[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 5.  The House Rules, Journal, and Record]
[C. The Congressional Record]
[Â§ 17. Deletion of Unparliamentary Remarks]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 369-381]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                      C. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
 
Sec. 17. Deletion of Unparliamentary Remarks

    Although the Congressional Record is ``substantially a verbatim 
report of proceedings,''(19) the House frequently excludes 
from the Record remarks made out of order or unparliamentary remarks 
which reflect unfavorably upon the House, its committees, or individual 
Members. Remarks made on the floor by a Member after he has been called 
to order, without recognition by the Chair, or without the consent of 
the Member occupying the floor, are frequently deleted from the Record 
by the House, the Speaker, or the Member in revising his 
remarks.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 44 USC Sec. 901 (1970).
20. See Sec. Sec. 17.7-17.10, infra.
            Disorder in debate generally, see Ch. 29, infra.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 370]]

    A Member occasionally makes a remark in the heat of debate which 
reflects unfavorably upon the House, its membership, or its committees, 
and which he immediately regrets. In such instances the Member who has 
spoken the words may request the unanimous consent of the House that 
they be deleted from the Record or such request may be made by another 
Member. The House frequently agrees to these requests made in the 
spirit of apology.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 17.11, 17.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During floor debate a Member will sometimes demand that words 
spoken by another Member be taken down. The Speaker(2) then 
determines whether the words spoken in debate reflect unfavorably upon 
the House, its membership or institutions. If the Speaker rules the 
words unparliamentary, a Member frequently makes a motion or introduces 
a resolution to delete the unparliamentary remarks from the 
Record.(3) Occasionally the Speaker will immediately order 
the unparliamentary remarks deleted from the Record, without awaiting 
action by the House.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. If the words are taken down in the Committee of the Whole they must 
        be reported to the House for a decision by the Speaker. See 
        Sec. 17.17, infra.
 3. See Sec. 17.13, infra.
 4. See Sec. Sec. 17.21, 17.22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member may also challenge unparliamentary remarks that were not 
deleted from the reporter's notes prior to publication of the daily 
edition of the Record. The usual procedure is similar to the procedure 
employed in challenging remarks that were inserted in the Record under 
leave to extend. In such instances a Member is recognized on a question 
of privilege.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 17.19, infra.
            For a general discussion of questions of privilege, see Ch. 
        11, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedure; Deletion or Expungement Generally

Sec. 17.1 The insertion in the Record of unparliamentary remarks is 
    sufficient to raise a question of the privilege of the House.

    On Sept. 5, 1940,(6) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
was recognized on a question of the privilege of the House, and offered 
a resolution(7) to expunge from the daily edition of the 
Record for the

[[Page 371]]

previous day words spoken on the floor of the House by Mr. Beverly M. 
Vincent, of Kentucky, which impugned the patriotism of Mr. Martin L. 
Sweeney, of Ohio. The House agreed to the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 11552, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 7. H. Res. 591, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. (1940).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.2 The Speaker held that the question of whether an allegedly 
    unparliamentary remark inserted in the Record under leave to extend 
    violated the privileges granted the Member who made the insertion 
    was not subject to a point of order, but was a question for the 
    House.

    On Feb. 27, 1946,(8) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
made a point of order alleging that Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, 
had inserted in the Record an attack on the Committee on Un-American 
Activities.(9) The Speaker(10) responded as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.  92 Cong. Rec. 1725, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Mr. Sabath had referred to the Committee on Un-American Activities 
        as ``the House Un-American Committee.''
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks the remedy of the gentleman from Mississippi 
    is not a point of order. This is an extension of remarks and 
    whether or not it violated the privileges granted the gentleman 
    from Illinois [Mr. Sabath] would be a question for the House to 
    pass on, not the Chair.

Mr. Rankin then made a motion to delete the remarks of Mr. Sabath from 
the permanent Record. The House rejected the motion for the previous 
question on Mr. Rankin's motion, but the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request by Mr. Sabath that the remarks referring to the 
Committee on Un-American Activities be deleted from the Record. Mr. 
Rankin then withdrew his motion.

