[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 10 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H858-H860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         BRING THE MORGANS HOME

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by seconding and commending my 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] for moving this 
legislation.
  I want to bring the House up to speed on where we are on this so when 
this issue comes up, we can pass it very, very quickly.
  Back in 1989, Dr. Morgan was in jail for 2 years. We passed the 
legislation, that passed this House overwhelmingly, to have her 
released from jail. She and her daughter then went to New Zealand, and 
they are there wanting very desperately to return home.
  Why is it important that we allow this to take place? Dr. Morgan has 
had a very serious life-threatening operation in New Zealand and will 
need two additional operations.
  Second, Dr. Morgan's mother, who is 81 years old, who is in New 
Zealand taking care of both Dr. Morgan and the daughter, Ellen, is 
elderly; and the concern is, what if something were to happen to her, 
and with Dr. Morgan ill, what would happen with regard to Ellen?
  Third, Dr. Morgan's father, who is in his 80's, is in a hospital now 
and not very well, and we do not know what is going to happen with 
regard to that.
  Last, Dr. Morgan's husband, who lives in the Washington, DC area, can 
only visit her twice a year; and it is very difficult to commute to New 
Zealand, cost-wise and time-wise, so he visits her twice a year.
  Since this Congress has acted in the past on this issue, what we are 
going to be asking, through the leadership of Congressman Davis, is 
that we bring this bill up early and get it out so that Dr. Morgan and 
her daughter, Ellen, can return to the United States without fear of 
Judge Dixon, without fear of incarceration.
  It is the humanitarian thing to do; it is the right thing. All you 
have to think of is, if you have a daughter in this case, what would 
you do? It reminds me of the story years ago about a man without a 
country. These are people, frankly, without a country, that cannot get 
back into their own country.
  I would like to also submit for the Record, if I may, a copy of the 
letter from Dr. Morgan's husband, detailing the medical condition and 
the circumstances surrounding Dr. Morgan.
  I have pledged to the family that I am going to work with Congressman 
Davis, and we will put this bill on any bill that moves, any 
appropriations bill; and if we get to the end of the year and it has 
not passed, then as chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, 
Committee on Appropriations, I will put this bill in the transportation 
appropriations bill so that it will be passed and be signed.
  Our goal is that Dr. Morgan and her daughter, Ellen and her mom will 
be allowed to return to the United States early this year, hopefully 
before the springtime is over.
  So in closing, when Members have the opportunity to vote on this, we 
would hope for unanimous consent and complete support, and I want to 
commend my colleague, Mr. Davis, for taking the leadership to allow Dr. 
Morgan and Ellen Morgan and Mr. Morgan's mom to return to the United 
States.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important for the House to know that Dr. Morgan 
and her daughter are, frankly, gagged right now from even communicating 
with Members of Congress or lawyers in the United States because a New 
England gag order has come as a result of legal efforts by her former 
husband to do that, and that has made this more difficult. So we are 
communicating through friends as we approach this, but our efforts to 
speak directly have now been thwarted, too, which I think adds to the 
urgency of moving this legislation through at this time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is right. 
Many times all we hear about on both sides are economic issues. We have 
passion for them. We should also have passion and compassion for people 
who are in a situation like this, and through the Davis bill, this 
family will be able to be reunited and come back to the United States, 
hopefully before, it would be nice, before the end of springtime.
  A copy of the letter mentioned earlier follows:

                                             U.S. Court of Appeals


                                      for the Federal Circuit,

                                                 January 23, 1996.
     Hon. Tom Davis,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressmen Davis and Wolf: As you requested, I 
     provide the following update concerning my step-daughter, 
     Ellen Morgan, 

