Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2-H7]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1230
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RIGHTS OF THE HOUSE COLLECTIVELY

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of
the House, and I offer a resolution pursuant to rule IX.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 328

Whereas clause 1 of rule IX of the Rules of the House of
Representatives states that ``Questions of privilege shall
be, first, those affecting the rights of the House
collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its
proceedings'';
Whereas over 280,000 Federal employees have been barred
from performing the jobs for which they will eventually be
paid;
Whereas more than 480,000 Federal employees are required to
report for work without being paid their full salaries at
regular intervals;
Whereas the public is not receiving the benefits of their
tax dollars; and
Whereas the inability of the House of Representatives to
act on legislation keeping the Government in operation
impairs the dignity and the integrity of the House and the
esteem the public holds for the House; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution the
House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's
table the bill H.R. 1643, with a Senate amendment thereto,
and concurred in the Senate amendment, and that a motion to
reconsider that action shall be considered as laid on the
table.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Gephardt] wish to be heard on whether or not his motion constitutes a
question of privilege?
Mr. GEPHARDT. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, let me explain why this is most certainly
a question of privilege and why this Congress must finally reopen the
Federal Government, with no threats or conditions, while we work to
resolve the budget impasse that we are involved in.
The fact is that while we fight over the Federal budget, millions of
Americans are being held hostage; and while some Republicans have even
suggested that no one has noticed this Government shutdown, I think
that is simply fiscal fantasy, not reality.
Think about the frail, home-bound seniors who will not have their
meals delivered on time, or at all. Think about the elderly who will
not have their Medicare claims processed, and the jobless who will not
receive their unemployment checks.
Right now, crucial cleanups of toxic waste dumps have been stopped,
and the Government's efforts to crack down on workplace abuses and
nursing home atrocities are grinding to a halt. If you ask me, that is
more than wrong; it is an abuse of power. It is an abuse of the
responsibility the American people have placed in this Congress, and in
each of us, when they elected us to serve them, not just to throw
ideological tantrums. Even the Republicans in the other body have
rejected the radicalism of this shutdown.
The extremist approach says, if the President will not agree to a
budget that slashes Medicare to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy, we
are going to make the whole country suffer until we get our way.
This is, by far, the longest and most devastating Government shutdown
in American history. According to news

