[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1057-H1062]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--WITHDRAWAL OF INVITATION TO FRENCH PRESIDENT 
JACQUES CHIRAC AND NOT AGREEING TO FUTURE APPEARANCES TO ADDRESS JOINT 
 MEETINGS OF CONGRESS BY HEADS OF STATE OF NATIONS CONDUCTING NUCLEAR 
                                 TESTS

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the 
privileges of the House and offer a privileged resolution that I 
noticed pursuant to rule IX yesterday, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will 
report the resolution.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 350

       Whereas virtually every nation in the world has adhered to 
     a moratorium on nuclear tests since September 1992;
       Whereas, on June 13, 1995, President Jacques Chirac of 
     France ended his nation's adherence to the moratorium by 
     ordering a series of nuclear tests in the South Pacific;
       Whereas France has since conducted six nuclear tests on the 
     Pacific atolls of Moruroa and Fangataufa in French Polynesia;
       Whereas France has acknowledged that radioactive materials 
     from some of the tests have leaked into the ocean;
       Whereas, as a result of the tests, the people of the 
     Pacific are extremely concerned about the health and safety 
     of those who live near the test sites, as well as the adverse 
     environmental effects of the tests on the region;
       Whereas, in conducting the tests, France has callously 
     ignored world-wide protests and global concern;
     
[[Page H1058]]

       Whereas the United States is one of 167 nations that have 
     objected to the tests;
       Whereas the tests are inconsistent with the ``Principles 
     and Objectives for Disarmament'', as adopted by the 1995 
     Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty 
     on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons;
       Whereas, in proceeding with the tests, France has acted 
     contrary to the commitment of the international community to 
     the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the moratorium 
     on nuclear testing;
       Whereas the President of France, Jacques Chirac, is 
     scheduled to appear before a joint meeting of the Congress on 
     February 1, 1996; and
       Whereas, in light of the tests, the appearance of the 
     President of France before the Congress violates the dignity 
     and integrity of the proceedings of the House: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That, by reason of the recent nuclear tests 
     conducted by France in the South Pacific, the Speaker of the 
     House shall take such action as may be necessary to withdraw 
     the invitation to the President of France, Jacques Chirac, to 
     address a joint meeting of the Congress, as scheduled to 
     occur on February 1, 1996.
       Sec. 2. On and after the date on which this resolution is 
     agreed to, the Speaker of the House may not agree to the 
     appearance before a joint meeting of the Congress by any head 
     of state or head of government whose nation conducts nuclear 
     tests.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Does the 
gentlewoman request time to discuss the question of privilege?
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized on 
the question of whether the resolution constitutes a question of 
privilege.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I offer this question of the 
privileges of the House because I believe that the invitation to 
President Jacques Chirac to address the joint session of the Congress 
on February 1, 1996 violates the integrity of the House.
  Despite world wide objection to the resumption of nuclear tests, 
President Chirac proceeded with callous disregard to the concerns and 
consequences of his actions.
  The House of Representatives Chambers must be reserved to those 
individuals whose actions and political courage bring dignity to this 
institutional. Invitations to address joint sessions are reserved to 
those persons who have demonstrated their leadership and character as 
deserving of honor and reverence.
  I believe that many Members of Congress are as offended as I am by 
the idea of President Chirac coming to this Chamber to address this 
Nation. After refusing to listen to the pleas of hundreds of nations, 
and in particular the people of the Pacific rim, why should the 
Congress afford him a podium from which to advance his unwelcome views?
  This offense is not just against the people of French Polynesia. It 
is an offense against all the people of the world who believed that 
there would be an end to the nuclear arms race. For France to resume 
nuclear tests in the Pacific after previously announcing an end to 
these tests, is a moral travesty that shakes the very foundation of 
world governments.
  For France to argue that they needed to do these tests to ensure the 
reliability of their nuclear arsenal is to state that the French 
Government has repudiated the basis of the Test Ban Treaty which is 
that nuclear war is impossible and that no government should be 
planning for such an inevitability.
  If those nations who possess the nuclear bomb are allowed with 
opprobrium to re-test their arsenal, then the appeal to others not to 
seek nuclear capability is an empty gesture at best. At a critical time 
when we want to curb the nuclear adventures in China and other 
countries, how do we justify playing host to a Western Power who has 
already conducted 192 tests, most of them in the Pacific, 140 of them 
underground and yet insisted that it needed 8 more tests to prove its 
reliability, and to perfect its computer based simulation technology.

