[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 125 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7573-H7578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RESTRICTING FLOOR PRIVILEGES OF FORMER
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT DORNAN PENDING RESOLUTION OF ELECTION CONTEST IN
46TH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. MENENDEZ. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX and by agreement with
the majority leader, Mr. Armey, I hereby give notice of my intention to
offer a privileged resolution.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
House Resolution 233
Whereas the privilege of admission to the Hall of the House
or rooms leading thereto is subject to the requirements of
proper decorum;
Whereas concern has arisen that the privilege of admission
to the Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto has become
the subject of abuse;
Whereas Representative Menendez of New Jersey has given
notice pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX of his intention to
offer a question of the privileges of the House addressing
that concern;
Whereas these circumstances warrant an immediate
affirmation by the House of its unequivocal commitment to the
principle that every person who exercises the privilege of
admission to the Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto
assumes a concomitant responsibility to comport himself in a
manner that properly dignifies the proceedings of the House;
Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms is instructed to remove
former Representative Robert Dornan from the Hall of the
House and rooms leading thereto and to prevent him from
returning to the Hall of the House and rooms leading thereto
until the election contest concerning the forty-sixth
district of California is resolved.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to rule IX, the Chair determines that this is
the appropriate time to call up the resolution.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution raising a question of
the privileges of the House.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution.
The SPEAKER. In the opinion of the Chair, the resolution constitutes
a question of the privileges of the House.
Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Stearns
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Stearns moves to lay the resolution offered by Mr.
Menendez on the table.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to table offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 86,
noes 291, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 53, as follows:
[Roll No. 414]
AYES--86
Aderholt
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bliley
Bono
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell
Chabot
Chenoweth
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Gekas
Hefley
Herger
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kim
Kingston
Largent
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
McCollum
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Nethercutt
Norwood
Packard
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Pickering
Pombo
Radanovich
Redmond
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Tauzin
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
NOES--291
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Christensen
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
[[Page H7574]]
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Northup
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3
Ehlers
Ney
Sanchez
NOT VOTING--53
Archer
Baker
Ballenger
Berry
Bilbray
Bonilla
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Callahan
Cannon
Chambliss
Clay
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Cooksey
Cramer
Deal
Foglietta
Fowler
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goss
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
LaTourette
Levin
Lipinski
Luther
Manton
McCrery
McInnis
Meehan
Meek
Moakley
Myrick
Neumann
Oberstar
Porter
Schiff
Smith, Adam
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Wamp
Weldon (PA)
White
Woolsey
Young (AK)
{time} 1756
Mr. CAMP, Ms. RIVERS, and Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. LINDER, CUNNINGHAM, and PAXON changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the motion to table was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on
this resolution be limited to 20 minutes equally divided and controlled
by myself and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for the
purposes of debate only.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me first thank all of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle who did not permit the motion to table to take place, to
pass, so that we could have this opportunity. Failure to do so would
have not allowed a Member to be able to pursue the only vehicle that a
Member of this body has to enforce the decorum of the House. I want to
ask for Members' further support of this resolution so that we make
clear for ourselves and to the American people watching us that
profanities, insults, and name-calling are not under any circumstance
or for any reason accepted in this House or inside this Chamber ever.
{time} 1800
Working with the Republican leadership, I changed the resolution I
originally introduced in order to depersonalize the language, because
when the rules of the House are broken, it is not just personal, it
affects the whole institution.
Yesterday, nothing less than the integrity of the House was
undermined by former Congressman Dornan. In the course of representing
my constituents, exercising my rights as an elected representative of
the people and a Member of this House to debate on the House floor, and
asking a valid parliamentary inquiry that did not name any individual
by name, Mr. Dornan verbally assaulted me. He used profane language,
accused me of religious bigotry, called my integrity into question,
and, by the tone of his voice and the context of his remarks, clearly
attempted to lure me off the floor into a physical altercation.
By doing so, Mr. Dornan abused his privileges as a former Member of
the House of Representatives and conducted himself on the floor in a
manner which brings discredit to the House.