[[Page H3]]
reports, the House Republicans have adopted this strategy because they
want as a trump card the Government shutdown, that will not be as
powerful as the President's veto pen.
The Constitution never provided for this procedure. The Constitution
merely asks that the Congress provide a budget that the President can
and will sign, and it is now 94 days late in that basic responsibility.
I have studied the Constitution carefully in the last days. I cannot
find a page in the Constitution that says that if one group of people
cannot have their way, they can shut down the whole Government for days
and days and days. The Constitution I have read says that the Congress
has two alternatives if there is a veto. One is to override the veto;
the other is to present a new piece of legislation that the President
will sign or veto.
This Congress under this majority is saying, there is a third choice,
and that choice is to let the Government stay down.
Let us be very clear. This is a choice we are making; this is a clear
choice that we are exercising. And it is a choice to say that we are
not going to override the President's veto, we are not going to present
new legislation, we are simply going to leave the Government down as a
way of leveraging the President.
The integrity of this Congress is in question. Right now every Member
of this House is being prevented from fulfilling our most basic duties
and obligations. That is why I believe this is a matter of privilege
under rule IX of this House, which states very clearly that matters of
privilege are those affecting the House collectively, as well as its
dignity and integrity.
In the words of the Republican leader of the other body, enough is
enough. Good-faith negotiations on the budget have been taking place
for days and are going on today. The damage has been done; the point
has been made.
I urge the House to adopt this resolution and pass the bill that has
already been passed by the other body. It reopens the Government for
the next 2 weeks so that people can be served while we negotiate in
good faith, and I believe it restores some sense of responsibility to
this House, the sense that this is a Government of the people, not a
revolution.
Mr. Speaker, parliamentary privilege exists for exactly this kind of
crisis. It is the very essence of privilege, and I urge the Chair to
rule in its favor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize Members who wish to
discuss the question of privilege before the House.
The Chair has provided a great deal of leniency to the minority
leader in the matter of discussing the question of privilege, out of
deference to the minority leader's status, but the Chair will hold the
discussion henceforth only to those issues that relate to whether or
not this is a question of privilege.
The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the question of
privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this is a question of privilege, and I
take umbrage at the minority leader's use of the time allotted to him
to speak on the question of privilege of the House to give what can
only be characterized as a political speech.
Mr. Speaker, it includes the kind of accuracy that one encounters in
political speeches, and I feel compelled to make the point. We do have
a partial shutdown of the Federal Government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will confine his
remarks to the question before the House, which is whether or not the
resolution constitutes a question of privilege.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the gentleman from Missouri
does not have a resolution that constitutes a question of privilege of
the House, and I urge the Chair to so rule.
Let me just say in so doing that I share the consternation of the
gentleman from Missouri over the President shutting down the
Government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]
wish to be heard on the question of privilege?
Mr. OBEY. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say, it is my understanding that
rule IX of the House allows for privileged resolutions to be considered
by the House when actions have been taken which affect the rights of
the House collectively, its safety, its dignity, and its integrity. It
seems to me that that is certainly the situation at this moment,
because we have a fundamental misuse of taxpayers' money appropriated
by this House.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is a fundamental misuse of
taxpayers' dollars, which are appropriated by this House, when we have
a situation in which workers are being paid----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has now wandered beyond
discussing a question of privilege. The Chair will remind the gentleman
that he has the same obligation as all Members to discuss the matter
before the House, which is whether or not the resolution, as presented
by the minority leader, constitutes a question of privilege under rule
IX.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, that is what I am trying to do. What I was
simply attempting to say is that I think that certainly the dignity of
the House and the integrity of the House are brought into question when
a situation is allowed to continue which, in effect, has taxpayers'
money provided for work that Government employees have not done and
when you have workers required to perform work for which they are not
paid--that is certainly not meeting the standard of dignity and decency
and honor which we have a right to expect in this House.
I think, on those grounds alone, rule IX would dictate that we ought
to be able to proceed with this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder]
wish to be heard on the question of privilege?
Mr. LINDER. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a great debate over the
direction of the country. It is messy. It has always been thus. No one,
however, is questioning the integrity of the people on either side of
this House on this debate. We do not question those on the left and
they should not question us on the right. We are intending to reshape
the Government, and that requires a great debate.
I think the speeches and the positions of individuals on both sides
are dignified. There is no less dignity or more dignity by just stating
opinions as to the question of the safety of the Members of the House.
I see no one here unsafe. I think the Chair should rule against this
question of privilege.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York will state it.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, would it be appropriate to ask for a
unanimous-consent request that each side be allowed to debate this
without the restrictions the Chair is placing on it for, say, 15
minutes each? It is an important issue, and we ought to be debating the
issue itself.
Would that be appropriate, to ask for such a unanimous-consent
request?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is attempting to assure that the
discussion of the resolution before the House is confined to the matter
of the privilege of the House and not to the merits of the argument
underlying the resolution. So the Chair intends to proceed as
historically such debates have been constituted.

request to debate issue of privilege and underlying merits

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that each side be
allowed 15 minutes not only to debate the issue of privilege, but the
underlying merits of the issue as well.
Mr. LINDER. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] wish to be heard on the
question of privilege before the House?
Mr. STENHOLM. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I would address my comments to the words
``dignity'' and ``integrity'' of the proceedings of the House of
Representatives, as stated in rule IX of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives,

[[Page H4]]
as well as the second statement that says, ``those affecting the rights
and the reputation and conduct of Members individually in their
representative capacity only.''
When we had this resolution before you last week, Mr. Speaker, you
ruled against this as a question of privilege, but I am asking you to
take another look at the rules of the House and the questions of
privilege that shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House
collectively, its safety, its dignity, and the integrity of its
proceedings.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the integrity of the proceedings
of the 104th Congress, 1st session just adjourned, and the beginning of
the 2d session, the integrity of the proceedings of the House of
Representatives is being called into question by the procedure in which
we are being asked to follow without allowing a vote of the will of the
majority as to whether or not the issue in question shall be put to the
body of the House of Representatives.

