[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 107 (Friday, July 18, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7148-H7157]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--MANNER OF CONDUCTING MARKUP OF LEGISLATION IN
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, under rule IX, I rise to a question of the
privileges of the House, and I offer a resolution (H. Res. 324) and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 324
Whereas during a meeting of the Committee on Ways and Means
on July 18, 2003, for the consideration of the bill H.R.
1776, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means offered
an amendment in the nature of a substitute;
Whereas during the reading of that amendment the chairman
of the Ways and Means Committee directed majority staff of
the committee to ask the United States Capitol Police to
remove minority-party members of the committee from a room of
the committee during the meeting, causing the United States
Capitol Police thereupon to confront the minority-party
members of the committee;
Whereas pending a unanimous-consent request to dispense
with the reading of that amendment the chairman deliberately
and improperly refused to recognize a legitimate and timely
objection by a member of the committee: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of
the manner in which Representative Thomas conducted the
markup of legislation in the Committee on Ways and Means on
July 18, 2003, and finds that the bill considered at that
markup was not validly ordered reported to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, the resolution
constitutes a question of the privileges of the House.
The minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),
will be recognized for 30 minutes; and the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. McCrery) will be recognized for 30 minutes as the designee of the
Speaker.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is my duty as the House Democratic leader to offer
this resolution. Earlier today the Committee on Ways and Means
Democrats were subjected to an indignity, an indignity that no Member
should have to endure.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. PELOSI. I do not yield, Mr. Speaker. I do not yield, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order.
Mr. HOYER. The minority leader is speaking, Mr. Speaker.
point of order
Mr. McCRERY. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman yield for the
parliamentary inquiry?
Ms. PELOSI. I do not yield, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. For the parliamentary inquiry?
Ms. PELOSI. I do not yield. There is half an hour on the other side.
They have plenty of time to make their point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend.
The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. McCRERY. The majority has not been supplied with a copy of the
resolution, Mr. Speaker; and it is hard for us to proceed without a
copy of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will supply copies, but the
gentleman has not stated a point of order. The resolution has been
read.
Mr. McCRERY. I thank the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), the minority leader, will proceed.
Ms. PELOSI. I will proceed, Mr. Speaker, but not before saying that I
do not appreciate the gentleman trivializing a rare occasion of this
House when a leader of a party stands up for a point of privilege on
the House floor. If the gentleman wanted a copy of the resolution, he
knew he could go right to the well and get it at the desk.
Now I would like to proceed. Earlier today, the Committee on Ways and
Means Democrats were subjected to an indignity, an indignity that no
Member should have to endure; but it appears that indignity is the
order of the day on the majority side.
As the Democratic Members of the Ways and Means Committee were
caucusing in a committee room while a bill was being read for
amendment, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means summoned the
Capitol Police to remove them from that room. Make no mistake about
this: the police were summoned to remove these Democratic Members
because the chairman
[[Page H7149]]
did not want them in the room, not for any other reason. The facts
could not be clearer.
As the Democratic Members of the Committee on Ways and Means were
leaving the rostrum to caucus prior to other events, the chairman told
his staff to call the police. How outrageous.
I will not even go into how the markup was conducted; I will leave
that to the members of the Committee on Ways and Means. I will not talk
about the fashion in which the Chair rammed through the reporting of
the legislation; the members of the Committee on Ways and Means will do
that. I want to focus on how the chairman can call upon the Capitol
Police to evict Members at his whim from the committee space. We cannot
let this stand. We cannot let this go unchallenged. Mr. Speaker, this
resolution recites the facts, and my colleagues have heard them.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel), the very distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this discussion at the end
of the day would tend to bring more civility to the relationship
between the minority and the majority Members. We can continue the
animosity. We can continue the ill feelings. But this would not serve
our Nation well, and it certainly should not make Democrats or
Republicans more proud to be a Member of this august body. We should be
proud when we differ when we debate; but once we start eroding and
abusing the powers of the majority, we do not do it for this Congress,
but we do it for the Congress that follows. We do not have that right.
No one person has the right to take away the rights that have been
given to us by the Constitution in this great Nation.
{time} 1330
Last night, just before midnight, a substitute pension bill was
filed. After midnight, its description was filed. The underlying bill
was a $230 billion bill of 207 pages. The substitute was a $50 billion
bill and 90 pages. Members of our committee, Democratic members and I
would suspect Republicans as well, had no clue as to the fact that this
was coming up on a Friday; and when it did come up, we did not have
time to read to see what were the major differences between the
substitute and the underlying bill.
When the chairman of the committee asked for unanimous consent to
waive the reading of the substitute, I objected and there was some
discussion, but I maintained the objection because the Chair really had
made up his mind that he was going to move forward with that
legislation.
After talking with some of the senior members of the minority, we
decided that we had go to the library. This library has been used
historically since I have been on that committee for discussions with
majority, minority, collectively. It has been used by the Trade Caucus,
Republicans and Democrats. It is a beautiful place right behind our
beautiful hearing room.
We went back there just to discuss what was in the substitute and how
we would handle it. We were not there, I want to emphasize that all of
these things are recorded because the time factor is so essential. I
was not in that room 2 minutes when I was approached by the chairman's
chief of staff who asked me and the Democrats to leave the library. I
asked why. She told me because the chairman wanted to use the library
for the Republican members. I asked her to advise the Chair that we
were not leaving.
It was less than 3 minutes that a House Capitol policeman came and
said that a disturbance has been reported. All of the Democrats were in
the library at this time with the exception of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark) who was outside to make certain that if there
was an attempt to waive the rules, the reading of the substitute, that
he could object.
