[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.

                          ____________________