Now, earlier today some of my colleagues called the event alleged,
implying the facts of the case are in doubt. But I would remind my
colleagues that there were several witnesses, and many of you have come
over on the Republican side of the aisle to tell me that you not only
saw, but heard what I have said. And those included on my side of the
aisle the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] and the gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], among others.
Even beyond that, the Los Angeles Times reported today that Mr.
Dornan admitted to using a profane term, called me an anti-Catholic and
a coward, and that conduct alone, to which Mr. Dornan has publicly
admitted, publicly admitted, is enough to constitute a gross violation
of the House rules. So the event in question, my colleagues, is not
alleged, it is publicly admitted to by Mr. Dornan himself.
Now, if this were not bad enough, Mr. Dornan further admitted to
asking me to step outside the Chamber with him. On that last count we
have a difference of opinion. He believes he just wanted to have a
civil conversation. But if all he wanted was a civil conversation, why
would he have used the insults and profanity preceding that request? In
that context, with the tone of voice he used, no reasonable person
could interpret Mr. Dornan's remarks as anything other than a lure into
a physical fight.
Another Member took to the floor earlier today and said we should
just realize that ``Dornan is Dornan.'' But that implies that each
Member or former Member can set his or her own standard of conduct,
depending on their personality or how big a temper they might have. In
this House, I believe there is one standard of conduct that applies to
all of us.
Others praise Mr. Dornan's record of fighting communism, and I do not
dispute that. But I, too, have dedicated much of my public life to
fighting communism. Members of my family were persecuted by Communists.
They came to this country fleeing persecution, because they knew
America was the birthplace of modern democracy. I grew up in awe of
this Congress and had no prouder day, save the birth of my children,
than when I took my oath of office in this Chamber for the very first
time.
I have spent much of my public life fighting oppression and
intimidation, at home and abroad, using our great institutions as
shining examples of freedom and integrity and democracy in action, and
I believe my colleagues who have worked with me on both sides of the
aisle on these issues know the depth of my sincerity and commitment.
That is why it is hard to think of a sadder moment in my public life
than when I was accosted on the House floor in the very exercise of
democratic debate on behalf of the people I represent, not sad because
of what Bob Dornan said to me but because of what Bob Dornan did to
this institution we all care about so deeply and to what it stands for.
[[Page H7575]]
An assault against a Member of this body in the practice of his or
her democratic duties is an assault against the whole House, the whole
institution, not just one Member; and if we allow it to stand, we have
lessened the standards of the whole institution. Not just the honor of
a single representative is lessened.
In fact, the standards we set here send a message that travels far
beyond the halls of this House. How can we talk about family values if
we allow this sort of behavior to stand on the House floor? What kind
of example does that set for our children, that profanities and threats
are the way to solve differences of opinion? I must believe that we are
all above that.
For the sake of this House, to preserve our standards and our rules
of conduct, to set a worthy example for all of our children, I ask all
of my colleagues to stand with me today in support of this resolution;
to say that we will never tolerate insults, profanity, name-calling or
threats in this Chamber, from anyone of either party, former Member or
current Member.
Should there be a vote to once again table this resolution, it would
in essence take away a Member's right to have the rules of the House
enforced. When I made parliamentary inquiries and ultimately conferred,
this is the only way I am told I get to enforce, or Members get to
enforce someday if they are unfortunate to have a circumstance, the
decorum of the House.
If we table it, no Member can ever get to that point. Our rules only
have meaning if we stand behind them and are willing to enforce them.
Our standard of behavior is only as good as our willingness to uphold
it. This is a vote to decide where we stand on the integrity of this
House. A vote for a motion to table or against the ultimate resolution
is a vote to turn our backs on the rules of decorum in the conduct of
this institution.
A vote against a motion to table and for the resolution affirms that
only the highest standards of conduct and decorum and respect for
democracy are allowed in this Chamber. That is what this House should
stand for; that is what I expect my colleagues to join with me in
voting for.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would rise to claim the time, and yield
myself such time as I may consume, wearing two hats, and they are
difficult hats at best.
