House Ways and Means Committee - The 2004 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds
Federal News Service April 1, 2004 Thursday
April 1, 2004 Thursday
HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: THE 2004 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TRUST FUNDS
CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM M. THOMAS (R-CA)
WITNESSES: LESLIE V. NORWALK, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES; JEFF FLICK, SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES LOCATION: 1100 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. LLOYD DOGGETT (D-TX): Well, there appear to be two different individuals here and two different situations. As I understand with reference to Mr. Badger, the Condoleezza Rice of health care policy at the White House, as we learned last week it may be that since they're stonewalling that subpoena is the only route. But with reference to Mr. Scully, as I read his letter and he of course does not enjoy any executive privilege concerning his conversations with the president, but Mr. Scully is not refusing to come, as I understand it, he has simply said that he is tired today. I don't know-he says, "I have been travelling these past 10 days." Whether we interfered with his nap time or whatever might be the case, but perhaps it is just a matter short of a subpoena of simply rescheduling it at a time when he is more well rested. And my inquiry would be whether the chair perhaps, short of going to the extreme of a subpoena, could simply continue this hearing to a time when Mr. Scully is well rested and could come and tell us about his conversations with the president and others on this very important matter.
REP. RANGEL: I yield to the chair.
REP. THOMAS: I thank the gentleman for yielding and his time is nearly expired.
I tell the gentleman from Texas that trying to screen through what I assume to be somewhat facetious remarks that the chair especially is concerned about issuing a subpoena against a private citizen. Dealing with individuals who are carrying out functions of office under the law is one question. But now simply to find out, as the gentleman characterized, who said what to whom and when and compelling them to appear before this committee when what they did was legal, is an extension of the power of this committee that I believe would verge on the abuse of the power. The gentlemen declined the invitation which the minority has under Rule XI, to extend the hearing. The chair has complied with that in what I believe was the most efficacious time, place and manner of response.
We have before us two individuals who have direct personal knowledge of decisions that affected Mr. Scully and affected Mr. Foster. And it seems to me that ought to be something that we would listen to. If at the end of the testimony and the questioning period if there is-it's clear that he operated under the law in exercising his decision, then again I think it reverts to a matter of style and I'm quite sure that Mr. Scully's style doesn't meet the level of desired stylistic behavior that either the gentleman from Washington or the gentleman from Texas would prefer.
But that does not trigger, in the chair's opinion, a need to issue a subpoena. But that is yet to be determined based upon the testimony and the questions that are liable for this second half of the hearing on the Trustees Report.
REP. DOGGETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not asking about issuing a subpoena to Mr. Scully, I'm just asking if the chair is declining to extend an invitation to him to come at a time that is more convenient to Mr. Scully to be here since he's the actor and the person involved rather than one of his assistants.
REP. THOMAS: Might I respond?
REP. RANGEL: Yes, I yield to the chair to respond.
REP. THOMAS: And looking at the nearly expired time of the ranking member. Tell the gentleman that the minority has requested an extension of the hearing under Rule XI. That extension has been granted. The gentleman now seeks to figure out a way to bounce the ball down the street with a continuation of a continuation of a continuation. The chair's reading of Mr. Scully's letter is, he ain't coming.
REP. RANGEL: Mr. Chairman, in order to protect my right in being timely in raising the motions to subpoena both Mr. Scully and Mr. Badger, I under House Rule II, 2(k)(vi), I move that the committee issue a subpoena to a witness special assistant to the president for Economic Policy, Doug Badger, to testify before the Committee of Ways and Means as soon as possible at a mutually agreeable time following the upcoming district work period on the subject of cost estimates on the Medicare Prescription Bill passed by the Congress in 2003 and to provide the committee at least five days prior to the hearing with documents relevant to this subject.
REP. (?): Mr. Chairman?
REP. (?): Mr. Chairman?
REP. THOMAS: Gentleman from Louisiana.
REP. (?): Mr. Chairman, I move the table to motion for the gentlemen from New York.
REP. THOMAS: Motion to table is before us. Not debatable.
REP. RANGEL: There's no debate on that.
REP. THOMAS: Not debatable. Only a second.
(Laughter.)
If the gentlemen from Louisiana.
REP. (?): Can we set a debate on this?
REP. (?): Yes.
REP. THOMAS: Can the chair finish his statement? In an attempt to try to create and maintain comity, notwithstanding the gentlemen from Louisiana's parliamentary privilege on a procedural motion which is not debatable, the underlying motion is. So the chair will recognize for a brief period of time the gentlemen from Michigan with what the chair will call a timely request, notwithstanding it came after the motion, to discuss briefly his concerns about the motions.