The police officer asked us to leave because he was reported that
there was a disturbance. I asked what did he intend to do because we
were not leaving. He said he would report to his superior.
In less than 3 minutes a lieutenant came of the Capitol policemen. I
asked him why was he there, and he stated because the patrolman had
received this message, and he had received notice that he was to remove
us. I told him what I told the police officer, that we had decided
collectively that we would not be moved, and I asked what they intended
to do. He said that he had to get a better reading of this from the
Sergeant of Arms.
The Sergeant of Arms came and said he was advised by the Capitol
Police that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means asked that
we be removed from the room. I said we would not be removed, and the
Sergeant of Arms said that he thought that was an issue to be resolved
by Members of Congress and members of the committee.
I suggest to you that once we start taking away the privacy of
Members, the privacy of members of the committee the privilege to use
space that is there for the sole purpose of us to deliberate, then it
is a situation that effects not me, not the Democrats on the Committee
on Ways and Means, not the Democrats and Republicans in this House of
Representatives, but it effects this institution.
We should not allow the abuse of power or personalities to interfere
with the responsibilities we have. We have a responsibility to pass
this Congress, certainly, if not in better shape, than in no worse
shape than the great institution that we inherit it.
Mr. MCCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I should begin by apologizing to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader. I probably should not
have interrupted her. She, due her to her long service in this House
and certainly as a minority leader, deserves the respect of all Members
on both sides and I certainly did not mean to show disrespect. I was
merely trying to get a copy of the resolution. Perhaps I should have
known to go down to the well and request one rather than interrupting
the gentlewoman, and I apologize.
With respect to the matter at hand, it is unfortunate that we are
here this afternoon debating this motion. The events which led to the
introduction of this proposal are indeed unfortunate. Our view, and
certainly my view, of the events as they were seen and understood by me
differ substantially from those presented by the minority.
First of all, with respect to the rules being followed by the
committee, by the majority, by the chairman, it is clear that no rules
were violated in terms of our presenting to the minority the underlying
bill which was introduced in April of this year, nor was it a violation
of the rules in terms of the timing with which we gave the minority a
copy of the chairman's substitute to the underlying bill. In fact, that
chairman's substitute was delivered to the minority the night before
the mark-up. There is no requirement in the rules that the chairman's
substitute be given to the minority at any certain time prior to the
mark-up. So the majority and the chairman lived up to the rules of the
House in getting to the mark-up today.
Now, what transpired at the mark-up is, again, unfortunate. The
minority chose for whatever reason to object to a unanimous consent
request that the bill be considered as read so that the committee might
undertake an explanation of the bill and proceed to questions on the
bill. That is an extraordinary objection. It has never been made in my
time that I can recall on the committee. And, in fact, when we were in
the minority on that committee, we did not even have legislative
language at the Committee on Ways and Means. We marked up by concept.
So I did not really understand the reason, the rationale for the
objection of the minority member to waive the reading of the bill.
And as all of you know, had the minority insisted and had the bill
been read in its entirety, we would have wasted a lot of time in
committee today. In fact, when the bill began to be read line by line
by the head of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the entire membership
on the minority party stood up and walked out of the mark-up except for
the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
So if the intent of the minority had been to gain an understanding of
the bill through a reading of the bill, it would make sense that they
would at least remain and hear the reading of the bill. So I think one
can conclude that their intent was not really to gain
[[Page H7150]]
an understanding of the bill but to cause disruption in the mark-up of
the committee.
After the Democratic members left the room, the hearing room, left
one of their members at the dias, there transpired more than one
exchange between the minority member and majority members of the
committee, culminating in a manner exhibited by the minority member
which in my view warranted the chairman of the committee calling the
Sergeant at Arms to preserve order in the committee; and I believe that
is the reason the Sergeant at Arms was called and rightly so.
After the Sergeant at Arms and the police arrived at the committee to
preserve order, it is true they did go back to an ante-room of the
hearing room we call the library and discussed with the minority a
request that they move to another office. I do not know exactly what
got the Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms to go back there,
because I was not privy to that. However, I was privy to the chairman
only minutes after the police and the Sergeant at Arms had gone to the
library, instructing the staff to go back to the library and tell the
police, the Sergeant at Arms that it was all right if the minority
remained in the library, and I believe that instruction was given.
Bottom line, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is any basis for the
resolution that is before us, certainly no basis on which a Member of
this House would vote to approve this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to have much of a dispute
here. First of all, we were not saying that the majority violated any
rules by giving us the substitute 2 minutes before midnight and the
description right after midnight. That is your prerogative to do. We
think it is wrong. We are not charging you with violating rules. And
the time fact as to when we got up to leave, yes, we did. We had to
decide what we were going to do, and we did get up and leave the
gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) behind.
The question is, did the chief of staff come as soon as we got up and
say that the Chair told us to leave the room? And even though you may
not know who directed the sergeant, the police to take us out of the
room, the record will show they received a call and they know who they
received it from. It was from the chief of staff from the Committee on
Ways and Means or someone saying they were speaking for the chief, and
it was after that that the police came.
I do not know whether the chairman rescinded the direction to kick us
out of the room, but what we are saying today is that that never should
have happened. That room belongs to us just as much as it belongs to
the Republicans. So we are not arguing with you about violating the
rules, but when we objected, that is the only thing that we have. We
used the tools that we have. We did not give you unanimous consent to
have the substitute to be considered. You may call it a waste of time.
We have call it our constitutional prerogative.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw), a member of the committee.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, so what? I mean, so far, we have had a
discussion of he said, who said, cops came, Sergeant of Arms was
called, these types of things, but let us look at the resolution.
