[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.
____________________