[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 6.  Officers, Officials, and Employees]
[A. The Speaker]
[Â§ 7. Preserving Order on the House Floor]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 518-536]
 
                               CHAPTER 6
 
                   Officers, Officials, and Employees
 
                             A. THE SPEAKER
 
Sec. 7. Preserving Order on the House Floor

    The Speaker's jurisdiction, duty, and power to preserve order on

[[Page 519]]

the House floor derives mainly from the House rules and House 
precedents. This section lists examples of both.
    Under House rules, the Speaker preserves order on the House floor 
by maintaining the decorum of the proceedings,(20) by 
controlling the use of the House Chamber,(1) by presiding 
over the Members during debate,(2) and by supervising the 
admission of persons to the House floor.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule I clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 622 (1973). See Ch. 
        29, infra, for fuller treatment of the Speaker's role in 
        maintaining order on the House floor.
 1. Rules I clause 3, Sec. 623, and XXXI, Sec. 918, House Rules and 
        Manual (1973). See Ch. 4, supra, for discussion of the use of 
        the House Chamber.
 2. Rule XIV clauses 1-8, Sec. Sec. 749-764, House Rules and Manual 
        (1973). See Ch. 29, infra, for fuller treatment of the 
        Speaker's role in presiding over debate.
 3.Rule XXXII clauses 1 and 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 919-921 
        (1973). See Ch. 4, supra, for treatment of admission to the 
        House floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under House precedents, the Speaker preserves order on the House 
floor: by using his power of recognition to remedy situations wherein a 
Member attempts to interrupt another Member who has the 
floor;(4) by controlling the manner by which one Member 
addresses or refers to another;(5) by disallowing or 
controlling certain references by Members to Senators or others; by 
controlling the movements of Members on the floor during 
debate;(6) by controlling the distribution of materials on 
the House floor;(7) and by enforcing the privileges of the 
House floor.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. Sec. 7.1, 7.2, infra.
 5. See Sec. Sec. 7.3 et seq., infra.
 6. See Sec. Sec. 7.13, 7.14, infra.
 7. See Sec. 7.15, infra.
 8. See Ch. 4, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Controlling interjected Remarks

Sec. 7.1 In preserving order on the House floor, the Speaker has the 
    power of recognition and Members must seek the Speaker's 
    recognition before interrupting another Member who has the floor.

    On Feb. 17, 1936,(9) a parliamentary inquiry was 
addressed to Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 80 Cong. Rec. 2201, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 520]]

        Mr. Woodrum: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of orderly procedure, 
    I should like to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the Speaker.
        If I understand the rules of the House, they provide that in 
    debate should a Member desire to address the House or the Speaker 
    he must first secure recognition of the Speaker. If a Member has 
    the floor and is addressing the House or the Speaker and another 
    Member desires to interrogate him, interrupt, or interject remarks, 
    he must first secure the permission of the Member who has the 
    floor.
        Mr. Speaker, I observe a custom growing up here of Members 
    getting up and a number of them talking at once, with the Speaker 
    pounding for order. It seems to me that they must not understand 
    the rules, or else I do not understand them. I do not understand 
    that under the rules a Member has a right to cut into another 
    Member's speech, or interrupt the Member when he is trying to 
    speak, or while the Speaker is trying to make a ruling or is 
    addressing the House. I think the Speaker should rule on this 
    matter.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct. The Chair has had 
    occasion several times, according to his distinct recollection, to 
    call this rule to the attention of the Members of the House. It is 
    a violation of the rules of the House for a Member to interrupt 
    another Member when he has the floor without first addressing the 
    Chair and obtaining the consent of the Member having the floor 
    before he interrupts.

Sec. 7.2 In preserving order on the House floor, the Chair may rule 
    that statements interjected into the speech of a Member without his 
    permission may be stricken by the Member in his revision of 
    remarks.

    On Mar. 4, 1936,(10) a debate took place which brought 
about a point of order, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 3278, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles] Kramer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Maury] Maverick [of Texas]: Yes.
        Mr. Kramer: Will the gentleman explain what the cartoon said 
    down below it? The gentleman said it was a fine picture of the 
    President. I am surprised that the gentleman would stand on the 
    floor here as a Democrat, as a supporter of this administration and 
    take that attitude toward our President.
        Mr. Maverick: Do not talk nonsense, Mr. Kramer.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield there?
        Mr. Maverick: Yes; I yield.
        Mr. Marcantonio: As a matter of fact, the attitude of the 
    gentleman and some other gentlemen who are advocating this 
    legislation is one of competing with Mr. Hearst on the question of 
    communism.
        [Several gentlemen rose. Some confusion. Mr. Bankhead rose to a 
    point of order.]
        Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    a point

[[Page 521]]

    of order. It is an absolute violation of the rules of the House 
    governing debate to have remarks interjected without the consent of 
    the gentleman who holds the floor. It certainly does not contribute 
    anything to the dignity of the proceedings of the Committee or the 
    clarification of issues, and I hope gentlemen will observe the 
    rule.
        Mr. Marcantonio: But the gentleman from Texas had yielded to 
    me.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, 
    supplementing what the distinguished majority leader has said, 
    there is a bad practice in this House of the stenographer taking 
    down words which are said not under the rules of the House. The 
    Chair should instruct the stenographer not to take down the words 
    used by the gentleman from California in answer to my colleague 
    from New York.

