[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 87 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H6291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, is it within the rules of the House for 
Members to ascribe motivation to other Members and identify them by 
name?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Political motivations can be suggested, but 
not personal motivations.
  Mr. WALKER. And the use of names is an appropriate kind of behavior 
on the House floor?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is nothing per se a violation by using 
another Member's name in describing a political action or motive. 
However, tradition has been to refer to Members by the State of origin 
rather than by personal names.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Montana will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, is it within the rules of the House for 
Members during 1-minutes to question the motivation of the President?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Again, in debate it would be allowable to 
question political motivation. What the gentleman raised as a 
parliamentary inquiry was on personal motivation.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, is it within the rules for a Member of the 
House during 1-minutes, or at any other time, to question whether or 
not a President is acting within the law in his own or her own personal 
activities?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not make a judgment on what 
the charges may be or the motivations behind that, but the Members 
should refrain from personalities in debate.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I would encourage that as well.

                          ____________________