[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§ 51. Withdrawal or Expungement of Words; Disciplinary Measures]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10735-10770]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                         E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
 
Sec. 51. -- Withdrawal or Expungement of Words; Disciplinary Measures

    Rule XIV clause 4 provides for action by the House where a Member 
is called to order:

        If any Member, in speaking or otherwise, transgress the rules 
    of the House, the Speaker shall, or any Member may, call him to 
    order . . . if the decision is in favor of the Member called to 
    order, he shall be at liberty to proceed, but not otherwise; and, 
    if the case requires it, he shall be liable to censure or such 
    punishment as the House may deem proper.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995).
            See also Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 303 (1995): ``[W]hatever is spoken in the House is subject 
        to the censure of the House; and offenses of this kind have 
        been severely punished by calling the person to the bar to make 
        submission, committing him to the tower, expelling the House, 
        etc.''
            For obsolete parliamentary procedure in relation to 
        disorderly words, see Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. Sec. 366, 368 (1995).
            For the remedy of one House against a Member of the other 
        House for disorderly words in debate reflecting upon the 
        former, see Sec. Sec. 44.9, 46.13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the rule, a Member whose words are taken down must take his 
seat and may not be recognized until the House permits him to proceed 
in order (16) or unless the House by motion permits him to 
explain the words before a ruling. But he may be recognized in the 
discretion of the Speaker, either before or after the words have been 
reported, for the limited purpose of requesting unanimous consent to 
withdraw the words in question.(17) Where such request is 
granted, the objectionable words are no longer before the House and the 
Member called to order may proceed without the consent of the 
House.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. Sec. 52.4, 52.5, infra.
17. See Sec. Sec. 51.1-51.3, infra.
18. See Sec. 52.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the words are not withdrawn and are ruled unparliamentary by 
the Speaker, the fol

[[Page 10736]]

lowing motions and resolutions have been entertained:
    --unanimous-consent request by the Member called to order to 
withdraw the words;
    --unanimous-consent request to explain the words ruled offensive;
    --debatable motion to expunge the words;
    --debatable motion that the Member called to order be allowed to 
proceed in order;
    --resolution to punish the Member for the offense of uttering 
unparliamentary words, which can take the form of a reprimand, censure, 
or even expulsion.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Cannon's Procedure of the House of Representatives, 78, 79, H. Doc. 
        No. 122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
            For motions to permit the Member called to order to proceed 
        or to explain, see Sec. 52, infra. Resolutions of expulsion are 
        not discussed herein, as the House has never expelled a Member 
        for disorderly words.
            See also House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Speaker has ordered unparliamentary remarks stricken 
from the Record,(20) a motion is usually made by a Member 
and voted upon by the House to determine whether objectionable words 
shall be expunged. The motion is privileged after the words have been 
ruled out of order.(1) The motion to expunge is debatable 
under the hour rule,(2) and may be moved even after the 
House has authorized the Member called to order to proceed in 
order.(3) The House may expunge certain words, or an entire 
speech, or remarks inserted in the Record in abuse of leave to revise 
and extend.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 51.36, infra.
 1. See Sec. 51.22, infra.
 2. See Sec. 51.26, infra.
 3. See Sec. 51.23, infra. To a motion to expunge the remarks of one 
        Member, an amendment to expunge the remarks of another is not 
        germane. See Sec. 51.32, infra.
 4. See Sec. Sec. 51.18, 51.35, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In past Congresses, the House has censured Members for disorderly 
words.(5) On a recent occasion, a resolution of censure was 
introduced and later withdrawn.(6) Censure or other 
disciplinary action is a matter for the House and not the Chair to 
decide,(7) but no action is in order until the Chair has 
ruled on the words objected to.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1253, 1254, 1259, 1305; 6 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 236.
 6. See Sec. 51.28, infra.
 7. See Sec. 51.27, infra.
 8. See Sec. 51.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the precedents,(9) where a Member is granted 
permission

[[Page 10737]]

to withdraw disorderly remarks from the Record, he must personally 
delete the words from the transcript, and the Official Reporters of 
Debate will not assume that responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For an example under the former practice of an instance where 
        remarks were not deleted because the Member did not take the 
        necessary action, see 110 Cong. Rec. 13254, 88th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., June 10, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under a new provision of House Rule XIV clause 9(b),(10) 
unparliamentary remarks may be deleted only by permission or order of 
the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 764a (1995), adopted on Jan. 4, 1995 
        (H. Res. 6), 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Forms
        Request by Member called to order to withdraw words objected 
    to.