The resolution says that the House of Representatives disapproves the
manner in which the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) conducted
the mark-up of legislation in the Committee on Ways and Means on July
18, 2003, and find that the bill considered at that mark-up was not
validly ordered reported to the House. Well, I think it is important
that we talk about what happened.
{time} 1345
The only thing that was in dispute is, and that I can see here is, to
whether a timely objection was made to dispense with the reading of the
bill itself, and the Democrats or the minority party were all back in
the library with the exception of one; and he was engaged in a
conversation with the staff when the motion was made, and at that time,
the chairman said, Hearing no objection, it is considered as read and
open for amendment at any time.
With that, the lone minority Member in the room got up and left. At
that time, the chairman yielded the floor to the main sponsor of the
bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), on the majority side. The
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) then proceeded to describe the bill
and talk about the bill for a number of minutes, for a long period of
time, at which time the minority party had plenty of time to come back
into the room, but they had all left.
Now, if you were to say that this was an improperly crafted,
improperly passed bill, then all the minority has to do at any time is
to get up and leave the room. There was clearly a quorum in the room.
The bill was called up and it was voted upon. That is what we are here
to decide.
Now, if we are to decide personalities, then this is not the place
for it. As a matter of fact, our rules of the House decorum says that
we are not supposed to get involved in that, but we could get involved
in it for a long time, for a lot of Members; and we cannot do that
because of the decorum of this House of Representatives.
My friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and he is my
friend, he objected that the minority has the right to use any of the
rooms, just as the majority does. I am sorry, that is not the way the
rules of the House are written. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas) controls those rooms, but that is not what is complained about
here.
What is complained about here and what we are here to debate today is
whether or not there was a proper handling of the rules with regard to
the legislation itself, the legislation itself. There is a lot of blame
to go around.
I quite frankly, prior to the start of this hearing, I tried to get
the Speaker or somebody to try to work this out so this thing could be
defused over the weekend. It desperately needs defusing.
The Committee on Ways and Means is one of the premier, if not the
premier, committees within this House of Representatives. We do need to
work on some decorum within the committee; we know that. It is the
premier committee in the House of Representatives.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw)
care to share with the House your view on a Member of the Committee on
Ways and Means calling the Capitol Police on other duly elected Members
of Congress? That is one of the----
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman, I was sitting there right next to the chairman. The minority
Member that was sitting there alone, the only one in there, physically
threatened a majority Member.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, now to speak to this resolution, the
objection of which is that the office of the chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means called the police on the Democratic Members who were
assembling in a room, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me, if I might, first correct, I think,
a couple of the factual issues.
I can assure you that the Democratic Members wanted to participate in
the debate on the pension legislation. In fact, when the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Portman) was debating the issue, we were confronting the
Capitol Police, and that was the reason why we are not back in the
room. By the time we finished with the Capitol Police, the markup was
over.
Let me also point out that the police were called before the
gentleman from California's (Mr. Stark) episode began. We were
confronted with the Capitol Police before the unanimous consent request
was brought forward.
Mr. Speaker, I started this day looking forward to the committee
markup on H.R. 1776. That is a bill that I have worked on with the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for many months. We have worked with
the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. We
[[Page H7151]]
have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle on that
legislation. It is important legislation to working people of this
country, and there are different views among Democrats on provisions in
that legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I could defend that bill on its merit, and I look
forward to doing just that, but I cannot defend the manner in which our
committee acted this morning.
I have devoted much of my public career to process issues. I have
served on the ethics committee for over 6 years, and I have served as a
cochair of our ethics task force. I am a former speaker of the Maryland
legislature. Process is important in what happened in the Committee on
Ways and Means this morning. Mistakes were made, and it reflects badly
on each one of us. We need to move forward, but to move forward we must
acknowledge our mistakes.
H.R. 1776 desperately needs to be considered in a fair manner before
the Committee on Ways and Means for its integrity and integrity of the
process.
It is the committee's responsibility to guarantee to the public that
a fair process is used, order is maintained, and each Member's right is
protected. That is our collective responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, since this morning I have talked to Members on both
sides of the aisle, and I am pleased that the Speaker's on the floor
listening to this debate. I think it is absolutely essential, and I
know I am supported by both Democrats and Republicans, that H.R. 1776
be returned to the Committee on Ways and Means for a full markup, with
opportunity of all Members to participate. As one of the principal
sponsors, I hope that will be accomplished and we will be able to have
a full markup on that legislation.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, I would point out that
the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, as the chairman of any
standing committee, has the prerogative to call the Sergeant at Arms to
maintain order in his committee, and that was the basis of the
chairman's call for the Sergeant at Arms.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
McInnis), a member of the committee.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying, with all
due respect to my colleague, whose comments we have just heard, a lot
of those comments I happen to agree with; but with due respect, you
were not in the room at the time that an incident occurred not dealing
with process but dealing with order in the committee; and with all due
respect to your fellow colleagues, with the exception of one, the rest
of you were all out of the room in another room. That particular
individual was not arguing process. In fact, that particular individual
threatened me with physical harm.
Now, fellow colleagues of mine realize that I like engagement, but it
was clear there was going to be fairly prompt disorder beyond the
magnitude that was probably originally anticipated when a member of the
minority committee made his first comments. I think it was entirely
appropriate, entirely appropriate, with considering my own actions, I
think it was entirely appropriate for the chairman of that committee to
call the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police so that order in the
committee could be maintained.
I think this discussion about process at midnight or process of when
the police were in the library is all, and I am not saying this in a
derogatory fashion, but is all diversionary from the fact that we were
within moments, frankly myself and another Member on your side of the
aisle, were within moments of, I would guess, a physical engagement;
and I considered that threat serious. I considered the bodily threat
not just to the order of the committee but to me, and I fully intended
to defend myself.
