[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[F. Disorder in Debate]
[Â§ 49. The Demand That Words Be Taken Down]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10682-10725]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                         E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
 
Sec. 49. -- The Demand That Words Be Taken Down

    Pursuant to clause 5 of Rule XIV, the demand that a Member's words 
be taken down must be made immediately after they are uttered and comes 
too late if further debate has intervened.
    A demand that words be taken down must indicate with specificity 
the objectionable words,(18) and must come immediately after 
the objectionable words were uttered.(19) If made after 
intervening business or debate, the demand comes too 
late,(20) unless the Member seeking to make the demand was 
on his feet seeking recognition at the proper time.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 49.2, 49.3, infra.
            For an occasion where the Speaker ordered additional words 
        reported, to deliver an informed ruling, see Sec. 49.4, infra.
19. See Sec. Sec. 49.6, 49.7, infra.
20. See Rule XIV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 761 (1995): ``If 
        a Member is called to order for words spoken in debate, the 
        Member calling him to order shall indicate the words excepted 
        to, and they shall be taken down in writing at the Clerk's desk 
        and read aloud to the House; but he shall not be held to 
        answer, nor be subject to the censure of the House therefor, if 
        further debate or other business has intervened.''
            Where words are not spoken in debate but are inserted in 
        the Record under leave to revise and extend, a question of 
        privilege may be based on the objectionable words after they 
        are published (see Sec. 48.16, supra).
 1. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2528.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The demand should indicate the words excepted to and the identity 
of the Member who uttered them; it may indicate briefly the grounds for 
the demand, such as indulging in personalities, referring to a Senator, 
or impugning the integrity of a colleague. But the Member making the 
demand may not at that time debate the reasons for making the 
demand.(2) Indeed, following the demand, no debate is in 
order, and the Speaker does not entertain unanimous-consent requests, 
other than for withdrawal of the words, or parliamentary inquiries 
pending the report of the words and a ruling on them.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 49.18, infra.
 3. See Sec. Sec. 49.14, 49.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pending disposition of the demand by a ruling of the Chair, the 
demand may be withdrawn by the Member making it, and unani

[[Page 10683]]

mous consent is not required for withdrawing the demand.(4) 
The demand may also be disposed of without a ruling pursuant to a 
unanimous-consent request of the Member who uttered the words to 
withdraw his remarks, which are thereby expunged from the 
Record.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 49.24, infra.
 5. See Sec. Sec. 51.1 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unless the Member whose words are challenged asks unanimous consent 
to withdraw his remarks, he is required to take his seat when the 
demand is made,(6) and may not be recognized until the Chair 
has ruled on the words or until he is permitted on motion to explain 
his remarks pending the Speaker's ruling.(7) On several 
occasions, the Speaker has recognized the Member called to order, 
before definitively ruling on the words, to determine whether the 
Member was in fact violating the rules of the House.(8) 
Under clause 4 of Rule XIV, a motion to permit a Member to explain is, 
in recent practice, only in order before the Speaker 
rules.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 49.19, infra.
 7. See Sec. 49.20, infra.
 8. See Sec. 52.16, infra.
 9. See Jefferson's Manual, Sec. 760.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member called to order loses his right to proceed in debate 
without the consent of the House but does not lose his right to demand 
either a recorded or nonrecorded vote.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 49.23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where there is a demand that words be taken down, the Clerk reads 
the words excepted to and the Chair decides if the words are in order; 
once the words are held out of order the House may, by unanimous 
consent, strike the words from the Congressional Record and permit the 
offending Member to proceed in order for the remainder of his 
time.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See, for example, the proceedings at 138 Cong. Rec. 25757, 25758, 
        102d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 8, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When words are taken down and reported in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Committee must immediately rise and the Chairman report the 
words objected to to the House.(12) Consideration in the 
House of such words is limited to the words reported.(13) 
After the

[[Page 10684]]

Speaker has ruled on words taken down, the House automatically resolves 
again into the Committee.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See, for example, 110 Cong. Rec. 13275, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        10, 1964; 110 Cong. Rec. 756, 757, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 
        21, 1964; 80 Cong. Rec. 3465, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 9, 
        1936; 79 Cong. Rec. 1680, 1681, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 7, 
        1935; 75 Cong. Rec. 10135, 10136, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., May 13, 
        1932; and 72 Cong. Rec. 1905-07, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 18, 
        1930.
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 18441, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1965; 86 Cong. 
        Rec. 1529, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 15, 1940; and 84 Cong. 
        Rec. 2883, 2884, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 16, 1939.
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 18441, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1965; and 111 
        Cong. Rec. 6107, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Forms
        Demand that words be taken down.

            Member: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order, and ask 
        that the gentleman's words be taken down.
            Chair: The gentleman will indicate the words objected to. . 
        . .
            Chair: The Clerk will report the words indicated by the 
        gentleman.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Cannon's Procedure of the House of Representatives, 75, 76, H. Doc. 
        No. 122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
            For the form of the motions and resolutions admissible 
        after a Member has been ruled out of order for words spoken in 
        debate--withdrawal, expungement, permission to proceed in 
        order, censure, investigation of charges, and expulsion--see 
        id. at pp. 87-89.

        If words are to be withdrawn:

            First Member: Mr. Chairman, I demand that the gentleman's 
        words be taken down.
            The Chair: The Clerk will report the words.
            Second Member: I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
        words.
            First Member: I withdraw my demand.

                            Cross References
Permission to explain or proceed in relation to demand, see Sec. 52, 
    infra.
Withdrawing objectionable words pending demand, see Sec. 51, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Generally

Sec. 49.1 The Speaker drew attention to the overuse of the practice of 
    demanding that words uttered in debate be taken down.

    On July 23, 1935,(16) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New 
York, demanded that words used in debate by Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, referring to Mr. Fish as guilty of a crime be taken 
down. In delivering his ruling on the words objected to, Speaker Pro 
Tempore John J. O'Connor, of New York, discussed recent overuse of the 
demand that words be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 11699, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair may state, even though it may be gratuitous, that 
    from his personal standpoint there has grown up in this House a 
    ridiculous habit of causing the words of a Member to be taken down, 
    which course often consumes a great deal of time; and, as the Chair 
    said on the floor the other day, it appears to have come to pass 
    recently that a Member cannot even say ``boo'' to another Member 
    without some Member demanding that the words be taken down. This 
    practice has become reductio ad absurdum.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack] has just 
    uttered the

[[Page 10685]]

    words reported. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] thereupon 
    demanded that the words be taken down.
        For the gentleman from Massachusetts to state that what the 
    gentleman from New York did or said was a ``crime'', in the opinion 
    of the present occupant of the chair, is but a loose expression--a 
    word commonly used as a mere figure of speech. The word ``wrong'' 
    in the dictionary is a synonym for ``crime'', and the Chair holds 
    that the use of the word ``crime'', under the particular 
    circumstances, is not unparliamentary language; and the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts may proceed.

Identification of Objectionable Words

Sec. 49.2 A Member calling another to order for words spoken in debate 
    must indicate specifically the words which shall be taken down.

    On June 14, 1940,(17) a demand that certain words used 
in debate be taken down was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 86 Cong. Rec. 8269, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: I felt these inserts are 
    unjustifiable and unwarranted. They are not founded on facts. You 
    cannot substantiate any of them--I think you should desist--taken 
    from Nazi elements who are feeding you with that stuff.
        Mr. [Jacob] Thorkelson [of Montana]: What is a Nazi element?
        Mr. Sabath: I am not going to argue with you.
        Mr. Thorkelson: I demand that the remarks be taken down. I want 
    the gentleman to prove what he has said. I resent being called a 
    Nazi by this gentleman here. I want those remarks taken down.

    Speaker Pro Tempore Emmet O'Neal, of Kentucky, asked Mr. Thorkelson 
to state which words he objected to and Mr. Thorkelson responded that 
he objected to the remarks made in regard to him. The Speaker Pro 
Tempore stated ``The gentleman from Montana will have to be more 
specific as to the words to which he objects.'' (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Compare 78 Cong. Rec. 6947, 6948, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 19, 
        1934, where the words objected to were not specifically 
        indicated and an entire speech made upon offering of a pro 
        forma amendment was reported to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 11, 1945,(19) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
delivered a lengthy speech on the floor in relation to H.R. 3384, 
offered by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, relative to honorably 
discharged veterans and labor unions. Mr. Celler referred to an 
incident occurring on the prior day when a veteran was allegedly 
ordered arrested by Mr. Rankin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 7409, 7410, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further debate ensued following Mr. Celler's speech and then Mr. 
Rankin arose to a point of order.

[[Page 10686]]

He demanded that Mr. Celler's entire speech be taken down as a 
``deliberate false attack.'' Mr. Rankin added that he had not been in 
the Chamber at the time Mr. Celler's speech was delivered. Speaker Pro 
Tempore Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, ruled as follows:

        The gentleman from Mississippi must specify the words to be 
    taken down.
        Mr. Rankin: I cannot get hold of the manuscript, but I know 
    what he was saying when I came in. No veteran was cuffed around. A 
    man who says he was a veteran discharged for nervous disability or 
    mental disorder came to the office and the officer took him 
    downstairs.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will suspend. The rule 
    provides that the gentleman must demand taking down of the words at 
    the time they are spoken, and specify the words.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I demand the words be taken down in 
    which he deliberately and falsely charged that this veteran was 
    cuffed around and abused in the Veterans Committee or in my office. 
    It is a deliberate and dastardly falsehood, and I demand those 
    words be taken down.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is compelled to rule that 
    the gentleman's point comes too late. He did not demand the words 
    be taken down at the time the words were spoken.

Sec. 49.3 Consideration in the House of words taken down and reported 
    from the Committee of the Whole is limited to the words reported.

    On July 27, 1965,(20) Mr. Neal Smith, of Iowa, demanded 
in the Committee of the Whole that certain words used in debate by Mr. 
Charles E. Goodell, of New York, be taken down. The Clerk read the 
words objected to, the Committee rose, and the words were reported to 
the House. Mr. Smith then stated that the Clerk did not read all of the 
objectionable remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 18441, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that he could 
rule only on the words that had been reported to the House as taken 
down in the Committee of the Whole. The Speaker declined to pass upon 
what could be done when the Committee of the Whole resumed sitting in 
relation to additional words not initially reported.
    On Feb. 15, 1940,(1) certain words used in debate in the 
Committee of the Whole were demanded to be taken down. After the 
Committee rose and the words were reported to the House, Mr. Clare E. 
Hoffman, of Michigan, made the point of order ``that the

[[Page 10687]]

words to which I objected are not all reported. There was a further 
statement there containing similar language.'' Speaker Pro Tempore Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that ``It is too late to raise that question 
now.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 86 Cong. Rec. 1529, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(2) Mr. Lee E. Geyer, of California, 
described at length the personal characteristics of another Member 
while on the floor. Mr. John Taber, of New York, demanded that the 
words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 84 Cong. Rec. 2871, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk read one sentence and Mr. Taber stated ``Mr. Chairman, 
there were some other words.'' The Clerk reported the additional words 
and the Committee then arose for a ruling by the Speaker.