[[Page H859]]
     and my wife, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, based on my visit with them in New 
     Zealand from December 21 to January 18.
       Ellen talked of feeling rejected from still being in exile, 
     as she has been since 1987; because of the inaction so far on 
     the bill to allow her safe return, she fears abandonment. The 
     high point of her life, she said, was having Congressman 
     Davis read her letter into the record at the hearing on 
     August 4, 1995. She said this was the first time anyone in 
     authority ever listened to her. After the hearing, however, 
     Ellen suffered dashed hopes as control of her future seemed 
     to slide back to the hands of Judge Dixon after Ellen's 
     father moved to modify Judge Dixon's orders.
       As you may know, contrary to his promise to the 
     subcommittee, in his motion to Judge Dixon Dr. Foretich did 
     not withdraw his requests for custody and visitation, but 
     asked Judge Dixon to remove custody from Dr. Morgan and to 
     order visitation. To my knowledge, after holding a hearing in 
     December, Judge Dixon has not ruled on Dr. Foretich's motion. 
     Nor has he ever ruled on Dr. Morgan's motions of 1987 and 
     1988, for example to reconsider his visitation orders and 
     admit the evidence of the abuse of Ellen's half-sister.
       With respect to Dr. Morgan, I am sorry to report that she 
     has suffered a health calamity. After months of increasing 
     frustration, including watching Ellen's demoralization, 
     Elizabeth developed serious ulceration throughout her large 
     intestines. In early January, following our move to Auckland, 
     Dr. Morgan collapsed, was hospitalized and underwent major 
     surgery. Her entire colon was removed (colectomy) and she 
     also had an ileostomy, as a result of which she now has to 
     wear a bag. Fortunately, she is now home and, so far, 
     convalescing well. Nevertheless, she faces two more 
     operations, attempting to repair her digestive system. She 
     must also regain the weight and energy she lost during the 
     month she was unable to eat or drink, and from the surgery 
     itself.
       It is no exaggeration to say that she could have died prior 
     to the operation because of what her doctors described as 
     ``toxic mega colon.'' Although lab tests results are still 
     awaited, the New Zealand doctors assure me that they believe 
     grave danger has passed. In turn, I believe that she received 
     good care in Auckland Hospital even though a week passed 
     between her emerging admission and her emergency surgery. 
     While I have confidence in her New Zealand doctors, I remain 
     concerned because, in my view, nowhere in the world can one 
     receive the quality of medical care for serious conditions 
     that is available here in the United States.
       Another factor which I believe contributed to Ellen's 
     discouragement and Elizabeth's health crisis was Dr. 
     Foretich's escalating efforts throughout 1995 to gag Ellen. I 
     am informed that he now asks the New Zealand Court to 
     prohibit Ellen from talking with any Member of Congress, 
     staffer, private lawyer, or journalist without his prior 
     review, a court hearing on his objections and the Court's 
     agreement. It is my understanding from Dr. Morgan's New 
     Zealand lawyer that pending decision, Ellen is prohibited 
     from discussing anything about her past with such officials 
     and persons. Therefore, in contrast to last year when, at his 
     request, she wrote freely to Congressman Davis and spoke to 
     him on the phone, today she may be barred from doing so. From 
     Ellen's discussions with me, I know how upset she feels over 
     the present success of her father in silencing her while he 
     continues to talk publicly. It aggravates her growing 
     frustration with her father's success so long keeping her 
     away from home, family and country.
       Although the New Zealand Court has fully protected Ellen 
     from contact with Dr. Foretich and has thus protected her 
     physically, her emotional well-being has not been as 
     successfully assured. For example, in the New Zealand Court, 
     since January 1995, Dr. Foretich has blocked Ellen from being 
     deposed in a lawsuit he himself brought against ABC 
     Television for the documentary movie about Ellen and 
     Elizabeth. This has enraged Ellen since she wishes to be 
     heard in this sealed deposition about what happened to her 
     and to contradict Dr. Foretich's own deposition denying 
     everything. Indeed, the court-appointed psychiatrist in New 
     Zealand, I understand, has opined that since Ellen herself 
     wants to testify, such an opportunity to be heard may further 
     heal Ellen from the trauma of her earlier years.
       My report would not be complete without briefly mentioning 
     Ellen's grandparents, Dr. William J. and Antonia Morgan, who 
     hid and thus protected her from 1987 when the Washington 
     Family Court refused protection until 1990 when the New 
     Zealand Family Court gave protection. Bill is seriously ill 
     in Suburban Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland, suffering from 
     congestive heart failure and kidney failure. Only last week 
     Ellen told me how horrified she feels that if her grandfather 
     were to die, she would be prevented from attending his 
     funeral. She is upset enough about missing the May, 1996 
     wedding of her step-sister, Margaret Michel, but expressed 
     herself as finding the possibility of missing a family 
     funeral intolerable. Antonia, now 81 and frail, remains in 
     New Zealand helping my wife and Ellen to have as normal a 
     family life as the courts have allowed. Understandably, 
     however, Antonia finds it anguishing that in her twilight 
     years family reunification for her as for everyone else seems 
     forever deferred and delayed. Her other children and 
     grandchildren and husband, of course, are here.
       Contrary to what some people may assume, the difficulties 
     of life in exile for all three of the women in my New Zealand 
     family grow, now diminish, while each passing year. The 
     recent setbacks of the gagging of Ellen and her resulting 
     despondency and the ulcerative colitis that nearly killed 
     Elizabeth only exacerbate those difficulties. In addition, 
     Ellen's teenage years are not helped by being deprived of 
     family life with her step-father. As it is, she sees me only 
     two months each year. My long-suffering family thus suffers 
     still--and, in the ways described above, even worse.
       I cannot express how grateful I am that, in the midst of 
     the issues you and your colleagues face, you two Congressmen 
     have not forgotten the plight of a mother and daughter left 
     in legal limbo and thus trapped in endless exile.
           Sincerely,
     Paul R. Michel.
                                                                    ____