        The Chairman [William L. Nelson, of Missouri]: Under the rule 
    the gentleman holding the floor has the privilege of striking from 
    his remarks such words. [In pursuance of the above ruling Mr. 
    Maverick eliminated certain matter not regarded as relevant to the 
    proceedings.]

Controlling Manner of Address

Sec. 7.3 In preserving order on the House floor, a Speaker or a 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may instruct Members as to 
    the manner by which they may properly address one another in 
    debate.

    On Oct. 24, 1945,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
advised a Member, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, as to the manner 
in which a Member should address or make reference to another Member on 
the floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 91 Cong. Rec. 10032, 10033, 79th Con. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed one of the most 
    ridiculous performances that has taken place in this House since I 
    have been in Congress. These unjustified attacks on the Committee 
    on Un-American Activities, these smear attacks on the Daughters of 
    the American Revolution by the Jewish gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Celler], have been shocking indeed, to say the least of it.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order 
    that the gentleman is out of order when he refers to me as ``the 
    Jewish gentleman from New York.'' I ask that the words be taken 
    down.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman will allow the Chair, there is 
    one way to refer to a Member of the House of Representatives and 
    that is, ``the gentleman from'' the State from which he comes. Any 
    other appellation is a violation of the rules.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, if he objects to being called a 
    ``Jewish gentleman'' I withdraw it.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the words be taken down.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: I ask that those words be 
    taken down.
        Mr. Rankin: I am withdrawing the words. I have not the time to 
    argue such matters.
        Mr. Marcantonio: I object to his withdrawing the words. I 
    request that the words be taken down.

[[Page 522]]

        The Speaker: The Chair has already stated the rule with 
    reference to the language of the gentlemen from Mississippi. . . .
        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] will proceed in 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, it is exceedingly strange that a man 
    presuming to arrogate to himself the prerogative of speaking for a 
    minority group will rise on this floor and denounce the Daughters 
    of the American Revolution, in the manner the Member from New York 
    [Mr. Celler] did and then raise a protest when he is even referred 
    to as a gentleman of his race.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Celler: The gentleman by inference and innuendo has simply 
    repeated what he said at the inception of his remarks when he 
    attempted to state that I was a Jewish gentleman. That is the 
    second time he did it by indirection. I think the gentleman should 
    be called to order and cautioned not to repeat that kind of 
    language.
        The Speaker: The gentleman refers to the gentleman, if he 
    referred to him at all, as the member of a minority race. The Chair 
    does not think that is a violation of the rule.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. I wish to 
    proceed in order. Does the Member from New York [Mr. Celler] object 
    to being called a Jew or does he object to being called a 
    gentleman? What is he kicking about?
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair desires to make a little statement.
        The Chair trusts that points of order may be properly points of 
    order hereafter, and that a Member before he makes a point of order 
    secures the recognition of the Chair.
        The gentleman from Mississippi will proceed in order, and the 
    Chair trusts that the gentleman from Mississippi understands what 
    the Chair means.

    On Mar. 4, 1936,(12) a Member remarked as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 12. 80 Cong. Rec. 3286, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: . . .
        Mr. Chairman, where are we going to head in at? When will we 
    stop this extravagance? I want to say that we have talked about 
    responsibility. Whose responsibility? Whose, Mr. Bankhead? Is it 
    yours or is it the Members of this House?
        Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    a point of order.
        The Chairman [William L. Nelson, of Missouri]: The gentleman 
    will state it.
        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Chairman, I am not sensitive about the 
    matter, but I am a little meticulous about observance of the rules 
    of the House, and it is a direct violation of the rules of the 
    House for a Member to refer directly by name to any Member upon the 
    floor, and I shall have to give the gentleman a little preliminary 
    schooling on the rules of the House and I may add to it a little 
    later on. The gentleman should say, ``The gentleman from Alabama.''
        The Chairman: The Chair confirms the statement of the gentleman 
    from

[[Page 523]]

    Alabama and sustains the point of order.
        Mr. [Byron B.] Harlan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, as an additional 
    point of order and with respect to the same point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Alabama, following parliamentary practice and 
    under the rules of the House, the gentleman should not, from the 
    floor, even address the gentleman from Alabama directly, but should 
    direct all of his remarks to the Chairman or the Speaker.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Whom Members May Address

Sec. 7.4 The Chair, in preserving order on the floor of the House, may 
    rule out of order a Member's address to anyone other than the 
    Chair, including the press.