Sec. 49.4 The Speaker ordered the Clerk to report words uttered 
    previously to words to which objection was taken.

    On July 23, 1935,(3) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New 
York, demanded that certain words used in debate by Mr. John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, be taken down. On the direction of Speaker 
Pro Tempore John J. O'Connor, of New York, the Clerk read the following 
words:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 79 Cong. Rec. 11699, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish], whether he intended it 
    or not, is guilty of that crime; not only a few days ago, but is 
    again guilty of the same crime on this occasion.

    Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, then made a point of order to insist 
``in connection with those words, that the previous statement that he 
had made an unfair argument also be included.''
    The Speaker Pro Tempore responded:

        The Chair was about to make that suggestion. To properly inform 
    the Chair, the words previously uttered should be read in 
    connection with the words just reported.
        The Clerk will report the words uttered previously to the words 
    to which objection was taken.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            I respect men who fight hard. I 
        respect men, members of the Republican Party and the Democratic 
        Party, who fight hard for their party, but who fight clean. I 
        respect men who make constructive criticisms; but my general 
        respect for men is somewhat lost when they depart from what 
        should be and what ordinarily is their general conduct and 
        enter into the field of unnecessary, unfair, and unwarranted 
        attacks and arguments.

    The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled that having alleged that a Member had 
committed a ``crime'' in the manner used by Mr. McCormack, and when 
taken in context, was not unparliamentary language.

[[Page 10688]]

Method of Challenging Member's Words

Sec. 49.5 The only method by which the words of the Member having the 
    floor may be challenged is through a demand that his words be taken 
    down.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 4, 
1984,(4) during consideration of the Oregon Wilderness Act 
of 1983 (H.R. 1149):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 130 Cong. Rec. 14805, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: . . . The House has had its 
    opportunity to work its will. The only thing that would be gained 
    now by not voting for this bill as it is would be to delay a final 
    resolution, pushing it off further down the road . . . running this 
    issue up against all the other issues that the Congress is going to 
    be dealing with in its rush toward adjournment and that will 
    guarantee the doom of this bill.
        Obviously, no responsible person on either side of this issue 
    wants such a thing to happen.
        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that 
    the gentleman not use the term ``no responsible person.''
        Both Members from Oregon are very responsible members of the 
    committee that I am ranking member of, and I consider my 
    responsibility very seriously and to say that we are not 
    responsible because we are in opposition to this bill is incorrect.
        I would respectfully suggest that the gentleman reconsider his 
    words.
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Speaker, this gentleman said that no 
    responsible person wants to see a resolution of this bill delayed 
    to such a date in which no passage of the bill dealing with the 
    Oregon RARE II problem would be possible. . . .
        I assume it applies to the gentleman from Alaska. I think he is 
    responsible. I do not think he wants to see a resolution of this 
    bill delayed.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: The bill is basically wrong. I rose 
    against the bill and to allude to the fact that we are 
    irresponsible does not become the gentleman at all. That disturbs 
    me a great deal. . . .
        So I would suggest again to the gentleman to choose his words 
    very carefully.
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Speaker, what is the regular order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman may proceed. The 
    gentleman has not asked the words be taken down. The gentleman may 
    proceed.

Timeliness of Demand That Words Be Taken Down

Sec. 49.6 The demand that words used in debate be taken down must be 
    made directly after objectionable language is uttered and comes too 
    late if further debate has ensued.

[[Page 10689]]

    On Sept. 4, 1969,(6) Mr. Albert W. Watson, of South 
Carolina, referred in the Committee of the Whole to another Member who 
``took a moment under the one-minute rule to praise Ho Chi Minh or to 
compare him with Washington and Lincoln and other great leaders of the 
past in this Nation.'' Subsequent to those remarks, further debate 
ensued, including several points of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 24372, 24373, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York, then arose and demanded that 
Mr. Watson's words be taken down and reported to the House. Chairman 
Cornelius E. Gallagher, of New Jersey, ruled as follows:

        The request comes too late. Further debate has continued beyond 
    that point and the gentleman's demand is not in order.

    On Mar. 20, 1947,(7) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
rose to a question of personal privilege. He stated that on the 
preceding Monday, Mar. 17, he made a one-minute speech on the floor of 
the House. He then stated that later on the same day when he was not 
present on the floor Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, rose and made 
insulting and false statements about him on the floor of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 93 Cong. Rec. 2314, 2315, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled as follows 
on the question of personal privilege:

        . . . The gentleman has not stated a question of personal 
    privilege. The rules provide that strictures in debate do not give 
    rise to a question of privilege, but are properly contravened by a 
    demand that the words be taken down.
        It is too late to make the demand that the words in question be 
    taken down after business has intervened. It is plainly indicated 
    that what transpired was in debate and the remedy of the gentleman 
    from Mississippi at that time was to demand that the words be taken 
    down.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also 89 Cong. Rec. 2787, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 31, 1943; 
        87 Cong. Rec. 8893, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 13, 1941; and 79 
        Cong. Rec. 11423, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., July 18, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 49.7 A demand that words be taken down must be made immediately 
    after the words are uttered, and not ``at any time before the 
    Member uttering the words closes his speech.''

    On July 11, 1945,(9) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
addressed the House for 15 minutes on the subject of a bill offered by 
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, for the purpose of protecting 
veterans and their rights with respect to joining labor unions. Mr. 
Celler

[[Page 10690]]

referred to an incident on the prior day when Mr. Rankin had allegedly 
caused a veteran to be arrested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 7409, 7410, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further debate intervened and then Mr. Rankin rose to a point of 
order. He demanded that Mr. Celler's entire speech be taken down as a 
``deliberate false attack.'' Mr. Rankin acknowledged that he had not 
been in the Hall for the majority of Mr. Celler's speech.
    Speaker Pro Tempore Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, ruled that Mr. 
Rankin's point of order came too late since further debate had 
intervened following the objectionable words.
    Mr. Rankin objected to the ruling but was overruled by the Speaker:

        Mr. Rankin: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. At any time before the Member 
    leaves the floor or closes his speech, because I did not know how 
    many times he would repeat it.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is compelled to hold that 
    the gentleman had to make his demand at the time the words were 
    spoken. Other debate has intervened and the gentleman has yielded 
    to other Members on the floor.
        Mr. Rankin: Not other debate. Mr. Speaker, I am within the 
    rules, and any time before he closes his vicious speech I have a 
    right to have his words taken down.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot agree with the 
    gentleman. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 49.8 Pursuant to clause 5 of Rule XIV, the demand that a Member's 
    words be taken down must be made immediately after they are uttered 
    and comes too late if further debate has intervened.

    On Apr. 29, 1976,(10) during consideration of the first 
concurrent resolution on the budget,(11) the following 
exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 11880, 11881, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H. Con. Res. 611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: . . . What does this 
    budget do? Does it reflect human values? . . .
        We continue to build monuments to our military madness, 
    spending over $100 billion in this budget for those purposes. . . . 
    Will we be attacked by the Warsaw Pact?
        The answer to that is obviously no. However, we are being 
    attacked in this country with lack of attention, cynicism, 
    demagoguery, ineptness, inadequacy, expediency, pontificating, and 
    politicking. . . .
        If we need to understand the reality, we are a third-rate power 
    right now in terms of our ability to sustain life. We are a third-
    rate power in our ability to deal with human conditions in this 
    country. We are a third-rate power in many of the areas that speak 
    to the human misery of people.
        This is the Bicentennial Year. Is the Congress of the United 
    States fighting

[[Page 10691]]

    valiantly to make sure that democracy is real? No. The Bicentennial 
    has become a sham, a justification for selling red, white, and blue 
    everything. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . I do not accept in 
    any way, the indictment the gentleman has laid upon the great 
    Nation that is the United States of America. I think his criticism 
    is totally misplaced. I think it comes to this House with 
    particular bad grace because, quite frankly, this Nation over the 
    years has done more to bring freedom to more people than any other 
    nation on the face of the Earth. . . .
        Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a very brief 
    statement. I hope the gentleman's emotional feeling has calmed 
    down. I feel quite calm and rational, at least.
        Mr. Bauman: That is a change from your condition when you last 
    spoke.
        Mr. Dellums: I like to think that I am always rational. I would 
    like to simply state to the gentleman from Maryland, when you talk 
    about shame, and those of you on the right, when you talk about 
    waving the flag, all I know is what has happened. . . .
        There is one thing that I am sure of and that is the fact of my 
    right to take that well of the House and make statements and 
    express my own convictions without fear.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I do not deny the gentleman the right 
    to speak his convictions but I do have the equal right not to agree 
    with them.
        Mr. Dellums: I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy for telling 
    me that. . . .
        Mr. [John] Conyers [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    ask that the gentleman from Maryland's words be taken down in his 
    last presentation. I think that they were in violation of the Rules 
    of the House. I think that they insulted the gentleman from 
    California, and I make that request at this time.
        The Chairman: (12) Will the gentleman from Michigan 
    inform the Chair precisely what words he has in mind? Were they the 
    last words spoken by the gentleman from Maryland?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Conyers: No, Mr. Chairman. They were the words spoken 
    during the time that he was speaking.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to advise the gentleman that 
    it is now too late to make any point of order on those words, since 
    there has been intervening debate.

--Intervening Debate

Sec. 49.9 A point of order may not be made or reserved against remarks 
    delivered in debate after subsequent debate has intervened, the 
    proper remedy being a demand that the words be taken down as soon 
    as they are spoken.

    On Aug. 20, 1980,(13) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 22150-54, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                          Federal Election Commission

                             salaries and expenses

            For expense necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
        Federal Elec

[[Page 10692]]

        tion Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, $9,283,000.

        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 14, after line 15, 
        insert the following: ``For expenses necessary to carry out the 
        provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 
        1976, $8,195,000, of which not more than $1,700,000 may be 
        expended by the office of General Counsel.''.