REP. SANDER M. LEVIN (D-MI): Well, would the chairman yield?
REP. THOMAS: The gentlemen from Michigan.
REP. GERALD D. KLECZKA (D-WI): Will the chairman yield? It seems that other members also want to talk about the motion. Is the chairman only restricting the debate on the motion to the gentleman from Michigan?
REP. THOMAS: The chair indicated that in an attempt to maintain comity the chair would allow the gentlemen from Michigan notwithstanding the fact that the motion to table was timely presented and there is no debate on that motion. If the gentlemen from Wisconsin indicates that every member of the minority is going to debate this notwithstanding --
REP. KLECZKA: Well, I'm not saying every member. I'm saying more than one member would possibly like to be heard on the motion.
REP. THOMAS: The chair has indicated its willingness to offer comity because the gentlemen from Michigan intervened-not timely-but the chair's willing to entertain that request. If the gentlemen from Wisconsin wants to push his point that the chair is not following parliamentary procedure because the motion to table was timely presented, the chair will move to the vote on the motion to table.
REP. KLECZKA: So that's a threat that if I insist on talking in a motion then Sandy Levin from Michigan doesn't talk.
REP. THOMAS: Tell the gentlemen that it's not a threat it's an attempt by the chair to follow parliamentary procedures.
REP. KLECZKA: That is not comity, that is comedy.
REP. THOMAS: All right. The committee has before it the motion to table the gentlemen from New York's motion. All those in favor of table say aye?
(Chorus of ayes.)
REP. (?): Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
REP. THOMAS: Those opposed?
(Chorus of noes)
REP. SANDER M. LEVIN: Mr. Chairman, you've recognized me.
REP. THOMAS: In the opinion of the chair the motion to table has passed and motion from the gentlemen --
REP. RANGEL: All right. I ask for a record. I ask for a roll call.
REP. THOMAS: -- from New York has laid upon the table.
REP. RANGEL: I ask for a roll call.
REP. THOMAS: A sufficient number of hands. The clerk will call the roll on the motion to table the gentlemen from New York's motion on the subpoena.
REP. LEVIN: Mr. Chairman. Point of information before the vote. I thought you were going to recognize me?
REP. THOMAS: Tell the gentleman the chair was willing as a matter of comity to recognize the gentlemen notwithstanding he did not have parliamentary standing. But it was clear that other members on the other side of the aisle were not willing to allow the chair to exercise that comity. So the chair was more than willing to exercise the parliamentary right to move to the procedural motion.
REP. LEVIN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that you recognized the gentleman from Louisiana. I don't think you were surprised by the motion he was going to submit. There is no way you are going to shut down discussion of these issues. And you can do it now through this device --
REP. (?): Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that this discussion is in order in the middle of a --
REP. THOMAS: If it is not in order, a point of information is not the correct reference but the chair was allowing the gentleman to express himself in an attempt to continue to maintain comity.
REP. LEVIN: Comity-then let us have discussion of the motion.
REP. THOMAS: Tell the gentleman that the chair attempted to do that, notwithstanding the timely notice of the motion to table. There were members on his side of the aisle that indicated that the attempt to provide comity by the chair was not sufficient, which meant the chair would then not be able to follow parliamentary procedure and the chair is concerned about that and believes we should.
REP. LEVIN: Stonewalling won't work. We'll ask-we'll state our --
REP. THOMAS: Tell the gentleman we are in the middle of a roll call and the chair will indicate that he has continued to provide a reasonable opportunity and since a roll call by a show of hands was called by the minority, the rules indicate that we should now have that roll call.
REP. RANGEL: I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan be allowed to express himself.
REP. THOMAS: Tell the gentleman that it is not in order during a roll call for anyone to express their position and the clerk will call the roll.
REP. RANGEL: It was my understanding that unanimous consent can suspend all of the rules.
REP. THOMAS: Not in the middle of a roll call.
(Roll call.)
REP. THOMAS: The clerk will announce the vote.
CLERK: Twenty-three ayes, 16 no.
REP. THOMAS: There being 23 ayes, 16 noes, the motion of the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel, is laid on the table.