I rise in one capacity having been on the floor and having witnessed
the questionable behavior of my good friend, and he is a good friend,
Mr. Dornan, and another good friend the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Menendez], who I have worked with on many issues, and because of
witnessing that behavior I support the resolution, all except the last
two words of the resolution.
First of all, I think that Mr. Dornan should be removed from the
Chamber because his action, his behavior, was not that of a Member of
this Congress or a former Member who respects all Members of this body,
and if we are going to serve in this body, we must always remember to
do that.
However, there is another issue, and I rise as chairman of the
Committee on Rules to point it out to Members. This is the concern that
I have, because in the last two words of the resolution we are changing
the rules of the House.
We are not changing the rules of the House for one Member or one
former Member, but we are changing the rules of the House for an
individual, who may or may not have been a Member or former Member, but
a contestant in an election.
Let me just read to you the resolve clause. It says, ``Resolved that
the Sergeant at Arms is instructed to remove former Representative Bob
Dornan from the Hall of the House and rooms leading thereto,'' et
cetera, et cetera, ``until the election contest concerning the 46th
District of California is resolved.''
Now, we all know when there is a contested election, under rule XXXII
of the House, and this has been the rule for as long as I have been
here, for 20 years, and for many years before that, the rule states,
``The persons hereinafter named and none other shall be admitted to the
Hall of the House,'' and it lists various officers of this body. Then
it goes on to say, ``and contestants in election cases during the
pendency of their cases in the House.''
Mr. Speaker, in a court of law, and I am not a lawyer, but one has a
right to representation, one has a right to be heard; and this
resolution, my concern about it is that we are not just removing Mr.
Dornan from the floor of this Congress as a former Member, but we go
that one big step further and we remove him even on the day that this
matter might come before this body and be contested, and that person,
whoever that person might be, he may never have been a Member of
Congress or a former Member, but that person has the right to be here
on the floor to argue for his case.
I do not know what can be done about the resolution at this late
date. I want to support the resolution. I support all of the
``Whereas's,'' I support the ``Resolved.''
As a matter of fact, if I could just take one last minute to read a
portion of the letter from Mr. Dornan to the Speaker, Speaker Gingrich,
it says, ``To avoid any further opportunity for Members to demagogue my
legitimate contest, I will not use my floor privileges until the House
Oversight Committee has ruled on my challenge and the case moves to the
full House for consideration.''
In other words, he already, as Members all saw when I escorted him
off the floor after that incident took place, agreed not to come back
on this floor until that time.
So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what can be done about it. I guess I
will have to vote against the resolution, because it contains the
clause ``is resolved,'' which means he could not be here as an
individual American citizen to argue his case on the floor, should that
ever come to pass.
I guess I would just ask the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez]
if he would consider amending those last two words to instead of saying
``is resolved,'' if he could just say ``is taken up on the floor of the
House of Representatives.''
That means Mr. Dornan could not have the opportunity or the right to
come on this floor if and until the matter ever came to the floor to be
argued on that particular day.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. First of all, I appreciate the gentleman's comments as
they relate to the overall question of the decorum of the House. I
appreciate on that day his assistance, so to speak, to make sure that
we did not have a worse set of events.
I read that ``resolved'' clause in a different way. It does not say
anybody else. It specifically refers to Mr. Dornan. Clearly if the
Committee on House Oversight determines that there is to be an election
contest, in my view that is a resolution, in which case his rights
under the statute or under the rules would be preserved.
It is not my intention to prohibit him from an election contest,
should the Committee on House Oversight determine in fact that there is
an election contest to take place, which it has not determined. It was
my intention, and that is why I believe when I say ``is resolved,'' it
would be resolved once the committee determines either there is no
contest or there is a contest, and then when there is a contest he
would, in fact, have the right to be able to pursue his rights as a
contestant, not as a former Member. That is the intention and the
manner in which we have worded it.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if I might not use any more of my time,
because I have other Members that want to be heard, but propound a
question to the Chair: Is it the Chair's understanding that should a
resolution be brought to this floor, where there would be a contested
election on the floor of this body, that this individual, this American
citizen, then would be allowed to be on the floor to argue his case?
