[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.
  

                          ____________________