REP. RANGEL: Mr. Chairman, under House Rule 112(k)(6), I move that the committee issue a subpoena to a witness, former Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator, Mr. Thomas Scully, to testify before the Committee on Ways and Means as soon as possible following the upcoming district work period on the subject of cost estimates of the Medicare Prescription Drug bill passed by the Congress in 2003 and to provide the committee with all the documents relevant to this subject at least five days prior to the hearing.
REP. : Mr. Chairman, on the motion --
REP. RANGEL: In support of this motion, Mr. Chair, let me say this. I think that you have extended yourself beyond the mandatory discretion-decisions in this committee. I think you've done it because you feel, as a member of this committee and certainly as the chairman, that what we do today may, in the future, dictate how we're treated by administration officials.
And to that extent, I apologize to the witnesses that are here patiently waiting to --
REP. THOMAS: Well Mr. Rangel --
REP. (?): Mr. Chairman-Mr. Rangel, would you yield please? Prior to --
REP. RANGEL: I want to just complete my thought and that is that, while we recognize that the Minority has the right to table this motion, I hope they recognize that what they're doing is they're not doing to me as the ranking member or to the Minority. But you're doing to this committee as we seek to determine at this hearing as to what right the executive branch has to deny us information which we are entitled to know and that the decision, even though it may appear to be partisan, I would hope that the Majority members would recognize that this committee has a long-standing reputation of integrity in protecting our jurisdiction and making certain that our constitutional rights are not abused and --
REP. MCCRERY: If Mr. Rangel would yield?
REP. RANGEL: Mr. Levin, who was denied the opportunity to express himself.
REP. MCCRERY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
REP. THOMAS: The gentleman from Louisiana will state his point of order.
REP. McCRERY: The gentleman was recognized for a motion.
REP. THOMAS: That's correct.
REP. McCRERY: He cannot yield time during offering a motion to the committee.
REP. THOMAS: That is correct. And the gentleman was recognized for the purpose of offering a motion. He has offered a motion.
REP. RANGEL: I move the --
REP. THOMAS: He has explained to a degree the motion and the chair would indicate that all we're trying to do is get the facts before we make a decision. The gentleman from New York has every right to make a decision before he gets the facts and that's evidenced by the motion that he's offered.
REP. : Mr. Chairman --
REP. THOMAS: The chair would be willing, for the purpose of comity, to allow the gentleman from Michigan to make some brief points notwithstanding the fact that the chair has the ability to recognize, except for the structure of in the middle of a roll call vote, and then the chair would not exercise the recognition but rather to carry out the roll call vote. That's what occurred on the last request by the gentleman from New York.
REP. RANGEL: Well, I recognize --
REP. THOMAS: The chair would attempt to allow a reasonable dialogue by recognizing the gentleman from Michigan for any comments he may wish to make on the motion by the gentleman from New York requesting a subpoena for the former administrator. The gentleman from Michigan.
REP. LEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We need to understand what the question is, what the issue is. It was not when Mr. Foster was here. Who is right whether it was $400 billion that was stated when we were voting on this or $530 some billion that was the actuarial figure. This was disagreement. And the issue isn't legally whether Mr. Scully had the right to tell Mr. Foster he could not tell people. That's an issue but the main issue is who knew about the actuarial figure. Why wasn't it disclosed in a timely fashion? That's the issue.
We voted in this Congress on major legislation while there was information that was hidden from us by some in the administration and we have a right to know why and who knew. That's the issue. And to say this question therefore is a matter of curiosity or a whim or a style is absolutely incorrect. It's the knowledge that is the right of the public and the need for there to be truthfulness.
And I said when Mr. Foster was here that there was a cover-up of this information. And we want to know how high up the cover-up went. And Mr. Scully says something by his letter, we have a right to have him right here in front of us under oath to ask him what he knew, whom he talked to within the White House, under what circumstances and why he did not tell us, the representatives of the people, the information that he knew. That's the issue.
And so anybody here can stonewall and I'm sorry my other colleagues could not speak. They'll do it when they inquire of these witnesses. We'll find a way because, as we have found out on other occasions-and I close with this, there is no way to hide the truth. And I just want to say, I have great respect for Mr. McCrery. But for you to move to table and quash discussion of this motion is not going to work. We're going to get this information out one way or the other.
REP. RANGEL: I move the question, Mr. Chairman.
REP. McCRERY (?): Mr. Chairman.
