[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 12 (Friday, January 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H455-H460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              COMMENTARY ON HOUSE PROCEEDINGS OF THIS WEEK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday of this week, the gentlewoman 
from Florida attempted to give a 1-minute speech in regard to the book 
deal of the Speaker of the House. During that speech, the gentlewoman 
was interrupted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania who asked that her 
words be taken down, the last two paragraphs of that 1-minute speech.
  Following that taking down, the Chair at the time, the gentleman in 
the chair from Florida, ruled that the words were out of order and that 
they should be stricken.
  Following that discourse, the following day in regard to that ruling, 
the Chair in its ruling on Thursday morning, the gentleman from 
California who was in the chair at the time, acting as Speaker pro tem, 
said:

       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.

  Then it goes on, during that, which we can all find in the 
Congressional Record, where the Chair says:

       On occasion, however, the Chair has announced general 
     standards of proper reference to Members, as was the case on 
     June 15, 1988.
                              {time}  1600

  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 states 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.

  But the Chair did not rule in that ruling on that date that such 
language was not in order but cautioned the Members.
  Then the Chair continuing on Thursday, the gentleman from California, 
stated that:

       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 II of Hinds' Precedents, at section 
     1248.

  I have reviewed that, Mr. Speaker. At a later time I will ask that 
that be part of the Congressional Record following my comments.
  Then the acting Speaker pro tempore continued on Thursday:

       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 
     [[Page H456]] 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:

and the Chair made a quotation.
  But the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the Chair would lead us to 
believe that the following quote, which I will read that he quoted from 
Thursday morning, applied to actions by the Speaker similar to actions 
of our present Speaker, that was that Speaker Reed's actions were 
similar to those of Speaker Gingrich's.
  It said:

       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.

  Then the Chair on Thursday said:

       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.

  Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, general public, press, anybody 
else who cares to listen, I have a copy of Hinds' Precedents right 
before me, and the incident that occurred on May 13, 1897, did not have 
anything to do with conduct of Speaker Reed outside the Chambers of 
this body. It only had to do with conduct of Speaker Reed's acting as 
Speaker. They are two different things. The comments that were made by 
the gentlewoman from Florida on Wednesday in regard to Speaker Gingrich 
were because of his conduct outside of this Chamber, actually preceded 
his becoming Speaker, before he was ever Speaker, when he was still 
just a member of the delegation of the delegation from Florida in a 
previous Congress.
  I would like to read, and then I will ask that it be put in the 
Congressional Record, the full context of the Hinds' precedent.

       On May 13, 1897, the question before the House was the 
     approval of the Journal, and Mr. Jerry Simpson, of Kansas, 
     having the floor, was proceeding to comment upon the fact 
     that the Speaker had not appointed the committees, and to 
     discuss the general observance of the rules of the House.
       Mr. Nelson Dingley, of Maine, having raised the point of 
     order that the debate was not proceeding in order, the 
     Speaker sustained it, saying that the question before the 
     House was the approval of the Journal, not obedience to the 
     rules; and under the rule directed the gentleman from Kansas 
     to take his seat.
       Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, moved that the 
     gentleman from Kansas be allowed to proceed in order, and the 
     House agreed to the motion.
       Mr. Simpson was proceeding, when again, on a point of order 
     made by Mr. Dingley, he was called to order; and the House 
     voted that he be allowed to proceed in order.
       Again Mr. Simpson was proceeding, discussing the alleged 
     arbitrary way in which Members were deprived of their rights 
     in the House and reflecting upon the Speaker, when Mr. 
     Dingley again called him to order.
       The Speaker, in ruling, said:
       ``The Chair desires to say to the House in regard to this 
     matter that when an appeal is made to him on a question or 
     order, it becomes his duty to make a ruling upon the question 
     as he understands it. So far as the Chair is concerned, he 
     has only requested the gentleman from Kansas to confine 
     himself to the subject that is under discussion. The Chair 
     submits to the House that allusions or criticisms of what the 
     Chair did at some past time is certainly not in order.''