  Sadly President Chirac's decision opens the way for other nations to 
squander our precious environment for their own purposes. Why is 
France's national security of greater importance than other nations?
  The sixth and last nuclear blast that was set off by the French 
Government on January 27, 1996, in Fangataufa Atoll in French Polynesia 
had the equivalency to 120,000 tons of TNT, more than six times the 
Hiroshima bomb.
  This defiance of international policy, and deliberate renunciation of 
their own government's prior announcement of a test ban moratorium must 
not be received by this Chamber with regular order.
  On the contrary, I believe, as I have stated in this resolution that 
the invitation should be withdrawn on the basis that his presence in 
this Chamber would constitute approval of his conduct in this regard.
  Other than this resolution we had no opportunity to express our 
disapproval of this invitation. I urge this House to approve this 
resolution and serve notice to the world of our solemn adherence to a 
nuclear free world.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
this?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the 
privileged resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized on 
the question of privilege.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues 
to strongly protest France's actions in the South Pacific. I am pleased 
that France has stopped testing its nuclear weapons. But I must say--it 
is too late. The damage has been done.
  France ignored the pleas of the governments and people of the South 
Pacific and throughout the world. We live on this planet together. We 
share its bounty. These are our oceans, our land, our people. We must 
respect each other.
  President Chirac did not listen to the groans and moans, the hopes, 
the dreams and the aspirations of those who are longing for a planet 
free of nuclear waste, free of nuclear destruction, free of nuclear 
poison. This man--this President of France and his government--refused 
to listen to the community of nations.
  And now, he wants to come to our house. To the people's house. 
President Chirac, our people do not support nuclear testing. Our people 
do not support radiation in the waters. Our people do not support a 
government that ignores the community of nations.
  Six times, France has poisoned our earth. Six times, nuclear poison 
has seeped into the waters of this little planet. This poison remains 
with each and every one of us.
  If France truly wants to atone for its wrongs, they must apologize to 
the people of the South Pacific. They must join with them to right the 
wrongs, to help heal the environment, to help heal the hurt.
  As France's actions demonstrate, nuclear testing should be banned 
from this planet forever. We must never again engage in this desolate 
deed. It is time to evolve to another level, to a better world where we 
lay down the tools of poison and destruction and respect the community 
of nations.
  Nuclear testing is obsolete. Nuclear testing is evil. To paraphrase 
the words of Mahatma Gandhi, ``Noncooperation with evil is as much a 
moral obligation as cooperation with good.''
  So I cannot be silent. I cannot close my eyes to France's deeds.
  I know France is our ally, but even with our good friends, we must 
have the courage to say that a wrong is wrong. We must have the courage 
to do what is right. I don't know about any other Member, but for me 
and my house, I will not be seated here tomorrow when Mr. Chirac comes 
to this House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Are there other Members that wish to be 
heard?
  Before recognizing the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], the 
Chair would remind Members if they speak on this to confine their 
remarks to the issue of the question of privilege under rule IX rather 
than on the pros and cons of the policy they are speaking about, but 
confine your remarks simply to the question of privilege.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the 
privileged resolution of the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that rule IX in particular speaks to the 
integrity and collective impact on this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I respect the people of France as I do all of our world 
citizens, and I also know that there is some good to nuclear testing.