REP. THOMAS: The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
REP. McCRERY: Mr. Chairman, before I make the motion to table, I will just refer --
REP. RANGEL: The chair-a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
REP. McCRERY: -- Mr. Scully's letter which points out clearly --
REP. THOMAS: The chairman from Louisiana will suspend. The chair recognized the gentleman from Louisiana. He did not recognize the gentleman from Louisiana for the purpose of offering a motion. He recognized the gentleman from Louisiana. The time is the gentleman's from Louisiana. Would the gentleman like to continue to use his time.
REP. McCRERY: I think the chairman has been quite generous with allowing the minority to explore this question during Mr. Rangel's presentation early on in this hearing and then by allowing Mr. McDermott and Mr. Levin. Frankly, we could argue about this all day long and some may conclude that that is in fact the point of the Minority. But the facts are that there was information available to the public which would have led any knowledgeable person to conclude that OMB's ultimate assumptions and ultimate estimates of the cost of the Medicare bill were going to be higher than CBO's.
Mr. Scully, in fact, according to his letter, testified before the Senate Finance Committee to the fact that his assumptions were different and if you had looked at those assumptions and been familiar with how the estimate on the bill was going to work, you would know that it was going to be higher and you add to that the fact that the Minority repeatedly introduced, supported, talked about Medicare bills that cost a lot more than either one of the CBO's estimate or the OMB estimate and I think you see this debate for what it is.
REP. (?): Would the gentleman yield?
REP. McCRERY: I'll be glad to yield.
REP. (?): Mr. McCrery, is it your position that the Medicare Prescription Drug bill would have passed in the House of Representatives had the true figure been known?
REP. McCRERY: My position is that many more Democrats, according to their rhetoric, would have voted for a bill with a much higher price tag.
(Laughter.
)
I suppose you were just introducing things out of folly that cost twice as much. I mean, come on, get real here.
REP. THOMAS: The gentleman from Louisiana has the time.
REP. McCRERY: I mean, you know, let's just get down to what this is all about. This is a lot about politics. We understand that. Everybody in the audience understands that but we have spent enough time on it. We have two witnesses here at the behest of the Minority, operating fully under the rules of the House, which we recognize to extend a hearing which we called to try to explore this subject on your rights in the Minority. We now have extended the hearing and two of the witnesses which you invited to appear are here and we're waiting to hear their testimonies. Enough of the politics. Let's get on with the hearing and then you can all make your remarks to try to get that out.
REP. (?): Mr. Chairman, on the motion.
REP. McCRERY: But I move to table the motion of the gentleman from New York.
REP. THOMAS: I tell the gentleman from Louisiana, in the opinion of the chair, the gentleman from Louisiana is debating the point probably would be considered a preface to his motion. And since the chair had recognized the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Michigan, two members of the minority, the chair wishes to recognize a second member of the majority, and the chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Shaw.
REP. E. CLAY SHAW, JR. (R-FL): Mr. Chairman, I move to table the motion of the gentleman from New York.
REP. THOMAS: The gentleman from Florida moves to table the motion of the gentleman from New York. All those in favor?
MEMBERS: Aye.
REP. THOMAS: Those opposed?
MEMBERS: No.
REP. THOMAS: Then the chair and the ayes have it. The chair will recognize the right of the Minority to call the roll with the understanding that we would like to have the roll called without attempts to gain recognition during the roll call. Will the clerk call the roll.
(Roll call.)
REP. THOMAS: The clerk will announce the vote.
CLERK: Twenty three ayes, 16 no.
REP. THOMAS: There being 23 ayes and 16 noes, the motion of the gentleman from New York is laid upon the table. The chair is prepared to allow the witnesses to begin testimony. The chair will indicate that because this hearing was requested as an extension of the previous hearing, the chair tried to accommodate in a timely fashion, called the hearing for today at noon. A previously scheduled hearing in this room is to begin at 2 p.m. And the chair intends not to disrupt the previously scheduled hearing which was ordered for 2 p.m.
So the chair will now, first of all, thank Ms. Norwalk and Mr. Flick for appearing before us.
REP. DOGGETT: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
REP. THOMAS: The gentleman-who is-The gentleman from Texas.
REP. DOGGETT: Do I understand then, that the testimony for the witnesses and the questions from all members of this committee will be limited to a total of 59 minutes or however much is left before 2:00.
REP. THOMAS: Tell the gentlemen no, it was the two hours that we had available when the committee began.
REP. DOGGETT: At this point, without the chair having made any prior announcement on this topic, you may not even reach all the members of this committee and permit them a right to question. Is that my understanding? I could just count five minutes per person down here and if everyone takes their time, some members of the committee will not be permitted to ask any questions.
