[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10529-H10530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1015
             DO NOT PUT THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL'S REPORT ON ICE

  (Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to call on the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to do the right thing, to 
release the outside counsel's report on Speaker Newt Gingrich.


                             point of order

  Mr. LINDER, Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
will state it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, several days in a row the gentleman from 
Georgia has risen on the floor of the House to address matters that are 
inappropriate, because the rules of the House specifically prohibit 
speaking of matters before the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct.
  The gentleman does not seem to get that point. And on each occasion 
that I have raised this point of order, the Speaker has agreed with me. 
I would like the Speaker to make a ruling on this matter today.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. If the gentleman is 
familiar with the rules, he should know that the customary way to 
object is to ask that the Member's words be taken down.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a right to make a point of order at 
any time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the 
gentleman's point of order. The Chair will repeat the admonitions of 
the Chair from September 12, 1996, and September 17, 1996.
  It is an essential rule of decorum in debates that Members should 
refrain from references in debate to the conduct of other Members, 
where such conduct is not the question actually pending before the 
House, by way of a report from the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct or by way of another question of the privileges of the House. 
This principle is documented on pages 168 and 526 of the House 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 form of charges 
that are personally critical to another Member justify the references 
to such charges on the floor of the House. 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 1, 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 the 
House 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, the House adopted a report that stated the 
following:

       It is the duty of the House to require its Members in 
     speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will 
     permit the House to conduct its business in an orderly manner 
     and without unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among 
     his Members.

  This is 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 the House.
  So the Chair would request that the gentleman proceed in order.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the outside counsel, James Cole, 
has prepared an extensive 100-page report on the Speaker's ethical 
violation. The American people deserve the right to know what is in 
that report.


                             point of order

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, it is entirely possible that the gentleman 
in the well did not hear you, or it is entirely possible that the 
gentleman in the well does not know what the rules are. But I think you 
just ruled that he was speaking out of order, and I would like to have 
the Chair readdress his addressing matters before the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker? Let me say to my----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair sustains the point of order from the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Linder, and asks the other Member from Georgia, Mr. Lewis, 
to please keep his remarks in order.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] 
appears to me to try to make a point of order and only on the point of 
order to silence the other gentleman from Georgia by having the Chair 
not only rule the gentleman out of order, but to perhaps even make the 
gentleman sit down.
  I would like to know, is the Chair aware of any example in the entire 
history of this House of Representatives where the Speaker has 
unilaterally silenced a Member before his time has expired on his 1-
minute without the consent of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. On September 12 and on September 17 of this 
year, the Chair sustained points of order against Members who 
repeatedly made references in debate to a matter pending before the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  On those occasions, the Chair indicated that pursuant to the rule 
such Members could be required to take their seats where they declined 
to proceed in order at the directive of the Chair after points of order 
had been sustained against the references while demanding that an 
offending Member be seated is normally insisted upon only where there 
is a formal demand that the words be taken down pending disposition 
that the words be taken down. Pending disposition of the matter by the 
Chair and by the House, it is within the Chair's authority under rule I 
and rule XIV to deny that Member further recognition as a disposition 
of the question of order, subject to the will of the House on the 
question of proceeding in order.
  A Member's comportment in the face of repeated admonitions by the 
Chair to proceed in order has itself been the subject of a ruling of 
the Chair that the Member may not be recognized to proceed unless 
permitted to do so by the House. That is cited on page 319 of the 
manual. Once a Member has been recognized and has the floor, rule I and 
rule XIV permit the Chair to respond to repeated points of order while 
permitting the House to determine the propriety of the Chair's rulings 
and its willingness to permit the Member to proceed in order.
  Thus, if the Chair were to direct that an offending Member be denied 
the floor for the duration of the time for which he was recognized, he 
would do so in the context of a ruling that would permit the House to 
determine whether the Member should proceed in order.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, it appears from your ruling, one, that 
there is no precedent in this House prior to this Congress of the 
action that you said is appropriate for the Speaker. That is No. 1. I 
asked if there was any precedent; the only precedent you have

[[Page H10530]]

mentioned is just approximately a week ago, last week, so it is of this 
Congress, and within the last week, not any prior history in the whole 
United States.
  No. 2, it appears from what you said, even though you feel that you 
have the authority under that ruling to make any Member sit down for 
not following regular rules of order, that the ultimate decision upon a 
proper motion made is that the House itself has to decide, which has 
always been the precedent of this body. The House decides whether a 
Member does or not, not the Speaker; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. On the first question, the Chair is not 
commenting on the historical precedent.
  On the second point, the gentleman is essentially correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Well, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, I have been 
unable to find the precedent that you have listed from last week.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis] may proceed in order for the balance of his time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleague from 
Georgia, Mr. Linder, I will not be harassed, bullied, or silenced. I 
know the rules of this House as well as the gentleman. But the 
gentleman knows, I have learned in my life that there are times when 
the rules must be challenged to confront an injustice. I will not sit 
down or keep silent until the report is released to the American 
people.
  Last week Newt Gingrich brought an ice bucket to this floor to 
demonstrate a small savings achieved in the House. It is strange indeed 
that those savings are approximately the same amount as the cost of the 
report by the outside counsel. Now the Speaker and the Republicans in 
this House want to put the outside counsel's report on ice and it is 
wrong, just plain wrong.

                          ____________________