The SPEAKER. The Chair may have the option at that time of relying on
the legislative history of the debate as it is occurring. The gentleman
who offered the privileged resolution has explained in the Record his
interpretation of that resolution, that it would not block a contestant
in that contest from being on the floor during pendency of a resolution
on that day in an appropriate manner. Therefore, the
[[Page H7576]]
Chair will certainly take it under advisement at that time and believes
it is helpful.
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the Speaker.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was going to say something, but I think the
Speaker has clarified the interpretation the Chair will make. I will
say in terms of a record, though I have not had the opportunity of
conferring with the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] and I
have conferred with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], it
was clearly not the intent of the resolution, as I understand from Mr.
Menendez, to obviate any contestant's right to appear on the floor at
the time the contest is considered. We agree with the chairman of the
Committee on Rules in that regard.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I certainly appreciate
the cooperation, because I just do not believe we ought to be changing
the rules of the House for anyone, any contestant, that would have the
opportunity to come to this floor.
{time} 1815
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Menendez] might consider a slight modification, and that is if, by
unanimous consent, we could strike the words ``is resolved,'' and
replace those words ``is resolved'' with the words, ``except during the
pendency of the contest.''
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I presume what the gentleman is talking about
is pendency of the contest itself actually on the floor, because
obviously the contest is pending now.
I would suggest, as I understand the Speaker's ruling, the Speaker
would specifically interpret what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey]
has suggested, and therefore, the gentleman would suggest that in light
of the record as referred to by the Speaker that has been made here on
the floor, that the resolution itself need not be changed, when we
clearly have agreement that during the contest itself, under the
Federal Contest Election Act, and under the Rules of the House, as
pointed out by the chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Dornan could
in fact have the privilege of his presence.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield in response
to his question.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] just briefly.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I think there is a point
that pendency may be broader than was intended, but I think there was
agreement that what we are talking about, and let me say I was thinking
of those words, ``during the consideration of the committee's report,''
that during consideration of the committee's report on the floor of the
House, if that could be redone by unanimous consent, that that would
solve it; that there would be a bar except during consideration of the
committee report on the floor, while the report is itself the pending
matter of business on the floor of the House, and I would think that
would be sufficient.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Menendez] if he would support that.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think that
as the Speaker stated, the legislative history here is clear. It is my
clear intention not to have that take place, but I do not want to start
amending and worrying about the extent to which we broaden the scope
beyond what is intended under the statute, which as the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] just discussed, I am in complete agreement
with what he just discussed, as long as it is during the actual contest
on the floor.
Mr. SOLOMON. Would the gentleman then accept that amendment?
Mr. MENENDEZ. At this time I do not know the exact wording.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]
has expired.