Sec. 17.3 The action of the House in ordering the entire speech of a 
    Member and the proceedings under a call to order expunged from a 
    permanent Record does not give rise to a question of personal 
    privilege or privilege of the House; the proper method of reopening 
    the matter is by a motion to reconsider the vote whereby such 
    action was taken.

    On Feb. 13, 1941,(11) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to state a question of personal privilege and privilege of the 
House. He offered a resolution stating that on Feb. 11, Mr. Samuel 
Dickstein, of New York, had, during the course of his remarks on the 
House floor, impugned the integrity of a committee of the

[[Page 372]]

House. Mr. Hoffman had interrupted Mr. Dickstein's remarks with a point 
of order that such remarks were out of order and in violation of the 
Constitution. The Speaker(12) refused to rule the words out 
of order and permitted Mr. Dickstein to continue speaking. A few 
moments later Mr. Dickstein's remarks were again interrupted, this time 
by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, who demanded that the words be 
taken down. The words were taken down, and Mr. Rankin moved ``to 
expunge the entire speech of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Dickstein] from the Record.'' The House agreed to the motion, and the 
Record of the House proceedings for Feb. 11 did not contain either the 
remarks of Mr. Dickstein or the proceedings by which the words were 
taken down. Mr. Hoffman stated in his resolution that the deletion of 
the entire proceedings from the Record raised a question of personal 
privilege and privilege of the House, and requested that the permanent 
edition for Feb. 11 be corrected so as to include a portion of Mr. 
Dickstein's remarks and the entire proceedings by which his words were 
taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 979. 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to Mr. Hoffman's argument in support of the resolution 
that the omission of the proceedings referred to violates the First 
Amendment freedom of speech and of the press, the Speaker stated that 
the Constitution also gives the House the authority to establish rules 
for its own procedure. After Mr. Hoffman further argued in support of 
the question of the privilege of the House which he had raised, the 
Speaker responded as follows:

        The House would have to decide that, and, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, the House did decide the matter when it expunged the remarks 
    from the Record. The Chair thinks, under the circumstances, that 
    the proper way to reopen the question would be by a motion to 
    reconsider the vote whereby the motion of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] was adopted. The Chair is of the opinion 
    that inasmuch as the question raised by the gentleman from Michigan 
    was decided by a vote of the House on a proper motion, that he does 
    not now present a question of privilege of the House or of personal 
    privilege.

Sec. 17.4 The Speaker declined to rule on a question of personal 
    privilege arising from the insertion in the Record of allegedly 
    unparliamentary remarks because the transcript of the insertion had 
    not been submitted for the inspection of the Chair.

    On Apr. 7, 1943,(13) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
was rec

[[Page 373]]

ognized on a question of personal privilege. He stated that several 
days earlier a Member had inserted in the Record remarks which 
reflected upon his integrity, and requested an opportunity to respond 
to that charge. The Speaker(14) requested that the original 
transcript of the remarks be submitted for his inspection. Mr. Celler 
replied that he did not have a copy of the transcript in his possession 
at that time, and asked the permission of the Chair to proceed 
nevertheless. With respect to the question of personal privilege, the 
Speaker stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 3065, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is not going to rule on this question without seeing 
    the original transcript and it is not here. If there is no 
    objection, the gentleman may proceed for 10 minutes.

Sec. 17.5 The Speaker ruled that a delay of several months did not 
    preclude a Member from being recognized on a question of personal 
    privilege concerning remarks appearing in the Record.