            In Child Custody--New Law Limits Civil Contempt

       On September 23, President Bush signed my legislation 
     limiting the amount of time an individual can be imprisoned 
     for civil contempt of court in a District of Columbia child 
     custody case. The limits imposed by this new law brought 
     about the release of Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, a local surgeon 
     who had spend more than two years in jail for refusing to 
     disclose the whereabouts of her daughter.
       The case of Elizabeth Morgan has drawn national attention 
     and some recent commentaries on the new law have obscured 
     many of the important issues concerning my legislation. I 
     believe it is important to explain the background and the 
     effect of the new law.
       Every American understands that all individuals who face 
     significant punishment deserve to have their case heard by a 
     jury of their peers. That is fundamental to our system of 
     justice.
       Yet in most jurisdictions no such right exists for 
     individuals imprisoned for civil contempt of court. Such was 
     the situation of Dr. Elizabeth Morgan. She was incarcerated 
     for over two years and had never been accused or convicted of 
     any crime and her case had never been heard by a jury.
       My legislation, now public law 101-97, addressed this 
     fundamental flaw in the D.C. legal system without taking 
     sides in any specific dispute before the court.
       Imprisonment for contempt of court is designed to coerce an 
     individual to comply with a court order. Over time, however, 
     if compliance does not occur, it becomes likely that further 
     incarceration will not produce the desired result. In that 
     situation, coercion has become punishment.
       My legislation closed a loophole in District of Columbia 
     law that allowed an individual to be imprisoned indefinitely 
     for civil contempt of court in a child custody case.
       With the new law in effect, no individual imprisoned for 
     civil contempt of court in a D.C. child custody case can 
     spend more than one year in jail unless they are charged with 
     criminal contempt or court and given a jury trial to 
     determine their guilt or innocence.
       The legislation, written with input from the academic and 
     legal communities, took great care to protect the ability of 
     the court to enforce its rulings. While the jury trial 
     provision in my legislation protects the individual from 
     indefinite incarceration, it also protects the power of the 
     court by creating a means by which the court can pursue 
     additional coercive measures. Individuals cannot simply 
     ``wait out'' the year-long period and expect to walk away 
     from their obligation to obey the court. Under public law 
     101-97, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan technically could still be 
     charged with criminal contempt of court and be brought before 
     a jury.
       My legislation was modeled after laws currently on the 
     books in California and Wisconsin that limit to six and 12 
     months respectively the amount of time an individual can be 
     imprisoned for civil contempt of court. Neither of those 
     states have the jury trial provision included in my 
     legislation.
       Furthermore, an additional precedent for my legislation can 
     be found in federal law which prohibits a recalcitrant grand 
     jury witness from being imprisoned for more than 18 months.
       I have written to the governors of the 48 remaining states 
     asking them to consider using the new D.C. law as a model for 
     enacting reforms in their own states.
       Some individuals have characterized the congressional 
     action as an inappropriate interference into the affairs of 
     the District of Columbia. It should be known that under the 
     1974 Home Rule Act, the United States Congress is the only 
     legislative body with jurisdiction over the District of 
     Columbia courts. Not even the D.C. City Council was capable 
     of changing the D.C. civil contempt statute. D.C. Congressman 
     Walter Fauntroy was an original cosponsor of my legislation, 
     and City Councilman James Nathanson testified in favor of a 
     congressional remedy similar to the one that was eventually 
     enacted. House District of Columbia Committee chairman Ronald 
     Dellums of California was also instrumental in guiding the 
     legislation through Congress.
       I believe that my legislation meets the most important test 
     of all--common sense. Everyone would want a jury trial, for 
     themselves or a loved one, if they were threatened with 
     prolonged imprisonment. We must continue to work for the day 
     when all Americans, even those imprisoned for civil contempt 
     of court, will enjoy this most basic protection.
     
