H 5698 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 8, 1995

will. Maybe it will take another election to prove this.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

fparliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, is it not

under the longstanding rules of the

House inappropriate to address on the

floor of the House matters that are

under discussion and not disposed of in

the Ethics Committee?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.

Mr. WISE. Under that same principle,

though, is there not a difference between matters that might be under

consideration by the Ethics Committee

and matters and allegations dealing

with any particular Member that are

important before the body, particularly

if the body or some of the body is

pressing for the appointment of a counsel to remove it from the Ethics Committee?

Finally let me add to that parliamentary inquiry, I thought the principle of

this House as expressed by the Speaker

of this House on March 8 in a press conference was, essentially paraphrasing,

anything can be spoken about on the

House floor? Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is the

Chair’s understanding that that matter

was clarified from the Chair the other

day, first of all. Second, that Members

should not refer to matters pending before the Ethics Committee.

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker then I have

this parliamentary inquiry, and I

quote:

The fact is, Members of the House are allowed to say virtually anything on the House

floor. * * * It is protected and has been for

200 years. * * * It is written into the Constitution.

That was by Speaker GINGRICH on

March 8, 1995. Is that not, is that not

the policy? Was the Speaker——

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, that is

not a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Chair believes it was. It is the Chair’s

understanding the Speaker pro tempore, Mr. BURTON, clarified that issue

May 25 from the Chair.

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, what was his

ruling? Could the Chair clarify that for

those of us who were not here?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Chair’s ruling was that references in

debate should not be made to ethical

conduct of Members.

Mr. WISE. So then the announcement by the Speaker of the House has

been preempted by that, by the Speaker pro tempore?

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, regular

order. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct, that is not a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, is it not

true matters can be spoken on the floor

of the House within the rules and it is

explicitly against the rules to refer to

matters before the Ethics Committee

before the House?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. that was

the precedent and that is the rule.

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry: Does that mean any matter before the Ethics Committee? I

would like the Speaker to answer that.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. WISE. Does that mean any matter that might be brought to the Ethics

Committee or letter that has been sent

to the Ethics Committee. When is a

matter before the Ethics Committee?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members should not engage in personalities

in debate and discuss the ethics of

Members.

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, a further

parliamentary inquiry: If the proceedings of the Ethics Committee are secret, how do we know what is before

the Ethics Committee?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Ethics Committee can report the matter in a proper way.

Mr. WISE. But how do I know not to

wander into this area if I do not know

what the area is because the proceedings are secret; that is what I do not

understand.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Or a

Member may rise to a proper question

of privilege.

Mr. WISE. A parliamentary inquiry:

A question of privilege to what? If the

Speaker would guide the House we

might avoid some of this.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. To offer

a resolution with respect to a matter

and during the perdency of the resolution those matters may be discussed.

Mr. WISE. I thank the Chair.

ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

THE SPEAKER AND THE

f(Mr. BONIOR asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute.)

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I awoke

this morning to an article in the paper

entitled ‘‘Cecil B. Gingrich.’’ Now it

seems a major production studio is

eying Mr. GINGRICH’s novel ‘‘1945’’ for

the big screen.

The novel contains a sex scene between a spy and the White House chief

of staff, which led BOB DOLE to include

the book in his criticism of the entertainment industry.

Mr. GINGRICH’s Hollywood agent says

he expects the Georgia Republican to

receive more than $1 million in movie

rights. At a time when Speaker GINGRICH is asking senior citizens to take

$1,000 out of their pockets to pay for

tax breaks for the rich, he is out there

lining his own pockets with multimillion-dollar deals from media moguls

and Hollywood producers.

MAKE ENGLISH OUR OFFICIAL

LANGUAGE

(Mr. ROTH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1

minute.)

Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I want to

thank the Speaker for endorsing English as our official language yesterday

in his speech before the Iowa Chamber

of Commerce. It is a fight I have been

engaged in for a long time.

We Americans are a people from

every corner of the globe, every religion, every ethnic background you can

think of, but we are one Nation, one

people. Why? Because we have a wonderful commonality called the English

language. We are losing that today and

losing it very quickly. One out of seven

Americans does not speak English.

U.S.A. Today has reported that it costs

some $12 billion a year at the Federal,

State, and local level for bilingual education. I think it is time we go back to

the concept again of one Nation, one

people.

In Los Angeles now you can vote in

seven different languages. In many

parts of the country English is not the

language that is spoken. And while we

want everyone to have a chance to protect their culture, speak any language

they want at home, to protect their

culture and promote their culture, I

think it is very important when you

deal with the Government, when you

vote, you do it in the English language

so we can keep our wonderful commonality, we can keep this common

glue that has held our country together

so we do remain one Nation, one people, one flag, and yes, one language.

JAPAN SHOULD OPEN ITS

fMARKETS

(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, last week

a full-page advertisement appeared in

the Washington Post that stated:

‘‘Leading Newspapers Agree: U.S.

Trade Sanctions On Japan Are Not The

Answer.’’ The Washington Post raked

in over $25,000 on this one ad. The Wall

Street Journal, another opponent of

the sanctions, printed a similar ad, but

the charges there were over $123,000 for

a page. Here on Capitol Hill, Roll Call,

a newspaper that goes to every congressional office, printed an ad opposing the sanctions that cost $6,200.

There is big money to be made by

newspapers in opposing United States

trade sanctions on Japan and in opposing the American people in the process,

but is it not revealing who has their

hands in the honey pot.

I would like to say who is going to

stand up for the 700,000 United States

workers employed in the auto industry,

the 4 million workers who work in the

textile, semiconductor, paint, and plaster industry and millions of Americans

who would have jobs in the industry if

Japan would open its markets?