        Mr. Dornan: Mr. Chairman, had this bill been offered in a 
    timely fashion earlier this year, this might have been thoroughly 
    aired as to all the aspects that relate to politics, the FEC, and 
    the pursuit of justice. The amendment I am offering reduces the 
    appropriation to the Federal Election Commission. . . .
        The FEC, through its Office of General Counsel, has allowed an 
    elected Federal official, just like ourselves, to keep for over 1 
    year, $1,150 of acknowledged illegal corporate campaign 
    contributions. The corporation--whatever it did is somewhat 
    unclear--laundered $13,000 into my opponent's campaign and $23,150 
    of illegal corporate money into this elected Federal official's 
    campaign coffers. Some of this $23,150 may have been given in cash. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Dornan) has . . . asked unanimous consent to withdraw his 
    amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    an objection. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, I am not familiar with the 
    allegations being made. This amendment has been offered for the 
    purpose of our colleague using the time of the House of 
    Representatives to engage in a good number of accusations attacking 
    the integrity of men in public office and 
    those who would seek to be in public 
    office and those who have assisted them. . . . It does, however, 
    seem to me quite curious to have an amendment offered for the sole 
    purpose of using the time of the House to air all these 
    accusations. If there are accusations of serious moment they ought 
    to be brought to the proper authorities. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take this opportunity to say 
    this strikes me as curious and gives me a great deal of hesitancy 
    to see that an amendment would be offered solely for the purpose of 
    discussing other matters than what is proposed in the amendment and 
    that relates to the gentleman's campaign for reelection. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I will reclaim my time by saying there must be 
    other ways to do what the gentleman proposes. It is awfully self-
    serving for the gentleman to use the opportunity of the floor of 
    the House of Representatives to make all of these accusations in 
    order to benefit the gentleman's personal reelection.
        Mr. Dornan: That is not why I am pursuing this. Were the 
    Members of Congress who used this well for Watergate self-serving?
        Mr. Waxman: Mr. Chairman, I think it is improper. If the 
    gentleman has serious charges he has to make, this is not the place 
    to make them unless one

[[Page 10693]]

    would assume it is being done for demagogic purposes.
        Mr. Dornan: I assure the gentleman it is not.
        Mr. Waxman: Or for reelection purposes. . . .
        Mr. Dornan: I assure the gentleman it was not done for 
    demagogic purposes. I have lived with the knowledge of this scandal 
    for over a year. I sincerely intended to offer this amendment 4 
    months ago, 3 months ago, 2 months ago. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) to withdraw his amendment? 
    If not, the amendment is withdrawn.
        Mr. Dornan: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dornan: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order in 
    opposition to the Member's words against me.
        To suggest that someone's remarks are demagogic is impugning 
    the motives of that Member. I could have had my good colleague's 
    words taken down. I reserve the point of order, but add that I am 
    emotionally concerned about a 1-year coverup by the Federal 
    officials who are charged with investigating these matters here. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman has no standing to raise the point 
    of order at this point. Debate has intervened. There is no other 
    amendment before the committee, and the Chair will ask the Clerk to 
    read.

Sec. 49.10 A demand in Committee of the Whole that words be taken down 
    is in order only if made in a timely manner; where debate has 
    intervened, the demand comes too late.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 5, 1981,(15) during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 115 (pertaining to the congressional budget):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 127 Cong. Rec. 8496, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul S.] Trible [Jr., of Virginia]: . . . I still oppose 
    the Hefner amendment. I oppose it on two grounds. First, it is 
    wrong to hold the defense of this great Nation hostage to petty 
    political purposes, whatever they might be. Are these funds really 
    being sought to strengthen our Nation's defense or to strengthen 
    the prospects for passage of the Jones budget proposal?
        The flawed approach of the majority cannot be saved. It ought 
    not to be saved. . . .
        Mr. [W. G.] Hefner [of North Carolina]: I would just like to 
    repeat, did the gentleman refer to this as cheap, petty politics, 
    is that what the gentleman said? I am just curious.
        Mr. Trible: Those were not my words, but I said that I 
    questioned whether today's effort was dictated by a requirement to 
    save this flawed package. I believe it is obvious from the 
    maneuvers of the last few minutes where the gentleman's amendment 
    was once again changed. It is a last-ditch effort to save this 
    flawed program, a program that will not be saved, a program that 
    will not gen

[[Page 10694]]

    erate the economic growth and recovery so vital to this land, a 
    program that cannot support the substantial increases in defense 
    spending required in the context of this dangerous world.
        Mr. Hefner: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Trible: I would be happy to yield to my friend.
        Mr. Hefner: Well, is the gentleman suggesting that I 
    deliberately--that the gentlewoman from California has suggested 
    earlier, it kind of makes me feel a little bit bad when the 
    gentleman would insinuate that I would deliberately miss a vote, 
    had I been there, I would have voted for the gentleman, that I have 
    no strong desires for defense spending and this is a last minute 
    ploy on the gentleman from North Carolina?
        Mr. Trible: At no time did I suggest the motives of my friend, 
    the gentleman from North Carolina. The gentleman is in a far better 
    position to speak for his intentions than I am.
        Mr. Hefner: I am the author of the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Martin Frost (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: I, too, thought I heard some words 
    spoken that might constitute a personal attack on the motives of a 
    Member. I would not like to proceed until such time as we have had 
    a clarification of what those words were. Is that possible?
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman asking that words be taken down?
        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Arkansas.
        Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arkansas makes a 
    point of order that the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry and his 
    question comes too late.
        The Chairman: Debate has intervened. The point is well taken.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Trible's words as carried in the Record 
did not violate the rules, since not referring to a specific Member or 
his motives.

Sec. 49.11 Pursuant to clause 5 
    of Rule XIV, a demand during debate that a Member's words be taken 
    down comes too late if further debate has intervened.

    During consideration of the military procurement authorization for 
fiscal year 1985 (H.R. 5167) in the Committee of the Whole on May 23, 
1984,(17) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 13941, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word. . . .
        I am sorry that our members of the Armed Services Committee 
    accepted this blatantly cowardly and political amendment, and I 
    reject it, and I am proud to vote no.
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the necessary number of words. . . .

[[Page 10695]]

        Mr. [Dan] Daniel [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Foley: I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
        Mr. Daniel: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of personal 
    privilege.
        Mr. Hyde: Would the gentleman let me respond before he makes 
    his point of personal privilege?
        Mr. Foley: I yield first to the gentleman from Virginia.
        Mr. Daniel: Mr. Chairman, if it is not too late, I demand that 
    the words of the gentleman from Illinois be taken down.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (18) The Chair will advise 
    the Member that a point of personal privilege is not in order in 
    the Committee of the Whole, and the request that words be taken 
    down comes too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Frank Harrison (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for a 
    moment?
        Mr. Daniel: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman referred to members of 
    the Armed Services Committee as cowards.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) has the 
    floor. . . .
        Mr. Foley: I yield to the gentleman for the purpose of 
    responding.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As noted by the Chairman, a question of 
personal privilege under Rule IX may not be raised in the Committee of 
the Whole.

Sec. 49.12 Papers read during debate are subject to a timely demand 
    that words be ``taken down'' as an unparliamentary reference to 
    other sitting Members, but the demand must be made before 
    subsequent reading intervenes.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Feb. 25, 1985: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 131 Cong. Rec. 3344-46, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Under a previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is 
    recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sam B. Hall, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I am going to 
    insert in the Record today and read into the Record several 
    editorials, one from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution 
    yesterday, Sunday, February 24, and one this morning from the Wall 
    Street Journal. . . .

            Yet twice the House has voted to deny McIntyre the seat 
        while it investigates. . . .
            The technicalities aside, the case is interesting for what 
        it says about the Congress. The votes on the McIntyre matter 
        went right along party lines. In the second vote 
        only five Democrats dared abandon O'Neill and the leadership. . 
        . .
            A few Republicans near each election try to remind voters 
        that the Democrats' first vote will be for O'Neill and that 
        vote signals bondage. This year it meant the abandonment of 
        fairness.
            It didn't use to happen this way. The 1966 election in the 
        Georgia 4th District saw Ben Blackburn nip Rep. James A. Mackay 
        by 360 votes. The Republican Blackburn was certified

[[Page 10696]]

        by state officials and sent to Washington.
            There, a little-known congressman was chairing a little-
        known subcommittee. The congressman tried to deny Blackburn his 
        seat, but was overruled harshly by the speaker 
        of those days, Rep. John McCormack. . . .

        Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman has not asked me to 
    yield, and I was in fact making an inquiry myself to the Chair. I 
    was asking the Chair to rule in this sort of setting if one is 
    reporting to the House on the written opinion of a columnist in 
    which the columnist has said very strong things, is it appropriate 
    for the House to be informed of this and, if so, what is the 
    correct procedure?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The ruling of the Chair is that the 
    gentleman should not read into the Record things which would 
    clearly be outside the rules of this House. . . .
        Mr. Gingrich: Let me continue to ask the Chair, because I am a 
    little confused, in other words, if a columnist writing in the 
    largest newspaper in the State of Georgia says very strong things 
    about his concern about the House's behavior, would the House in 
    effect censor a report of that concern?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: No; the House does not censor any 
    report of that kind. The gentleman does take the responsibility, 
    however, for words uttered on the floor, and he is certainly 
    capable of leaving out those items which he knows would be outside 
    the rules of this House. . . .
        Ms. Oakar: My primary inquiry is this, Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Georgia has already read into the House proceedings 
    what I consider to be a possible violation of the rules of the 
    House when he made reference to the Speaker of the House. I am 
    wondering if the Chair will rule on that, whether or not that item 
    violates the rules of the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot rule on remarks that 
    have already been made. They have already been made and they are 
    now part of the Record. As the gentlewoman knows, she has to make 
    those objections timely.

Multiple Demands

Sec. 49.13 The words of two Members engaged in a colloquy have been 
    taken down in the House and ruled out of order.

    On Feb. 12, 1946,(1) language used by two Members in 
debate were demanded to be taken down and were reported and ruled on 
simultaneously:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 92 Cong. Rec. 1241, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hugh] De Lacy [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, if there is no 
    parliamentary means of stopping the use of such language as 
    ``slime-mongering kike,'' which appears in yesterday's Record, then 
    certainly we who believe in the right of people to stand up and 
    express their opinions should protest it visibly and audibly upon 
    this floor.
        I am standing here today to state to the gentleman from 
    Mississippi that

[[Page 10697]]

    we do not propose to permit this kind of language to be indulged in 
    on this floor. It is disgraceful.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    that those words be taken down. I am not going to sit here and 
    listen to these communistic attacks made on me.
        Mr. [John M.] Coffee [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    that those words be taken down.
        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    that the words of the gentleman from Mississippi be taken down.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The gentlemen will both 
    take their seats, and the words will be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the words objected to.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            I am standing here today to state to the gentleman from 
        Mississippi that we do not propose to permit this kind of 
        language to be indulged in on this floor. It is disgraceful.
            Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I demand that those words be taken 
        down. I am not going to sit here and listen to these 
        communistic attacks made on me.
            Mr. Coffee: Mr. Speaker, I demand that those words be taken 
        down.

        The Speaker: (3) The Chair will be compelled to hold 
    that both gentlemen used language that was unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motions and Requests Pending Demand

Sec. 49.14 The Chair does not entertain a unanimous-consent request 
    that a Member be allowed to proceed for one minute pending a demand 
    that another Member's words be taken down.

