[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 125 (Thursday, September 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10331-H10332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 EXPRESSING CONCERN THAT THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS PUT ON 
                                  ICE

  (Mr. WISE asked and was given permission to address theHouse for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, just a moment ago the Speaker of theHouse held 
up an ice bucket. What concerns the American people, and should concern 
them, is that the report of the Special Counsel which was given to the 
Ethics Committee one month ago may well have been put on ice, because, 
Mr. Speaker, this report, which took 9 months to complete----


                            Points of Order

  Mr. LINDER. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman will state 
the point of order.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, is it not correct that the rules of theHouse 
under regular order prevent people from speaking on the floor of 
theHouse with respect to matters before the Ethics Committee?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  The gentleman from West Virginia may proceed in order.
  Mr. WISE. Continuing, Mr. Speaker, my concern is that any report 
which has been presented and investigated----
  Mr. LINDER. Regular order, Mr. Speaker. Regular order.
  Mr. WISE. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that references to matters 
before the Ethics Committee are out of order to be addressed on the 
floor of this House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The previous ruling of the 
Chair is again sustained and the gentleman from West Virginia may 
proceed in order.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Georgia who raised a 
point of order feels that the words of the gentleman from West Virginia 
concerning the lack of the Ethics Committee to make the report public 
is out of order, the gentleman can demand that the gentleman from West 
Virginia's words be taken down, is that not correct, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. LINDER. I appreciate the gentleman's instructions on 
parliamentary procedure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will kindly suspend so there 
may be proper decorum in theHouse.
  The gentleman from Georgia has not taken that step. The gentleman 
from Georgia made a point of order.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I just asked if that was available.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  The gentleman from West Virginia will please proceed in order.
  Mr. WISE. Continuing, Mr. Speaker, or trying to, any report dealing 
with an investigative body that has had at least 9 months of 
investigation and may have cost as much as one-half million dollars I 
think should be released before the Congress goes home.


                             point of order

  Mr. WALKER. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania will state his point of order.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from West Virginia continues 
to proceed out of order of theHouse and should be called to order by 
the Chair.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, if I may respond.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If both gentlemen will suspend.
  The Chair at this time will read the rule and will repeat the 
admonition from the Chair of June 26, 1996.
  It is an essential rule of decorum in debate that Members should 
refrain from references in debate to the conduct of other Members where 
such conduct is not the question actually pending before theHouse by 
way of a report from the Committee on Standards of Official conduct or 
by way of another question of the privileges of theHouse. This 
principle is documented on pages 168 and 526 of theHouse Rules and 
Manual and reflects the consistent rulings of the Chair in this and in 
prior Congresses and applies to 1-minute and special-order speeches.
  Neither the filing of a complaint before the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct, nor the publication in another forum of charges 
that are personally critical of another Member, justify the references 
to such charges on the floor of theHouse. This includes references to 
the motivations of Members who file complaints and to members of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  Clause 1 of rule XIV is a prohibition against engaging in personality 
in debate. It derives from article I, section 5 of the Constitution, 
which authorizes each House to make its own rules and to punish its 
Members for disorderly behavior, and has been part of the rules of 
theHouse in some relevant form since 1789. This rule supersedes any 
claim of a member to be free from questioning in any other place.
  On January 27, 1909, theHouse adopted a report that stated the 
following: ``It is * * * the duty of theHouse to require its Members in 
speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit 
theHouse to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without 
unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among its Members. * * *'' 
(Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, at section 2497). This report was in 
response to improper references in debate to the President, but clearly 
reiterated a principle that all occupants of the Chair in this and in 
prior Congresses have held to be equally applicable to Members' remarks 
in debate toward each other.
  The Chair asks and expects the cooperation of all Members in 
maintaining a level of decorum that properly dignifies the proceedings 
of theHouse.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I listened to the Speaker in support of his ruling and 
comment upon the precedents of theHouse. But I did not hear the words 
``reports from other special counsel.'' I did not hear that report. I 
heard about the reports from the Ethics Committee, et cetera, but not 
from the special counsel.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Until such time as there is a report pending 
on the floor of theHouse from the Standards Committee, or a question of 
privilege, the issue is not debatable on the floor of theHouse.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state it.

[[Page H10332]]

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I may have misunderstood the gentleman 
from West Virginia, but I heard the gentleman from West Virginia talk 
about any report from any committee. I do not think he directly 
attached it to the Ethics Committee. And so, therefore, I cannot 
understand what this ruling has to do with what the gentleman said.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Any reference to pending proceedings is out 
of order. The Chair in the course of this morning's activities first 
ruled on the gentleman from Georgia's point of order when there was a 
specific reference to the counsel's report, and now the Chair has 
issued an admonishment reiterating the rule of theHouse and would 
invite the gentleman from West Virginia to proceed in order.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  Is the Chair saying that we cannot refer to anything in any 
committee? That is what I understand the ruling to be. Because the 
gentleman is talking generically.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is in particular to matters before the 
Standards Committee dealing with sitting Members. That is the ruling of 
the Chair.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 20 seconds remaining.
  The gentleman from West Virginia will please proceed in order.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker himself stated in 1989 the 435 
Members of theHouse should look at all the facts, should have available 
to them all the reports and all the background documents, and the 
American people should have the same.
  It is clear the Republican leadership today wants to talk about ice 
buckets, and they do not want to let me talk about whether reports from 
the Ethics Committee are being put on ice. I think it is a sad day.

                          ____________________