            I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the words objected 
        to.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2544.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Motion to expunge words objected to from the Record.

            I move that the words just read by the Clerk be expunged 
        from the Record, and on that motion I demand the previous 
        question.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Resolution as question of privilege of the House to expunge 
    objectionable words inserted in the Record.

            Resolved, That as much of the extension in the Record 
        referred to by the gentleman from [State] and which refers to 
        the gentleman from [State] be and hereby is ordered 
        expunged.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Cannon's Procedure of the House of Representatives, 78, H. Doc. No. 
        122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Resolution to censure Member called to order for objectionable 
    words.

            Resolved, That the gentleman from [State], in the language 
        used by him in the Committee of the Whole, and taken down and 
        reported to the House and read at the Clerk's desk, has been 
        guilty of a violation of the rules and privileges of the House, 
        and merits the censure of the House for the same.
            Resolved, That the said gentleman be now brought to the bar 
        of the House by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and there the censure of 
        the House be administered by the Speaker.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1259; 91 Cong. Rec. 1371, 1445, 79th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Feb. 22, 26, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Privileged resolution to expunge words from the Record.

            Whereas the gentleman from [State] referring to the 
        gentleman from [State], stated on the floor of the House on 
        ``______'', as appears in the Record on page ``____'', 
        ``______'', [words objected to] and
            Whereas such words were a violation of the rules of the 
        House and, as reprinted in the Record, charge the gentleman 
        from [State] with a lack of patriotism, and with disloyalty to 
        his country, reflect upon him in his representative capacity 
        and upon the dignity of the House: Therefore, be it

        Resolved, That the words, ``______'', be expunged from the 
    Record.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 11552, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 5, 1940 
        (expungement of remarks inserted in the Record under leave to 
        revise and extend).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Privileged resolution to investigate charges made by one Member 
    against another.

            Whereas, in ________, purporting to have been written by 
        ________, a Member of the House of Representa

[[Page 10738]]

        tives from [State], the following charge appears: 
        ``__________''; and
            Whereas the said gentleman has reiterated the same on the 
        floor of the House: Therefore, be it
            Resolved, That a committee of five Members be appointed by 
        the Speaker to investigate and report to the House whether such 
        charges are true, and if untrue, whether the said gentleman has 
        violated the privileges of the House, and their recommendations 
        to the same. That said committee have leave to sit during the 
        sessions of the House, to send for persons and papers, to swear 
        witnesses, and to compel their attendance.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 3 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 2637.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Withdrawal of Words Before Ruling

Sec. 51.1 When a demand is made that certain words used in debate be 
    taken down, such words may be withdrawn by unanimous consent in the 
    House or in the Committee of the Whole before being reported to the 
    House.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 13275, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1964; 110 Cong. 
        Rec. 13254, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1964; 110 Cong. Rec. 
        10448, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1964; 110 Cong. Rec. 2698, 
        88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 10, 1964; 109 Cong. Rec. 13865, 
        13866, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 1963; 92 Cong. Rec. 533, 
        79th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 29, 1946; 86 Cong. Rec. 11516, 11517, 
        76th Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 4, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 51.2 Although a Member's words have been taken down on demand and 
    read to the House, the Speaker may recognize the Member who uttered 
    the words to ask unanimous consent to withdraw or modify the words.

    On June 5, 1962,(18) Mr. John D. Dingell, Jr., of 
Michigan, referred to another Member as a ``mouthpiece'' for the 
American Medical Association. Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, 
demanded those words be taken down, and the Clerk read them to the 
House on the direction of Speaker Pro Tempore Arnold Olsen, of 
Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 108 Cong. Rec. 9739, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Dingell then asked unanimous consent to change the words 
complained of to ``self-appointed spokesman'' instead of 
``mouthpiece.'' There was no objection to the request, and Mr. Curtis 
withdrew his point of order.
    On June 12, 1947,(19) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, objected to certain words used in debate by Mr. Chet 
Holifield, of California. Before the Clerk could report the words 
objected to, Mr. Holifield attempted to address the House and Mr. 
Rankin objected that he

[[Page 10739]]

could not speak until his objectionable words were disposed of. Mr. 
Rankin stated that Mr. Holifield could not even make a unanimous-
consent request in relation to the words. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, 
Jr., of Massachusetts, responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 93 Cong. Rec. 6895, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair can always recognize anyone to propound a unanimous-
    consent request. Of course, it would be within the province of the 
    gentleman from Mississippi to object, but the Chair can put 
    unanimous-consent requests at any time.