    On June 30, 1939,(15) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
requested recognition on a question of personal privilege. He cited in 
support of his question of privilege remarks made on the floor of the 
Senate by a Member of that body on Jan. 17, 1939, which were highly 
critical of a statement he had previously made in the House. Mr. John 
E. Rankin, of Mississippi, then made the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 8468, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the statement that 
    the gentleman from Michigan is making does not in any way 
    constitute a question of high constitutional privilege. . . . [T]he 
    statement made in the Senate was months and months ago. It has been 
    in the Congressional Record all this time, and the gentleman from 
    Michigan knew it. Now he is guilty of what is called laches in our 
    courts. He is not entitled to rise to the question of high 
    constitutional privilege at this time in order to use it to 
    filibuster against the bill before the House. I make the point of 
    order that the gentleman is not entitled to rise to a question of 
    high constitutional privilege.

    The Speaker, William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled against Mr. 
Rankin's point of order, and recognized Mr. Hoffman on the question of 
personal privilege.

Remarks Made Out of Order

Sec. 17.6 The Chair may direct the exclusion or deletion, from the 
    Record, of words held to be out of order. (See Sec. 17.21, infra.)

[[Page 374]]

Sec. 17.7 Remarks made by a Member on the floor of the House after he 
    has been called to order by the Chair are excluded from the Record.

    On June 17, 1936,(16) Mr. Robert F. Rich, of 
Pennsylvania, was propounding a question to the Member occupying the 
floor, under a reservation of the right to object, when the regular 
order was demanded by Mr. Claude A. Fuller, of Arkansas. Mr. Rich, 
however, ignoring the announcement by the Speaker that the regular 
order had been demanded, made an additional statement. The 
Speaker(17) stated that Mr. Rich had been out of order in 
extending his statement after the Chair announced that the regular 
order was demanded. The following parliamentary inquiry and response by 
the Speaker then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 9694, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fuller: Mr. Speaker, under the ruling of the Chair I 
    suppose it is to be taken for granted that the remarks of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania should be stricken from the Record. If 
    they are not I want to object, because he was speaking out of 
    order, speaking after the Chair had cautioned him, as is his custom 
    all the time.
        The Speaker: The remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, or 
    any other gentleman who interjects remarks into the Record after he 
    has been called to order by the Chair upon a demand for the regular 
    order, are not entitled to be incorporated in the Record.

Sec. 17.8 Remarks made by a Member subsequent to his point of order 
    that a quorum is not present are ordinarily excluded from the 
    Record, because the point of order is not debatable and only 
    remarks that are made in order are included in the Record.

    On Apr. 15, 1940,(18) Mr. John Taber, of New York, was 
recognized on a question of the privilege of the House. He stated that 
earlier in the debate Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, had made a 
point of order that a quorum was not present, and thereafter had made 
additional statements. Mr. Taber made the point of order that Mr. 
Rankin had not been recognized for the purpose of making those 
statements and that they should not be in the Record. The Speaker pro 
tempore(19) made the following ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 4517, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rules of the House, remarks should only be included 
    in the Record that are made in order. After a

[[Page 375]]

    point of order is made, which is not debatable, any further remarks 
    should not be included in the Record. Therefore the Chair rules 
    that any remarks that may have been made after the point of order 
    that a quorum was not present was made should not be included in 
    the Record.

Sec. 17.9 The reporters are instructed to take down and include as part 
    of the Record of the proceedings remarks interjected by a Member to 
    whom the Member occupying the floor has refused to yield.

    The reporters are instructed to take down such interjections even 
though they are out of order and may be stricken from the permanent 
Record by the House, the Speaker, or the Member in revising his 
remarks.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. This ruling is discussed in Sec. 19.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.10 A parliamentary inquiry may not be used to place statements 
    in the Record.

    On Jan. 6, 1933,(1) the following parliamentary inquiry 
was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 76 Cong. Rec. 1362, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Would it be in order to state that the 
    Republican organization voted silently against the previous 
    question?

    The Speaker(2) responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That is not a parliamentary inquiry, and the gentleman ought 
    not to take advantage of a parliamentary inquiry to make a 
    statement.

Deletion by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 17.11 The House occasionally agrees to a unanimous-consent request 
    by a Member to have certain unparliamentary remarks spoken in 
    debate by another Member deleted from the Record.