  Then it goes on and Members can continue the quotes given to this 
House by the Speaker on Thursday. That is a lot different. That is when 
the Speaker was in the chair, operating the House as the Speaker. His 
actions were actions as Speaker that were questioned by a Member. It 
had nothing to do with actions of Speaker Reed. Speaker Reed never did 
anything wrong. Speaker Reed never wrote a book and got a million 
dollars for it. Speaker Reed never took any money and put it in his 
back pocket for his actions as Speaker. Speaker Reed never desired to 
be a millionaire. Speaker Reed was only being criticized for his 
actions as Speaker, and what he was doing in his job as Speaker.
  The gentlewoman from Florida in her 1-minute speech on the floor of 
this House was only discussing what our present Speaker had done prior 
to his being Speaker in accepting a book deal, and now alleging that as 
a result of that book deal was going to get millions of dollars, and he 
very well may get those millions of dollars.
  Before I forget, at this time I will include in the Congressional 
Record the Hinds' Precedents that I have alluded to and that were 
alluded to by the Speaker pro tempore on Thursday.
  The documents referred to are as follows:
       5188. When a Member is called to order for violation of the 
     rules of debate, it is the practice to test the opinion of 
     the House by a motion ``that the gentleman be allowed to 
     proceed in order.''
       Complaint of the conduct of the Speaker should be presented 
     directly for the action of the House and not by way of 
     debates on other matters.
       The Speaker remained in the chair and ruled as to the 
     relevance of language criticizing his conduct as Speaker.
       On May 13, 1897,\1\ the question before the House was the 
     approval of the Journal, and Mr. Jerry Simpson, of Kansas, 
     having the floor, was proceeding to comment upon the fact 
     that the Speaker had not appointed the committees, and to 
     discuss the general observance of the rules of the House.
     \1\First session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 1067, 
     1068.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Mr. Nelson Dingley, of Maine, having raised the point of 
     order that the debate was not proceeding in order, the 
     Speaker\2\ sustained it, saying that the question before the 
     House was the approval of the Journal, not obedience to the 
     rules; and under the rule directed the gentleman from Kansas 
     to take his seat.
     \2\Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, moved that the 
     gentleman from Kansas be allowed to proceed in order, and the 
     House agreed to the motion.
       Mr. Simpson was proceeding, when again, on a point of order 
     made by Mr. Dingley, he was called to order; and again the 
     House voted that he be allowed to proceed in order.
       Again Mr. Simpson was proceeding, discussing the alleged 
     arbitrary way in which Members were deprived of their rights 
     in the House and reflecting upon the Speaker, when Mr. 
     Dingley again called him to order.
       The Speaker, in ruling, said: The Chair desires to say to 
     the House in regard to this matter that when an appeal is 
     made to him on a question of order, it becomes his duty to 
     make a ruling upon the question as he understands it. So far 
     as the Chair is concerned, he has only requested the 
     gentleman from Kansas to confine himself to the subject that 
     is under discussion. 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 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.
       If there be any complaint of the conduct of the Speaker it 
     ought to be presented directly for the action of the House, 
     but this continual making of attacks with no proper 
     opportunity for reply every Member must see, whatever may be 
     his relation to the pending question, is not suitable and 
     ought not to be indulged in. If there be any objections to 
     the acts of the Speaker they are not above criticism.
       1248. A Member having used words insulting to the Speaker, 
     the House, on a subsequent day and after other business had 
     intervened, censured the offender.
       An insult to the Speaker has been held to raise a question 
     of privilege not governed by the ordinary rule about taking 
     down disorderly words as soon as uttered.
       When the House was considering a resolution censuring a 
     member for an alleged insult to the Speaker, the Speaker 
     called another Member to the chair.
       On July 9, 1832,\3\ during debate on a question of order, 
     Mr. William Stanbery, of Ohio, in criticising a ruling of the 
     Chair, said: I defy any gentleman to point me to a single 
     decision to the contrary, until you presided over this body. 
     And let me say that I have heard the remark frequently made, 