{time} 1245

It seems to me that we have been guilty, in the conduct of our
proceedings, of mixing apples and oranges, of mixing an appropriation
process with a budget process, of which a further reading of the Rules
of the House of Representatives will clearly show that they are two
separate issues and should not be commingled. But it is my argument in
behalf of the minority leader's motion of privilege that a careful
examination of the Rules of the House, the integrity of our proceedings
will be called into question unless you find it to rule in favor of
those who wish to have a simple, up and down vote as to whether or not
the work of the Congress, the work of our Government shall proceed as
we follow the regular order.
No Member of this body is more in favor of balancing the budget. I
would rather do it in the regular order, and it seems to me that having
the continued impasse is not in the best interests of the integrity of
this body. Certainly as an individual Member, I am receiving the calls
from people whose service is being denied because of these actions.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you find in favor of this motion of
privilege. Basically it is to do one thing, to preserve the dignity and
integrity of the House of Representatives in one simple aspect,
allowing a vote. Let us now express ourselves as to the merits of the
issue before us. That is all that we are asking for.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). Are there additional Members
who wish to be heard on the question of privilege?

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the question I have is, Have there been
other occasions when matters that large segments of this body wanted to
vote on have not been allowed to come to the floor of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a precise
parliamentary inquiry relating to the pending question and the Chair
therefore will respond in the regular order.
Does the gentleman from Virginia seek recognition?
Mr. MORAN. I do, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to address the issue
of this motion relating to the integrity of this House.
To do so, I would like to quote initially today's Congressional
Record, specifically the majority leader of the Senate, Senator Dole.
Senator Dole, I quote, says,

Let me just say I read a wire story, there's a split
between the House and the Senate on what ought to happen. I
do not get that feeling at all in talking with the Speaker.
In fact, we just had a 30-minute meeting.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not discussing the matter
before the House which is the question of privilege. The gentleman will
confine his remarks to the matter before the House.
Mr. MORAN. I will attempt to that, Mr. Speaker.
I was reading the introduction of comments that I think are quite
relevant.
The majority leader of the Senate, in offering this motion and
speaking to it prior to its passage in the Senate, which it has now,
this is the very same motion offered by the minority leader.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the gentleman of the
proceedings of the House. He is not to quote matters that have taken
place in the other body unless they relate specifically to the matter
before the House, which is the question of privilege. So the gentleman
will have to confine his remarks to those matters that relate to the
question of privilege before the House.
Mr. MORAN. I will accept the Speaker's interpretation of what I was
saying. Rather than quote the majority leader of the Senate, I will
simply say that his comments, I felt, were relevant, and this is the
very same legislation that is being offered here.
Let me make the second point that I wanted to make with regard to the
integrity of this House.
When this House voted to go on vacation and leave the Government shut
down, I think that went directly to the integrity of this House. Now we
have an opportunity, with legislation immediately before us, to pass
that legislation to get the Government up and running. The other body
has seen fit to do that.
Mr. LINDER. Regular order.
Mr. MORAN. I think it goes directly to the integrity of this House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair is attempting to proceed along the
regular order, but it is difficult if Members engage in discussion that
goes beyond the question of privilege before the House. The gentleman
will confine his remarks to the question of whether or not the
resolution before the House constitutes a question of privilege.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine anything that goes more
directly to the integrity of this House and the issues for which we are
responsible than to act in a constructive way when we understand that
the American public is shout out of its Government and Federal
employees are shut out of their jobs.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Regular order.
Mr. MORAN. We took action to go on vacation when that was the case.
We have an opportunity to rectify it. I think it is consistent with the
integrity of this House to rectify it now.
Mr. THOMAS. Regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will inform the Member that he has
an obligation to discuss those matters that are before the House.
Does any other Member wish to be heard on the question of privilege
before the House?
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the question of
privileges of the House, of this motion.
Mr. Speaker, this motion calls upon the House to exercise its duty
under the Constitution of the United States, which provides in relevant
part that the Congress shall make appropriation for the functioning of
Government. It says specifically no money shall be withdrawn from the
Treasury except upon appropriation of the Congress.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the President authorized to make an
appropriation--I am not trying to assess blame for where we are. We are
talking about how to get out--the question is, how do we resolve the
impasse? The impasse must be resolved by the Congress performing its
duty under the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. LINDER. Regular order.
Mr. THORNTON. If performance of our duties under the Constitution is
not a question of privilege, I would like to ask whether the Contract
With America overrides the Constitution?
Mr. HAYWORTH. Regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is listening to the gentleman. His
remarks at this point have in fact been to the matter before the House.
Mr. THORNTON. I thank the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is very important, because having placed the
responsibility for appropriations for the operation of government upon
the Congress and upon no other element of government, a failure to act
becomes an abuse of power, and a failure to act by refusing to allow a
vote upon a measure which has passed the other body is an abuse of
power. This is clearly a question of privilege under the Constitution
of the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Are there other Members who wish to be heard
on the matter before the House?