The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, since we have been involved in a colloquy,
and all of our time was used during that colloquy, I would ask that I
be allowed an additional 3 minutes to work out this agreement, and 30
seconds additional to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
The SPEAKER. The chairman of the Committee on Rules may of course ask
unanimous consent for each side to have 3 additional minutes, and then
the House will decide whether his unanimous consent request is honored.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would propound such a unanimous consent
request.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. BONIOR. I object, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is slightly confused, so the Chair will repeat
the question.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. Each side has 3 additional minutes.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 3 minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I think we are in agreement with respect to
intent here, and I should just make the point that should the occasion
present itself where there would be a consideration of this matter on
the floor, I would, if it was deemed advisable, present to the body a
resolution that would protect Mr. Dornan's rights under those
circumstances to be present on the floor.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think that
resolves the matter.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] is
recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I think we have laid out the case. The
record is clear as it relates to this one concern. I ask my colleagues
to join us in preserving the dignity of the House, I would be happy to
yield back my time, if that is the reality of the other side.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are many of us who want to support this
resolution, myself included, but the unanimous consent propounded by
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] was exactly what we have
agreed to, and it would make it so much better, I think, for the comity
of the House.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Menendez] yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I understand that, but let
me say I think we have reached an agreement in this sense: Everyone is
here, just about everybody here now understands that there is agreement
in the resolution on the contest, if it ever comes to that, because I
hope it does not, ever comes to the floor. If one does, and the Speaker
is asked to rule on the presence of Mr. Dornan, I would think the
ruling would be that during the actual consideration on the floor there
would be no obstacle, and we would all uphold that ruling, and that has
clearly been established now.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I do not yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman does not yield, and he controls the time
at this point.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I agree with the comments of the majority leader. I
think the Speaker has made it very clear, and unless the gentleman
seeks to still have speakers, I am ready to
[[Page H7577]]
yield back the balance of my time if the gentleman is ready to yield
back the balance of his time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Barton].
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York
for yielding.
Let me make one real quick point. If we accept this and vote on it
right now, and it never comes to the floor, Bob Dornan can never come
to the floor again because it will never be resolved.
Let me also point out, there have been between 20,000 and 30,000
Members of this body in the history of the United States of America. In
my very brief study of the Record, and admittedly it is brief, we have
never barred any other former Member from the floor. This is a terrible
precedent to set.
It says nothing about the despicable behavior that Mr. Dornan
exhibited toward our colleague, but there are other remedies. We could
have a Sense of the Congress resolution where we all vote unanimously
deploring that.
I have watched the majority leader of the Democratic Party and
Congressman Dan Lungren engage in fisticuffs right outside the Chamber.
They were not barred. They were not barred.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I would say two things. One, it says
until the issue is resolved. Once it is resolved, it no longer has
standing, as I understand it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if it is never
resolved, we have barred one former Member in the history of the Nation
from ever coming back on the floor of the House, and that is wrong.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let us settle everything down here for a minute. It has been
established, it is my understanding that it has been established that
we have an understanding that if and when this contested election is
brought to this floor, that the affected contestant, in this case Mr.
Dornan, would be allowed to come on this floor.
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has verified that, that
the understanding is clear on the other side of the aisle. If that is
clear with the Speaker, then I would be prepared to yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will render final judgment should the occasion
arise. However, the Chair would note that if debate is about to end,
the Chair has seen all the debate, and that would strike the Chair in
terms of this debate as a reasonable assumption.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, does the resolution, as it is worded, bar
Mr. Dornan in perpetuity?
The SPEAKER. This resolution is only binding on this Congress, and
therefore could not be in perpetuity.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Speaker.
I ask my colleagues to join us in preserving the dignity of the
House, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the adoption of the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 289,
noes 65, answered ``present'' 7, not voting 72, as follows:
[Roll No. 415]
AYES--289
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Christensen
Clayton
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Yates
Young (FL)
NOES--65
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bilirakis
Bliley
Bono
Brady
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Chabot
Chenoweth
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Gekas
Hall (TX)
Hefley
Herger
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kim
Kingston
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
McCollum
McIntosh
McKeon
Norwood
Packard
Paul
Paxon
Pickering
Pombo
Radanovich
Redmond
Riggs
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Shadegg
Smith (NJ)
Snowbarger
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Tiahrt
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--7
Ehlers
Mica
Ney
Sanchez
Solomon
Thomas
Traficant
NOT VOTING--72
Archer
Baker
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Bonilla
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Cannon
Chambliss
Clay
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Cooksey
Cramer
Deal
Fawell
Foglietta
Foley
Fowler
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goss
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Klug
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Linder
Lipinski
Manton
McCrery
McInnis
Meehan
Meek
Moakley
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Pickett
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Salmon
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Stenholm
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Wamp
Weldon (PA)
White
Wynn
Young (AK)
{time} 1842
Mr. CUNNINGHAM changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
[[Page H7578]]
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________