    On Aug. 4, 1970,(3) Mr. Page H. Belcher, of Oklahoma, 
referred to Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, as ``the other guy'' 
who was horning in. Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, requested 
unanimous consent that ``the other guy'' as spoken by Mr. Belcher in 
debate be deleted from the Record and that there be inserted in lieu 
thereof ``the gentleman from Massachusetts.'' The House agreed to the 
request.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 27130, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.12 A Member may, with the unanimous consent of the House, have 
    his own remarks, which had been inserted under leave to extend, 
    deleted from the permanent Record.

[[Page 376]]

    On Sept. 20, 1966,(5) a speech delivered by Mr. Arnold 
Olsen, of Montana, which was made in Montana and was highly critical of 
another Member, appeared in the Record. The following day, Mr. Olsen, 
in requesting the unanimous consent of the House that the speech be 
deleted from the permanent Record, stated that it had been inserted by 
his staff, without his permission or knowledge. The House agreed to the 
unanimous-consent request.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 21, 1966.
 6. On several other occasions the House has agreed by unanimous 
        consent to permit a Member to delete his remarks from the 
        Record. See, e.g., Cong. Rec. daily ed.), Aug. 12, 1970 
        (remarks critical of a United States Senator); Cong. Rec. 
        (daily ed.), Sept. 14, 1967 (remarks critical of another 
        Member); 86 Cong. Rec. 1124, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 6, 1940 
        (letters that were later found to have been forged); Cong. Rec. 
        (daily ed.), Mar. 18, 1965 (an extension of remarks by a Member 
        that had been lost by the Public Printer, rediscovered nine 
        years later, and inserted as if it were current).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deletion Pursuant to Motion

Sec. 17.13 After the Speaker ruled certain words spoken by a Member in 
    debate to be out of order, the House agreed to a motion deleting 
    his entire speech from the Record.

    On Feb. 11, 1941,(7) the Speaker(8) ruled 
that certain words spoken by a Member in debate on a 
resolution(9) to continue an investigation by a Special 
Committee on Un-American Activities impugned the motives and actions of 
a committee and its individual members, and were therefore out of 
order. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved to expunge the entire 
speech from the Record. The House agreed to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.  87 Cong. Rec. 894-899, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 9. H. Res. 90, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. (1941).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.14 The Speaker ruled that a motion to strike from the Record 
    would have to be put in writing where the material to be stricken 
    gave rise to a question of privilege of the House.

    On Apr. 25, 1944,(10) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
introduced a resolution to strike from the Record a statement inserted 
by another Member that impugned the integrity and patriotism of Mr. 
Hoffman and which mentioned various Senators and Representatives. 
During debate on the resolution the Speaker(11) in

[[Page 377]]

dicated that there was an inconsistency in the 
resolution,(12) and Mr. Hoffman requested permission to 
withdraw the resolution on the condition that he be permitted to reword 
it and offer it again later in the day. At that point Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, requested the opinion of the Chair as to 
whether a motion to strike the matter under discussion from the Record 
must be in writing, or whether it could be done orally. The Speaker 
responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 90 Cong. Rec. 3696-98, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
12. The resolution directed both that the words be stricken from the 
        Record and that the resolution be referred to the Committee on 
        Rules for such action as it may deem proper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is going to demand that any motion to strike from the 
    Record be put in writing. The gentleman withdraws the resolution.

Later in the same day Mr. Hoffman introduced a modified 
resolution.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The resolution provided for its referral to the Committee on Rules 
        and directed the committee to consider the offensive statement 
        and to take such action as it deemed proper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.15 Debate on a motion to expunge from the Record words taken 
    down and ruled out of order is under the hour rule.

    On June 12, 1947,(14) after Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, was recognized on his motion to strike words from the 
Record that had been held out of order by the Speaker,(15) 
he made the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 6895, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I am recognized now for 1 hour and I have a right 
    to yield to any other Member I desire in this discussion?