    On Jan. 21, 1964,(4) certain words used in debate in the 
Committee of the Whole were demanded to be taken down and reported to 
the House. Before the Committee rose, Mr. James Roosevelt, of 
California, asked unanimous consent to proceed for one minute, but 
Chairman William S. Moorhead, of Pennsylvania, refused to entertain the 
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 756, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 49.15 The Speaker does not entertain a parliamentary inquiry 
    pending a demand that words be taken down.

    On Oct. 31, 1963,(5) after the words of a Member used in 
debate were demanded to be taken down, Mr. Bruce R. Alger, of Texas, 
attempted to state a parliamentary inquiry, but Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that it could not be entertained 
pending the demand that words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 109 Cong. Rec. 20742, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 49.16 Where a demand is made that certain words in

[[Page 10698]]

    debate be taken down in the Committee of the Whole, such words must 
    be reported 
    to the House and a motion 
    to expunge words from the Record is not in order in the Committee.

    On Feb. 18, 1941,(6) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
stated in debate in the Committee of the Whole in reference to a Member 
``You are going to skin us.'' Mr. Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania, 
demanded that the words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 87 Cong. Rec. 1126, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before the Committee rose, Mr. Rich asked that the words he 
had objected to be expunged from 
the Record. Chairman Warren G. Magnuson, of Washington, ruled that 
expungement was ``a matter for the House to decide.''

Sec. 49.17 Upon a timely demand that the words uttered in debate be 
    taken down as unparliamentary, the Speaker ruled that remarks 
    characterizing the relationship 
    between Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate J. 
    Danforth Quayle's political words and his living deeds 
    as ``hypocrisy'' were out of order and should be withdrawn; 
    subsequently, objection was made to a unanimous-consent request 
    that the offending language be stricken.

    On Sept. 29, 1988,(7) during the period for one-minute 
speeches in the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 134 Cong. Rec. 26683, 26684, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Williams asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [Pat] Williams [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, yesterday 
    Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Dan Quayle was in Texas. He 
    visited, he was kind enough to go by and visit a Job Corps center 
    in El Paso, and while there he looked 300 Job Corps students in the 
    eye and said, ``We believe in you.''
        He did not tell them that he had voted to shut that center 
    down. He did not tell them that the Reagan-Bush administration in 
    fact has demanded that every Job Corps center in America, bar none, 
    be closed.
        This is the same Senator Quayle that supports wars that he 
    won't fight, the same Senator Quayle who got into law school under 
    an entry minority program that he later votes against.
        There is a word for it, my colleagues, it is called hypocrisy.
        Mr. [Dan] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the 
    gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
        The Speaker: (8) The Clerk will report the words of 
    the gentleman from Montana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).

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

[[Page 10699]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            This is the same Senator Quayle that supports wars that he 
        won't fight, the same Senator Quayle who got into law school 
        under an entry minority program that he later votes against.
            There is a word for it, my colleagues, it is called 
        hypocrisy.

        The Speaker: The Chair has considered closely the question of 
    the use of words to distinguish policies as opposed to individuals. 
    There are precedents touching on proper and improper references in 
    debate and dealing with the preservation of comity between the 
    House and Senate. It is important to recognize that the individual 
    referenced in the remarks not only is a candidate for Vice 
    President of the United States but is a Member of the other body.
        The precedents relating to references in debate to the 
    President, Vice President, or to a Member of the other body who is 
    a nominated or declared candidate for President or Vice President 
    permit criticisms of official policy, actions and opinions of that 
    person as a candidate, but do not permit personal abuse, do not 
    permit innuendo and do not permit ridicule, and they do require 
    that the proper rules of decorum must be followed during any debate 
    relating to the President of the United States or a Member of the 
    other body.
        It could be argued that there is a distinction between calling 
    an individual a hypocrite, for example, and referring to some 
    policy as hypocrisy, but the Chair has discovered a precedent that 
    seems to be directly in point. In 1945, a Member of the House from 
    Georgia referred to another Member and said, ``I was reminded that 
    pretexts are never wanting when hypocrisy wishes to add malice to 
    falsehood or cowardice to stab a foe who cannot defend himself.'' 
    Speaker Rayburn ruled that this was out of order as an 
    unparliamentary reference to another Member of the body.
        By extension, the same identical words should be held out of 
    order in reference to a Member of the other body whether or not he 
    were a candidate for a high office, and under these circumstances 
    and citing this precedent, the Chair would suggest that the 
    gentleman from Montana withdraw the offending remarks, including 
    the particular word ``hypocrisy,'' and either amend his reference 
    in the permanent Record or delete it. . . .
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that the 
    Speaker's ruling is based upon my characterization of a U.S. 
    Senator, in this case Senator Quayle, that had the Republican Vice-
    Presidential candidate not been at this time a U.S. Senator, that 
    my remarks would, in fact, be in order? . . .
        The Speaker: . . . The Chair would suggest to the gentleman 
    from Montana that there are standards that apply in the Chamber and 
    in the precedents with respect to nominated candidates for 
    President and Vice President. The Chair is not certain if they are 
    precisely the same as applied to a Member of the other body or a 
    Member of this body, but in this instance, it is not necessary to 
    make that hypothetical distinction since the individual involved is 
    a Member of the other body.
        Mr. Williams: Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker: Would 
    it be

[[Page 10700]]

    within the rules of the House if the last sentence of my 1-minute, 
    the one which characterizes Senator Quayle's actions as hypocrisy, 
    be removed by unanimous consent from my 1-minute statement?
        The Speaker: The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from 
    Montana that this might be a satisfactory solution.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    last sentence of my 1-minute statement, the sentence in which I 
    characterized Senator Quayle's actions as hypocrisy, be stricken.
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Please, the Chair will recognize the gentleman for 
    a parliamentary inquiry, but, first, please permit the gentleman 
    from Montana to complete his request. . . .
        Mr. Lungren: I reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: That is fine. The gentleman may reserve his right 
    to object, but in the interests of orderly procedure, permit the 
    Chair to allow the gentleman from Montana to complete his request.
        Mr. Williams: Let me be sure the Chair understands my request: 
    I have asked unanimous consent that the last sentence of my 1-
    minute statement be stricken. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . Has the gentleman from Montana completed his 
    request?
        Mr. Williams: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. Both times I have 
    been interrupted as I have attempted to ask unanimous consent that 
    the last sentence of my 1-minute statement be eliminated. That was 
    the sentence which referred to Senator Quayle's actions as 
    hypocrisy. I seek unanimous consent to strike the last sentence of 
    my 1-minute statement.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Montana?
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, Mr. 
    Speaker, under normal circumstances and in the interests of comity 
    of this House and the relationship of this House and the other 
    body, I would not object. However, as is very obvious from the 
    statements of the gentleman, the insult, the language that is not 
    to be used under our rules was repeated three times in an effort to 
    make a point which violates, in my judgment, the sense of the rules 
    of the House and, therefore, since it is not, I believe, 
    appropriate to do that, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

Debating Reasons for Demand

Sec. 49.18 When a Member demands that certain words spoken in debate be 
    taken down, he may not at that time debate his reasons for making 
    such a demand.

    On July 26, 1951,(9) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. 
John J. Rooney, of New York, referred in debate to other Members as 
following ``slippery, snide, and sharp practices.'' Following those re

[[Page 10701]]

marks, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, demanded that the words be 
taken down and added that he wanted to ``state the grounds.'' Chairman 
Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled that Mr. Hoffman could not ``state 
reasons when he makes the demand.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 8968, 8969, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking Member To Take His Seat

Sec. 49.19 Where a demand is made that the words of a Member be taken 
    down, such Member must immediately resume his seat.

    On Mar. 24, 1961,(10) words used in debate by Mr. Neal 
Smith, of Iowa, were demanded to be taken down. When Mr. Smith rose to 
object to the demand on the grounds that he had not violated the rules 
of the House, Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, ruled pursuant to 
a point of order that Mr. Smith was required to take his seat pursuant 
to a demand that his words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 9, 1940,(11) Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, 
objected to certain words used in debate by Mr. John C. Schafer, of 
Wisconsin, and demanded that they be taken down. When Mr. Schafer 
attempted to explain his remarks and to contend that he was proceeding 
in order, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled pursuant to a point of 
order by Mr. Bloom that Mr. Schafer was required to take his seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 13477, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the words were reported to the House and prior to the Chair's 
ruling, Speaker Rayburn recognized Mr. Schafer for the purpose of 
explaining to the Chair whether he was referring to a Member of the 
House or to another person.

    On Feb. 7, 1935,(12) when Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of 
Texas, demanded that certain words used in debate by Mr. George H. 
Tinkham, of Massachusetts, be taken down, Mr. Tinkham interjected some 
further remarks in relation to the demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 79 Cong. Rec. 1680, 1681, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman William N. Rogers, of New Hampshire, directed Mr. Tinkham 
to take his seat.

Sec. 49.20 When the demand is made that certain words be taken down, 
    the Member uttering such words must take his seat and may not be 
    recognized until the Chair has ruled.

[[Page 10702]]

    On May 4, 1943,(13) while Mr. Harold Knutson, of 
Minnesota, had the floor in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Wright 
Patman, of Texas, asked him to yield, and Mr. Knutson replied, ``No. I 
do not yield to any more demagogs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 3915, 3916, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After Mr. Patman demanded that the words be taken down, Chairman 
Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, ruled that Mr. Knutson was 
required to take his seat when such a demand was made.
    After Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words objected 
to were a violation of the rules of the House, he recognized Mr. 
Knutson for the purpose of withdrawing the words by unanimous 
consent.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. But see 86 Cong. Rec. 13477, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Oct. 9, 1940 
        (before ruling on objectionable words, Speaker inquired of 
        Member called to order whether he had been referring to a 
        Member of the House). Under clause 4 of Rule XIV, a Member may, 
        on motion or at the request of the Speaker, explain the words 
        objected to prior to the Chair's ruling (see Sec. 52, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the words of the gentleman 
    be taken down.
        Mr. Knutson: I withdraw them.
        Mr. Patman: I object to that, Mr. Chairman. I ask that the 
    gentleman's words be taken down.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman take his seat under the 
    rules.
        Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman from Texas 
    take his seat.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the words objected to.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Knutson: No; I do not yield to any more demagogs.

        Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman----
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: The gentleman from Minnesota has no right to speak 
    until this matter is disposed of. I demand that the gentleman take 
    his seat until the matter is disposed of.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will please be seated.

Business Suspended Until Words Are Reported

Sec. 49.21 Pending a demand that words spoken in debate be taken down 
    and read by the Clerk, debate is suspended and no business is in 
    order.