[[Page H1059]]

  I think, Mr. Speaker, that we recognize that over the past decade, 
the international community has agreed that nuclear-weapon testing is a 
practice that must be ceased for the good of both humanity and Mother 
Earth. As evidence, the nations of the world are currently in Geneva 
negotiating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Additionally as early as 
1985, the countries of the South Pacific Forum negotiated and signed 
the Rarotonga Treaty establishing the South Pacific Free Zone.
  Mr. Speaker, this body has invited many individuals to be at the helm 
and provide insight and information to this august body, this Nation, 
and, of course, the American people. It is a responsibility of this 
body to ensure that factual information is exuded from this body. And I 
believe that in allowing this leader to come, it goes against the 
factual basis of this country's standing on nuclear testing.
  In spite of this international effort to end nuclear testing on our 
planet, the French Government, of which this leader will represent, 
chose to ignore the interests and the pleas of many Pacific nations and 
conduct its six full-scale detonations of its TN75.
  Mr. Speaker, in light of this singularly egotistical decision, I 
believe that it is inappropriate for this body to invite President 
Chirac to speak before it. It is a question of presenting of the facts 
to the American people. His presence here only serves to defend, 
however subtly, these deplorable tests. I believe that although this 
Government did not vigorously speak out against these tests, we can now 
help to correct that error by giving symbolic support to our Pacific 
allies. Why should we be party to repairing the credibility of 
President Chirac when he has marginalized both the Pacific neighbors to 
these tests and the international community?
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we in this body have the 
responsibility to uphold the laws of this land, the policies of this 
land, and the policies of this land have been to date that we have not 
supported nuclear proliferation or the testing of nuclear weapons.

                              {time}  1715

  For this body's integrity to stand as under rule IX and privileged 
resolutions, I would say to you that we have the responsibility to 
disinvite this President, for this impacts the collective integrity of 
this body.
  It should be noted also, Mr. Speaker, that although President Chirac 
has decided to stop the nuclear tests, it was hardly due to respect for 
any nation other than his own. Before the tests even began, he stated 
France, and France only, would, indeed, conduct six to eight tests, and 
the gentleman has been good to his word.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an honorable institution and under rule IX I 
think it is our responsibility again to preserve its integrity. I would 
ask that the privileged resolution be considered and, of course, 
accepted by this body, and that we uninvite President Chirac in order 
to maintain the collective responsibility of the United States House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I respect the people of France as I do all of our world 
citizens. I also know there is some good in nuclear technology. Mr. 
Speaker, over the past decade, the international community has agreed 
that nuclear-weapon testing is a practice that must be ceased, for the 
good of both humanity and Mother Earth. As evidence, the nations of the 
world are currently in Geneva negotiating the Comprehensive Test Ban 
Treaty. Additionally, as early as 1985, the countries of the South 
Pacific Forum negotiated and signed the Rarotonga Treaty, establishing 
the South Pacific Free Zone.
  Yet, in spite of this international effort to end nuclear testing on 
our planet, the French Government chose to ignore the interests and 
pleas of many Pacific nations and conducted six full-scale detonations 
of its TN75 warheads.
  Mr. Speaker, in light of this singularly, egotistical decision, I 
believe that it is inappropriate for this body to invite President 
Chirac to speak before it. His presence here only serves to defend, 
however, subtlely, these deplorable tests. I believe that although this 
Government did not vigorously speak out against these tests, we can now 
help to correct that error by giving symbolic support to our Pacific 
allies. Why should we be party to repairing the credibility of 
President Chirac when he has marginalized both the Pacific neighbors to 
his tests, and the international community.
  It should be noted that although President Chirac has decided to stop 
the nuclear tests, it was hardly due to his respect for any nation 
other than his own. Before the tests even began, he stated that France 
would indeed conduct six to eight tests, and the gentleman has been 
good to his word.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an honorable institution, let us preserve its 
integrity.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Do other 
Members wish to be heard?
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue, the 
privileged resolution, before the body.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from American Samoa is 
recognized.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, as I have spoken earlier concerning 
the issue now before this body, the question of privilege, in terms of 
the tradition of the House and whether or not the President of France 
should be honored or be given the privilege of addressing a joint 
session of Congress tomorrow, as I speak, Mr. Speaker, as it is true 
with almost every young American learning about civics, the history of 
our Nation itself, how it was conceived, the fact that this Nation 
itself has a tradition of being a former colony of the British Empire, 
the fact that there are some very fundamental traditions that I think I 
can say without equivocation about what America stands for, the 
principles of democracy and human rights and all due respect for other 
human beings to live in their respective areas or regions, as I speak 
before my colleagues in this body, I notice there are only two murals 
or two picture frames that are part of the decor of our Chamber, and 
that of the great President, our first President of the United States, 
George Washington, and I see on the other corner of this Chamber a 
great leader, a great French patriot by the name of Marquis de 
Lafayette, a great patriot who supported wholeheartedly the cause of 
the American colony for its interests in wanting very much to be free 
from the shackles of British colonialism, and the fact that 
representation without taxation, as a principle, simply was not in 
order, and the fact that our country was conceived in blood, and we 
fought for those freedoms against British colonialism.