The Speaker responded affirmatively.

Sec. 17.16 A Member who has been called to order for words spoken in 
    debate is not entitled to be recognized by the Speaker during 
    debate on a motion to expunge his words from the Record.

    On Feb. 11, 1941,(16) during debate on a 
resolution(17) to continue an investigation by a special 
Committee on Un-American Activities, the Speaker(18) ruled 
that words spoken by Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, impugned the 
motives and actions of a committee and the members thereof and were 
therefore not in order. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved to 
expunge the entire speech of Mr. Dickstein from

[[Page 378]]

the Record. During the debate on the resolution Mr. Dickstein sought 
recognition for the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry. The 
Speaker replied that he could not be recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 87 Cong. Rec. 894-899, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H. Res. 90, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. (1941).
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.17 A motion to expunge words from the Record is not in order in 
    the Committee of the Whole; words taken down in debate in the 
    Committee must be reported to the House by the Chairman.

    On Feb. 18, 1941,(19) during debate in the Committee of 
the Whole, Mr. Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania, demanded-that certain 
words spoken by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, be taken down. The 
Clerk, upon the order of the Chairman,(20) read the words 
objected to. Mr. Rich then requested that the words be expunged from 
the Record. The Chairman stated that it was a matter for the House to 
decide, and he directed the Committee to rise. The Committee then rose 
and Mr. Magnuson reported to the House that certain words in debate had 
been objected to, taken down upon request, and read at the Clerk's 
desk. After listening to the Clerk's reading of the words objected to, 
the Speaker(1) ruled that they did not reflect in an 
unparliamentary manner upon any Member, and that they did not violate 
the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 87 Cong. Rec. 1126, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
            On May 31, 1934, in a similar situation, a Member moved to 
        expunge from the Record words taken down during a debate in the 
        Committee of the Whole. A point of order was made that the 
        words would have to be first reported to the House. The 
        Chairman, John H. Kerr (N.C.), agreed and directed the 
        Committee to rise. 78 Cong. Rec. 10167-70, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
20. Warren G. Magnuson (Wash.).
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.18 A motion to delete from the Record certain words reported to 
    the House by the Committee of the Whole is in order subsequent to a 
    ruling by the Speaker holding them unparliamentary.

    On Mar. 24, 1961,(2) the Committee of the Whole reported 
to the House that certain words used in debate had been objected to 
and, on request, taken down and read at the Clerk's desk. When the 
House resumed sitting, the Clerk reported the words objected to, and 
the Speaker(3) ruled them out of order. The following 
parliamentary inquiry and response by the Speaker then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: The ruling means that 
    these

[[Page 379]]

    words will be stricken from the Record?
        The Speaker: If a motion is made to strike them from the 
    Record.

Mr. Curtis then made a motion to strike the words from the Record, and 
the House agreed to the motion.

Deletion Pursuant to Resolution

Sec. 17.19 The insertion in the Record of unparliamentary remarks is 
    sufficient to give rise to a question of privilege, which is 
    frequently presented in the form of a resolution to expunge such 
    remarks from the permanent Record.

    On May 13, 1946,(4) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of the privilege of the House and offered a 
resolution(5) stating that on May 10, Mr. Frank E. Hook, of 
Michigan, had caused to be inserted in the Congressional Record an 
address delivered by the President of the Michigan CIO Council, which 
impugned the integrity of Congress and the individual Members thereof. 
The resolution requested that the entire speech be expunged from the 
permanent Record. On a roll call vote, the House agreed to the 
resolution and the speech was expunged from the permanent 
Record.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 4922-24, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. H. Res. 616, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. (1946).
 6. See 93 Cong. Rec. 2461-63, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1947, for 
        another occasion on which the House agreed to a resolution 
        expunging from the permanent Record unparliamentary remarks 
        which had been inserted under leave to extend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.20 A resolution, which proposes to strike from the Record 
    language inserted under leave to extend, and which provides that 
    such resolution is to be referred to the Committee on Rules for 
    such action as it may deem proper, is privileged.