REP. THOMAS: Gentlemen's usually very persuasive and perhaps he can persuade some members not to utilize their full time so he can have a chance to inquire.
REP. McCRERY: Mr. Chairman. Parliamentary inquiry.
REP. THOMAS: Gentlemen from Wisconsin.
REP. KLECZKA: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that the most powerful committee in Congress, the Ways and Means Committee, has other meeting rooms that we have not only this main hearing room but there are other rooms throughout the Capitol complex where the next hearing could be conducted. Is that not true? So we could continue with this.
REP. THOMAS: Tell the gentlemen, this room was chosen because of the importance in the number of people were going to attend that hearing. It was on that schedule prior to this scheduled for 2:00 and the intends to honor the previously scheduled hearing.
The sooner we can begin --
REP. KLECZKA: Is this the same committee meeting scheduled for 10:00 this morning but it never occurred at 10:00.
REP. THOMAS: No.
REP. KLECZKA: Are you sure?
REP. THOMAS: The chairs willing to recognize the witnesses and --
REP. RANGEL: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
REP. THOMAS: Gentlemen from New York.
REP. RANGEL: Does the chair intend to place the witnesses under oath?
REP. THOMAS: As long as the chairman's tenure to this point, no witnesses have been placed under oath. And the chair would probably begin the inquiry as to the necessity of the oath to inquire both of Ms. Norwalk and Mr. Flick. Are you currently employed by the federal government? I believe the answer to that would be, yes. In the procedure of being employed were you required to swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to the United States and its Constitution. The answer is yes. And beyond that your goal here is to pursue the truth.
The chair feels comfortable, tell the gentlemen from New York that based upon their prior swearing or affirming in their current role that the chair believes that testimony by these people who voluntarily have appeared before the committee who had a choice not to appear will be truthful without the need to push it to an oath taking procedure.
REP. RANGEL: Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. And due to the fact the chair has now interpreted the need or lack of need for an oath before congressional committees, would it be in order that the ranking member be allowed to have a motion that the witnesses be placed under oath?
REP. THOMAS: Tell the gentlemen that the decision that the chair made was based upon the same one in terms of need or want. If the gentlemen is questioning witnesses who have voluntarily appeared before us who have in their current place of employment sworn an oath of allegiance to the constitution, the chair finds virtually no difference between the position of the witness and the position of every member of this committee.
We too are employed by the federal government and we too have taken an oath of office.
And if the gentlemen believes that the witnesses or the concern over the witnesses rises to the point of requiring an oath, the chair maybe prepared for every member of the committee to rise and also reaffirm their oath.
REP. RANGEL: Let's not get crazy in here.
REP. THOMAS: We're all on the same level of concern about our willingness to take oaths and the veracity of our statements.
REP. RANGEL: Well, I exclude the members of this committee but I move that the witnesses be placed under oath.
REP. McCRERY: Mr. Chairman.
REP. THOMAS: Gentlemen from Louisiana.
REP. McCRERY: Knowing it is a violation of federal law to knowingly tell a falsehood to a government official I think it would be duplicative, unnecessary and perhaps even diminish the possibility in the future of getting good witnesses to appear before the committee, I therefore move the table to motion the gentlemen from New York.
REP. THOMAS: Gentlemen from Louisiana has moved to table to gentleman from New York's motion. All of those in favor say aye?
(Chorus of ayes.)
REP. THOMAS: Those opposed?
(Chorus of noes.)
REP. THOMAS: In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. The ayes have it and the motion is tabled.
REP. RANGEL: Record vote.
REP. THOMAS: A sufficient number of hands the clerk will call the role.
(Roll call.)
REP. THOMAS: The clerk will announce the vote.
CLERK: Twenty aye, sixteen no.
REP. THOMAS: There being 20 ayes, 16 noes, the motion of the gentlemen from New York is laid upon the table. The chair is prepared to allow the witnesses to present testimony at this point.
REP. DOGGETT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I've a point of order.
REP. THOMAS: Gentlemen from Texas, on his point of order.
REP. DOGGETT: Solely. Mr. Chairman, House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(ii), provides that, quote, "Each committee shall apply the five minute rule during the questioning of witnesses in any hearing until each such time that each member of the committee who so desires has had an opportunity to question each witness". House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(i) is the rule of the House to which the chairman referred that gives him no discretion to deny this hearing.