     that the eyes of the Speaker are too frequently turned from 
     the chair you occupy toward the White House.
     \3\First session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, p. 11113; 
     Debates, pp. 3876, 3877, 3887.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Mr. Stanbery being called to order by Mr. Franklin E. 
     Plummer, of Mississippi, sat down; and the debate proceeded.
       The pending question being disposed of, Mr. Thomas F. 
     Foster, of Georgia, moved that the rules be suspended in 
     order to enable the House to consider\4\ the following 
     resolution: Resolved, That the insinuations made in debate 
     this morning by the honorable William Stanbery, a Member of 
     this House from Ohio, charging the Speaker of 
     [[Page H457]] the House with shaping his course, as presiding 
     officer of the House, with the view to the obtainment of 
     office from the President of the United States, was an 
     indignity to the Speaker and the House, and merits the 
     decided censure of this House.
     \4\The pressure of business had at this date become such as 
     not to permit the regular order to be interrupted except by 
     unanimous consent or by a vote to suspend the rules; but the 
     system had not been instituted yet of admitting such 
     resolutions as matters of privilege--or at least not in cases 
     of this kind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The vote being taken there were yeas 95, nays 62; so the 
     House refused to suspend the rules.
       On July 10,\5\ when the States were called for the 
     presentation of resolutions,\6\ Mr. James Bates, of Maine, 
     presented the resolution again, with the slight modification 
     of ``words spoken'' instead of ``insinuations made.''
     \5\Journal, p. 1118; Debates, pp. 3888-3891.
     \6\In the order of business at that time an hour was devoted 
     to the presentation of resolutions, etc., before passing to 
     the Speaker's table and the orders of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Mr. Charles F. Mercer, of Virginia, made the point of order 
     against the resolution that the words of the gentleman from 
     Ohio, were not taken down at the time they were spoken, nor 
     at the close of the speech of the Member; because other 
     business had occurred since the imputed insinuations were 
     made; and because a day has elapsed since the words were 
     used, without any action or proceeding of the House in 
     relation thereto. Jefferson's Manual was quoted in support of 
     this contention.\7\
     \7\See Chapter XVII of Jefferson's Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Speaker pro tempore\8\ decided that the resolution was 
     in order. This was a question concerning the privileges of 
     the House; therefore the rules of ordinary debate did not 
     apply.
     \8\Clement C. Clay, of Alabama, Speaker pro tempore. Mr. 
     Speaker Stevenson had left the chair from motives of 
     delicacy. Debates, p. 3898.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Mr. Mercer appealed; but pending the discussion the hour 
     expired, and although Mr. George McDuffie, of South Carolina, 
     insisted that the pending question had precedence, because it 
     related to the dignity and privileges of the House, the House 
     voted to proceed to the orders of the day. On the next day, 
     however, when the question arose again, the Speaker pro 
     tempore corrected his decision of the day before, and decided 
     that a question of order involving the privileges of the 
     House took precedence of all other businesses.
       On July 11\9\ debate on the appeal of Mr. Mercer was 
     resumed. Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, said that 
     this seemed to be a case of punishment for disorderly words 
     spoken in debate. But in such a proceeding the words should 
     be taken down, which had not been done in this case, although 
     the Manual specifically provided such a course of procedure. 
     That course was founded in reason and justice, and was, as 
     expressly declared, ``for the common security of all.''
     \9\Journal, pp. 1134, 1135; Debates, pp. 3899-3903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The decision of the Chair, on Mr. Mercer's appeal, was 
     finally sustained, yeas 82, nays 48.
       The question recurring on agreeing to the resolution of 
     censure, Mr. Stanbery justified what he said as parliamentary 
     by quoting Lord Chatham's words, which had passed without a 
     call to order in open Parliament, ``the eyes of the Speaker 
     of that House were too often turned toward St. James's.''
       Mr. Samuel F. Vinton, of Ohio, raised a question as to 
     whether or not interrogatories should not be propounded by 
     the Chair to the Member about to be censured, to ascertain 
     whether he admitted or denied the fact charged in the 
