, in response to a series of 1-minute speeches and
special order debates focusing on the conduct of the Speaker as the
subject of an ethical complaint and on the motives of the Member who
filed the complaint, the Chair stated:

Thus, the Chair would caution all Members not to use the 1-
minute period or special orders, as has already happened, to
discuss the conduct of Member of the House in a way that
inevitably engages in personalities.

Third, longstanding precedents of the House provide that the
stricture against personalities has been enforced collaterally with
respect to criticism of the Speaker even when intervening debate has
occurred. This separate treatment is recorded in volume 2 of Hinds'
Precedents, at section 1248.
Finally, a complaint against the conduct of the Speaker is presented
directly for the action of the House and not by way of debate on other
matters. As Speaker Thomas B. Reed of Maine explained in 1897,
criticism of past conduct of the Presiding Officer is out of order not
because he is above criticism but, instead, because of the tendency of
piecemeal criticism to impair the good order of the House. Speaker
Reed's rationale is recorded in volume 5 of Hinds' Precedents, at
section 5188, from which the Chair now quotes as follows:

The Chair submits to the House that allusions of criticisms
of what the Chair did at some past time is certainly not in
order. Not because the Chair is above criticism or above
attack, but for two reasons: First because the Speaker is the
Speaker of the House, and such attacks are not conducive to
the good order of the House; and, second, because the Speaker
can not reply to them except in a very fragmentary fashion,
and it is not desirable that he should reply to them. For
these reasons such attacks ought not to be made.

Mr. DURBIN. If the Chair would yield for another parliamentary
inquiry?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. On behalf of the Parliamentarian, the Chair
apologizes to the House for any deviation that may have taken place
from the new rule.
Mr. DURBIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have a unanimous-consent request. I
would ask unanimous consent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. I will yield to my friend from Massachusetts in a moment.
But if I may say this, this Member and most Members have the highest
regard for the professionalism of the House Parliamentarian and his
staff, and I want to make that clear and a matter of public record. If
an apology has been extended, from this Member's point of view it is
certainly accepted because I believe their level of professionalism is
respected by all. We clearly will have differences of opinion on
rulings.
I just would like to ask two questions by parliamentary inquiry and
then I will sit down. I thank the Chair for [[Page H333]] rereading the
ruling. It is improving every time he reads. But I would ask this
question. Can a Member during the course of a 1-minute make any
reference to an activity of another Member, including the Speaker,
which has taken place outside this Chamber?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Based on the precedents, only a factual
reference can be made.
Mr. DURBIN. A factual reference can be made.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without any suggestions whatsoever of
impropriety.
Mr. DURBIN. One further inquiry. Does this limitation in terms of
reference to personal conduct beyond factual conduct apply to those who
serve in Government and the executive branch as well as the legislative
branch?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It applies to the President of the United
States.
Mr. DURBIN. Does it apply to anyone else serving in the executive
branch?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It applies to the President of the United
States.
The gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. BONIOR. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, and this will be the
final comment by me on this issue. We are eager to get on with the
business of the House. But there are some very fundamental issues, as
we have heard on the floor this morning, at stake here. We are being
told that the Speaker is being placed above criticism and comments.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is incorrect in drawing that
conclusion.
Mr. BONIOR. The issue that we have before us in basically closing
down voices. The Record of this House is being changed arbitrarily,
committee meetings are being shut down prematurely. Private meetings on
major policies issues are being held outside this institution. Members
are being gagged on the House floor.
The question I have, Mr. Speaker, is this going to be the policy of
the new majority in the 104th Congress?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry.

____________________