[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.
____________________