     resolution; but the Speaker declined to do so.
       The question being taken,\10\ the resolution of censure was 
     agreed to, yeas 98, nays 44.
     \10\Journal, p. 1141; Debates, p. 3907.
       Several Members asked to be excused from voting, on the 
     ground that they had not heard the words spoken by Mr. 
     Stanbery, but the House declined to excuse them. Mr. Adams, 
     however, refused to vote.
       1249. A Member in debate having declared the words of 
     another Member ``a base lie,'' the Speaker declared the words 
     out of order and the House inflicted censure on the offender.
       The Speaker having, by order of the House, censured a 
     Member, the words of censure were spread on the Journal.
       On January 26, 1867,\1\ during debate on the bill (H.R. 
     543) for restoring to the States lately in insurrection their 
     full political rights, Mr. John W. Hunter, of New York, was 
     called to order by Mr. Ralph Hill, of Indiana, for the use of 
     the following words: ``I say that, so far as I am concerned, 
     it is a base lie,'' referring to a statement by Mr. James M. 
     Ashley, of Ohio.
     \1\Second session Thirty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 271-
     273; Globe, pp. 785-787.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Speaker\2\ decided the words out of order.
     \2\Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Thereupon Mr. Hill submitted the following resolution:
       Resolved, That the gentleman from New York, Hon. Mr. 
     Hunter, in declaring during debate in the House, in reference 
     to the assertions of the gentleman from Ohio, Hon. Mr. 
     Ashley, ``I say that, so far as I am concerned, it is a base 
     lie,'' has transgressed the rules of this body, and that he 
     be censured for the same by the Speaker.
       The resolution having been agreed to--yeas 77, nays 33--Mr. 
     Hunter appeared at the bar of the House and the Speaker 
     administered the censure. This censure by the Speaker appears 
     in full in the Journal.
       1250. A Member having explained that by disorderly words 
     which had been taken down he had intended no disrespect to 
     the House, a resolution of censure was withdrawn.--On June 1, 
     1860,\3\ on the request of Mr. John Sherman, of Ohio, the 
     following words spoken in debate were taken down:
     \3\First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 972-981; 
     Globe, pp. 2546, 2548, and 2554.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       By Mr. Charles R. Train, of Massachusetts: ``I am not in 
     the habit of troubling the House much, and I never insist 
     upon speaking when I am clearly out of order. I should 
     consider myself guilty of gross impropriety, not only as a 
     Member of the House, but as a gentleman, if I insisted upon 
     addressing the Chair, and interpolating my remarks when I had 
     no right to the floor.''
       By Mr. George S. Houston, of Alabama: ``I wish to know if 
     the gentleman from Massachusetts applied that remark to me?''
       By Mr. Train: ``I mean exactly what I did say, and I stand 
     by what I said.''
       By Mr. Houston: ``I mean to say that if he applied that 
     remark to me, he is a disgraced liar and scoundrel.''\4\
     \4\Those words appear in full in the Journal as taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Mr. Sherman submitted this resolution: Resolved, That the 
     gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Houston, be censured for 
     disorderly words spoken in debate.
       During the discussion of the resolution the point of order 
     was made that the gentleman from Ohio did not call the 
     gentleman from Alabama to order before asking that the words 
     be taken down.
       The Speaker\5\ overruled the point of order.
     \5\William Pennington, of New Jersey, Speaker.
  So I want everybody in the House to know that the precedent that was 
cited was only for actions of the Speaker while in the House, and, 
therefore, was not for actions of the Speaker outside the House, and 
what he had done on a question of ethics as it applies to him or any 
other Member.
  My perusal of all of the precedents of the House, not only Hinds' but 
Cannons', Deschler's, Deschler-Brown, Jefferson, all the way back, 
there has never been an instance when a person such as the gentlewoman 
from Florida's words were taken down and ruled out of order for 
discussing activities of any Member, not just the Speaker, any Member 
in the past, in over the 200-year history of this House. And what that 
tells me and other Members is that we now have a rule, new ruling and a 
new way of deciding what you can say in this body and what you can say 
about other Members. And what it tells me is that another Member can do 
a completely illegal activity that is freely reported in the press, 
outside of these Chambers, and you cannot comment on it here.