    On Apr. 24, 1963,(13) the colloquy below occurred 
between Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, and the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole, Eugene J. Keogh, of New York:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 6892, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my so-called liberal 
    friends who voted the motion up which closed off debate on such a 
    serious matter that you have clearly demonstrated your concern for 
    the basic civil liberties.
        I would say to the press that this is a good observation----
        Mr. [Ross] Bass [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the gentleman is out of order in addressing the press 
    gallery or any other gallery from the floor of the House.
        Mr. Curtis: I am not addressing the press gallery. I am 
    addressing----
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri will suspend. The 
    Chair advises the gentleman that the correct parliamentary 
    procedure is for the gentleman to address the Chair and only the 
    Chair. The gentleman will proceed in accordance with the rules.

Sec. 7.5 It is considered within the authority of the Speaker in 
    preserving order on the floor of the House to interrupt a Member 
    and rule out of order any reference to a person in the House 
    gallery.

    On June 4, 1963,(14) during a Member's remarks, Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, on his own initiative took action 
to prevent the reference to persons in the gallery of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 109 Cong. Rec. 10157, 10158, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William T.] Cahill [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, and my 
    colleagues, as one of the sponsors of this legislation, I have 
    patiently sat on this floor expecting that my friends from that 
    side of the aisle would at least show the courtesy to the minority 
    to be heard. It was my hope that it would not be necessary for me 
    to make any observations at all in order to obtain

[[Page 524]]

    the attention of my friends. Now, I would say that this is not my 
    observation, but I thought the House might like to have the 
    observation of a disinterested, objective observer who was sitting 
    up in the gallery and who happens to be a visitor of mine----
        The Speaker: Reference to anybody in the gallery is not 
    consistent with the rules of the House.
        Mr. Cahill: I beg the Chair's pardon.
        I would say then, may I quote to you the observation of a 
    visitor who told me----
        Mr. [Ross] Bass [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. 
    Is the gentleman referring to a visitor in the Chamber, or in the 
    gallery, or a visitor in Washington?
        Mr. Cahill: No; I would say--
        The Speaker: The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman referred 
    to a visitor and it is not the Chair's duty to penetrate his mind.
        Mr. Bass: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Minnesota yield to the 
    gentleman from Tennessee to make a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I yield to 
    the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee for the purpose of his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Bass: Since it is the prerogative of the Members to inquire 
    into the minds of the other Members, may I request of the Member to 
    divulge if this speaker is in the gallery or on the floor?
        The Speaker: The Speaker rules that is not a parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .

    On July 27, 1954,(15) in a similar situation involving 
Benjamin F. James, of Pennsylvania, Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole, a Member attempted to refer to a visitor in the House gallery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 100 Cong. Rec. 12253, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter H.] Judd [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: If the gentleman will 
    permit me, I will finish my statement and then I will be delighted 
    to yield.
        Mr. Judd: My purpose is to call attention to the French nurse 
    who is in the gallery.
        Mr. Cannon: I yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Judd: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
    in permitting this short interlude. One of the things that always 
    thrills everybody in the world is courage and devotion to duty, 
    especially when under most trying and dangerous circumstances. I 
    appreciate the opportunity to call attention to the presence in our 
    gallery
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Minnesota will suspend. The 
    Chair regrets extremely----
        Mr. Judd: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may not proceed out of order for 
    the purpose which he manifestly intends to use the time. The Chair 
    regrets extremely that he must so hold under the rules of procedure 
    of the House. We

[[Page 525]]

    are all conscious of the great heroism of the person to whom the 
    Chair knows that the gentleman wishes to allude, but it is a matter 
    of extreme regret that because of the rules of the House, reference 
    may not be made to anyone in the gallery.
        Mr. Judd: I shall not say anything about the gallery. I shall 
    say she is on the Hill today.
        The Chairman: The Chair greatly regrets that under the rules of 
    procedure of the House, the gentleman must be denied the privilege 
    of introducing anyone in the gallery which, I know, every Member of 
    the House would greatly appreciate in this instance, if it were 
    possible under the rules.
        Mr. Judd: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of introducing 
    anyone in the gallery. Is it not possible to refer here to persons 
    who are in our country?
        The Chairman: It is not possible to refer to any person in the 
    gallery.
        Mr. Judd: May I not call attention to a most distinguished 
    visitor in our country today?
        The Chairman: The gentleman may refer to one who is in our 
    country.
        Mr. Judd: Well, then, I should like to refer to the 
    distinguished heroine of Dien Bien Phu who we, in the United 
    States, are happy these days to welcome to our shores and to our 
    city, and to pay tribute to her, as a person whose heroism is 
    acclaimed by all, and as a symbol of all women of the world who in 
    times of great crisis and peril are faithful to their duty, 
    particularly that of ministering to men wounded in the defense of 
    freedom. We pay tribute to her wherever she may be in our country 
    at the present moment.