So to calm this down, I know that is the purpose of why the chairman
had done that, and I think any one of you in the same exact position
that that chairman was in would have done exactly the same thing.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, one of the people who was evicted from the
room.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere belief that at the end of
the day we will all be reading from the same page.
In order for us to really resolve this issue, truth has to prevail. I
suggest to the majority that we will be referring to the timing of the
telephone calls, which is recorded. No one is going to dispute in this
House that the police were called and they arrived in the library prior
to the time that the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and members
of the majority had any problem. I repeat, the police were called and
arrived, and I am referring to the time clock and the record. So that
is all I have to say about this. Whether they should have been called
and they were not called to stop any disturbance, they were called to
get us out of that room.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, indeed, the gentleman from California's (Mr.
Thomas) chief of staff stood nearby where we were meeting with a member
of the Capitol Police and said this to the police and at least one
member of the staff, that the chairman has asked me to get the police
to remove Democrats from this room.
This is the United States of America. This is not a police state.
This is supposed to be the people's House, and you call members of the
police to evict us from having a discussion. We were discussing that
bill that we had only seen a few minutes before, because it was
delivered at midnight, delivered at midnight and maybe the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas) and the rest of you did not like our
insisting that the bill be read; but the rules say that we have the
right to have a bill read word for word, and you have no right to
trample, once again, on the rights of the minority of the United States
House of Representatives.
That is what is at stake here, and you can try to change the subject.
You can try to gloss over it. You can try to make excuses. You can try
to say the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) said such and such to
so and so. No, the issue, this is not a partisan squabble. This is not
a matter of personality. This is a matter of our basic rights as
representatives of the people of the United States; and darn it all, we
are going to stand here and stand here to defend not only our rights
but the rights of the people of the United States of America.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may
consume.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, none of us, at least who have spoken here
on the floor, knows who told who what when; but I do know, I do know
that I was told by a member of the staff, the majority staff of the
Committee on Ways and Means, that that staff person went back to the
library, which is the room in question, it is not the hearing room,
that the Democrats were asked to move from. It was the library and
prior to the Sergeant at Arms and the police getting there, the staff
person went back and notified the minority that that room was to be
used during the markup, it was reserved, and they would have to move to
1129, which is another Ways and Means room just down the hall.
{time} 1400
So I want everyone to know that that transpired before the Sergeant
at Arms and the police got to the library to ask the minority to move
out of that room.
So I think what we have here, in total, to support this proposal,
this resolution, is a very short period of time, minutes, during which
the Sergeant at Arms, the Capitol police were told by someone to remove
the Democrats from the library to another room, to another Ways and
Means room; and very shortly after the Capitol police, Sergeant at Arms
arrived in the library, the chairman of the committee, in my presence,
directed the staff to go back and tell the police and the Sergeant at
Arms that it was all right for the minority to use the library.
So even if it was the chairman who directed, ordered the police and
the Sergeant at Arms to the library specifically to tell the Democrats
to move out of that room, it would have been a
[[Page H7152]]
mistake that was corrected almost immediately by the chairman. And for
that you bring a resolution to the floor of the House? I think that
those who would do this might have a bad memory with respect to their
own actions at times during their lives and wish that their actions
would not be judged so harshly for so short a period of time.
So, insofar as any other basis for this resolution, as I have pointed
out, there is no basis for determining that the committee was out of
order or acted contrary to the rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I will make an inquiry about the remaining
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 14 minutes remaining, and the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) has 13 minutes remaining.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
just make note of the fact that the gentleman from Louisiana has just
stipulated to the facts that the police were called to go to the
library to evict the Democratic Members from that room.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we are getting closer to the truth. And if
what the majority is saying is that somehow the chairman recognized
that what he did was wrong and rescinded that, we in that room had no
idea that it was rescinded. The police had us in that room. They sent
for their superior, and they sent for the Sergeant of Arms. The same
person who came to tell us that the chairman wanted us to leave could
have very easily come into that room and said that the chairman had
changed his mind. That did not happen.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the committee.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution and
I do so understanding that people of goodwill can and often do
disagree. I realize also that frustrations abound, indeed, as a private
citizen reading of certain machinations that went on in this House when
roles were reversed.
But that is not the subject here today. The subject here today is,
was the chairman within his rights when order was threatened in the
committee to call the Sergeant at Arms? In other words, a test of what
is reasonable.
Mr. Speaker, were I in the Chair at the time when order was
disrupted, when a physical threat was issued by a member of the
minority party, and parliamentary rules preclude me from naming that
Member, although I can say it was a very stark picture of a
confrontation, you better believe, Mr. Speaker, I would have called the
Sergeant at Arms to restore order.
Reject the resolution. It is dead wrong and a disservice to the
House.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
note that, unfortunately, the gentleman did not hear the stipulation to
the fact that the police were called before any conversations took
place between those individuals, and they were called to evict the
Democratic members from the hearing room.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Matsui).
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Democratic leader for yielding
me this time.
It is really unfortunate what is going on here. My colleague on the
Democratic side of the aisle, his reputation is being besmirched in
order to avoid the real issue, and I think it is really outrageous that
the gentleman from Louisiana is doing this.
This is not about the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), because
the Capitol police came to visit us, and I was in that room in the
library behind the Committee on Ways and Means hearing room, before the
completion of the reading of the bill was going on. That was before the
gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. McInnis) had even their discussion; and, as a result of that, the
Capitol police were called before the gentleman from California (Mr.
Stark) had even said anything.