                              {time}  1610

  You cannot talk about it. We cannot discuss it. I do not see why not.
  This is to me, in my many years here, is something that I believe 
that we should preserve and protect and maintain as a body in which all 
Members are above reproach.
  We serve the public. We are not here to serve ourselves. We are not 
here to become millionaires as a result of our actions in this body.
  We get a salary, and that should be enough for anybody. And I think 
it is wrong for any Member who uses his office, any Member who uses 
this office, this, to me, most sacred office, office of the public, to 
make himself wealthy.
  But we are seeing that happen, and yet we are told we cannot comment 
on it.
  I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if a Member feels that the 
criticism that comes from other Members of this body as a result of 
that Member's activities, whether on this floor, in the committees or 
outside of this, whether back in his home State or anyplace else, he 
has the opportunity to come down to this body and say anything he wants 
to say. If it calls for information, he can provide that information. 
He should feel free to do so.
  If it means that there is a contract, let the contract, hold it out, 
let everybody see it. We owe that much to the public.
  I will now yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Well, I thank the gentleman, and I am going to try to 
stay nice and calm.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I have been nice and calm.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Like the gentleman has.
  But, you know, sometimes when I hear, you know, this continuation of 
this issue, it really does get me upset, because, you know, this 
Congress over the years has done everything in its power to drive 
businessmen out of this Congress, businessmen like me.
  [[Page H458]] And, you know, I really do resent it. I can recall, you 
know, when I came here 16 years ago, and I owned an insurance firm, a 
stock brokerage firm and a real estate firm, and because all of those 
firms gained their revenue from commissions, I was forced to sell my 
businesses, and I had to sell them to junior partners at a reduced sum, 
about half what they were worth, just to come here so I could serve the 
people.
  But you know, it was regulations like that that keeps people from 
coming into this Congress, people who have been successful in life and 
who can deal with the Mexican peso issue and know what it is all about.
  But getting back to the other point, you know, you seem to be picking 
on our Speaker, and I really resent that, because when I look at the 
people that are picking on him, it is the same people that said it was 
all right to take book royalties 4 or 5 years ago when the now-Vice 
President of the country, and a former Senator, receives royalties. We 
have Republican Senators, as well. That happened to be a Democrat over 
in the Senate. We are not supposed to talk about the other body. He 
receives royalties. I think he is from Maine. We have my own Senator 
from the State of New York, Patrick Moynihan, a real decent guy. He 
receives royalties.
  And the minority whip, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], when 
he was a majority whip, served on a committee that was appointed by 
your Speaker, the Democrat Speaker, that said it was OK to accept 
royalties, you know, so all of a sudden because this is a large amount 
of money, all of a sudden you and others want to make issues about it.
  Now, I am not impugning your integrity at all. You know that you and 
I side on a number of issues, especially some that are most important, 
and I have deep respect for you.
  In no way would I impugn, you know, your integrity of why you are 
doing it. It just seems to me the continuing to let this go on is 
really just hurting the work of this House.
  We have important work to do. We have got the second Reagan 
revolution to undertake where we are going to shrink this Federal 
Government, we are going to take away the power of this Federal 
Government, we are going to put it back into the hands of the people, 
back into the States, back into local governments and into the hands of 
the people. We are going to get this Government off the backs and out 
of the pockets of the American people, and when we see all of this 
going on, all of this nitpicking, all this does is slow it down.
  We have seen it today. When I put out an open rule with the help of 
the acting Speaker in the chair, so that we could debate unfunded 
mandates, lo and behold, what do we end up with, 151 amendments were 
filed to this bill, most of them duplicative and here we spent all day 
on two or three amendments.
  Now, how are we ever going to accomplish the successful passage of 
that bill if we continue to see these kinds of nit-picking delays take 
place?
  So I again have deep respect for the gentleman from Missouri, but it 
is about time we got down to business and stopped this foolishness and 
get on with the people's work.
  I really do thank the gentleman for yielding. I just had to get that 
off my chest.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I might answer as far as, and I did not want to discuss 
the unfunded mandate bill. I had not planned to do that today. But my 
comment to that is that if the bill had been worked, what I call worked 
properly, and time had been spent on it in committee that should have 
been, we would not have all of these amendments.
  Now, that is my answer as to why you got all of the amendments. It is 
in a rush to get here, and it got here, and now you have got all of 
these amendments. What else did you expect?
  You have got people that did not get to offer those amendments in the 
committee. That is that.
  I do not have all day, I will tell you, the gentleman from New York, 
that I want to finish up. I have got another matter to talk to; if you 
want to stay, if I have time, I will yield some more.
  The gentleman is a friend. We do agree on many things.
  But a little difference between the previous book deals. I know of no 
book deal that he has alluded to where you have a question, and I say a 
question, and that is why some of us are talking about it, because we 
do not know the answer, but I think it necessarily needs to be 
addressed.
  The question is: There is a gentleman named Rupert Murdoch and how 
much influence did Rupert Murdoch have as far as the book deal is 
concerned in return, in return for possible legislation that would be 
favorable to Mr. Murdoch. Now, that is little bit different than 
writing a book and selling it out on the street. That is a heck of a 
lot different.
  Now, if you say, now, wait a minute, that is going too far, well, I 
suggest that the gentleman from New York go back and look in the 
Congressional Record back in 1988 and see when the gentleman from 
Georgia who now is our Speaker was talking about Rupert Murdoch and 
what had to be done and what was being done to Rupert Murdoch, why that 
was being unfair, all of these other things, I suggest to the gentleman 
that he look into it a little bit further than just taking on carte 
blanche that everything is aboveboard.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Very briefly.
  Mr. SOLOMON. You know, in other words, we have the rules of the House 
provide for an ethics committee which we are trying to get appointed.
  Mr. VOLKMER. That was done today, done today, done today.
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is an issue for the ethics committee to look into 
it, not for us to waste our time on the floor of this body. We have 
more important issues to take care of.
  Does the gentleman agree?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Now that we have the ethics committee and a formal 
complaint can be filed, I hope it will be done.
  And wait a minute though, we have got another little problem, because 
those of us who see how the ethics committee is structured with the 
same amount of numbers that--and who appointed the ethics committee on 
your side? The speaker.
  Now, are those people going to find against the Speaker?
  Maybe we ought to have an outside counsel, independent outside 
counsel.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The Speaker did not appoint those people.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Pardon?
  Mr. SOLOMON. The Speaker did not appoint anybody.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Yes, but it was done today. It was done today.
  Mr. SOLOMON. But it is the same old Members. He has not added anybody 
to it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Either way, I just say that if we get an independent 
counsel, I will be feeling a heck of a lot better about it all.
  Now, the other thing I want to talk about, and I think it is another 
thing that again comes back to our Speaker, but this has nothing to do 
with ethics, and it has nothing to do with personalities. It has to do 
with a little thing called Social Security and income taxes.
  Now, we all know that the Contract on America and that the Speaker 
says that we are going to exempt Social Security from any cuts; we are 
not going to raise anybody's taxes.
  But then I find that just the other day when I read a newspaper, day 
before yesterday, that there is an article in there about the CPI.