Enforcing Floor Privileges

Sec. 7.6 The Speaker has within his authority the enforcement of the 
    privileges of the floor of the House, including times when there is 
    held a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber.

    On Jan. 7, 1964,(16) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made an announcement with respect to the privileges of 
the floor during a joint session of the Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 6, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to make an announcement. After 
    consultation with the majority and minority leaders, and with their 
    consent and approval, the Chair announces on Wednesday, January 8, 
    1964, the date set for the joint session to hear an address by the 
    President of the United States, only the doors immediately opposite 
    the Speaker and those on his left and right will be open. No one 
    will be allowed on the floor of the House who does not have the 
    privileges of the floor of the House.

Controlling Reference to Senators

Sec. 7.7 In preserving order on the House floor, a Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole may interrupt a Member to rule out of order 
    any reference to a Member of the Senate.

[[Page 526]]

    On May 25, 1937,(17) a Member spoke as follows in the 
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 5013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Alfred F.] Beiter [of New York]: . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I have letters here from Members of the Senate 
    saying they are in sympathy with this movement. If you will permit 
    me, I will read a letter from Senator Murray, in which he says----
        The Chairman [John J. O'Connor, of New York]: The Chair, on its 
    own responsibility, makes the point of order against the reading of 
    a letter from a Member of another body.

Sec. 7.8 In preserving order on the House floor, a Speaker pro tempore 
    enforces the rule that in debate a Member may not directly nor 
    indirectly refer to a Senator or to a speech made by a Senator even 
    though the speech was not made in the Senate Chamber.

    On May 2, 1941,(18) a point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 87 Cong. Rec. 3536, 3537, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore [Fadjo Cravens, of Arkansas]: The 
    gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman in the address he has 
    just made has on repeated occasions made reference to Senator 
    Wheeler of Montana. I am not making this point of order in defense 
    of Senator Wheeler or anybody else but in an effort to preserve 
    what I understand to be the rules of this House. I make the point 
    of order that the gentleman is out of order and is proceeding in 
    violation of the rules of the House when he refers either 
    contemptuously or in a complimentary manner to a Member of another 
    body. I believe the gentleman's remarks should be deleted in those 
    aspects in which he has thus referred to the Senator from Montana 
    in order that we may preserve the plain mandate of the rules of 
    this House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin will proceed in order.
        Mr. [Thaddeus F. B.] Wasielewski [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, 
    the speech I have prepared here has wholly to do with the talk 
    given by Senator Wheeler. Is it permissible to merely make 
    reference to him as the senior Senator from Montana?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rules of the House, it is a 
    violation of the rules to refer to a Senator of the United States 
    in any such fashion. Under the rules of the House the gentleman 
    should refrain from such remarks as those and proceed in order. . . 
    .
        Mr. Wasielewski: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent at this 
    time to revise and extend my remarks to conform with the House 
    rules. I offer my profoundest regrets and apology if I have in any 
    way violated the rules of the House. I did not realize that the

[[Page 527]]

    House rule also covered statements made by Members of Congress 
    outside the Capitol halls.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, the gentleman asks to revise and extend his 
    remarks in accordance with the rules of the House?
        Mr. Wasielewski: That is right.
        Mr. Michener: And the gentleman will not include in his 
    extension those things that violate the rules and to which 
    objection has been made?
        Mr. Wasielewski: That is right. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, pursuing my 
    parliamentary inquiry, and reserving the right to object, what I 
    wanted to know is this--and whether it applies to this speech or 
    not is not the point. Can an attack be made upon a Member of this 
    House or a member of another body merely by referring to the person 
    indirectly, so long as the Member is clearly identified and the 
    matter consists of an attack upon something he has said or done?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rules of the House the 
    gentleman is not permitted to do indirectly what he cannot do 
    directly. Consequently the point of order was sustained upon the 
    theory that there had been an unintentional violation of the rules 
    of the House. The gentleman now asks unanimous consent that he may 
    be permitted to revise and extend his remarks. Is there objection?
        There was no objection.

Controlling References to Members

Sec. 7.9 It is considered within the authority of the Chair in 
    preserving order on the floor of the House to rule out of order 
    words spoken in debate referring to another Member in an 
    unparliamentary manner.