    On Feb. 8, 1978,(15) during proceedings related to H.R. 
6805, the Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Mr. Benjamin S. Rosenthal, 
of New York, stated, in reference to statements previously made in de

[[Page 10703]]

bate by Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland: ``I think that is really an 
unfair statement, and I myself am sorry that I did not stand up to have 
Mr. Bauman's words taken down earlier today. I regret that I hesitated, 
because they impugned the motives of Members and groups supporting the 
bill. It not only is extraordinarily bad taste, it is violative of the 
Rules of the House.'' (16) The following exchange then 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 2831, 2832, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Note: The words in question would probably not in fact have been 
        ruled to be unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, a point of order, Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (17) The time of the gentleman from 
    New York has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I made the point of order while the 
    gentleman from New York was speaking, before the gentleman's time 
    expired.
        The Chairman: There was so much noise the Chair did not hear 
    the gentleman from Maryland. The gentleman from Maryland will state 
    his point of order.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I demand that the words of the 
    gentleman from New York be taken down.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland is referring to which 
    words?
        Mr. Bauman: To the entire series of words of the gentleman from 
    New York, from the first reference to the gentleman from Maryland 
    to the last.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the words the gentleman 
    from Maryland wishes taken down.
        Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Chairman, is it possible, while we are 
    waiting for the reporter, to continue in this dialog?
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The committee cannot proceed under the rules.
        Mr. McCloskey: That is the point of my inquiry.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state we cannot proceed, not until 
    we have resolved the demand of the gentleman from Maryland that the 
    words be taken down.

Business Suspended Pending Speaker's Ruling on Words

Sec. 49.22 When a demand is made that words spoken in debate in 
    Committee of the Whole be taken down, the words are reported by the 
    Clerk, the Committee rises and the words are reported again to the 
    House, and the Speaker rules whether the words are in order; no 
    business or debate is in order after the demand that the words be 
    taken down and before the words are reported to the House for a 
    ruling by the Speaker, except unanimous-consent requests such

[[Page 10704]]

    as requests to withdraw or modify the words or parliamentary 
    inquiries regarding the procedure to be followed.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 26, 1983,(18) during consideration of H.R. 2969 
(Department of Defense authorization for fiscal year 1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 14048, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: . . . The 
    gentleman from California, for whom I have a great deal of respect, 
    is, through his proposals, through his amendment, advocating 
    unilateral disarmament on behalf of the United States. . . .
        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    object and I move that the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (19) . . . Does the 
    gentleman from South Carolina seek to modify his previous 
    statement?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas J. Downey (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hartnett: Mr. Chairman, I would have to read exactly what I 
    said.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe I said that there is an element here in 
    this Congress--it has been referred to as the peace community, the 
    freeze community, the progressive community, or whatever, who 
    advocates unilateral disarmament, if that is what I said, sir.
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I ask that 
    those words also be taken down.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to. . . .
        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Kramer [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, would the 
    Chair kindly tell us when a parliamentary inquiry would be in 
    order?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Kramer: The parliamentary inquiry is: Can the Chair tell us 
    the procedure that relates to taking down words and what will 
    follow?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The procedure is as follows: After 
    the Clerk reports the words, the Speaker will review the words of 
    the gentleman from South Carolina, making a ruling thereon; unless, 
    of course, the gentleman from South Carolina wishes, by unanimous 
    consent, to withdraw his words.
        Mr. Kramer: Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Kramer: Mr. Chairman, is the ruling of the Speaker the 
    final word on that or is there an appeal process or how does that 
    work exactly?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would inform the gentleman 
    that the Speaker would rule on that but that after the Speaker has 
    ruled it would be in order to dictate the consequences of the 
    ruling of the Chair by proper motions in the House.

Rights of Member Called to Order To Vote or To Request Votes

Sec. 49.23 Although a Member when called to order must

[[Page 10705]]

    take his seat and refrain from debate he is not prevented by the 
    rules from voting or from demanding a division vote, a teller vote, 
    or the yeas and nays.

    On May 31, 1934,(20) Mr. Harold McGugin, of Kansas, was 
called to order during debate in the Committee of the Whole for 
impugning the integrity of the Speaker. The Committee rose, and Speaker 
Pro Tempore Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled that the language used 
was out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 78 Cong. Rec. 10167-70, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the previous question was moved on a motion to expunge the 
remarks from the Record, Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, objected 
that Mr. McGugin was standing and voting although he had been called to 
order. The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled that he retained the right to 
vote.
    The Committee of the Whole resumed sitting, and a motion that Mr. 
McGugin be allowed to proceed in order was rejected on a teller vote. 
The Chairman then put the question on a motion to limit debate on a 
pending amendment, and Mr. McGugin demanded a division vote thereon. 
Following the vote Mr. McGugin demanded tellers. Mr. O'Connor then 
stated a parliamentary inquiry:

        Under the rule a Member who has been compelled to take his seat 
    after his words have been taken down can vote, and he can demand 
    the yeas and nays. I wish the Chair to rule whether or not he can 
    go further than that and demand divisions and demand tellers.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Oh, he is not out of 
    Congress yet. That does not preclude him from doing anything the 
    rest of the session, does it?
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair holds that the gentleman 
    has a right to demand a division and to demand tellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John H. Kerr (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Withdrawing the Demand

Sec. 49.24 A demand that words spoken in debate in the House or in the 
    Committee of the Whole be taken down may be withdrawn without 
    unanimous consent.

    On July 3, 1946,(2) Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas, 
ruled that a demand that words spoken in debate be taken down could be 
withdrawn without unanimous consent in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 92 Cong. Rec. 8295, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
    out the last three words.
        Mr. Chairman, I have just finished listening to two political 
    tirades by two political tyros, and I say to those gentlemen that 
    they cannot----

[[Page 10706]]

        Mr. [Matthew M.] Neely [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    demand that those words be taken down.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: If the gentleman knows what the word 
    ``tyro'' means he can have it taken down.
        Mr. Neely: The gentleman knows that that statement is not true 
    and that the statement is not justified. I demand that the words be 
    taken down and stricken from the Record.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the words objected to.
        Mr. Neely: Mr. Chairman, for fear that this procedure will 
    delay the final vote on the bill, I withdraw my request.
        Mr. [Earl] Wilson [of Indiana]: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: It does not require unanimous consent to withdraw 
    the request.

    On June 14, 1940,(3) Speaker Pro Tempore Emmet O'Neal, 
of Kentucky, ruled that unanimous consent was not required to withdraw 
a demand that words spoken in debate in the House be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 86 Cong. Rec. 8269, 8270, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jacob] Thorkelson [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, I will 
    withdraw the request that the remarks be taken down, because I do 
    not believe they are worth recording.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, that will 
    have to be done by unanimous consent, and I object, and, Mr. 
    Speaker, I demand recognition.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman 
    from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] rise?
        Mr. Dingell: The remarks of the gentleman cannot now be 
    withdrawn without unanimous consent.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman make that as a 
    point of order?
        Mr. Dingell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is overruled, and 
    the gentleman from Illinois is recognized.

    On Feb. 10, 1964,(4) Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, 
demanded in the Committee of the Whole, during consideration of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1963, that a reference in debate by Mr. Albert W. 
Watson, of South Carolina, to other Members as ``bleeding hearts'' be 
taken down. Mr. Rooney then withdrew his demand:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 2780, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, in the interest of expediting passage of this 
    civil rights bill and although I feel that no Member has the right 
    to characterize another Member or Members as the gentleman from 
    South Carolina has done, I withdraw my demand that his words be 
    taken down.

Sec. 49.25 A demand that words spoken in debate be taken down may be 
    withdrawn by the Member making the demand, and unanimous consent is 
    not required for that purpose.

[[Page 10707]]

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Aug. 3, 1978,(5) during consideration of the foreign aid 
appropriation bill (H.R. 12931):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 124 Cong. Rec. 24238, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: . . . You use very good 
    grounds as an umbrella and a cover for some of the greatest 
    travesties, some of the greatest wastes. . . .
        The programs are a travesty.
        Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I demand that 
    the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Blouin) insist on his demand?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blouin: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: I object.
        The Chairman: The request does not take unanimous consent to be 
    withdrawn.
        Mr. Bauman: Did the gentleman not object to the words and 
    demand that they be taken down?
        The Chairman: The gentleman can withdraw his objection, and it 
    does not take a unanimous-consent request to do that. The gentleman 
    can automatically withdraw his request. That is what the gentleman 
    is doing.

Sec. 49.26 Prior to a ruling by the Chair, unanimous consent is not 
    required for a Member to withdraw his demand that another Member's 
    words spoken in debate be ``taken down.''

    On June 18, 1986,(7) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 4868 (Anti-
Apartheid Act of 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 132 Cong. Rec. 14231, 14232, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mark] Siljander [of Michigan]: . . . Mr. Chairman, there 
    are two dominating issues I would say about this debate. The first 
    one, which granted is less important than the overall concern of 
    apartheid, is the way this bill has been handled. The Subcommittee 
    on Africa has been holding hearings on apartheid, the implications 
    of the system, and how America can best influence change in that 
    country. . . .
        It is quite obvious that one of the major motivations of the 
    ramrodding of this legislation was not so much because it was 
    imperative because of the deaths and the concerns in South Africa, 
    but rather to coincide the debate with the 10th anniversary of the 
    Soweto riots, seizing the political and media opportunities in a 
    manipulative way. So I think that is an important issue that the 
    membership of this body needs to understand. . . .
        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to move that the gentleman's words be taken down on the 
    grounds that the gentleman is challenging the motives of Members of 
    Congress, and as this gentleman understands, it is inappropriate to 
    challenge the motives of

[[Page 10708]]

    Members of Congress. One can challenge the political position 
    asserted by Members of Congress, but I do not believe that it is 
    within the purview or the prerogatives of any Member to challenge 
    the motives. The gentleman has mischaracterized the motives of 
    Members of Congress. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair would make an inquiry of 
    the gentleman: does he insist upon his demand?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Bob Traxler (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dellums: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think one gentleman earlier 
    said that this debate ought to move on a higher level. This 
    gentleman wants to insist upon it.
        The Chairman: The Chair, under the rules, will ask that the 
    Clerk take down the words in question.
        Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, in order to allow the debate to 
    proceed, I will withdraw my point of order. The gentleman from 
    California has made his point.
        I wish that this debate go forward on the merits of the issue, 
    rather than on impugning the motives or integrity of any Member of 
    Congress on either side of the aisle. I think I have made that 
    point. It is not necessary to rule, and I withdraw it.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California withdraws his 
    demand.
        Mr. Siljander: Mr. Chairman, I object, if that is appropriate, 
    because I would like to have a ruling. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman will suspend.
        The Chair would observe that under the rules, unanimous consent 
    is not required for the gentleman to withdraw his request. The 
    gentleman's request is withdrawn.

Sec. 49.27 A demand that words spoken in debate in the Committee of the 
    Whole be taken down may be withdrawn without unanimous consent.

    On July 3, 1946,(9) Mr. Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, 
stated in debate in the Committee of the Whole in reference to other 
Members ``I have just finished listening to two political tirades by 
two political tyros.'' Mr. Matthew M. Neely, of West Virginia, demanded 
that the words be taken down and Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas, 
directed that the Clerk report the words objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 92 Cong. Rec. 8295, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Neely then withdrew his demand that the words be taken down 
``for fear that this procedure will delay the final vote on the bill.'' 
When Mr. Earl Wilson, of Indiana, objected to such withdrawal, Chairman 
Patman ruled that it did not require unanimous consent to withdraw the 
demand that the words be taken down.