As a result of that, what the gentleman is doing to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Stark) is doing major damage to his credibility at
the same time when the real fault is the chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means. He called the Capitol police. And, frankly, when later
on the Sergeant of Arms came in himself, he said, he said to all of us,
he said I was called, we were called because there was a disturbance.
There was a disturbance back here in this room, and we were asked to
remove all of you.
This was not about the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark). This
was about removing Members on the Democratic side of the aisle on the
Committee on Ways and Means from a room that was not being used because
the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means just decided to lose
his temper on the situation. I think it is really outrageous. We ought
to debate the issues. We ought not to try to point the finger at
somebody who was innocent in this discussion.
I really think it is really outrageous. I think the gentleman from
Louisiana owes the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) an apology by
trying to make the issue about him rather than about the chairman of
the committee.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I would tell my friend from California (Mr. Matsui) that he was not
in the hearing room and, therefore, he cannot speak with any authority
about the time line within which events transpired. I was in the
hearing room. I know that the behavior of the minority prior to the
completion of the reading of the bill warranted the Sergeant at Arms
being called. So I would caution the gentleman not to make absolute
statements which he cannot back up with any certainty.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. Dunn).
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what the gentleman from
Louisiana just stated. I think it is very important, since we are at
the point of considering such a resolution on the floor of the House,
for us to look at this situation as one in which there are two ships
passing in the night.
My Democratic colleagues seem to be referring to activities that
happened in the library, with which we are all familiar. We are talking
about the reason that the Sergeant at Arms was called to the committee
in the first place. It is a situation that is not unknown to my
colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman in
question has created this sort of situation before, so it is not
anything new. We all understand that. There have been letters written
in the past, signed by members of the minority caucus, castigating the
behavior of the gentleman in question. That is why the Sergeant at Arms
was called to our committee. I just have to say that if I had been
sitting in the Chair at that moment I would have felt constrained to
call the Sergeant at Arms.
And I am sorry that the members of our wonderful committee that does
most of its work with great dignity, who were missing all but one of
its minority members because they were having a caucus in the library,
but we who were sitting in the hearing room and all the people who were
in the audience saw exactly what was going on; not the first time, not
the second time, but it happened many, many times. This was a time when
I believe it was entirely appropriate for the chairman to use his
authority to regain order in the hearing room by calling the Sergeant
at Arms.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the
resolution. As many of you know, I am a man of peace. During the 1960s,
many of us involved in the Civil Rights movement were threatened with
arrest for sitting in at lunch counters, standing in at segregated
theaters, or marching for the right to vote; and sometimes we were
arrested and jailed. We were charged with disturbing the peace or
disorderly conduct, and we were very peaceful and we were orderly.
I never thought that as a Member of Congress I would be threatened
with arrest by sitting in the library of the Committee on Ways and
Means. As a Member of Congress and as a member
[[Page H7153]]
of the Committee on Ways and Means, I thought, I really believed that
it was a safe place to meet and to discuss the business of the
committee.
It is unreal, it is unthinkable that another Member of Congress would
threaten to have another arrested for carrying out his or her
congressional duties. In another period of time, a few short years ago,
some of us stood up to Bull Conner in Birmingham, Alabama, and we stood
up to Sheriff Clark in Selma, Alabama. And I must say to the chairman
of this committee, we will not be intimidated. We will not be
immobilized. We live in a democracy and not a police state.
What happened today in the Committee on Ways and Means should cause a
sense of righteous indignation among all of us. As Democrats, as
Members of this House, the People's House, we will not get lost in a
sea of despair. We will continue to stand up and fight for what is
right and for what is fair.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, may I request the time remaining on each
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery)
has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) has 9\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis)
took the floor to relate what happened. And although I was not in the
room, I did speak to the Democrat that was in the room. The comments of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) were preceded by the words,
``shut up.'' And that was by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis),
inciting the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) to respond. Now,
that sort of slipped his memory when he talked to us before.
So, now, here is the scenario. Here is a man in excess of 70 years
old threatening a man 30 years his junior, and the chairman was afraid
that the 30-year-old junior was going to get beat up. Hello.
Mr. Speaker, since your election, you have conducted this House with
total honor. You have made all of us proud to be Members of Congress.
But it is one thing to defend one of your own, but it is surely another
to do so less than honorably, in fact, dishonorably and dishonestly.
The fact of the matter is the police, who have a lot of things to do
around here protecting the Americans, were called because of a
disturbance against Democrats. I was in the room when the police came.
Two officers came to clear us out because we were causing a
disturbance.
So do not go lying about what happened. It is an embarrassment
enough, and this could be resolved by the chairman in question
apologizing to all of us, and the issue would be done with.
{time} 1415
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, hopefully to further clarify some of the
questions that have been asked, and I see the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) has been provided a transcript from this morning's
Committee on Ways and Means markup, what I would like to do is read the
relevant portions, I think, which then necessitated the calling of the
Sergeant at Arms.
This would be at page 15, line 331, the chairman stated, ``If the
gentleman will suspend. If the gentleman from California would
understand he is reading the table of contents, which is at the
beginning of the bill.''
The remaining minority Member said, ``Oh, that.''
Line 335, ``Chairman Thomas. He will then move to the body of the
bill. That is how these things work.'' To which the sole Member of the
minority party that was left in the room said this at line 337, ``Its
eloquence overwhelms me, Mr. Chairman, just like your intellect does.
It is--oh, you think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp?
Come on. Come over here and make me. I dare you.''
The transcript indicates in brackets ``laughter,'' to which the
minority member then said, ``You little fruitcake. You little
fruitcake. I said you are a fruitcake.''
Now, what the transcript does not indicate, and I would have to stay
with the transcript, and just as many of us who have had previous
experience in criminal courtrooms or civil courtrooms, the transcript
is, of course, the cold recitation of words that are spoken.