    On July 2, 1935,(19) the debate below took place in the 
House, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, presiding:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 79 Cong. Rec. 10670, 10671, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Maury] Maverick [of Texas]: I have not the parliamentary 
    experience and ability to get up here and beat the parliamentary 
    rules; but I do say I hope the House passes the resolution, and I 
    do not believe a word the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Brewster] said. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Ralph O.] Brewster: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Maine 
    rise?
        Mr. Brewster: I rise to ask whether it is possible for the 
    gentleman from Texas to challenge my word on the floor of this 
    House without having his words taken down. I rose immediately the 
    words were uttered, and it seems to me nothing could transcend such 
    a proposition. If that is not possible, it transcends my conception 
    of parliamentary procedure.
        The Speaker: To what words does the gentleman object?
        Mr. Brewster: He said, as I understood him, that he did not 
    believe a word I had uttered.
        The Speaker: The Chair would state to the gentleman that the 
    Chair does

[[Page 528]]

    not think that implies that the gentleman uttered an untruth. That 
    was the opinion of the gentleman from Texas, but not necessarily 
    the opinion of anyone else, and the Chair does not understand that 
    there is any question of privilege involved in the remarks uttered.
        Mr. Brewster: May I ask that the words be taken down?
        The Speaker: The gentleman could have done that----
        Mr. [William D.] McFarlane [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The Chair is trying to rule on a point of order 
    now, if the gentleman will permit the Chair to do so.
        Mr. McFarlane: I wanted to make my point of order before the 
    Chair rules.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas made the statement, but 
    that does not necessarily imply that the gentleman from Maine 
    intentionally made a misstatement on his own part. He simply said 
    he did not believe it, but this did not necessarily imply that the 
    gentleman from Maine intentionally made a misstatement. What the 
    gentleman from Texas said may be construed as meaning that the 
    gentleman from Maine was merely mistaken in his conclusions, and 
    that the gentleman did not deliberately make a false statement. So 
    the Chair fails to see where any question of privilege is involved 
    in the statement. Of course, if the gentleman wishes to make his 
    own statement about it, he can do so with the permission of the 
    House.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(20) debate took place in the Committee 
of the Whole as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 2871, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lee G.] Geyer of California: . . . I see in the balcony 
    some young people, some school people, who have come here to watch 
    their Representatives in session. I am anxious that they get a 
    proper idea concerning this great body.
        I have heard the gentleman from Wisconsin, the man who made 
    Milwaukee famous, stand upon this floor a good many times. He is an 
    estimable gentleman. I like him very much when he is not in the 
    well of this House. I have seen him come out with a hand that only 
    he possesses, a hand like a ham, and grasp this [microphone] until 
    it groaned from mad torture. I have seen him come on the floor and 
    stamp up and down like a wild man.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I demand that the 
    gentleman's words be taken down.
        The Chairman [Frank H. Buck, of California]: The gentleman from 
    New York demands that the words of the gentleman be taken down. The 
    gentleman from California will take his seat.
        The gentleman from New York will indicate to the Clerk the 
    words objected to.
        Mr. Taber: ``Stamping like a wild man'' and ``a hand like a 
    ham.''
        Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, as far as I 
    am concerned, I am not objecting to the words. I will handle him at 
    a later date.
        Mr. Taber: I believe the integrity of the rules of the House 
    should be preserved.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the words taken down at the 
    request of the gentleman from New York.

[[Page 529]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            I have seen him come on the floor and stamp up and down 
        like a wild man.

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, there were some other words about ``a 
    hand like a ham.''
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the additional words. . . . 
    The Committee will rise.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker . . . resumed 
    the chair . . .
        The Speaker [William B. Bankhead, of Alabama]: The Clerk will 
    report the words objected to in the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union. . . .
        The rule governing situations of this character provides as 
    follows:

                           Of Decorum and Debate

            When any Member desires to speak or deliver any matter to 
        the House he shall rise and respectfully address himself to 
        ``Mr. Speaker,'' and, on being recognized, may address the 
        House from any place on the floor or from the Clerk's desk, and 
        shall confine himself to the question under debate, avoiding 
        personality.

        The words objected to and which have been taken down and read 
    from the Clerk's desk very patently violate the rule, because the 
    words alleged do involve matters of personal reference and 
    personality.

    On Dec. 20, 1943,(1) debate took place as follows in the 
House, Speaker pro tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
presiding:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 89 Cong. Rec. 10922, 10923, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adoph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, the original 
    bill in the last Congress was introduced by the gentleman from West 
    Virginia [Mr. Ramsey] and finally approved by the secretaries of 
    the various States who sent a delegation down here. It was opposed 
    then by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin]; nevertheless, 
    the vast majority of the Members voted for it. The present bill 
    that the gentleman from Mississippi charges was written by someone, 
    he does not know whom, was introduced by me. . . .
        I said that I did not care whether it was my bill, his bill, or 
    any bill [when I appeared before the committee]; but that it should 
    be a bill that will give them the right to vote and not a bill that 
    will deprive them of that great privilege as the gentleman from 
    Mississippi is trying to do.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I demand that those words be 
    taken down. I make the point of order that his statement is false 
    and slanderous. I demand that those words be taken down.
        Mr. Sabath: I demand that those words be taken down. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has instructed that the 
    words demanded to be taken down be read, and when they are ready 
    the Clerk will report them.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Sabath: I said I did not care whether it was my bill, 
        his bill, or any bill, but a bill that will give them the right 
        to vote and not a bill that will deprive them of that great 
        privilege as the gentleman from Mississippi is trying to do.