Withdrawal of Offending Words

Sec. 49.28 A demand that certain words spoken in debate be taken down 
    must be made before further debate inter

[[Page 10709]]

    venes, but a Member may 
    by unanimous consent withdraw from the Record words he had 
    previously spoken.

    During debate on H.R. 11 (10) in the Committee of the 
Whole on Feb. 24, 1977,(11) the proceedings described above 
occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        Amendments.
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 5349, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: I would like to call the 
    attention of the Committee to the very significant point just made 
    by the gentleman from Puerto Rico, which was that, in effect, 
    Puerto Rico received under the previous jobs bill $127 million--
    more than almost any State of the Union.
        Under the Shuster amendment, certainly Puerto Rico would not be 
    left out. They would receive $47 million. The gentleman has made a 
    good point. . . .
        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, I am glad 
    that came up. I am very glad that came up. So let us deal with that 
    [demagogic] approach.
        In every other piece of legislation that we have had, so far as 
    I know, out of the public works end of it, what we are faced with 
    is that we treat Puerto Rico as a State.
        Mr. Shuster: Madam Chairman, I ask that his words be taken 
    down.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    (Mr. Shuster) asks that the words of the gentleman from New Jersey 
    (Mr. Roe) be taken down. The demand comes too late, since debate 
    has proceeded beyond that point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Roe: Madam Chairman, if I have used the wrong words, I 
    apologize right here and now. I did not mean anything personal.
        Mr. Shuster: Madam Chairman, I was on my feet.
        The Chairman: The gentleman was not seeking recognition.
        Does the gentleman from New Jersey ask unanimous consent to 
    withdraw his words?
        Mr. Roe: Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
    allowed to withdraw any words that I may have used inappropriately.
        Mr. Shuster: I thank the gentleman.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New Jersey?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 49.29 Where a demand is made that words uttered in debate be taken 
    down, the Member using those words may, by unanimous consent, 
    withdraw them before the Chair rules on their propriety.

    On Mar. 2, 1977,(13) during consideration of House 
Resolution 287 (amending the rules of the House) in the Committee of 
the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 5937, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the

[[Page 10710]]

    requisite number of words, and I oppose the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, speeches like the one we just heard from the 
    gentleman from Minnesota are the reason that we have wound up with 
    so many Members of the House having the very kind of slush funds 
    that we are trying to abolish today. What we are trying to do is to 
    meet official expenses in an official, honest, aboveboard, open 
    fashion. That is all we are trying to do. The gentleman can toss 
    around all of the words he wants and all of the inflammatory words 
    he wants.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    the gentleman's words be taken down.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    ask to withdraw the words that were objected to?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Obey: I have no idea which words he objected to, but to 
    satisfy the gentleman from Maryland, I will withdraw them.
        Mr. Bauman: To clarify, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has referred to the language used by the 
    gentleman from Minnesota as ``phony words.'' He has also referred 
    to his remarks as ``baloney.''
        I hardly think that the words do anything, I would say to the 
    Chairman, except impugn the motives of the gentleman from 
    Minnesota.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin ask to withdraw 
    those words?
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Chairman, since it is necessary for someone 
    around here to be responsible in the interest of getting things 
    done, surely I withdraw those words.
        The Chairman: Without objection it is so ordered. The gentleman 
    may continue.

Sec. 49.30 Clause 1 of Rule XIV proscribes Members in debate from 
    engaging in personalities, including allegations that an 
    identifiable group of sitting Members have committed a crime; thus, 
    a Member by unanimous consent withdrew a statement in debate that 
    the majority Members of the House had ``stolen'' a seat, pending a 
    demand that those words be taken down.

    On Feb. 27, 1985,(15) Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of 
Indiana, demanded that words spoken by Mr. John Rowland, of 
Connecticut, be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 131 Cong. Rec. 3898, 3899, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, I demand the gentleman's words be 
    taken down in that he said ``stolen.'' . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Clerk will read 
    the words taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Tommy F. Robinson (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The scary thing about it, as a person who served in the 
        legislature for 4 years, and as a person who happens to be 
        sitting as the youngest Member of Congress, I find it difficult 
        that the first situation that we

[[Page 10711]]

        run into in this House, the first class project, as we may call 
        it, is trying to retain a seat that has been stolen from the 
        Republican side of the aisle, and I think it is rather 
        frustrating.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the gentleman care to modify his 
    remarks before the Chair rules?
        Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker. . . . I 
    would like to ask unanimous consent that the words objected to be 
    withdrawn.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That what word be withdrawn?
        Mr. Rowland of Connecticut. The word ``stolen,'' Mr. Speaker.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Connecticut?
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Georgia is 
    recognized.
        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: I would yield in just a 
    moment, after asking the Chair if in fact Members were convinced an 
    action were being taken which involved a word which was ruled by 
    the Chair to be inappropriate, how could a Member report to the 
    House on that action? Should we substitute the word ``banana''? 
    What is it one should say if in fact--not just as a joke, but if in 
    fact--Members of the Republican side honestly believed strongly 
    something is being done? In other words, is ``unconstitutional'' an 
    acceptable term but ``illegal'' not acceptable?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman asking the Chair?
        Mr. Gingrich: I am asking the Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Simply put, Members should not accuse 
    other Members of committing a crime. When the majority is accused 
    of ``stealing,'' that may suggest illegality. Other words could be 
    used but not those accusing Members of committing a crime.
        Mr. Gingrich: What if one honestly believes, for a moment, that 
    a crime is being committed? Would it in fact be against the rules--
    --
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members may not engage in 
    personalities.
        Mr. Gingrich: But he did not talk in personalities. . . .
        Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: . . . Mr. Speaker, I would simply 
    point out that I did not refer to anybody stealing an election. I 
    just referred to the frustration that we as freshmen are exhibiting 
    and fearing as we go through the deliberations. I did not refer to 
    anybody.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman seemed to refer to the 
    majority of the House, that it had stolen the election.

Sec. 49.31 After a demand was made that certain words used in debate in 
    the Committee of the Whole be taken down, the words were withdrawn 
    by unanimous consent.

    On Feb. 10, 1964,(17) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
stated in debate in the Committee of the Whole in reference to another 
Member ``I want to state that the gentleman from Missouri has spo

[[Page 10712]]

ken longer and more often than any other Member in the Chamber and 
contributed less.'' Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, demanded that those 
words be taken down and Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, directed 
that the Clerk report the words objected to. Mr. Celler then withdrew 
his remarks by unanimous consent ``in the interests of expediency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The permanent Record was corrected to show 
that the words were actually withdrawn pursuant to the request.

Words Ruled Unparliamentary

Sec. 49.32 Where the demand is made that certain words used in debate 
    be taken down in the House, the business of the House is suspended 
    until the words are reported to the House.

    The procedure (under Rule XIV clause 5) for taking down words in 
the House was demonstrated on Aug. 21, 1974,(18) as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 29652, 29653, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    take this time so I may direct my remarks to the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
        Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, by mutual consent of the leadership on 
    both sides of the aisle and by the members of the Judiciary 
    Committee, I offered to this House a resolution. At the completion 
    of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, I asked that all Members may have 5 
    legislative days in which to extend their remarks and it was 
    objected to, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman). He gave a reason at that particular time.
        I told him that I thought he should have cleared it with the 
    leadership on his own side of the aisle; but nevertheless, Mr. 
    Speaker, when all the Members had left last night, the gentleman 
    came to the well and asked unanimous consent of the then Speaker of 
    the House who was sitting there, if he may insert his remarks in 
    the Record, with unanimous consent, following the remarks where he 
    had objected.
        So, Mr. Speaker, in today's Record on page H8724 you will find 
    the remarks of Mr. Bauman. You will not find the remarks of Mr. 
    McClory, one of the people who had asked me to do this. You will 
    not find the remarks of other members of the Judiciary Committee, 
    who were prepared at that time to put their remarks in the Record; 
    but you will find the remarks of Mr. Bauman and Mr. Bauman alone.
        [I just want to say that I think in my opinion it was a cheap, 
    sneaky, sly way to operate.]
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    that the gentleman's words be taken down.
        The Speaker: (19) The gentleman demands that the 
    words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the words objected to. . . .

[[Page 10713]]

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman ask unanimous 
    consent to withdraw his remarks?
        The Speaker: The Chair did not understand that.
        Mr. Bauman: Does he not have to request that, or does not the 
    Chair have to rule?
        The Speaker: The Chair will rule when the Clerk reports the 
    words taken down.
        Mr. Bauman: Then, I demand the regular order.
        The Speaker: Regular order is underway. . . .
        The Clerk will report the words objected to.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I take this time so I may direct 
        my remarks to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). . . .
            I just want to say that I think in my opinion it was a 
        cheap, sneaky, sly way to operate.

        The Speaker: The words in the last sentence are not 
    parliamentary. Without objection, the offending words will be 
    stricken from the Record.

Speaker Sometimes Takes Initiative Where Improper Remarks Are Uttered

Sec. 49.33 The Speaker cautioned a Member that it is a breach of order 
    under clause 1 of Rule XIV to allege in debate that a Member has 
    engaged in conduct similar to the subject of a complaint pending 
    before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct against 
    another Member; and under clause 4 of that rule, the Chair takes 
    the initiative in calling to order Members improperly engaging in 
    personalities in debate.

    Speaker Pro Tempore G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery, of Mississippi, 
called a Member to order in the House on Mar. 22, 1989, (20) 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 135 Cong. Rec. 5130, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Alexander asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, after arriving 
    at the Capitol a few minutes ago on this glorious spring day, I 
    learned that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
    conducted an election for minority whip resulting in the election 
    of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) as minority whip. . . 
    .
        I would note to those who are observing that the gentleman from 
    Georgia made his name, so to speak, by a sustained personal attack 
    on the good name of Jim Wright, the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives who has devoted decades of meritorious service to 
    our country. The gentleman from Georgia alleged that the Speaker 
    has circumvented minimum income limits of Members of Congress by 
    writing a book for which he received a royalty.
        Now, it is also to be noted that just this week it was learned 
    that the gen

[[Page 10714]]

    tleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) also allegedly has a book deal. 
    It is alleged in the Washington Post this week that the gentleman 
    from Georgia received a royalty or a payment in the nature of a 
    royalty. This is apparently similar to the Wright arrangement which 
    is the basis of the gentleman from Georgia's complaint before the 
    Ethics Committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman 
    that he cannot make personal references, as the gentleman has done 
    in his remarks.

Chair's Request That Member Proceed in Order

Sec. 49.34 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole requested Members 
    to proceed in order when a Member objected to remarks delivered in 
    debate impugning the honesty and motives of another Member but did 
    not demand that the words be taken down.