  So I think in the spirit of tradition and what we talk about the 
great Lafayette that came and helped us tells us something about what 
it means to be a free human being, what it means to go against 
colonialism, what it means to believe in the principles of democracy, 
human rights, and the right of human beings to live. I think this is 
the core of the issue that is now before us, and the privileged 
resolution expressing this sense, strong sense, among the Members of 
this Chamber that the Speaker ought not extend an invitation to the 
President of France to address us at a joint session tomorrow.
  I support wholeheartedly the provisions of this resolution, and I ask 
my colleagues in this Chamber to help us by making this point. The 
point is that this man really did not have to permit six nuclear 
explosions, to do this nuclear testing, despite the fact of 
protestations of some 167 nations, 28 million people who live in the 
Pacific region, 200,000 of their own citizens in French Polynesia who 
also opposed the testing, and ironically of all, Mr. Speaker, 60 
percent of the French people themselves did not want President Chirac 
to conduct this nuclear testing. It is an abomination. It is an 
outrage.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, do not support the Speaker's 
invitation by allowing this man to address the Chamber tomorrow.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Do further Members wish to address the 
question of privilege?
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, I wish to address the privileged resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Guam is recognized.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, as an American citizen and as a Pacific 
Islander, I must rise today in strong support of the privileged 
resolution offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  This resolution speaks to the issue of this body's integrity because 
of President Chirac's behavior, and in order to argue that President 
Chirac should, in fact, should be disinvited, we must analyze President 
Chirac's duplicitous and cynical behavior in the conduct of nuclear 
testing in the South Pacific.

[[Page H1060]]