If Members will permit me to characterize just a bit, I was sitting
next to the gentleman from Colorado, and I would tell the Speaker that
the words specifically regarding, ``Are you big enough to make me, you
little wimp? Come on. Come over here and make me. I dare you,'' I
happened to turn around in my chair because I am on the lower dais and
looked up, and it was the sole Democratic member who was remaining who
was directing those words directly at the gentleman from Colorado.
If Members would permit me to characterize a little bit more, even
though laughter erupted, as someone who was witnessing this event, Mr.
Speaker, the words were uttered in a very serious tone, dare I say in a
threatening tone. I do not think I am mischaracterizing the import of
these words.
This, of course, was done during the reading of the bill. Ultimately,
the chairman was able to get a unanimous consent request. That is later
reflected. Then we were able to move and consider the bill, but this
was done before the Capitol Police were called; and were I the chairman
in the same situation, I, too, would have contacted the Sergeant at
Arms to return decorum to our committee room.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the newest member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was not in the room when the
interaction occurred between the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark)
and other Members of Congress, but I was in the library when the police
came in and said that Democrats were causing a disturbance, and the
police were required to come.
This is the second time I have been on the floor of the House and
been required to do something that is distasteful for me as a Member of
Congress. The first was with the Committee on Standards of Conduct, and
the second is with the chairman of my committee.
Members know I have been a judge. When a judge hosts a courtroom, he
or she sets the standard. The chairman must set the standard in a
committee room. We are talking about an interaction that went on this
day, but I came from the Committee on Financial Services where I had a
chairman who allowed members of the committee to speak and did not
cause members to react to his response.
If Members check the transcript of our hearings, every time someone
says something, the chairman has a response for whatever witness it is.
Mr. Speaker, I have respect for the chairman. I find it hard to stand
here today, but the reality is that he called the police on his
colleagues, and no one can take a thing away from that.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman, a respected
member of the Committee on Ways and Means who was a judge, I would say
that I also was a judge, and if anyone had conducted themselves like
that in my courtroom, they would have been held in contempt of court.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett), a former judge of the Supreme Court of Texas and a
member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there is no small amount of irony that the
bill in question before the committee today was H.R. 1776. The
democracy that our forebears brought to being in this land requires our
continual vigilance. We are reminded of the words of James Madison that
there are more instances of abridgement by gradual encroachments of
those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation.
Mr. Speaker, a committee chairman today ordered the police to evict
Members of this Congress from a committee room on the edge of the
markup. When Officer Spriggs arrived in that room,
[[Page H7154]]
the committee library, he was not looking for the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark). He was there, as he said, to clear the room on
the instructions of the chief of staff of the committee chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
My friends, this is how tyranny begins. It is our responsibility to
stand against a police state, to stand in favor of open dialogue rather
than to permit a bill to pass with only the votes of one party and move
toward a one-party state.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, this is simple, serious,
and sad. Significant errors of utterance and judgment were made by
members of the Committee on Ways and Means of both parties this
morning. The chairman responded to what were fast-paced comments and
actions. There were good reasons for the chairman's judgments and
actions and good reasons why he altered those judgments and actions as
circumstances changed. For that he is to be commended. To elevate an
incident of which no Member on either side of the aisle is proud is
destructive to this body.
I regret the minority party's decision to enshrine in a resolution
some facts while omitting others crucial to the flow of events. That
does this House no good, and I urge opposition to this resolution.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TANNER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a question on behalf of all of
those Members who were not in any of those rooms: If it was the
gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) in the hearing room with the
fruitcake, why did you sic the cops on the Democrats in the library?
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak, but I must say to
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), you know if you are using
whatever confrontation took place between the gentleman from California
(Mr. Stark) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), that is
absolutely not true. The policeman came to the library, one, before
that happened; and, second, if the problem was in the hearing room
between the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), why would the policemen come to the
library to begin with? They came in there, and the gentleman may not
know it, but we asked, Why are you here?
They said, we have been given orders to remove you from the library.
It had nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with what went on in the
hearing room. That is the truth.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker says that is the
truth, but the fact is he was not there. He has no independent
knowledge of who called the Sergeant at Arms or the reason for it. I
resent the gentleman's tone. It is erroneous. His statement is
erroneous.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was present during this
confrontation, not just present but the physically closest member to
the incident. I saw it firsthand. I was not in the library or out of
the room; I was there.
First, I think the official transcript puts a lie to this resolution.
Furthermore, being the person sitting in front of the lone minority
member, who in my opinion, in fact, my knowledge, instigated this
confrontation, what I witnessed was a profanity-laced, angry,
degrading, physical confrontation that was growing in volume, not
lessening. It was a tirade completely inappropriate to this Congress
and to that committee.
What I did, my action was to turn to the audience, looking for young
people, hoping that there was no young person in that committee room
who would witness the behavior of the gentleman who instigated this
incident. Had it been me, I, too, would have made a phone call * * *
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the gentleman's words be
taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words.
{time} 1430
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention, rightly
so, that at the conclusion of my remarks, I need to clarify the words
that I spoke in this House in order to also set an example for decorum
and civility. At the end of my remarks, I made reference to an
emotional state and bodily functions when, in fact, what I really was
referencing was potential bodily conduct.
To clarify and also because I really do hold our colleagues in
deference, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw that portion of my
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do
not intend to object, I thank the gentleman very much for trying to
bring civility back to the House which is very important. In
consultation with the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who was
the only Democrat on the committee who the police were not called to
throw out of the library because he was not in the library, he was in
the committee room, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has
accepted your apology.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the words are withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the very distinguished Chair
of the Democratic Caucus.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, we can hear all the spin and diversion
that the majority wants to lay there, but this is the point: this
morning in the People's House, the heart of our great American
democracy, the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means
called the police, the police, in an attempt to break up a meeting of
House Democrats.