    On May 10, 1978,(1) during debate in the Committee of 
the Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 13214, 13215, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger). . 
    . . I would suggest . . . that this amendment strains my tolerance 
    and engenders emotions in me because of the unintended evil that it 
    does.
        What is this unintended evil? For the first time--and I 
    repeat--for the first time during our consideration of this issue 
    we have an amendment that will tend to pit one group against 
    another, one segment against another, one class against another.
        I suggest that this kind of an amendment is, unwittingly, an 
    evil amendment, because that is what this cut is all about, this 
    cut that is proposed is about to pit one class against another. 
    That is what the amendment does. . . .
        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]:  . . . I want to 
    compliment my colleague for his eloquent statement with which I 
    wholeheartedly agree. I just want to point out that I think he does 
    the gentleman from Texas an injustice when he says that he acts 
    unwittingly or that the evil effects of the amendment are 
    unintended. I think that the gentleman from Texas, who is a 
    distinguished scholar, certainly knows well the effects of this 
    amendment. When he comes on the floor and says the people of the 
    United States want us to adopt this amendment, I do not know what 
    people he is talking about because this amendment would cut back 
    social security benefits and would affect over 80 million people in 
    this country who receive annual cost-of-living increases in their 
    social security checks. Surely there are old people who live in 
    Texas. I understand it is a paradise, but surely there are people 
    who receive social security benefits there and would be harmed by 
    this amendment. . . .

[[Page 10715]]

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman:(2) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, it may well be the desire of the 
    gentleman from Maryland to demand that words be taken down if this 
    type of debate continues.
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Demand all you want.
        Mr. Bauman: The gentleman from Maryland has listened closely to 
    the debate. It is not the intent of the gentleman from Maryland to 
    defend the honor of the gentleman from Texas; it needs no defense; 
    but the rules of the House do forbid certain types of words and 
    they require decorum.
        The gentleman from Maryland has listened to characterizations 
    of ``lies'' and ``dishonesty'' and the use of amendments for the 
    promotion of political campaigns, none of which the gentleman from 
    Maryland feels fall within proper conduct in the House.
        Now, I may well not be disposed to demand that the words be 
    taken down, including the words just spoken, but if this continues 
    and the Chair does not admonish those responsible, the gentleman 
    from Maryland will demand they be taken down.
        I know passions are high on this issue. Neither the gentleman 
    from Maryland (Mr. Mitchell) or the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Krueger) need have their motives impugned or questioned. I grant 
    the best of motives to all Members.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Bauman, has not 
    made a point of order; but, the Chair feels sure all Members 
    participating in the debate on this bill will proceed in order. 
    That is the way it should be and that is the way it will be.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Mitchell deleted from his remarks the 
reference to Mr. Krueger's amendment as ``wittingly or unwittingly a 
lie.'' Ms. Holtzman's suggestion that Mr. Krueger had wittingly lied 
was also subject to a demand that the words be taken down.

--Chair May Take Lead in ``Calming'' Debate

Sec. 49.35 A demand that words be taken down is untimely 
    if further debate has intervened.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 4, 
1985,(3) during consideration of House Resolution 97 (to 
seat Richard D. McIntyre as a Member from Indiana):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 131 Cong. Rec. 4277, 4283-85, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of privilege.
        Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. 
    Res. 97) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 97

            Whereas a certificate of election to the House of 
        Representatives always

[[Page 10716]]

        carries with it the presumption that the State election 
        procedures have been timely, regular, and fairly implemented; 
        and . . .
            Whereas the presumption of the validity and regularity of 
        the certificate of election held by Richard D. McIntyre has not 
        been overcome by any substantial evidence or claim of 
        irregularity: Now, therefore be it
            Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and 
        directed to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from 
        Indiana, Mr. Richard D. McIntyre. . . .

        Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the resolution be referred to the Committee on House 
    Administration. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman is 
    entitled to 1 hour under that motion, during which time the 
    gentleman from Arkansas controls the time. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: . . . Mr. Speaker, this 
    issue is being handled now in a manner being allowed in this House 
    that does not meet the dignity of this body which is very much 
    needed at the moment. At the time that the people of this country 
    are wondering whether or not the Congress is going to do the things 
    that are necessary, some of them painful, to protect our country, 
    we have Members playing petty politics over there in a way that is 
    calculated to do nothing except destroy public confidence in this 
    body.
        I can see how people would lose confidence in the House, which 
    is put into this kind of mess by this bushwhacking method of 
    causing a vote. . . . [W]e count on assertions from our leaders on 
    both sides that on particular days you can take care of other 
    important matters because there will not be rollcalls. They know 
    that many of the Members are being deprived, who have been seated, 
    of representing their districts because of the way in which this 
    vote is called up. And if they want to show good faith at this 
    point, Mr. Speaker, then the gentleman should withdraw his motion 
    and move to take it up at a time when due notice has been given so 
    that my constituents and all of the districts in Michigan will have 
    their representative here to vote on them. . . .
        Mr. [Carroll] Campbell [Jr., of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, am I correct in saying that we do not seek to 
    impugn the motives of a Member when they bring a matter to the 
    floor? Is that correct under the way this House operates? And that 
    when a Member's motives have been impugned that that Member or 
    others on their behalf would have a right to ask that words be 
    stricken? Is that a correct assumption?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct that no 
    Member's motive is to be impugned by another Member in the course 
    of orderly debate on the House floor.
        Mr. Campbell: Well, Mr. Speaker, my concern lies with the fact 
    that with the previous speaker that the motivation of those of us 
    who are concerned with this matter may have been impugned when the 
    accusation was made that this was being done under petty politics 
    and that it was bushwhacking and instead of the motivation of 
    trying to protect legitimately the rights of a

[[Page 10717]]

    Member of the minority party who had been denied, though being 
    certified, his seat.
        To make that charge I raise the point of order does impugn the 
    motivation of those of us who seek to seat Mr. McIntyre. I ask that 
    the gentleman's words be stricken.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's point of order in this 
    particular instance comes too late. Intervening debate has 
    proceeded.
        Mr. Campbell: The gentleman who previously spoke, Mr. Speaker, 
    I was on my feet asking to be recognized on a point of order, who 
    had made those accusations.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state the Chair expects 
    all Members to maintain the dignity of the Chamber, and that 
    includes the proper use of language in reference to their 
    colleagues of either political party.
        The Chair will state that the point of order made by the 
    gentleman at this time is not timely made. But the Chair will 
    instruct all Members with the expectation that parliamentary 
    language will be observed.

Sec. 49.36 While the Chair will not rule on the propriety of words used 
    in debate and not challenged by a timely demand that they be 
    ``taken down,'' the Chair may caution all Members not to question 
    the integrity or motivation of other Members in debate.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Apr. 22, 1985: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 131 Cong. Rec. 8692, 8693, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Connie] Mack [3d, of Florida]: Possibly the reason he is 
    not here tonight is that this is too open a session, I mean it is 
    too much of an opportunity for people to question him as to what 
    happened during that discussion. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .

        Mr. Speaker, there was a reference by a colleague that maybe I 
    violated the rules of the House, and suggested that maybe my words 
    ought to be taken down.
        Is that an idle threat that is being posed, or did I in fact 
    violate the rules? I certainly have no intention of violating the 
    rules of the House . . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Chair has received 
    no request from the floor to have the gentleman's words taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mack: So as far as the Chair is concerned, anything that I 
    have said so far this evening certainly would be within the rules?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would caution the Members 
    not to question the integrity of other Members or to impugn the 
    motivation of individual Members.
        Mr. Mack: Mr. Speaker, when you say the ``motivation'' does 
    that mean a negative or a positive motivation? If I make a 
    statement about the positive motivation on the part of the Members, 
    does that certainly fall within the rules, I would take it?

[[Page 10718]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would rule as each 
    particular incident is brought to its attention. We ought to be 
    cautious as to our personal comments about our colleagues.

Sec. 49.37 On one occasion, upon a demand that certain words used in 
    debate (characterizing unnamed Members as taking ``potshots'' at 
    the Nicaraguan resistance and as lacking judgment) be taken down, 
    the Chair suggested that the words only questioned the judgment of 
    unspecified Members in a manner not in violation of House rules, 
    and the demand was withdrawn prior to a ruling thereon.

    During the proceedings in the House on Mar. 18, 1986,(7) 
the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 132 Cong. Rec. 5200, 5201, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I just 
    got back from Nicaragua, and in light of what I saw and heard, I 
    find today's speeches by the left wing of the Democratic Party 
    astonishing.
        For Members of Congress to stand safely on this floor and take 
    potshots at men and women of tremendous courage who are struggling 
    against great odds to oppose Communist tyranny in Nicaragua is, 
    indeed, astonishing. That questions no one's patriotism; it 
    questions their judgment.
        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I request 
    the gentleman's words be taken down. He is questioning the judgment 
    of other Members of the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Mitchell) requests that the words of the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) be taken down. The Chair would 
    inquire as to which words the gentleman refers to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Bill Alexander (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mitchell: He questions the judgment of the Members of the 
    House who oppose the Reagan proposition.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would suggest that the 
    gentleman did not refer to any specific Member in violation of the 
    rules of the House. Does the gentleman insist on his request?
        Mr. Mitchell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do because it followed a 
    statement that I just made where I indicated that I oppose the 
    President's position, and certainly by inference he is questioning 
    my judgment and I resent it.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman insists, and the Clerk 
    will report the words. . . .
        Mr. Mitchell: If the Speaker so desires, I will not press the 
    point of order, but with the indulgence of the Speaker, I will 
    state that I personally resent any attempt to impugn my motives.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman withdraws his demand.

Chair's Role in Interpreting Proceedings

Sec. 49.38 It is appropriate for the Chair to interpret a point of

[[Page 10719]]

    order to determine whether it is being raised under a particular 
    rule of the House; and a Member's point of order (that remarks just 
    made in debate impugn another Member's motives), and the Chair's 
    determination as to whether the point of order constitutes a demand 
    that those words be ``taken down,'' is not such intervening debate 
    or business as to render the demand untimely.

    On Oct. 2, 1984,(9) during consideration of the balanced 
budget bill (H.R. 6300), Mr. John V. Weber, of Minnesota, stated that 
another Member had come to the floor with a gimmick ``which he thinks 
will fool the people of Tulsa.''(10) A point of order was 
made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 130 Cong. Rec. 28522, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. The words were stricken from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(11) The gentlewoman will 
    state her point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. Oakar: Mr. Speaker, I question the speaker regarding 
    impugning the motives of the chairman who has introduced this 
    legislation.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentlewoman insist that the 
    gentleman's words be taken down?
        Ms. Oakar: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the words.
        Mr. [Guy V.] Molinari [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Molinari: Mr. Speaker, as an observer of what transpired 
    here, it was my impression that the point of order raised by the 
    gentlewoman was raised too late, and I would ask the Chair to make 
    a ruling that in fact a point of order was made too late.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state that at the time 
    the point of order was made further debate had not taken place and 
    therefore the point is entertained.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: It was my impression that the gentlewoman never 
    asked that the words be taken down, that the Chair guided her into 
    that.
        Ms. Oakar: I asked.
        Mr. Walker: The gentlewoman never made that point in her 
    language. Is that usual procedure?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair was simply attempting to 
    understand the intent and the motive of the gentlewoman's point of 
    order.