  A speech before a joint session of Congress is President Chirac's way 
of trying to win back the good graces of this body and of world opinion 
and to recover some very lost credibility. After he has ignored world 
opinion for over 4 months by proceeding with these series of tests, he 
does not deserve the honor of speaking before this body. Just days 
prior to their final nuclear test, thousands of miles from the French 
capital, France acknowledged radioactive waste was leaked, and in fact, 
frequently vented into the lagoon adjacent to the test site. Of course, 
this did not stop France from finishing their last test.
  And now the French President wants this Congress as his audience. 
With the precedent of inviting someone responsible for a potentially 
major environmental disaster in the Pacific, you have to wonder who the 
congressional leadership will invite next. Can we expect to hear a 
joint session speech by the captain of the Exxon Valdez, the manager of 
Three Mile Island, or maybe we will have the opportunity to attend a 
joint session by the director the Chernobyl nuclear power plan.
  I ask this body, I implore this body to support the privileged 
resolution offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule. If there are 
others, the Chair will hear one more Member speak on this question.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] is recognized.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, and maybe you can hear 
both of us. I will abbreviate my remarks.
  I just want to join in strong support of the privileged resolution 
that is offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] and also to 
say that the dignity and integrity of who we invite, who speaks from 
that well says volumes about what is important to us as Americans.
  Americans have gone on record of not advocating the proliferation of 
nuclear testing, and yet the President of France has negated that 
altogether, although France itself has signed that treaty.
  So I implore all of my Members and colleagues that this will say 
volumes about our integrity when we sign a treaty that we would honor 
that and certainly we should not give the well to someone who violated 
the treaty.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Illinois desire to 
be heard on this issue?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, my concern, as was pointed out 
a few minutes ago, Lafayette over there was one who believed in justice 
and the fact that we would have a free country here or should have. I 
thought it was very interesting that it was the French, indeed, who 
sent us the Statue of Liberty, you know, the great symbol of freedom 
for our country.
  Yet here is the President of that great country who has decided to do 
some nuclear testing. You know, we believe in fairness, but we believe 
in not having nuclear proliferation in our country, and to have that 
very President of that country to come before us in a joint session 
sends a message that we endorse what he did. We do not endorse what he 
did.
  I think, therefore, that we should certainly follow and support the 
privileged resolution offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. 
Mink]. I think it makes a great deal of sense to do so.
  It seems to me we ought to disinvite the President; in fact, we urge 
the Speaker to disinvite, if he can, the President of France, because 
it is something that we do not want to be associated with.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Do other Members wish to be heard?
  The gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] is recognized.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first of all, anyone who is within 
earshort of my words, we should strongly and vehemently oppose any 
visit by the French President Chirac.
  We stand firmly to support the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] 
and her resolution which does not stand for anything extraordinary. It 
stands up for a clean environment. It stands for the health and safety 
of the residents of this country. It stands for honor among all the 
world's peoples, and to think that we are recognizing him as someone to 
come hear and address a joint meeting of Congress is, to me, really 
abominable and that we would allow that to happen. He should not be 
invited. We should put the strength of our voices against this by not 
even appearing here tomorrow and to show strength behind the resolution 
offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Do not be discouraged. The way to take care of this is to boycott his 
visit. He will address this body. He has not thought about the human 
rights of this country. We have come a long way in that. He has not 
thought about our environmental concerns, how far we have come. We will 
not turn back. He has not thought about health and safety.
  So he has been able to say this to the Pacific islanders, well, we 
will go ahead and run these tests on your shores. Think about it, it 
may be your shores next.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Are there further Members who wish to be 
heard on the question?
  The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] is recognized.
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the 
International Relations Committee, I question the invitation to French 
President Jacques Chirac's address to the joint session of Congress on 
tomorrow.
  I am strongly opposed to any nuclear tests in the South Pacific. The 
French have already conducted a total of 6 nuclear tests.
  They have directly violated international law. The United States has 
ratified Conventions and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaties. Chirac's 
tests are contradictory to the codes outlined in the ``Principles and 
Objectives for Disarmament.''
  This was adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the 
Parties to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
  We are living in a post-cold-war era. The United States and its 
allies have made a commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. France has 
breached the contract by not adhering to the moratorium.
  On June 13, 1995, President Jacques Chirac ordered a series of 
nuclear tests in the South Pacific. This has outraged members of the 
international community.
  Chirac is endangering the land on and above the French Polynesia's 
coral atolls. They have conducted approximately 187 nuclear detonations 
since 1966.
  Radioactive materials from their tests have caused environmental 
damage.
  The coral reefs in the sea and the bordering islands have been 
affected by the nuclear explosions.
  Nuclear proliferation will not be tolerated in this post-cold war 
era. Despite many critical attempts to halt nuclear testing in the 
Pacific Basin by 166 nations, French nuclear testing remains.
  The threat of nuclear exposure is a concern not only to the people of 
Pacific but to all of us in the international community.
  We must curb the nuclear arms race with China, Iran, North Korea, and 
now even France.
  Mr. Speaker, if we allow Chirac to come and speak to the Members of 
Congress, we will be saying OK to the nuclear arms race. We should not 
support this measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Hawaii wish to 
address the issue on the question of privilege?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the question of 
privilege under rule IX of our rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I take very seriously your admonition 
that we must address the question of privilege, that is to say, within 
the privileged resolution. That is what we must address here, is this a 
pertinent resolution to have before this House to be decided, not the 
merits or demerits of the proposition which may be under question? Am I 
correct that that is your admonition to us, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I thank the Chair.
  I wish to address that quite directly, Mr. Speaker, because I believe 
that the issue under consideration as embodied in the privileged 
resolution most certainly is in order to be discussed, 

[[Page H1061]]
should we pass this privileged resolution, and the decision as to 
whether or not we should pass the privileged resolution and whether or 
not we should pass the privileged resolution and whether it is properly 
before us is yours to make.
  I would like to argue, Mr. Speaker, as follows: That in the House 
rules and manual which the Parliamentarian has been kind enough to 
provide to me, there are numerous citations in here with respect to 
precedents as to the question of personal privilege, questions of 
privilege, in the absence of a quorum, et cetera.