[[Page H5]]

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, yes, I would like to speak in favor of the
resolution by the minority leader, and I would like to point out that
the gentleman from Arkansas came very close to the words that I am
about to speak but did not quite get there.
That is, under our Constitution, as he correctly points out, only
this House can originate appropriations bills. It is only through those
appropriation bills that this Government and all its agencies and
employees operate. Without those appropriation bills, there is no
Government that can function at all.
If that comes about, I say that does affect the dignity and integrity
of this House, the integrity of this House by nonaction altogether.
Now, if by nonacting, and if this Congress, this body, this year
would fail to even originate one appropriation bill, the President
cannot spend a penny, the other body cannot spend a penny. Only this
House can originate those bills.
And the failure to originate the bills is not a violation of rule IX
and the dignity of this House and the integrity of this House, Mr.
Speaker, I wish you to think very carefully about this, that surely
would affect the dignity and integrity of this House by failure to
follow the Constitution of the United States.
No. 2, if that is a violation of rule IX, then the failure to do a
part thereof would also be a failure, and therefore would affect the
dignity and integrity of this body and a violation of the rules.
Therefore, there is no question in my mind that if this House fails
to act on all appropriation bills or fails to act on one or two, it
still affects the dignity. You say, well, we have a procedure we can
follow through a discharge. If you do not have a majority, Mr. Speaker,
you cannot discharge anything.
Therefore, through the actions of the majority, the Government could
be shut down altogether, all avenues of Government. There has to be a
methodology for the rest of the House to be able to follow to keep the
Government functioning.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, is it within the regular order of the House
and the correct prescription under the Constitution that this House can
override the President's vetoes and put everybody back to work this
afternoon?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's parliamentary inquiry has to
be directed to the specific question pending before the House.
Therefore, it does not constitute an appropriate parliamentary inquiry
at this point.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of privilege, I think
it is important to point out that rule IX refers to questions of
privilege that affect the dignity and integrity of the House.
We are a Government of the people. We have been back in our
districts. Does anyone here think that the procedures that we have been
using, that the people of our district do not believe that the dignity
and integrity of this House is in question?
I urge the Speaker to rule in favor of this matter being a matter of
privilege so that we can uphold the great dignity of this House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Are there additional Members who wish to be heard?
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and
specifically address the issue of the integrity of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this resolution is appropriate because by our
inaction, we have compelled the services of certain Federal employees,
specifically those being the essential Federal employees performing
such services as prison guards, security, and the like, compelled their
services without compensation. It is unclear to me what definition of
integrity the Chair is utilizing, but I would say that under most
generally accepted definitions of integrity, compelling services from
employees without compensation when it is within our power to provide
them with compensation is in fact a question of the integrity of the
House.
On that basis, I believe that this resolution, which addresses the
integrity of the House by requiring us to take action to provide
compensation to those employees and others, but specifically to those
who are in fact working but are not being paid, does in fact raise a
legitimate question of the integrity of the House, and ask the Chair to
rule favorably on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to
be heard on the question of privilege?
Mr. DINGELL. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The resolution says questions of privilege shall be first those
affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity,
and the integrity of its proceedings.
That quotes from the rules.
Mr. Speaker, as you stand there, I would call to your attention that
one of the most important functions of this institution is to manage,
to expend, under the power of the purse. We have the duty of collect
taxes, we have the duty to expend moneys by authorization and by
appropriations. None of that has until this time been properly carried
out.
Certainly the questions of the integrity of this body and the
integrity of the proceedings, the dignity of this body, are severely
impaired by our failure to provide for the proper running of the
Government of the United States. That is a failure of this institution.
That is a failure because we have not been able to address the
questions of the budget in a proper fashion.
I would call to the attention of the Chair our failure to carry out
our duty, our failure to carry out our responsibilities of
appropriating funds, of authorizing expenditures, or of implementing
the budget as required by the Budget Act, clearly affect the
privileges, the prerogatives, the dignity, and the integrity of this
institution. Certainly the respect in which the public holds this body
has fallen to something approaching one of the lowest points that I
have ever seen in my career.
Clearly, without taking the action here of bringing this matter to a
vote and, clearly, without having taken the steps necessary to permit
this body to commence addressing the single largest problem that
confronts this country today, and that is the orderly running of its
Government, the funding of its public affairs, and retaining the
respect of its people, we are not carrying out our duties.
It is very plain to me, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the
privileges of the House is entwined with this so intimately that the
questions of the privileges of the House and the functioning of this
body cannot be separated one from another.
I urge a proper ruling on this matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The Chair is prepared to rule.
Are there additional Members who wish to be recognized?
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the point of personal
privilege of the leader on our side. What is happening here is this is
the body of the people. Everyone on this side of the aisle and I would
imagine many on the other side of the aisle have been told by the
people they went home and spoke to, it is time now to get on with the
business of the Government. I join the gentleman's request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will confine her remarks to
that matter before the House, which is the question of privilege.
Are there additional Members who wish to be heard on the question of
privilege as offered by the minority leader?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the question of
privilege.
Rule IX is designed to allow us to bring to the floor motions which
in fact do affect the integrity of the body, of Members of the body. At
this very moment, there are Members of this body holding a press
conference regarding whether we as Members of Congress should continue
to receive our pay.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will confine his remarks to
the matter before the House which is, does the resolution before the
House and the wording of that resolution constitute a question of
privilege.
Mr. ORTON. Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, I believe that I am addressing
that, because I have just in the last few minutes had my integrity
questioned as an