                             {time}   1620

  Now, that is the Consumer Price Index. And that the Speaker, and your 
floor leader, Mr. Armey, especially, says we have got to hold down the 
CPI, we are going to hold it down. We are going to cut it. We need to 
get it down at least 1 or 1 percent. And do you know why, folks? Do you 
know what happens when the CPI goes down and is not at its normal rate? 
Then the people on Social Security do not get the increases that they 
are entitled to by law. Yes. And guess what happens to your income tax, 
because the personal exemption does not go up as much as it should by 
law and your income taxes go up because you do not have as much of a 
deduction?
  And who does it hit the worst? Well, folks, as far as the family-
friendly people, children, families with children, have to pay more 
taxes because you are 
[[Page H459]] getting an exemption for each child. So your taxes, if 
you make $50,000 or $20,000 and you are by yourself, your taxes will 
not go up as much as if you have got a wife and four kids or three kids 
or two kids or 1 kid.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I have five.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Your taxes will go up. That is the same thing I want to 
talk about very briefly: When you all talk about in the rules that you 
are going to make a change, make it three-fifths before you can raise 
taxes. That is what I kept hearing over there on taxes, before we can 
raise income taxes. Well, that is not true, folks; here is an example 
of how you do it. You just change the CPI. It has nothing to do with 
raising income tax rates, that is what you are saying, three-fifths to 
raise income tax rates. And here is the Speaker and here is your floor 
leader saying we change the CPI, reduce Social Security payments to our 
elderly, and we raise income taxes on everybody, and especially those 
with children. The more children you have the more you pay.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Will the gentleman yield so I can discuss it with him?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Surely, in just a moment.
  Now, this is just another way by the back door. Where did this idea 
come from? This idea came from a guy named Greenspan, yes, Chairman 
Greenspan. He is the one giving the idea. It would save about $200 
billion over about 5 years. Now, that is about the amount that you need 
for the tax cuts for the wealthy.
  So we are going to take away Social Security from the recipients, we 
are going to cut them, we are going to make people who make $25,000, 
$30,000, who have got two or three kids, pay more taxes. Then for 
people who make over $200,000, we are going to give them a tax break. 
Hey, folks, no way do I think that is very fair. That does not sound 
like a very good Contract With America to me.
  Now I will read along that line--and I have one more thing to comment 
on. I am reading now from an article in just yesterday's USA today.