Why did he call the police? Because he did not like what Democrats
were meeting about and that Democrats as the minority availed
themselves of what little protection they have under the rules. This is
what Republicans have come to in the running of this House. If they do
not like what we say, even in a private meeting, they will try to have
us arrested. If we object, and they do not like it, they will try to
have us arrested. Does that sound like America to you? Or does that
sound like some sort of police state? Our distinguished Speaker should
be in the chair and alarmed that this happened under your watch. Power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. An example of that is
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) calling the Department of Homeland
Security to track down Texas legislators. Where does this end? This
institution cannot and must not tolerate this sort of abusive and
intimidating behavior. And this one will not be swept under the rug
until justice is done.
Some of us come from families that fled this kind of persecution. I
never thought that I would see that persecution take place right here
in the people's House, the very place where people are sent to the
greatest democracy in the world.
Some claim that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) had the
police called in response to a disturbance, but why was the majority
chief of staff escorting the police back to the library where the
Democrats were meeting? The answer is obvious. The chairman was annoyed
and wanted to break up that meeting of Democrats, and he was willing to
use the police to do it. As the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, I
want you to know that our Members will not be silenced on behalf of the
136 million Americans we represent in this House.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Hyperbole is something that is used often for effect, even in
fictional writing. On the floor of the House debating something this
serious, I think it has
[[Page H7155]]
no place. And to claim that the police were there to arrest Democrats
is indeed hyperbole. No one ever suggested that anyone was to be
arrested. There is no evidence to that. Not even any hearsay to that.
The fact is they were being asked to move from that room to another
Ways and Means hearing room.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I look around this room today and I see
friends on both sides of the aisle. On my committee I have friends that
are Democrats and friends that are Republicans, and I think no one
wishes we were going through this exercise today. But as one of those
who was in the room, and I think those who were in the room are the
best witnesses to be speaking today, not those who were not at the room
and heard what might have occurred, but those who actually witnessed
it.
I often think, what would I have done if I was the chairman? I think
all of us, Republicans and Democrats, a lot of us would like to be a
chairman someday, what would we do if we were in the same situation?
And going back to that room this morning, going to the official
transcript of this morning's markup of H.R. 1776, again let me refer to
the record, the official record, line 337, beginning with the sole
remaining minority party Member in the committee room at that time:
``Its eloquence overwhelms me, Mr. Chairman, just like your intellect
does.''
Clearly the question would be, what would you do if you were the
chairman and you had a member there that was using invective, innuendo,
name-calling, physically threatening another colleague? Would you have
worked to restore order? I am one of those who stands and believes that
if I was the chairman today, I would have summoned the Sergeant at Arms
to ask for order as well.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the committee.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I, too, was sitting closest to
the lone minority member in the Chamber. I was there in the Chamber
next to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady). I heard the comments. It
was very, very clear that a physical threat was made, that a situation
was getting out of control, that we had a physical situation on our
hands; and if I were in the position that the chairman was, I believe
that the Capitol Police or the Sergeant at Arms should have been called
to restore order.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the committee.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I also was seated in front of the
minority member. I can validate everything that has been said here on
the majority side. It was a situation that seemed to be getting out of
control. It was getting out of control. Again, if I would have been the
chairman, I would have done exactly what Chairman Thomas did.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the committee.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, unlike any of the speakers on the other
side, I was also in the room. I saw what was said. I saw what was
implied. And I saw the behavior of the chairman close up. May I say
what is embarrassing the House today is not the behavior of the
chairman. I think he did what in his judgment was right to proceed with
what became a very contentious hearing. What I am very unhappy about is
the fact that this resolution has even been brought to the floor. It is
an embarrassment to this institution.
{time} 1445
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip for the Democrats.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation of laws. This House was
established to make those laws. We have a manual. It is called
Jefferson's Manual. It has in it the Constitution of the United States
of America. It has as well the rules that Jefferson put forward.
At page 123 it says, ``the weaker party can only be protected from
those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to
check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to
suggest to large and successful majorities.''
Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for you, and you run this House
fairly. But this is another instance, not an isolated incidence, not a
unique incidence of the arbitrary use of power. The Committee on Rules
shuts us down. It does not give us amendments. It does not give us time
to debate. It does not adequately give us substitutes. It shuts down
the majority. It shuts down the minority. This is not what Jefferson
had in mind nor, I suggest to you, our Founding Fathers.
This is indeed not an isolated incident. The police were called.
There is a dispute of facts as to why the police were called. But there
seems to be no dispute that they did not go to the committee room. They
went to the library, presumably because that is where they were told to
go. They know the difference, believe me, to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), they know the difference.
This is not an isolated or unique incidence. The police were called
by the Speaker of the Texas House to go arrest 55 members of the Texas
House because they would not go along with the majority.
Let me read from page 18 of the transcript of the proceedings.
``Mr. Yin, as you go through, would you periodically indicate which
page you are on.'' They are reading the bill. ``We are going to be
going through the titles, and if it lengthens out, it gets more
complicated.'' Mr. Thomas is speaking. ``I know you have just begun on
page 3 in doing that.'' Under the rules, the reading of the bill, what
is the next thing that is said? ``And, without objection, it is
considered as read.
``Mr. Stark: I object.
``Mr. Thomas: The gentleman was too late.''