[[Page H6]]
individual Member of this body by members of the press with regard to
whether I would continue to accept pay while other workers are not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentleman, he has
an obligation to discuss the resolution which is before the House and
not a question of privilege that might exist in another forum. This is
not now a forum for a question of personal privilege.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, rule IX has to do with the integrity of the
body collectively and individually. And the integrity of this body is
in fact----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentleman that he
has an obligation not to discuss all of rule IX but to discuss the
matter before the House, whether or not it constitutes a question of
privilege of the House under rule IX.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am attempting to do.
If my integrity individually has been questioned with regard to funding
of the Government, then that is a matter of privilege individually and
collectively.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentleman that he
might in fact draft a question of personal privilege that he could
bring to the House, but the matter before the House at the present time
is the specific wording offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Gephardt].
The Chair is prepared to rule. Are there additional Members who wish
to be heard on the question of privilege?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, to address the issue of
privilege, I do believe that under rule IX this does rise to the
occasion of privilege, the resolution offered by the minority leader.
It does so because clearly the collective integrity of this House and
the dignity of this House is being called into question, is being
called into question in every commentary throughout the country about
the closedown of the Government.
The dignity and the integrity of this House is being called into
question by our individual constituents, by the interviews on every
nightly news program in every one of our districts. That goes to the
collective integrity and to the collective dignity.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman should confine his remarks to
those matters that are before the House and the question of privilege
that was offered by the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the reason this goes to that
privilege is because in fact when the will of the people is thwarted,
the integrity of the House, the dignity of this House is called into
question. The only way that that can currently be remedied is through
this motion that rises to privilege. That dignity and that integrity is
called into question when the popular will is thwarted, and we see it
very often, when Members know that the votes exist to do something and
yet the matter cannot be brought to the floor.
That is why a motion of privilege is laid before the Chair because
there is no other way. That goes exactly to the heart of the privilege.
The privilege in this case that the minority leader is asserting is the
privilege to bring a matter to the floor by which now there is no other
way to get that matter to the floor. That is because the power of the
Chair, the power of the Chair and the rules----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is the reason why the Chair is prepared
to rule.
Mr. MILLER of California. I am giving the Chair a reason to rule for
privilege, because the power of the Chair is the power of recognition,
and the Chair is now willing to recognize any Member for this purpose.
Therefore, the minority leader must bring a matter before the House
under the rules of privilege. We know that there are 198 votes to open
up the Government on this side. So if we can find 20 votes on that
side, the people's will can be carried out.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is attempting to maintain order
and would remind the majority side that it is the duty of the Chair to
maintain order and would ask the cooperation of the Members in so
doing. He would also ask the cooperation of the minority in discussing
this matter to constrain their remarks to those matters that are before
the House.
The gentleman from California has wandered away from that particular
admonition, and the Chair would ask him to please constrain his remarks
that address the question of privilege.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, in
closing, that the reason the integrity is called into question and the
dignity of the House is called into question and the reason this motion
should be granted privilege is that the popular will of the people and
the belief of the people is that this body is not carrying out that
will, and yet they believe the votes exist. The only way we can find
that out is for the Chair to rule this is a matter of privilege and let
the votes commence and we can open up the Government this afternoon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair is constrained, first, to determine whether the resolution
qualifies under rule IX.
Questions of the privileges of the House must meet the standards of
rule IX even when they invoke provisions of the Constitution. Those
standards address privileges of the House, as a House, not those of the
Congress, as a legislative branch. The question whether a Member may
broach the privileges of the House simply by invoking one of the
legislative powers enumerated in section 8 of article I of the
Constitution--or the general legislative ``power of the purse'' in the
seventh original clause of section 9 of that article--has consistently
been answered in the negative. The ordinary rights and functions of the
House under the Constitution are exercised in accordance with the rules
of the House, without necessarily being accorded precedence as
questions of the privileges of the House.
The Chair will follow the ruling of Speaker Gillett on May 6, 1921,
as recorded in volume 6 of Cannon's precedents, section 48:

It seems to the Chair that where the Constitution ordered
the House to do a thing, the Constitution still gives the
House the right to make its own rules and do it at such time
and in such manner as it may choose. And it is a strained
construction, it seems to the Chair, to say that because the
Constitution gives a mandate that a thing shall be done, it
therefore follows that any Member can insist that it shall be
brought up at some particular time and in the particular way
which he chooses. If there is a constitutional mandate, the
House ought by its rules to provide for the proper
enforcement of that mandate, but it is still a question for
the House how and when and under what procedure it shall be
done. . . .

Applying that precedent of May 6, 1921, which is recorded in Cannon's
Precedents at volume 6, section 48, and the similar precedents of
February 7 and December 22, 1995, the Chair holds that the resolution
offered by the gentleman from Missouri does not affect ``the rights of
the House collectively, its safety, dignity, [or] the integrity of its
proceedings'' within the meaning of clause 1 of rule IX. Although it
may address an aspect of legislative power under the Constitution, it
does not involve a constitutional privilege of the House. Rather, the
resolution constitutes an attempt to impose a special order of business
on the House by providing that the Senate amendment to H.R. 1643 be
deemed adopted.
The resolution does not constitute a question of privilege.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

motion to table offered by mr. armey

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Armey moves to table the appeal of the ruling of the
Chair.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] 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. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 206,
nays 167, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 59, as follows:

[[Page H7]]

[Roll No. 2]

YEAS--206

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
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--167

Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Cardin
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Wolf

NOT VOTING--59

Abercrombie
Berman
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Buyer
Callahan
Chabot
Chapman
Clay
Collins (IL)
Cubin
DeFazio
Dixon
Dornan
Durbin
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Foglietta
Gallegly
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Hayes
Hoke
Hutchinson
Johnson (CT)
Johnston
LaTourette
Lightfoot
Maloney
McCollum
McIntosh
Meek
Mfume
Mink
Norwood
Owens
Pastor
Pelosi
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Roukema
Sanders
Sawyer
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Souder
Stark
Stockman
Studds
Tanner
Torricelli
Towns
Visclosky
Wilson
Wyden
Young (AK)

{time} 1329

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Mr. Hoke for, with Mr. DeFazio against.
Mr. McIntosh for, with Mr. Pastor against.

Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
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.

____________________