[[Page 530]]

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that those 
    words violate the rules of the House, and, so far as my denouncing 
    them as false is concerned, I am clearly within the rules of the 
    House, as has been demonstrated here and pointed out time and time 
    again.
        When any Member rises on the floor and makes a false statement, 
    any other Member has the right to say that that statement is false; 
    and when that statement is slanderous, any gentleman is within the 
    rules of the House when he says so.
        Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me 
    to answer the gentleman from Mississippi.
        Mr. [Ralph E.] Church [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, the regular 
    order.
        Mr. Sabath: His own statement shows he is wrong.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. There 
    are several ways of averting a ruling on this matter, but the Chair 
    is prepared to rule, neither gentleman having asked unanimous 
    consent that the remarks be withdrawn. . . .
        The Chair feels that the question is very close to the line, 
    but does transgress the rules when the gentleman from Illinois used 
    the words ``deprive them'' in that those words tend to impugn the 
    motives of the gentleman from Mississippi. . . .
        So far as the remarks made by the gentleman from Mississippi 
    are concerned, the Chair has no difficulty in ruling that those 
    words clearly transgress the rules of the House, and the Chair so 
    rules on both statements made, taken down, and reported by the 
    Clerk.

    On Jan. 31, 1946,(2) debate took place as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 92 Cong. Rec. 675, 676, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: I wish, if I may be 
    permitted, to answer my own question. The Case bill does return to 
    those very dark and murky days; and, to quote the Bible, ``as a dog 
    returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.''
        Mr. [Clark E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Now, wait a minute. Mr. 
    Chairman, I object to those words. I ask that those words be taken 
    down as unparliamentary language.
        Mr. Celler: But I quoted the Bible.
        The Chairman [Frank L. Chelf, of Kentucky]: What words does the 
    gentleman object to?
        Mr. Hoffman: Where he said we would be like a dog returning to 
    his vomit if we defeated this bill.
        Mr. Cellar: I said the Case bill. That is a quotation from the 
    Bible
        Mr. Hoffman: The gentleman can quote more Scripture to his 
    purpose than anyone else.
        The Chairman: The Chair rules this all out of order. The Clerk 
    will take down the words objected to.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I demand that the words of the 
    gentleman from Michigan be taken down. He said I quoted Scripture 
    to my own purpose, like the devil.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    a point of order. When a demand is made to take down a Member's 
    words, that Member has no right to the floor until the matter has 
    been settled.

[[Page 531]]

        The Chairman: All gentlemen will take their seats. . . .
        The Committee will rise.
        Accordingly, the committee rose; and The Speaker . . . resumed 
    the chair.
        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Clerk will report the 
    words objected to. . . .
        The Chair does not know all that happened before the language 
    objected to was used, but the name of no Member is mentioned. In 
    the words taken down the gentleman was giving his opinion of a 
    measure before the House. The Chair would be compelled to hold that 
    the language is not unparliamentary.

Controlling References to Nonmembers

Sec. 7.10 In preserving order in the House, the Chair determines 
    whether words taken down, as reported by the Committee of the 
    Whole, are out of order before further business is undertaken.

    On Jan. 18, 1930,(3) during a debate on the enforcement 
of legislation regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages, the 
following remarks were made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 72 Cong. Rec. 1905-07, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William I.] Sirovich [of New York]: I personally believe 
    in the rigid enforcement of the prohibition law. I want every wet 
    and dry to respect it in this country; but does not the gentleman 
    believe that when a coast guard finds a man violating the 
    prohibition law and the man flees, or he shoots at him, he should 
    shoot two or three times above him and beside him and around him to 
    show that the Government is sincere, and then, if he does not stop, 
    to enforce the law as it should be enforced? . . .
        Mr. [Carroll L.] Beedy [of Maine]: I know that no warning gun, 
    if the gentleman is referring to the Black Duck incident, was fired 
    before the gun was fired which resulted in the loss of life. . . .
        Mr. [Fiorello H.] LaGuardia [of New York]: The gentleman knows 
    that that is just the difficulty. The moment the Government officer 
    does act that way he is removed from the state court and brought 
    before one of our own commissioners and then discharged. That is 
    the difficulty.
        Mr. [Charles H.] Sloan [of Nebraska]: That is a distinct charge 
    against the judicial system of this country, which is not valid.
        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of New York]: It is true. Instead of 
    being prosecuted, he is being defended by the district attorneys in 
    each and every instance.
        Mr. Sloan: I challenge the gentleman's general charge against 
    the integrity of the courts of the United States.
        Mr. Beedy: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
        The Chairman [Bertrand H. Snell, of New York]: The gentleman 
    will state it.

        Mr. Beedy: I ask that the remarks of the gentleman from 
    Illinois be taken down. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read the words taken down.