                              {time}  1730

  But fundamentally and elementally what is before the Chair is as 
follows: The question of privilege shall be first those affecting the 
rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, integrity of its 
proceedings.
  I do not think that is necessarily at issue here. Probably a rather 
abstract argument or intellectual argument could be made it is.
  But I rest my case to the Chair on the second part, those affecting 
the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members individually in their 
representative capacity only.
  Mr. Speaker, we have in the Pacific, aside from the representation 
with the capacity to vote on this floor existing in Hawaii, Members 
from Guam and American Samoa. In addition, we have certain jurisdiction 
over island groupings in the Pacific under the Department of the 
Interior.
  Mr. Speaker, I maintain to the Chair and to the Members that the 
rights and reputation and conduct of Members individually in their 
representative capacity is seriously impaired if they cannot succeed in 
being able to make an argument to the floor Members assembled as to 
whether or not Mr. Chirac should be able to appear.
  I do believe it is well within the boundaries, because those Members 
cannot vote on this floor. Their representative capacity is solely on 
the basis of being able to persuade us on behalf of the peoples of the 
Pacific that there are matters which require our attention. This 
privileged resolution is directed exactly at that issue. Questions 
about radioactivity, and so forth, would be discussed under that 
privileged resolution as to why an affirmative vote is sought.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I most sincerely request your favorable ruling with 
respect to the question of privilege, and ask that it be allowed to be 
voted on, because this is the only way that the peoples of the Pacific, 
through their representatives, particularly from Guam and American 
Samoa, who do not have the right to vote on this floor, will be able to 
make a representation that they are otherwise obligated and required to 
do so by virtue of their presence here on the floor.
  It is clear, it seems to me, given the massive implications of 
radioactive leakage in the Pacific with the numerous explosions that 
have taken place in these tests, that other than through this 
representation through the privileged motion, the desirability or 
undesirability of having Mr. Chirac speak will not be able to be 
adequately addressed, and it seems to me a very powerful argument can 
be made for that, should we be allowed to proceed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Chair is 
prepared to rule on whether the resolution of the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] presents a question of privilege under rule IX.
  The Speaker has been authorized to declare a recess by order of the 
House to accommodate the joint meeting with the Senate in order to 
receive President Chirac. This standing order was established by 
unanimous consent on Friday, January 26, 1996. No objection was heard, 
and the Speaker was authorized to declare a recess to receive President 
Chirac.
  If there had been objection by any Member to the appearance of 
President Chirac before a joint meeting of Congress, a resolution 
reported from the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House might 
have been required to establish the order for the joint meeting. As is 
customary for all joint meetings to receive foreign dignitaries and 
heads of state, the letter of invitation to President Chirac was not 
transmitted until both Houses had agreed to receive the invitee.
  Procedures exist within the rules of the House to permit the House to 
vote on the authorization of joint meetings where objection is made to 
that arrangement. The Chair does not believe it proper to collaterally 
challenge such standing order of the House under the guise of a 
question of privilege.
  As recorded on page 362 of the House Rules and Manual, on February 3, 
1993, Speaker Foley ruled that a question of privilege could not be 
used to collaterally challenge the validity or fairness of an adopted 
rule of the House by delaying its implementation. In addition, as 
recorded on page 361 in the House Rules and Manual, a question of the 
privileges of the House may not be invoked to effect a change in the 
Rules of the House.
  The gentlewoman's resolution would, in effect, constitute a new rule 
of the House restricting the issuance of invitations to future joint 
meetings, and, therefore, does not constitute a question of the 
privileges of the House.
  Also, no question of personal privilege of individual Members under 
rule IX is involved at this time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I hope I understood the Chair 
correctly. Did you indicate as part of your ruling that an objection 
would have had to have been made on January 26 of this year?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. An objection could have been made at that 
time to the unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, was the House in session? Were Members 
expected to be assembled or be able to be called to the House at that 
date? My recollection is we were in recess.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As is customary, it was done at a time that 
had been requested for the program to be announced for the next week. 
When the program was announced for the next week, that was when the 
unanimous-consent request was made.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. I maybe 
did not understand correctly. Did the Chair say in reply to my question 
that the House was in session on January 26 and that this proposition 
was presented to the Members for their assent?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] to lay on the table the appeal of the 
ruling of the Chair.
  The motion to lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair 
was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, my distinct recollection is we were not 
in session on January 26. I just want to make sure for the record. Were 
the Members in fact here assembled on January 26? If they were not, I 
do not wish to get into a dispute with you, Mr. Speaker, but whether or 
not we could have made an objection or should have made objection I 
think does rest at least upon the practical possibility that we would 
have been in attendance here to be able to do that, if that in fact is 
the basis upon which the initial premise of your ruling was made. I am 
in no position to state for a fact whether we were here or not, because 
I am making the inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentleman that 
the House was in session on Friday, but the schedule was laid out on 
Thursday by the majority leader. The request was made on Friday along 
with other requests.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, was it a pro forma session?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  
[[Page H1062]]

