Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 1625]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Texas rise?
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of personal 
privilege.
  Madam Speaker, the question of personal privilege to which I rise is 
one regarding the tarnish that is on my reputation and the reputation 
of others here in this body.
  We had heard for the last couple of years the term ``culture of 
corruption''; and, frankly, one of the things that I looked forward to 
is an end to all this discussion about corruption that tarnishes each 
one of us. And I know for all of the people whom I am close to it is a 
big deal as far as our reputation when it is tarnished.
  And so what I would submit is that in the last 2 weeks that we have 
not cleared a culture of corruption; that a cloud of corruption has 
hovered over this body, it hovers over me now, tarnishing all that we 
are and that I am. And to have an American territory excluded from a 
minimum wage bill that directly benefits one of the Members, in fact 
the Speaker and a company----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Under rule IX, the gentleman has not stated a basis for a question of 
personal privilege.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Under rule IX, it is provided in the precedents that any 
time someone's reputation has been tarnished or sullied, it may be 
addressed.
  I would in fact direct you to the second page of section 708 
regarding the prior usage for the question of personal privilege. And 
you will find on the second page of the reference in section 708 of the 
Rules and Practice Manual that Former Speaker Jim Wright rose to a 
question of personal privilege and he addressed a matter that was 
sullying the reputation of the House, and him in particular, and 
addressed it in order to clear the air.
  If you look underneath that in that same page, it references Speaker 
Gingrich, who rose to a question of personal privilege in order to 
clear the air and the cloud and allegation of corruption that had 
arisen. And then, beneath that you will see a reference of a precedent 
from Speaker Hastert in 2000 who rose to a question of personal 
privilege to clear the air and clear the question of malfeasance over 
the issue of the selection of the Chaplain.

                              {time}  1830

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would be pleased to examine the 
basis on which the gentleman from Texas would rely, individually, to be 
recognized on a point of personal privilege.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Well, then perhaps it would be better for the Speaker to 
come so we can clear the air and get this matter behind us so we can 
move forward in a bipartisan manner. If it was a staff member or 
someone else that allowed American Samoa to be exempted, we can get it 
cleared. The question of personal privilege would disappear. I would 
rise to make that----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  If the gentleman has documents, newspaper articles, or the like, that 
identify him personally, he may rely on them as a basis for a question 
of personal privilege.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I have a constitutional point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his point of order.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, under Article I, section 6, a matter that 
was discussed at some length in the past year, it says that for any 
speech or debate in either House, they, the Senators and 
Representatives, shall not be questioned in any other place.
  This is the only place in which a question of personal privilege, in 
which a matter that is tarnishing anyone's reputation or everyone's 
reputation in here may be addressed. If I will not be allowed to go 
further with the question of personal privilege, I would ask the 
Speaker to rise to a question of personal privilege as the last three 
Speakers have under Article I, section 6, clear the air, clear the 
cloud of corruption that is hovering over us so we can move forward in 
a clean and wholesome, bipartisan environment. And I will do as the 
Parliamentarian has requested.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the precedents of this House, the 
Chair would be pleased to examine any documentary evidence the 
gentleman might bring to her attention in order to be able to proceed 
on a question of personal privilege. The Chair presently has no basis 
for decision. The Chair would ask the gentleman to conform to precedent 
to be allowed to proceed. The Chair has not been provided anything to 
examine as the basis of his question of personal privilege.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Is the Speaker asking or directing that I bring in 
articles and things into this House to present to the Speaker here in 
this floor of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair at this moment is unable to 
identify a valid basis for a question of personal privilege. The Chair 
would encourage the gentleman to give the Chair a basis for decision.
  Mr. GOHMERT. The law on its face and what we just passed exempted a 
territory. It should be very clear.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not recognized.

                          ____________________