[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4380-H4383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RESOLUTION PRESERVING THE CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ORIGINATE REVENUE MEASURES
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege under
rule IX of the House rules and I offer a House Resolution No. 131.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 131
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 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;
Whereas section 7 of Article I of the Constitution requires
that revenue measures originate in the House of
Representatives; and
Whereas the conference report on the bill H.R. 831
contained a targeted tax benefit which was not contained in
the bill as passed the House of Representatives and which was
not contained in the amendment of the Senate: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Comptroller General of the United States
shall prepare and transmit, within 7 days after the date of
the adoption of this resolution, a report to the House of
Representatives containing the opinion of the Comptroller
General on whether the addition of a targeted tax benefit by
the conferees to the conference report on the bill H.R. 831
(A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
permanently extend the
[[Page H4381]] deduction for the health insurance costs of
self-employed individuals, to repeal the provision permitting
nonrecognition of gain on sales and exchanges effectuating
policies of the Federal Communications Commission, and for
other purposes) violates the requirement of the United States
Constitution that all revenue measures originate in the House
of Representatives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Deutsch] wish to be heard on whether the question is one of privilege?
Mr. DEUTSCH. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. DEUTSCH. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, article I, section 7 of the Constitution specifically
states that revenue measures must originate in this Chamber, in the
House of Representatives. It is an infringement of the House
prerogatives when that is not done, and in fact this House has
consistently ruled that as a question of privilege when that occurs. It
consistently occurs when the other body does a revenue provision.
What occurred in this case, as most Members at this point are well
aware, is that this revenue measure which did originate in the House,
then went to the other body, went to a conference committee.
A provision was put in in the conference committee which clearly did
not originate in the House, which provided for a direct benefit of $63
million to Mr. Rupert Murdoch. And then at that point the Constitution
of the United States and the prerogatives of this House were violated
because that provision did not originate in this Chamber.
The House has consistently held that that type of instance is a
violation of our prerogatives.
Furthermore, the Chair has consistently ruled that on issues of this
nature the House has the right, and the appropriate action is for the
House to decide itself what is a prerogative and what is a violation in
terms of the privileges of the House.
Mr. Speaker, if I might, if I may yield to at least one or two other
Members.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There will be order in the House. Does any
other individual Member wish to be heard on the question of privilege?
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the California (Ms.
Waters).
Ms. WATERS. I thank the chair.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the argument that basically
concludes that indeed the tax measure giving the tax benefit to Mr.
Rupert Murdoch did not originate in this House. It is no question. One
may raise a question about the kind of debate that we attempted to have
yesterday where we were denied the opportunity to really explain what
had taken place on this. And I think that having heard Mr. Deutsch's
explanation today, no one in this House can disagree that indeed the
measure did originate on the other body's side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman shall suspend.
The House will be in order. The gentlewoman deserves the courtesy of
being heard. The House will be in order.
The gentlewoman may proceed.
Does the gentleman from Mississippi wish to be heard on the question
of privilege?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House with
regard to questions of privilege very clearly state that whenever
something that questions the integrity of the proceedings of this body
is called into question, then it is the privilege of any Member of this
body to try to resolve that issue.
And, of course, the entire reason for the motion was to expedite a
ruling on something that could well result in a mammoth tax decrease
for one individual, something that many Members of this body think
brings the integrity of this body into question.
When we are granting tax relief to someone who apparently has had
very lucrative book deals with the heads of state of many countries,
who offered a lucrative book deal--though rejected--to the Speaker of
the House and then just within 91 days of that offer gets an enormous
tax break, I think is prima facie evidence that would bring the
integrity of the proceedings of this House into question.
Therefore, I speak on behalf and in defense of the gentleman's motion
that this be a privileged resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward]
wish to be heard on this question of privilege?
Mr. WARD. I do, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, I wish to speak in favor of the gentleman's privileged motion.
I would ask the Speaker, and I would make the point that this seems
to be just business as usual. This seems to be the way that it was not
supposed to be done when the changes in the election were held in 1994.
The people said they did not want things done as they had been done,
and my question speaks to that.
Mr. WALKER. Regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker----
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair rules that the resolution does not constitute a question of
privilege under rule IX.
The resolution offered by the gentleman from Florida collaterally
questions actions taken by a committee of conference on a House-
originated revenue bill by challenging the inclusion in the conference
report of additional revenue matter not contained in either the House
bill nor the Senate amendment committed to conference. The resolution
calls for a report by the Comptroller General on the propriety under
section 7 of article I of the Constitution of those proceedings and
conference actions on a bill that has already moved through the
legislative process.