[[Page 532]]

        The Clerk read as follows:
        Mr. Sabath: It is true. Instead of being prosecuted he is being 
    defended by district attorneys. . . .
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore 
    [Mr. Tilson] . . . resumed the Chair. . . .
        Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore [John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut]: The 
    gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bankhead: As I understand the rule, when the procedure has 
    gone as far as it has in this instance, under the rule it is the 
    primary duty of the Speaker, before any further procedure can be 
    taken, to determine whether or not the words so reported are in 
    themselves out of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Mr. Beedy: Mr. Speaker, they are not all the words I asked to 
    be taken down.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair can only rule on the words 
    reported to the House by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House.
        The present occupant of the Chair can see nothing 
    objectionable, from a parliamentary standpoint, in the remarks 
    reported.
        The Committee will resume its session.

Sec. 7.11 It is considered within the authority of the Speaker in 
    preserving order on the House floor to rule on whether words spoken 
    in reference to persons other than present Members are 
    unparliamentary.

    On Nov. 15, 1945,(4) debate took place in the House as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 91 Cong. Rec. 10735, 10736, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] Biemiller [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, it is 
    now more than 6 months since VE-day and more than 3 months after 
    VJ-day. Six months ago, we expected when this happy event arrived 
    we would see an immediate rush to peacetime activities, giving jobs 
    to former war workers and soldiers, making things we all 
    need. . . .
        Yet, some of our people are so misinformed they cry Communist 
    at every measure with the slightest touch of liberalism, at every 
    person who has had a new idea since 1860. In so doing, they bring 
    more opprobrium on themselves than on the cause or the individuals 
    they attack. The gentleman from Mississippi, for instance, is well 
    known for his ability to see a Communist in every woodpile. Only 
    the other day it was reported in the Pathfinder magazine for 
    October 31 that he stated at a committee hearing that he regarded 
    Abraham Lincoln as a Communist.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. I called the Pathfinder up and they apologized and said that 
    the man who wrote that took my statement and reversed it. When the 
    leader of the Communist Party, William Z. Foster, talked about 
    Lincoln as being a Communist, I said, ``As a Southern Democrat, I 
    resent your branding Abraham Lincoln as a Communist.'' Now, please

[[Page 533]]

    do not get your information from those Communists about me but stay 
    by the record while you are discussing me on this floor.
        Mr. Biemiller: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the record 
    show there is at least one liberal in the past century that Mr. 
    Rankin does not consider as a Communist.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I demand that those words be taken 
    down. . . .
        The Speaker: [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Clerk will report the 
    words the gentleman from Mississippi has demanded be taken down. . 
    . .
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: This is not a point of order. These are words 
    taken down on the demand of the gentleman from Mississippi.
        The Chair does not find anything in the language that is 
    contrary to the rules of the House or is unparliamentary.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is this: That, 
    taken in the light of his previous statements, where he falsely 
    accused me of making a statement with reference to Abraham Lincoln 
    that was exactly opposite from what I did say, his utterance was a 
    violation of the rules of the House.
        The Speaker: Even if the gentleman had given his opinion that 
    Mr. Lincoln was a Communist, that would not have been a violation 
    of the rules of the House.

Controlling Reading of Papers

Sec. 7.12 In preserving order on the House floor, the Speaker puts the 
    question to the House when objection is heard to a unanimous-
    consent request to allow a Member to read papers on the floor.

    On Oct. 24, 1945,(5) a Member attempted to read some 
papers to the house:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 10031, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hugh] De Lacy [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman 
    from New York has made a very able statement of some of the general 
    issues involved in this discussion today. I would like to discuss 
    some aspects of the freedom of the air.
        When the House Committee on Un-American Activities requested 
    the scripts of certain American radio commentators--
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The gentleman will state 
    it.
        Mr. Rankin: A Member who has the floor has to get unanimous 
    consent to read. Now they can all read that stuff in the papers 
    tomorrow. I read it this morning. I make the point of order that he 
    has no right to get up here and read that stuff and take up the 
    time of the Congress without unanimous consent.
        The Speaker: If anybody objects to the reading, the question 
    can be put to the House and the House can decide.

        Mr. Rankin: I object to its reading. It has all been 
    distributed and everybody is familiar with it.
        The Speaker: The question is, Shall the gentleman from 
    Washington be permitted to read the statement?

[[Page 534]]

        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    had it.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Washington may proceed.

Controlling Members' Floor Movements

Sec. 7.13 In preserving order on the House floor, the Chair may rule a 
    Member out of order when he stands by or walks about another Member 
    who has the floor in debate.