    On Apr. 25, 1944,(7) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of privilege and introduced a 
resolution(8) instructing the Committee on Rules to consider 
a statement impugning the integrity and patriotism of Mr. Hoffman, that 
had been inserted in the Record by another Member. Subsequent to the 
Speaker's(9) statement that without objection

[[Page 380]]

the resolution was agreed to, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 90 Cong. Rec. 3698, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. H. Res. 516, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. (1944)
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object----
        The Speaker: It is a privileged resolution.
        Mr. Rankin: I understand, but anything that goes to the 
    Committee on Rules is not a privileged resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognized the gentleman from Michigan 
    on the theory that it is a privileged resolution, and holds that it 
    is a privileged resolution. The Chair has already recognized the 
    gentleman to offer it.

Deletion by the Chair

Sec. 17.21 The Speaker, after ruling certain words taken down in debate 
    out of order, immediately ordered them deleted from the Record, 
    without awaiting action by the House.

    On Feb. 22, 1945,(10) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, requested that certain words spoken in debate by Mr. Frank 
E. Hook, of Michigan, be taken down. The Speaker pro 
tempore,(11) after hearing the words read by the Clerk, made 
the following ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 1371, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair rules the words out of order and they will be 
    stricken from the Record.

    Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, then asked the Chair, in the 
form of a parliamentary inquiry, what had become of the request that 
the words be taken down. The Speaker pro tempore responded as follows:

        The Chair has already ruled on that. The words were stricken 
    from the Record.

Sec. 17.22 Although the Speaker may strike from the Record of the 
    proceedings remarks made by a Member to whom the Member occupying 
    the floor has refused to yield, the Chairman of the Committee of 
    the Whole may not.

    Although it has been said that the Speaker has no control over the 
official record of debates,(12) it is well established that 
he may exclude from the Record flagrantly disorderly 
words,(13) words spoken by a Member after he has been called 
to order,(14) and remarks made by a Member who has not been 
recognized and to whom the Member having the floor has declined to 
yield.(15) The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, 
however, does not share even the Speaker's limited control over the

[[Page 381]]

Record, since it is well established that the Committee of the Whole 
itself has no control over the Congressional Record.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7017.
13. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3471.
14. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6975-6978.
15. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3466.
16. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Apr. 20, 1937,(17) the Speaker(18) stated 
that only the Speaker, and not the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole, has the authority to direct the reporters to delete certain 
improper remarks from the Record. The Speaker cited this principle as 
partial support for a ruling by which the reporters were instructed to 
take down and include as part of the Record of the proceedings remarks 
made by a Member to whom the Member having the floor had declined to 
yield.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 3670, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
19. This ruling is discussed in Sec. 19.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deletion by Government Printing Office

Sec. 17.23 The Government Printing Office edits materials inserted in 
    the ``Extension of Remarks'' section of the Record so as to delete 
    profane words, and indicates such deletions with dashes.

    On Feb. 24, 1970,(20) Mr. Ken Hechler, of West Virginia, 
directed the attention of the House to the fact that he had inserted in 
the ``Extension of Remarks'' section of the Record for the previous day 
a printed newspaper interview with George Titler, who was then the vice 
president of the United Mine Workers of America, in which Mr. Titler 
was quoted as making a number of critical remarks against the character 
of the late Joseph Yablonski. Mr. Hechler noted that the Government 
Printing Office had properly deleted several profane remarks made by 
Mr. Titler in the text of the interview, because such profanity in the 
Record would not be in conformity with the rules of the 
House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.  116 Cong. Rec. 4543, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. The text of the interview appears at 116 Cong. Rec. 4457, 91st 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 24, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Government Printing Office has been 
authorized by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing to delete 
profane extraneous material inserted in the Record, and to indicate 
such deletions with dashes.