Sec. 51.3 The Speaker suggested that a Member who had uttered 
    unparliamentary words request unanimous consent to withdraw them.

    On July 29, 1948,(20) Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New 
York, characterized the remarks of Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
in debate as offensive. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, stated that the language used was a reflection upon Mr. 
Rankin and requested that Mr. Multer ask unanimous consent to strike 
the words from his remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 9532, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Multer asked unanimous consent to so strike the words and there 
was no objection.

Sec. 51.4 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,(1) during consideration of House 
Resolution 287 (amending the rules of the House) in the Committee of 
the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 5937, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the 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: (2) Does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    ask to withdraw the words that were objected to?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 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.

[[Page 10740]]

        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. 51.5 On one occasion, two Members demanded that each other's words 
    be taken down and then, by unanimous consent, withdrew their 
    remarks in Committee of the Whole before they were reported to the 
    House.

    On Apr. 29, 1976,(3) during consideration of the first 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 1977,(4) 
remarks were exchanged in which one Member characterized remarks made 
by another as racist, and the latter Member referred to the other as a 
``pipsqueak.'' (The remarks in question do not appear in the Record, 
because both Members received permission to withdraw their remarks 
before they were reported to the House.) The following exchange 
occurred during the proceedings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 11882, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. H. Con. Res. 611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    that the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Clerk will report the words.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to withdraw my remark.

        The Chairman: Does the Chair understand that the gentleman 
    desires to withdraw the remark?
        Mr. Ottinger: That is correct, the remarks that the gentleman 
    made, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the remarks.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I likewise make a similar request. I 
    ask unanimous consent that my characterization of the gentleman be 
    withdrawn.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Maryland that his remark be withdrawn from the 
    record?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under the precedents,(6) where a 
Member

[[Page 10741]]

is granted permission to withdraw disorderly remarks from the Record, 
he must personally delete the words from the transcript, and the 
Official Reporters of Debate will not assume that responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See, for example, 110 Cong. Rec. 13254, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        10, 1964, where the Member did not take the necessary action to 
        delete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 51.6 Words objected to in Committee of the Whole may be withdrawn 
    by unanimous consent.

    On Feb. 8, 1978,(7) 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 
debate 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.'' (8) The following 
exchange then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 124 Cong. Rec. 2831, 2832, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. 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: (9) The time of the gentleman from New 
    York has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 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. Rosenthal: Mr. Chairman, in the interest of expediency, I 
    would ask unanimous consent that the words the gentleman from 
    Maryland thought offensive be withdrawn.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that all reference 
    made by the gentleman from New York to the gentleman from Maryland 
    will be withdrawn completely from the remarks of the gentleman from 
    New York as they will appear in the Record?
        Mr. Rosenthal: Yes, in this particular case.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?

[[Page 10742]]

        There was no objection.

Sec. 51.7 Words in debate demanded to be taken down were withdrawn by 
    unanimous consent.

    On July 13, 1978,(10) Mr. Ronald V. Dellums, of 
California, made the following remarks with reference to House 
Resolution 1267, a resolution to impeach Andrew Young, United States 
Ambassador to the United Nations, on the basis of statements made by 
Mr. Young concerning ``political prisoners'' in the United States:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 20714-15, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [Any] citizen of America has a right to free speech. So, Andrew 
    Young exercised that.
        It seems to me that there is no legal justification for 
    offering a resolution of impeachment of Andrew Young.

    Mr. Dellums further stated:

        It seems to me folly and absolute madness, total insanity, 
    totally devoid of intellectual capability, no legal backup, to 
    offer a resolution of impeachment of Andrew Young, for there is no 
    treason for making a statement. That is a violation of freedom.

    A demand was made that these words be taken down:

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the last remarks made by the gentleman, and 
    I demand that his words be taken down.
        Mr. Dellums: Which points is the gentleman responding to?
        Mr. Bauman: I would say to the Chair that the Chair well knows 
    the precedents of the House to require Members to respect the 
    motives of other Members. . . .
        Mr. Dellums: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the term ``madness'' and 
    ``insanity'' and make my case without those two words. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Is my understanding correct that unanimous consent 
    has been granted to withdraw those words from the Record?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) Without objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 51.8 Words objected to in debate may be withdrawn by unanimous 
    consent, but no debate is in order pending such a request.