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry then. 
Again, I hold the Speaker in the highest respect in this regard, but my 
information is that if it is a pro forma session, I receive a piece of 
paper which says that no business is to be conducted. If no business is 
to be conducted, I hardly think it is fair for the Chair to then state 
that I should be or any other Member should be expected to make 
objection, if that is our intent with respect to this particular issue. 
If I receive information that no business is to be conducted, I do not 
see how I could come to the floor then demanding that business be 
conducted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It has been customary in the past for these 
sorts of requests to be made and these unanimous consent requests are 
done even on days when there are pro forma sessions. It has been 
customary in the past that those requests generally are taken up when 
the schedule is announced, generally in a colloquy with the minority 
leader or his designee and the majority leader, which was done on 
Thursday. These are things that have happened in the past on pro forma 
days.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Then it 
is also in order under the rules to bring a privileged resolution to 
the floor. Now, if we were not in session, even if I take your word for 
it, and I will for purposes of our discussion, I would hope you would 
grant me my good intentions as well. If I could have or someone else 
could have come to this floor and made such a representation as you 
indicate, I will accept that.
  However, the rules also allow us to bring a privileged resolution to 
the floor at any time with the proper notice and to have it considered. 
One of the reasons or the principal reason that the Chair stated for 
turning down this privileged resolution offered by the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] is that it was not presented on January 26. From 
what the Chair just told me, it does not matter that it was not 
presented on January 26. It could have been presented on January 26, 
but it was not imperative that it be presented on January 26. So if 
that is the only reason, why can it not be presented today?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair regrets that the request was made 
on January 26, custom has done that in the past. This has been done, as 
has been customary in the House for many years.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, because it is customary does not mean 
it is within the rules. I made a parliamentary inquiry based upon the 
rules. It may have been customary, it may have been desirable, but it 
is not against the rules to present the privileged resolution today. 
You have not offered a reason then. Simply because it was customary 
does not mean it is against the rules. There is nothing substantive 
that you have offered that prevents this privileged resolution from 
being before us. I believe I am correct.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to pursue regular 
order.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. With all due respect, Mr. Solomon, I am doing my 
level best to maintain regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. At this point, 
it is not in order to collaterally challenge the unanimous consent 
order that has been entered the previous week, even though it was done 
on a pro forma day. Again, that was because of custom.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Our only recourse is to appeal?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That has been done. The appeal has been laid 
on the table.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I thank the Speaker very much for replying to me. I 
find this line of response very, very unfortunate in terms of what the 
House should be about in terms of its business.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues 
who have already expressed their concern and distress about France's 
nuclear testing, and President Chirac's visit to the United States.
  With the end of the cold war and the recent ratification of START II, 
we have high hopes and have made great steps forward in stopping the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons. And, just when we were making real 
progress toward a permanent moratorium on nuclear testing, France 
embarked on a series of nuclear tests in the South Pacific. These tests 
not only damage the strides we are making to stop nuclear testing, but 
they have once again endangered the health and safety of Pacific 
islanders.
  As the threat of nuclear proliferation continues, it does not make 
sense for the leaders of the world to engage in such reckless 
activities. The free world must lead by example. The example set by 
France is deplorable, and the United States should not directly, or 
indirectly, condone such actions.

                          ____________________