Words Not Taken Down and Reported

Sec. 49.39 A demand for the reporting of certain additional

[[Page 10720]]

    words uttered in the Committee of the Whole but not reported to the 
    House is not in order in the House, and the Speaker will not pass 
    upon what can be done in the Committee of the Whole regarding a new 
    demand.

    On July 27, 1965,(12) Mr. Neal Smith, of Iowa, demanded 
that certain words used in debate in the Committee of the Whole by Mr. 
Charles E. Goodell, of New York, be taken down. In the House, Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, directed the Clerk to read the 
words that had been objected to, and the Clerk read two sentences that 
were reported from the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 18441, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Smith then rose and objected that ``there was another sentence 
following that. He did not read the last sentence.'' Speaker McCormack 
ruled that the Chair could pass only on the words that had been 
reported. After the Speaker delivered a ruling on the words, Mr. Smith 
again rose to demand that the sentence following the words ruled on be 
taken down. Speaker McCormack responded ``The Chair will state that the 
Chair can only pass upon the words presented to the Chair and which 
were taken down in the Committee of the Whole.'' Mr. Smith then raised 
a parliamentary inquiry:

        Are we not entitled to have the words taken down that were 
    objected to in the Committee of the Whole so that Members can 
    exercise their rights?

    The Speaker stated that he was ``confronted with the words actually 
reported by the Clerk.'' Mr. Smith then asked:

        Then when we go back into the Committee of the Whole, am I 
    entitled to demand that the words be taken down that I objected to 
    and report them back?

    Speaker McCormack ruled:

        The Chair will not pass upon what can be done in the Committee 
    of the Whole. Of course, if the gentleman desires to renew his 
    request, that would be a matter for the Chairman of the Committee 
    of the Whole to consider on the question of whether or not the 
    words were taken down as demanded by the gentleman from Iowa.
        The Committee will resume its sitting.

    When the Committee resumed its sitting, Mr. Smith made a further 
demand that additional words not reported in the House be taken down 
and reported therein. The Clerk read the additional words objected to, 
and Mr. Smith stated ``That is not all of it, Mr. Chairman. That is not 
all of

[[Page 10721]]

the words.'' Chairman Leo W. O'Brien, of New York, responded that the 
words reported were ``all that the Clerk was able to furnish the 
Chairman.'' Mr. Smith then withdrew his objection to the words.

References to Motives of Senators

Sec. 49.40 Where a Member demanded that another Member's references in 
    debate to a Senator be stricken from the Record but did not demand 
    that the words be ``taken down'' (pursuant to Rule XIV clause 5), 
    the Speaker Pro Tempore sustained the point of order against 
    violation of the principle of comity (under section 374 of 
    Jefferson's Manual) but did not submit to the House the question of 
    striking the unparliamentary words.

    On June 3, 1974,(13) it was demonstrated that the 
principle of comity between the two Houses prohibits any reference in 
debate in the House to actions of Senators within or outside the 
Senate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 19083, 19085, 19086, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Under a previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Steiger) is 
    recognized for 45 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Steiger [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, with a petulance 
    usually reserved to Secretaries of State, Mo Udall and Henry 
    Jackson have blamed the defeat of the land-use planning bill on 
    ``impeachment politics.'' Mr. Udall states that the President 
    changed his position on land-use planning in order to retain the 
    support of conservative Members of the House regarding impeachment. 
    . . .
        We can fully appreciate that the gentleman from Washington, who 
    is an active candidate for President, might be seeking ways to 
    present his case in some kind of a different manner.
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    gentleman will suspend for a minute, I would like to make a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I pose the parliamentary inquiry, whether or not discussion of 
    the motives of a Member of the other body is in order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. It is not in 
    order, in view of the rule of comity between the two Houses.
        The gentleman will proceed.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) that I am about to 
    continue to yield him the time; that I, too, think it is very 
    presumptive of the gentleman from Washington, who is running for 
    President;

[[Page 10722]]

    all I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) say was 
    that the Senator was a candidate for President.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: He is a potential 
    candidate for President. If that is impugning his motives, I do not 
    see how it is.
        Mr. Foley: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The remarks of the 
    gentleman from California and the remarks of the gentleman from 
    Arizona are out of order. I ask that they be stricken.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, might I be heard on that 
    point of order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will proceed on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: I would restate what I said, that in my 
    view it is presumptuous of the gentleman from Washington to hold 
    himself up as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. 
    I fail to see that that is impugning the gentleman's motives.
        It is an accepted fact in political life that the gentleman 
    from Washington is, indeed, a candidate for the Presidency, at 
    least in his own eyes.
        I suspect, and I am certainly entitled to a view of that 
    candidacy and I have stated that view, with no intent at all of 
    demeaning the gentleman from Washington.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: While the gentleman has not demanded 
    that words be taken down, the Chair will state that under the rules 
    of debate it is not in order for a Member to voice an opinion or 
    cast a reflection on either Members of the House or Members of the 
    other body and it is not in order to refer to Senators by name or 
    in terms of personal criticism, or even for the purpose of 
    complimenting and the inhibition extends to comments of criticism 
    of their actions outside the Senate.
        The Chair would also point out to the gentlemen who are 
    carrying on this debate that it is Thursday afternoon and there is 
    no need to get involved in a big political debate.
        So the gentleman in the well will proceed in order.

Procedure in House When Committee Rises

Sec. 49.41 Where the Speaker has ruled upon words taken down in the 
    Committee of the Whole and reported to the House, and has ordered 
    the Committee to resume its sitting, a point of order of no quorum 
    in the House comes too late and is not in order.

    On Nov. 10, 1971,(15) the Committee of the Whole rose in 
order that words used in debate by Mr. John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, 
demanded taken down by Mr. John N. Erlenborn, of Illinois, be reported 
to the House. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled that the words 
were not unparliamentary, after Mr. Dent explained that he had not been 
referring to a Member of the House. The Speaker ordered the Committee 
to resume its sitting. Mr. Durward

[[Page 10723]]

G. Hall, of Missouri, then attempted to make a point of order that a 
quorum was not present, and the Speaker ruled that the point of order 
could not be made at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 40442, 40443, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee of Whole Resumes Sitting Automatically

Sec. 49.42 When the demand is made that certain words used in debate be 
    taken down in Committee of the Whole, the business of the Committee 
    is suspended until the words are reported to the House; after the 
    Speaker has ruled on words reported from the Committee of the 
    Whole, and after disposition of any motion that the Member whose 
    words are ruled out of order may proceed in order, the House 
    automatically resolves back into the Committee of the Whole.

    During consideration of the Department of Education Organization 
Act of 1979 (H.R. 2444) in the Committee of the Whole, certain words 
used in debate were reported to the House, the Speaker ruled on those 
words and the Committee resumed its deliberations. The proceedings on 
June 12, 1979,(16) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 14461, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I expected 
    resistance to this amendment and not necessarily my getting 
    involved. I am not a member of this committee. But this amendment 
    is probably the most detrimental to the main purposes of equal 
    opportunity of education to the most needed segments of our society 
    that has been presented thus far and probably could ever be 
    presented. The insidiousness of the amendment is compounded by the 
    sponsor's deceptive--I should say hypocritical--presentation of 
    this amendment, disguising it as a quota prohibition.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    demand that the words be taken down.
        The Chairman: (17) The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Committee will rise. . . .
        The Speaker: (18) The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            The insidiousness of the amendment is compounded by the 
        sponsor's deceptive--I should say hypocritical--presentation of 
        this amendment, disguising it as a quota prohibition.

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair, having read the references concerning deception and 
    hy

[[Page 10724]]

    pocrisy, will state that there have been previous opinions by the 
    Chair that there is nothing wrong with using the word, 
    ``deceptive,'' or the word, ``hypocritical,'' in characterizing an 
    amendment's effect but when a Member so characterizes the 
    motivation of a Member in offering an amendment that is not in 
    order.
        Consequently, the words in the last sentence read by the Clerk 
    are unparliamentary and without objection, the offensive words are 
    stricken from the Record. . . .
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks).
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) be allowed to proceed in order.

        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The Committee will resume its sitting.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
    of the bill, H.R. 2444, with Mr. Nedzi in the chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) has the 
    floor, and the gentleman will proceed in order.

Sec. 49.43 When a demand is made in Committee of the Whole that words 
    spoken in debate be taken down, the words are transcribed by the 
    Official Reporters of Debate to be read by the Clerk, and the 
    Committee then rises automatically and reports the words to the 
    House; following a decision by the Speaker that the words reported 
    to the House by the Committee of the Whole are in order, the 
    Committee resumes its sitting without motion.

    The following proceedings occurred during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 2760 (prohibition on covert aid to 
Nicaragua) on July 28, 1983: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 21461, 21462, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: I am concerned, as I said, 
    about the statements that I have heard on the floor today, because 
    I believe that what they have a tendency to do, even though that 
    may not be the intention, I think they have the tendency to try to 
    assassinate the character of the person making the statement rather 
    than to effectively assassinate the argument.
        Mr. [C. W. Bill] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I demand that 
    the gentleman's words be taken down.
        The Chairman: (20) Words will be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        [W]hy could we not have the words read back promptly? . . .
        Mr. Chairman, are we not taking down the proceedings of the 
    House verbatim?
        The Chairman: As soon as the words can be transcribed, as the 
    gentleman knows, the Speaker will then

[[Page 10725]]

    pass upon the words that are being taken down.
        The Clerk will report the words.
        The Clerk read as follows: (1) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. It is still required, under the customs and traditions of the 
        House, for the Clerk to read the transcript, which, whether it 
        has been taken electronically or taken in shorthand, must be 
        reduced to writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Committee will rise.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Natcher, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2760) to amend the 
    Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1983 . . . certain 
    words used in debate were objected to and on request were taken 
    down and read at the Clerk's desk, and he herewith reported the 
    same to the House.
        The Speaker: (2) . . . The Clerk will report the 
    words objected to in the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: The words having been read, and the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin having very definitely included in his statement a 
    disclaimer that he does not impugn the motives or intentions of any 
    Member of the House, in the opinion of the Chair, in his 
    legislative argument the words of the gentleman from Wisconsin are 
    not unparliamentary and the gentleman may proceed.
        The Committee will resume its sitting.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
    of the bill, H.R. 2760, with Mr. Natcher in the chair.