    On Mar. 5, 1936,(6) debate took place in the Committee 
of the Whole as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 80 Cong. Rec. 3376, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment. If our friend from Washington [Mr. 
    Zioncheck] had looked up the data on this bill and the hearings he 
    would not have offered the amendment or made his speech. In the 
    first place, instead of being $60,000 for lights, he will find it 
    is only $25,000, and page 37 of the estimates shows that.
        Mr. Zioncheck rose.
        Mr. Blanton: I do not want to be interrupted.
        Mr. [Marion A.] Zioncheck [of Washington]: I am not asking the 
    gentleman to yield.
        Mr. Blanton: I do not want to be interrupted, and I ask the 
    Chair to rule whether or not the gentleman from Washington is in 
    order.
        Mr. Zioncheck: I am not asking the gentleman to yield. I am 
    just standing here doing nothing. Has the gentleman got a complex?
        Mr. Blanton: Will the Chair rule whether or not the gentleman 
    is in order.
        The Chairman [William L. Nelson, of Missouri]: He is not in 
    order.
        Mr. Zioncheck: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman kindly take his seat?
        Mr. Zioncheck: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Zioncheck: I was doing nothing; he brings this up; and I 
    think the Chair cannot rule on something which does not exist.
        The Chairman: The Chair rules that the gentleman from 
    Washington must be in his seat when the other gentleman has the 
    floor.
        Mr. Zioncheck: In other words, I am supposed to sit down?
        The Chairman: Yes.

Sec. 7.14 In preserving order on the House floor, the Chair may rule 
    that a Member is out of order if, when propounding a question to a 
    Member speaking from the well of the House, he does so from the 
    well rather than from the House seats.

    On Mar. 7, 1957,(7) debate took place in the Committee 
of the Whole as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 103 Cong. Rec. 3268, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 535]]

        Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: I do not want to yield 
    for a speech.
        Mr. [George H.] Christopher [of Missouri]: I did not come down 
    to heckle the gentleman.
        Mr. August H. Andresen: I will yield for a question, but I 
    refuse to yield for a speech.
        Mr. Christopher: I would like to ask a question.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman [Brooks Hays, of Arkansas]: The gentleman will 
    state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: I ask that the well be cleared.
        The Chairman: The gentlemen from Michigan makes a point of 
    order that the well should be cleared. The gentleman will step back 
    to the seats to ask his question.
        Mr. Christopher: I want to ask a question about the 51 million 
    acre base.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri will suspend. We want 
    to comply strictly with the rules. The gentleman will stand back 
    out of the well, please while the question is propounded.

Controlling Distribution of 
    Materials

Sec. 7.15 The Speaker, in preserving order on the House floor, may stop 
    the distribution to Members of copies of House bills with a 
    Member's memoranda attached thereto.

    On Aug. 16, 1935,(8) a parliamentary inquiry was 
addressed to Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 79 Cong. Rec. 13433, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude A.] Fuller [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    parliamentary inquiry. I just sent a page for the bill under 
    consideration, H.R. 9100, and received the copy which I have in my 
    hand. At the top of the bill, pasted onto it is a pink slip, and on 
    that pink slip in typewriting are the words:

            Bituminous-coal as amended and reprinted--controversial 
        phases largely eliminated. Two-thirds of tonnage output 
        operators favor bill, and more than 95 percent of labor.

        My inquiry is to know whether it is proper for anybody to paste 
    such a thing as that on a document of the House and whether it is 
    proper for it to be circulated in the House. This is the first time 
    in my experience that I have ever seen any advertisement on an 
    official document or bill pending in the House. I rise for the 
    purpose of ascertaining how it came there and whether or not it is 
    proper to be on this bill.

        The Speaker: The Chair has no information on the subject. Where 
    did the gentleman get his copy of the bill?
        Mr. Fuller: From a page. I send this copy to the desk so that 
    the Speaker may examine it.
        Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder [of Pennsylvania]: I can tell the 
    gentleman how that came there.
        The Speaker: The gentleman may state.

[[Page 536]]

        Mr. Snyder: Mr. Speaker, I had so many of these bills sent to 
    my office, and with my secretarial help we wrote those words on 
    that pink slip and pasted the slip on the bill. That is how that 
    happens to be there. I sent copies of these bills with the slip on 
    them to those interested and sent some of them to the desk back 
    here, to be handed out upon request. It is altogether fitting and 
    proper that I should do so. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair knows of no rule or authority for 
    inserting a statement like that to which the gentleman has called 
    attention on a bill, and the Chair instructs the pages of the House 
    not to distribute any more bills carrying this sort of inscription 
    to Members on the floor of the House.

Controlling Use of the Hall

Sec. 7.16 It is considered within the authority of the Speaker to rule 
    that Members may not use the Chamber of the House to entertain 
    groups of people.

    On Feb. 14, 1955,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made 
the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 1512, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to make a statement on the use 
    of the Hall of the House of Representatives. . . .
        A great many Members have asked the Parliamentarian and the 
    present occupant of the chair about the use of the Hall of the 
    House of Representatives. At any time in the future when any Member 
    desires to entertain a group except Members of the House of 
    Representatives it will be held that the caucus room is open for 
    that purpose, but not the Hall of the House of 
    Representatives.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. As to the Hall of the House, see Ch. 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------