    During consideration of the foreign aid authorization bill (H.R. 
12514) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 2, 1978,(12) 
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 23944, 23945, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cavanaugh [of Nebraska]: . . . I am highly 
    offended and irritated by much of the language presented here by 
    Mr. Bauman and by our colleague from Minnesota concerning the 
    administration support.
        [Mr. Cavanaugh further characterized Mr. Bauman's language as 
    ``outrageous,'' the characterization in question.]

[[Page 10743]]

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point 
    of order against the language of the 
    gentleman from Nebraska if he cannot conduct himself civilly in 
    debate. . . . I demand his words be taken down. . . .
        Mr. Cavanaugh: Mr. Chairman, insofar as the characterization 
    that I used regarding the gentleman's language could in any way be 
    construed to impugn the gentleman's character, I would ask 
    unanimous consent to withdraw it. It was an attempt to simply 
    convey my feelings of the inappropriateness of the language that 
    the gentleman had used in putting forth his argument.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Is not the only request the gentleman from Nebraska 
    (Mr. Cavanaugh) can make, under the rules of the House, a 
    unanimous-consent request to withdraw his remarks, and not to make 
    a speech?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is 
    correct.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Nebraska?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 51.9 Words objected to in 
    debate were withdrawn by unanimous consent prior to being reported 
    to the House.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Aug. 3, 1978,(14) during consideration of the foreign aid 
appropriation bill (H.R. 12931):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 124 Cong. Rec. 24238, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I just want 
    to say I think it is too bad all the Members of the House are not 
    here. I think we have heard from the gentleman from Wisconsin one 
    of the most outstanding and refreshing statements I have heard on 
    the subject of foreign affairs in many, many months. We heard a 
    voice of reason and responsibility bringing us all back to our 
    senses and asking us whether or not the American people are still 
    ready to assert leadership in the world, to work through to a more 
    sane and rational world state of affairs, or whether we are going 
    to heed all the extreme voices that would tear apart the structure 
    we have so painstakingly built up over the last 30 years to try to 
    make sense out of the world.
        [Mr. Seiberling further characterized some discussion of the 
    subject as ``hysterical.'']
        Mr. [C. W. Bill] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I demand the 
    gentleman's words be taken down. I just do not think my remarks 
    should be considered as hysterical and I demand the gentleman's 
    words be taken down. . . .
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
    withdraw whatever the remarks are that the gentleman from Florida 
    found objectionable. They were not addressed to him or against any 
    other Member. I did not mention his name. Whatever the words are 
    that he finds objectionable, then, in the interest of an amicable 
    debate, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw them.
        The Chairman: (15) Is there objection to the 
    unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).

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

[[Page 10744]]

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The words in question, characterizing some 
discussion of the issues as ``hysterical'', would probably not have 
been ruled out of order, since not in the context used referring to any 
Member.

Sec. 51.10 By unanimous consent, the Speaker was permitted to withdraw 
    remarks he delivered from the floor in debate in reference to a 
    specific Member, following a demand that the words be taken down.

    During consideration of H.R. 7542 (supplemental appropriations and 
rescission bill for fiscal year 1980) in the House on July 2, 
1980,(16) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 126 Cong. Rec. 18361, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    have served in legislative bodies for . . . years. In my 
    legislative lifetime I have never seen a Speaker ever make a wrong 
    ruling. . . .
        I was 16 years in the Massachusetts Legislature, and only once 
    did I ever see anybody appeal the Chair's ruling. . . .
        I am sorry that the gentlewoman from Massachusetts was duped 
    the way she was. I am sorry, in my opinion----
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    that the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Does the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts withdraw the word that was used?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Neill: The Speaker will withdraw the word. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    gentleman be permitted to withdraw the word ``duped.''
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Maryland?

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The word ``duped,'' used to mean 
``fooled,'' was arguably not out of order.

Sec. 51.11 Pending a demand that words spoken in debate be taken down 
    and ruled unparliamentary, the Chair may inquire whether the Member 
    whose remarks are challenged wishes to request unanimous consent to 
    modify his remarks before directing the Clerk to read them.