       House Republicans are considering a plan to pay for $200 
     billion in tax cuts by taking the biggest amount of cash from 
     programs for the poor and elderly, like Medicare.
       The document being circulated quietly among Republicans--is 
     only one of several options. But it indicates the areas the 
     GOP have targeted to pay for tax cuts promised in the GOP 
     Contract with America:
       $125 billion would come from programs known as 
     entitlements--Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps and 
     student loans.
       $75 billion would come from programs requiring annual 
     appropriations, such as defense, education, housing and 
     transportation.

  So the vast majority is going to come from the elderly, going to come 
from the poor, and who are they going to give it to? The wealthy.
  That is Robin Hood in reverse.
  The gentleman earlier said that he wants to get on with Reaganomics 
II, he wants to get on with Reaganomics. That is old-hand Reaganomics. 
Take from the poor and give to the wealthy.
  Gentleman, ain't no way I am going to agree with you on that one.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. You know what? I think the gentleman is going to agree 
with me, and I thank him for yielding. I am reading from the Contract 
With America now as it deals with senior citizens. The Senior Citizens 
Equity Act will raise the earnings ceiling for recipients of Social 
Security benefits and lower the portion of benefits that they can be 
taxed. That is what the senior citizens I represent want.
  You know, I come from the Adirondack Mountains in upstate New York, 
where, incidentally, unemployment is as high as 15 percent today. That 
is problems, my friend.
  You know, those senior citizens want me to do everything in my power 
to keep inflation down, not to raise it up so they get a little bit 
more in their Social Security check. They want to take the earnings 
that they have and they want to be able to at least survive on them. 
That is what they want.
  Here is what Reaganomics is--let me just finish. It will take 3 
minutes.
  Reaganomics is eliminating 150 programs like the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, privatizing Government agencies like the Federal Aviation 
Administration, consolidating 35 Government functions like the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs, downsizing the Department of Education, which has 
not done anything to increase education in this country; abolishing the 
Department of Energy, with 16,000 employees who have never produced a 
gallon of oil; convert the Department of Commerce down to a bureau, 
eliminate those 36,000 employees, which has not done anything for the 
economy of this Nation, and make them a consulting body for business 
and industry.
  We are going to means test things like Medicare, school lunches, and 
wheat and dairy programs.
  This is Reaganomics, this is what the first part
   of the Reagan administration never could accomplish because we did 
not have the votes. Now we are going to attempt it.

  I will bet you that the gentleman is going to vote for a lot of it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I doubt very much if I vote for some of that, especially 
if I go back to letting the senior citizens work and still draw their 
Social Security. Not a bad idea.
  But I will tell you why, the reason the gentleman from New York and 
the Republicans are proposing it, it is very simple: All you have to do 
is go back and look at what they are proposing to do in the budget, 
because they are going to cut Medicare. Senior citizens are going to 
pay more for their health and hospital bills. Where are they going to 
get the money? They are not going to get it from Social Security, they 
will have to go out and work for it.
  What they are saying is, ``Hey, we are not going to help you anymore 
because we are going to cut you back and you had better go out and work 
for that minimum wage in order to pay for your own health care.'' That 
is what they are saying to you. They are going to make you work in 
order to get--in order to get paid for what you are now getting paid 
for.
  Mr. SOLOMON. But those are only for people with incomes over 
$100,000, that is the only Medicare that we are going to cut.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Not according to this.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Yes, according to that. I have the same thing.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Well, I doubt very much if you are only going to cut 
Medicare expenses for people over $100,000, even though I might agree 
with that----
  Mr. SOLOMON. I thought the gentleman would.
  Mr. VOLKMER. And that would be all if those people would pay their 
full share of Medicare part B. That would be a little better.
  I still do not see cutting the rest from the poor and the elderly, 
especially my students.
  You know, I think one of the best benefits we have had in this 
country over the past few years--the gentleman degrades the Department 
of Education as not having educated anybody. I agree that it is true 
they do not go out and educate people. It is not an educational system. 
but we do have student loans, we have student grants, we have work 
study.
  Now, work study is one of the programs which
   support the most because I think it is the best because it does not 
put anybody into debt like a student loan does. It is different from a 
grant.