In the opinion of the Chair, such a resolution does not raise a
question of the privileges of the House. As recorded in Deschler's
Precedents, volume 3, chapter 13, section 14.2, a question of privilege
under section 7 of article I of the Constitution may be raised only
when the House is ``in possession of the papers.'' In other words, any
allegation of infringement on the prerogatives of the House to
originate a revenue measure must be made contemporaneous with the
consideration of the measure by the House and may not be raised after
the fact.
The Chair rules that the resolution does not constitute a question of
the privileges of the House.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, do I understand the ruling then that the
objection about the interference with the prerogatives of the House has
to be made contemporaneously with the action complained of? Is that the
ruling of the Chair?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When the House is in possession of the
papers, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. DOGGETT. Well, in this case, of course, no one in the House was
informed that this special deal had been put in for Mr. Murdoch. So how
could that right have been exercised?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has ruled.
Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] wish to be
recognized?
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully appeal the ruling of the
Chair.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state it.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, do the rules provide for a 3-day notice on a
conference report?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That question is not relevant here. All
points of order were waived before the conference report was
considered, and were debatable at that time.
Ms. WATERS. The question is raised, Mr. Speaker, because if there was
a waiver, then I wonder how does that impact the ruling of the Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The issue brought up by the gentlewoman from
California is not relevant at this point.
[[Page H4382]] The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Deutsch].
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully appeal the ruling of the
Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has appealed the
ruling of the Chair. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I believe I am recognized for an hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
motion to table offered by mr. walker
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Walker moves to lay the appeal on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from the State of Mississippi
[Mr. Taylor] is recognized.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, since the rules of the House
clearly state that when the question of the integrity of the
proceedings of this House have been violated, that is indeed a
privileged resolution. Now, I realize that the Chair responded to the
written request of my colleague, but I have also asked the Chair to
respond to whether or not it is prima facie evidence that a question
relating to the integrity of the proceedings of this body are called
into question when one individual who earlier this session offered the
Speaker of the House an over $4 million book deal which the Speaker
turned down, but he still offered it and with--that is a parliamentary
inquiry. I have just as much right as the Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Regular order. This is a parliamentary
inquiry. The gentleman will suspend. The Chair has ruled previously on
all points on this issue as textually raised by the resolution. We now
have the motion before the House.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor]
may state a legitimate parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I do not think the Chair responded----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi shall
suspend. The gentleman from Mississippi may state a legitimate
parliamentary inquiry.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I do not feel like the Chair
has responded to my question of whether or not they felt like----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order. The gentleman
has a right to be heard.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. A question of the integrity of the
proceedings of this House has been brought into play.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The Chair has
ruled that the resolution as read does not constitute a question of
privilege. The Chair has ruled.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening when there was an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair; then there was from the other side of the
aisle a request to table. Following that, there were questions raised
on this side of the aisle about why is it so difficult to get a vote on
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair?
Now, I recognize that the majority has the right to lay it on the
table. But if every time there is an appeal of the Chair, a motion is
laid on the table and defeated because of the numerical advantage the
majority has, it denies not just this side but the entire House an
opportunity to vote on the ruling of the Chair. It is a legitimate
appeal.
{time} 1615
The gentleman has legitimately appealed it and ought to, at least at
some point in time, have a vote, so I would say to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that, while we will vote on
the motion to table the appeal, that there may in fact be another
motion to appeal the Chair, and another one after that, and, if that is
what it is going to take to get one vote on the appeal of the Chair,
then this side is prepared to do that. I would rather not do it. They
will win in either case, but this side is just asking for a clean vote
on the appeal of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). It is the Chair's ruling that
the motion that is currently pending is, in fact, a proper motion under
the rules of the House.
Mr. MFUME. I do not dispute that, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question before the House is the motion
to table.
Are there further parliamentary inquiries?
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] to lay on the table the appeal of the ruling
of the Chair.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 192, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 300]
YEAS--230
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
[[Page H4383]] NAYS--192
Abercrombie
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--12
Ackerman
Chapman
Dickey
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frost
Hayes
Kaptur
Pelosi
Reynolds
Schiff
Tucker
{time} 1635
Mr. GEJDENSON and Mr. DINGELL changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. BAUCUS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the
Chair was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________