Absent was a request for objection. That, my friends, is the gravamen
of this case. You are trampling on the rights of the minority. You are
trampling on the rules of this institution. This is America. This is
not American.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, assuming that the gentlewoman from
California has only one remaining speaker and that is to close, I yield
20 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), a member of
the committee.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, what I would say to the previous speaker is
the transcript is in fact true. What was not included was that in the
transcript at the conclusion, again on page 18, line 24, ``And, without
objection, it is considered as read.'' At that point, the chairman
struck the gavel.
Mr. HOYER. * * *
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger), a member of the committee.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, it is an incredible privilege and honor to
serve in this body.
This is not a happy or a proud day for any one of us. We were all
here late last night until midnight. Those of us who serve on the
Committee on Ways and Means, as I do, were here early this morning. I
was sitting throughout the entire meeting. I was sitting up on the
dias. I personally looked down and was able to see what took place, and
I support our chairman in his calling for support at that time.
{time} 1530
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) has 1 minute and 10 seconds remaining.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
It is time for the House to bring to a close this resolution. I would
say that in no way has the minority, which brought this resolution to
the floor, proved any facts which would substantiate a rationale for
passage of this resolution, and I would urge all Members on both sides
of the aisle to reject this resolution and vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
[[Page H7156]]
First, I want to congratulate the Chair on the dignified manner in
which he has conducted the proceedings today.
It is clear from the debate today that the Republicans have a major
problem with the democratic process. It is clear that the Republicans
are in denial about their behavior, and it is clear that the Democrats
must draw a line in the sand on the repression of our rights in this
Congress.
My resolution does just that. It says to the Republican majority that
our constituents have a right to be heard. Every day that right is
abused; but today, the Republicans went over the edge.
The facts are these: the police came to the library behind the
committee, while the bill was still being read. There is no confusion
as to why the police went to the library, and the police did not go to
the library once or twice. They went to the library three times to
evict the Democratic Members. First came the policeman and then came
their superior and then came a representative of the Sergeant at Arms
office to clear the room, to evict the Members from that room.
That is why, and if there is any challenge to these facts, we can
take up this discussion under oath under the auspices of the Committee
of Standards of Official Conduct.
We must insist on this House supporting the resolve that it is wrong
for the Chair to conduct his committee meetings and have part of that
be by calling the police, and we must insist that the markup that took
place is not validly ordered reported to the House.
There is no confusion. The question before the House is this: Is it
right for the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to call the
police to evict Democratic Members from their meeting place? Again, the
police came not once, not twice, but three times.
A vote for my resolution is a vote to reject that kind of behavior.
It is wrong for the committee Chair to call the police, and my
Republican colleagues just do not know that; and the country should
know that about them. Why is it not clear to you that it is not right
to call the police to evict your colleagues from a room?
What should be a stunning fact to the American people is that the
Republicans in the House of Representatives need to be convinced that
it is wrong to call the police to evict their Democratic colleagues
from their meeting. I say that over and over again.
We talk about the power of ideas. We heard the brilliant speech
yesterday of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, talking about liberty
and the pride we should take in our contribution to it throughout the
world and about the power of ideas; but the power of our example speaks
louder than all of that. And what is the example that we show to the
rest of the world when we have a chairman of the committee calling the
police to evict his colleagues from a room?
The Greeks had a word for it, ``hubris.'' It was about power, abuse
of power, arrogance; and it is a tragic flaw. We cannot allow your
tragic flaw to shut down the voices of the American people. We will
fight you every step of the way, every day in this House of
Representatives.
I want to thank my Democratic colleagues for staying, for their
thoughtful presentations during this difficult debate, and for their
love of this institution; and I urge my colleagues to support this very
important resolution, important to the integrity of this House of
Representatives.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protest the outrageous
display of discourtesy and disrespect shown to Democratic members of
the House and Minority Leader Pelosi. In a brazen display of disregard
for Democratic members of the House, the Capitol Police were dispatched
on three occasions to disrupt the reading of legislative text by
Democratic members who serve on the Ways and Means Committee. The
Members were attempting to ascertain the text of the legislation that
was drafted without their consultation and for which their dissent
would not be heard or heeded.
The actions of the Republican Chairman and the Members of the
committee was indeed egregious and beyond the pale of House decorum.
Indeed, the actions and attitudes witnessed, and the rhetoric and
rationale put forward by the majority dishonors the foundation of
civility and respect of the House of Representatives. It is clear that
a political fissure exists between the majority and the minority. I
call upon my majority colleagues to embrace the age-old methodology and
attitude of, ``. . . do unto others as you would have them do unto
you.''
Today was a sad day in the annals of House deliberations. I hope that
the American public does not have to ever witness this type of behavior
again. I also hope that my esteemed colleagues will re-embrace the
spirit and method of appropriate House decorum.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. McCrery
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McCrery moves to lay the resolution on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170,
noes 143, not voting 122, as follows:
[Roll No. 397]
AYES--170
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ose
Pearce
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--143
Ackerman
Alexander
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Grijalva
Hall
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kleczka
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McIntyre
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
[[Page H7157]]
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--122
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Baca
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Boucher
Burgess
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Carter
Case
Costello
Cox
Cubin
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLay
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Ferguson
Fletcher
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Harman
Hensarling
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kilpatrick
Kind
Lampson
Linder
Lipinski
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McNulty
Meehan
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Sabo
Sandlin
Saxton
Shuster
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stenholm
Stupak
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Walsh
Wamp
Waxman
Wynn
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the
vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1600
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri and Mr. PAYNE changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to
vote on rollcall No. 397. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye''.
Stated against:
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 397 on the motion to
table H. Res. 324, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I had an event in my
congressional district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''
on rollcall No. 397.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on Friday, July
18, 2003, and missed rollcall No. 397. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no.''
____________________