My point of order is that the chair by his ruling limiting the time of this hearing to less than one hour and denying me and other members of the committee an opportunity to ask any questions is in violation of both House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(ii) and House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(i), since he has converted this appearance of a hearing into a total sham hearing denying the minority their right to ask questions of these witnesses and would urge my point of order.
REP. THOMAS: Tell the gentlemen that my ability to reach the level the gentlemen from Texas described these hearings pales in comparison. The chair will indicate that there are many occasions in which hearings that are called have not been successful and exhausting the opportunities of each and every member. The chair indicates the time, place and manner, oftentimes controls the circumstances we find ourselves in.
The chair would like to start the process because the gentleman from Texas has come to a conclusion without the process ever yet having been allowed to begin. He's reached a conclusion which is not yet warranted nor can the point of order be made since the hearing has not ended and not every member has not had their chances for the five minutes. So, if the gentleman wants to continue to attempt to make his point so that, in fact, there is no time for any member, the chair would consider that dilatory and therefore would rule that the chair would not recognize the gentleman to make a point of order and the point of order might be timely and the chair indicates --
REP. DOGGETT: The chair recognized me to make a point of order and I urge my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
REP. THOMAS: The chair indicates the gentleman from Texas's inquiry is not timely as a point of order.
REP. DOGGETT: Mr. Chairman, I urge my point of order --
REP. THOMAS: It's not timely. The chair recognizes the witness.
REP. DOGGETT: -- if you want to overrule it, it's fine but otherwise I want to appeal.
REP. THOMAS: The chair recognizes the witnesses.
REP. DOGGETT: Mr. Chairman, I urge my point of order and I urge it now. I want a clear ruling on the order.
REP. THOMAS: I tell the gentleman that the chair recognized the gentleman for a point of order. The point of order the gentleman from Texas made --
REP. DOGGETT: The point of order has been made and the chair refuses to rule on it since the chair is acting totally improperly.
REP. THOMAS: The point was not timely. The point was not timely.
REP. DOGGETT: I urge my point of order.
REP. THOMAS: The gentleman is taking now dilatory action.
REP. DOGGETT: I take that as a denial and I appeal the ruling of the chair.
REP. THOMAS: I tell the gentleman he was not recognized for that purpose. The chair will request to witness --
REP. DOGGETT: Mr. Chairman, you have no discretion when a point of order is made but to entertain that point of order. If you were denying the point of order is not timely, then please do so and I will appeal respectfully your ruling and show you the respect to which you are entitled. But I am entitled to a ruling on my point of order. It is privileged and you do not have the discretion to ignore it.
REP. THOMAS: I tell the gentleman --
REP. (?): Mr. Chairman.
REP. THOMAS: I tell the gentleman on his point of order, which was a conclusion based upon Rule XI that every member gets to exercise the five-minute rule has not yet ripened. No member --
REP. DOGGETT: I urge my point of order.
REP. THOMAS: No member has been denied the right to question. Therefore Rule XI is not now in violation and the gentleman's point of order is not timely.
REP. DOGGETT: Mr. Chairman, you have denied my point of order is not ripe and I appeal the ruling of the chair respectfully.
REP. THOMAS: The gentleman was recognized for a point of order. The chair is telling the gentleman his point of order is not ripe and therefore there is no ability to appeal the decision of the chair.
REP. DOGGETT: The chair is denying my point of order while attempting to avoid making a ruling which he knows will be appealed. I appeal the ruling of the chair denying my point of order to have a fair opportunity to ask these witnesses questions.
REP. THOMAS: I tell the gentleman that he will have a fair opportunity and until he is denied his point of order is not timely.
REP. DOGGETT: Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the chair. The chair has ruled that the point of order is not ripe. That is a denial of the point of order, as the chair clearly knows.
REP. THOMAS: I'll accept the gentleman's argument that the chair's ruling of the fact that not every member has been able to exercise their five minutes as a point of order is not timely. The chair believes that point of order is not timely. The gentleman from Texas believes it is and therefore appeals the decision of the chair.
REP. DOGGETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. MCCRERY (?): Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that is debatable but just in case it is, I move to table the motion of the gentleman to appeal the ruling of the chair.
REP. THOMAS: The gentleman's move to table the motion is timely and appropriate. All those in favor of tabling the motion say aye.
MEMBERS: Aye.
REP. THOMAS: Those opposed.
MEMBERS: No.
REP. THOMAS: In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. The motion to appeal the --
REP. DOGGETT: Mr. Chairman, record vote. Record vote.
REP. THOMAS: A sufficient number for a record vote. The clerk will call the roll.