[[Page H860]]


                         LET THE BULLIES BEWARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would take this opportunity 
during a special order break in the legislative business of the House, 
because we will have an important vote here at some point today to 
continue the Government, since tomorrow is the shutdown date, to 
discuss the abuse of the word ``bully'' in the press over the last few 
months, an absolute bass-ackwards concept of what bullying is.
  When President Lyndon Baines Johnson used the IRS and the FBI to 
intimidate people, it was considered bullying in the extreme and you 
would even occasionally see, in conservative and liberal circles, the 
use of the word ``fascism,'' as in police state tactics. When President 
Nixon corrupted the Central Intelligence Agency, a body formed to 
gather intelligence only outside the boundaries of the 50 United States 
and its territories, you saw much comment using the word ``fascism.''
  But when the current occupants of the White House corrupt the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation as a way to intimidate and attempt to destroy 
the lives of the seven people in the travel office, to procure 
government contracts for Hollywood cronies and/or second cousins who 
are just 23 years old to run an office that had a bipartisan and press 
approval rating through 4 or 5 or 6 Presidents, that is bullying in the 
extreme.
  That is bullying, and Billy Dale, the senior member of the travel 
office, who got a standing ovation last night at the largest political 
fundraiser in the history of the free world--I had never been in the 
D.C. armory, did not have time to put on a tuxedo, was the only 1 of 9 
Presidential candidates who showed up, which was bizarre in the 
extreme, and still it raised over $16 million, I got extremely strong, 
pleasant applause, I can take that--but the two standing ovations were 
for a dignified retired Army general of Jamaican heritage, Colin 
Powell, and another standing ovation for Billy Dale of the heretofore-
mentioned travel office.
  This man is a courageous man. Unfortunately for the other side, he 
has a big, handsome, open face; it reminds me of the great Irish-
American actor, Pat O'Brien, a star of the 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's, 
and Billy Dale has asked the people in the White House, including my 
pal Bill Bennett's brother, Bob--``Bill, control your brother, Bob,'' 
is what I would say, Mr. Speaker--Billy Dale has asked the occupants in 
the White House, and top, inside-the-beltway, high-powered, highly paid 
lawyer Bob Bennett, ``Stop slaughtering my reputation. Mr. Clinton has 
apologized to me,'' to Billy Dale, ``and wished me well in life. Stop 
having your hatchet men abuse my reputation and tear me up.''
  I am told by writers that, first, we may end up here yet with 
taxpayers' dollars paying the lawyer fees of all seven members of the 
travel office who had the FBI sicced on them within days of FBI 
director sessions being relieved of his job by the White House. I 
forgot, it was a few days after. It all surrounded the Vince Foster 
suicide, if it was that, all such a sleazy period. And when people call 
in when you are on a talk show or a radio show, in a townhall meeting, 
and say, Be careful, Congressperson, it sounds a little tabloid, what 
you are discussing here.
  My response, thanks to my wife, Sallie, is when the occupant of the 
White House has lived a tabloid life, how do you discuss it without 
sounding a little bit like a tabloid? That is the problem we have. 
Bullying, filthy Phil Donahue and all of this disgusting talking-head 
mess that you unleashed on this country when you are talking about 
witch-hunts and bullying and protecting certain occupants of the White 
House who were not elected, remember, to sic the FBI or the IRS, 
whether it is a Republican administration or a Democrat administration, 
to do that to any human being, taxpaying citizen of this country, or 
anybody, whether they pay taxes or not, that is flirting with fascism 
and police state tactics.
  We know where the bullying has taken place. As I check my Clinton 
countdown watch, 284 days to change it.

                          ____________________