  But all three of those programs have enabled many Members, I know, in 
my opinion, and I say there are probably Members of this body right 
here today who have benefited from a student loan, grant, or work study 
program who would not have been able to get the higher education 
elsewhere. I have in my district many people in business, farmers----
  Mr. SOLOMON. Those are good programs.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Everybody, that is a good program. Why do they want to 
cut it?
  Mr. SOLOMON. We do not.
  Mr. VOLKMER. You are talking about Reaganomics now. Reagan's first 
budget and the second budget, way back in 1981-82, zeroed out, zeroed 
it out. Oh, yes, yes, go look at it, go look at it. I well remember it 
because I know what it would have done. What that does, when you cut 
those student loans, you are telling our young people you get a high 
school education--unless you are wealthy, and you are the 
[[Page H460]] only one that does get a higher education--you get a high 
school education, you have got to live with it. You try to make a 
living today with it, you cannot do it. The gentleman from New York 
would agree with that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would agree, yes, because some of those are good 
programs and we would not want to hurt those programs, we would want to 
continue those programs. And that was all we wanted to do in 
Reaganomics, that was to take all those categorical aid programs where 
we here in Washington, big brother government in Washington, was 
micromanaging education and saying to the local school districts back 
home, ``If do you this, we will give you the money.''
  We did away with those. We folded all those categorical grant 
programs into a block grant, gave it to the State of Missouri, and 
said, ``State of Missouri, you will give 80 percent of that money to 
your local school districts, and you, local school districts, will set 
the curriculum because you know what is best for the people in the 
Missouri school districts,'' just like I know best about the schools in 
upstate New York school districts.
                              {time}  1630

  That is Reaganomics. That is what we are going to do now. We do not 
want to bounce those programs, turn it into a block grant, give it to 
the States, or that the State of Missouri--and your Governor, who I 
debated on ``Good Morning America'' the other day, agrees with that. He 
can do it better he says, and I agree with him.
  Mr. VOLKMER. At this time I still say that I guess the proof will be 
in the pudding when we see the budget as proposed by the majority in 
the future. I understand, and perhaps the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] can correct me; is it going to be two budgets, one budget to 
make room for the money so you can do the tax bill, and then another 
budget to do the 5-year budget? Or are you going to try and do it all 
at one time?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I say to the gentleman, ``The main thing is to develop a 
budget that will balance the budget over 7 years. Now, whatever that 
takes. Then, if there are going to be tax cuts in addition, then there 
ought to be additional spending cuts beyond that. It takes $800 billion 
to balance the budget over that 7-year period.''
  Some of us on the balanced-budget task force that I am the chairman 
of introduced a budget last year, you know, back in March, that did 
just that. It balanced the budget. We did not get very many votes for 
it at the time, but we are going to have the same budget available, and 
we hope that the majority will accept that budget, and then, if there 
are going to be tax cuts, make additional spending cuts to go along 
with it to pay for the tax cuts. That is being fiscally responsible.
  Mr. VOLKMER. There will not be any tax cuts without spending cuts; is 
that correct?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Over my dead body will that happen, absolutely.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I mean over your dead body there will be spending cuts?
  Mr. SOLOMON. There will be no tax cuts without any spending cuts to 
go with them.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I say to the gentleman, ``Thank you. We agree on 
something else.''


                          ____________________