    On Dec. 8, 1982,(18) during consideration of the Defense 
appropriation bill (H.R. 7355) in the Committee of the Whole, demand 
was made that the following

[[Page 10745]]

words of Mr. Robert K. Dornan, of California, be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 128 Cong. Rec. 29466, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dornan of California: . . . When I overheard Mr. Harkin in 
    Communist China as he put on a Mao hat say, and he did not realize 
    I could hear him, ``It is an honor to wear a worker's hat''; that 
    is the hat of Mao who killed 30, 40, maybe 50 million people, I 
    realized what is Mr. Harkin's terrorist is my freedom fighter, and 
    what is my freedom fighter is his terrorist.
        I implore the Members to vote down this mischievous amendment. 
    . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I demand the 
    gentleman's words be taken down about our colleague, Mr. Harkin 
    supporting terrorists.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (19) Does the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Burton) withdraw his request?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Don Bailey (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. John L. Burton: No, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Dornan) willing to request that his remarks be modified in any way?
        Mr. Dornan of California: Did you ask, Would I modify my 
    remarks, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Yes.
        Mr. Dornan of California: No; it is a matter of personal 
    perception. I repeat, what is Mr. Harkin's terrorist is my freedom 
    fighter. What is my freedom fighter is obviously his terrorist. I 
    may be wrong. He may be wrong. That is up to the judgment of the 
    Members, but my perception about his misperceptions stands.
        Mr. John L. Burton: I have seen people crawfish. That is good 
    enough for me.
        Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request.

Sec. 51.12 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,(20) Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of 
Indiana, demanded that words spoken by Mr. John Rowland, of 
Connecticut, be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 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: (1) The Clerk will read the 
    words taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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 10746]]

        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. 51.13 Words taken down may be withdrawn only by unanimous consent.

    In the 100th Congress, upon a timely demand that certain words 
uttered in debate be taken down as unparliamentary, the Speaker ruled 
that the 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

[[Page 10747]]

that the offending language be stricken. The proceedings of Sept. 29, 
1988, are discussed in Sec. 47.10, supra.

Sec. 51.14 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.

    The proceedings of Feb. 27, 1985, concerning remarks alleging that 
certain Members of the House had ``stolen'' an election, are discussed 
in Sec. 53.7, infra.

--Modifying Words

Sec. 51.15 Where a demand is made that a Member's words be taken down, 
    he may by unanimous consent be allowed to proceed in debate if 
    permission is first granted to modify the words in order to delete 
    the objectionable matter.

    On Oct. 2, 1984,(2) 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.'' (3) A point of order was 
made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 130 Cong. Rec. 28522, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. The words were stricken from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentlewoman will 
    state her point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 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.

    After several parliamentary inquiries, the following occurred:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman have a unanimous-
    consent request?
        Mr. [Guy V.] Molinari [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my 
    request that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Weber) be permitted 
    to speak in order . . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from New York?
        Does the gentleman from Minnesota first ask unanimous consent 
    to modify his words?
        Mr. Weber: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
    words.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection?

[[Page 10748]]

        Ms. Oakar: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would 
    like to know what his words are going to be that he is going to 
    modify. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The words that were uttered just prior 
    to the gentlewoman's demand.
        Ms. Oakar: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Minnesota?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
    Weber) may proceed in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Permission for a Member to proceed in 
debate should not be granted until the words have been ruled on, or 
modified or withdrawn.

Withdrawal of Demand That Words Be Taken Down

Sec. 51.16 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,(5) 
the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 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:(6) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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

[[Page 10749]]

    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.

Striking Words From Record

Sec. 51.17 Where allegedly unparliamentary words were used in debate 
    but not objected to nor taken down, the House rejected a later 
    resolution called up by unanimous consent proposing to strike those 
    words from the Record.

    On May 10, 1948, the House granted unanimous consent for the 
immediate consideration of House Resolution 587, to strike from the 
Record allegedly unparliamentary words made on the floor of the House 
on May 6, 1948.(7) When the words were uttered, they were 
not objected to nor taken down and ruled upon by the Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 94 Cong. Rec. 5507, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House rejected the resolution proposing to strike the words 
from the Record and the sponsor of the resolution objected to a 
unanimous-consent request of the Member who uttered the words that he 
be permitted to withdraw them. A discussion ensued as to the practice 
to be followed when alleged unparliamentary words are used in debate 
but not taken down, and whether the unanimous-consent consideration of 
the resolution proposed by Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, furnished 
a precedent to permit future Members to move to strike out words in the 
Record because allegedly not heard at the time of 
utterance.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at pp. 5507-09. The Speaker has consistently held that words 
        uttered in debate must be objected to at the time they are made 
        (see Sec. Sec. 49.6, 49.7, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 51.18 The Speaker having ruled out of order certain words used by 
    a Member in debate, the House expunged from the Record his entire 
    speech.

    On Feb. 11, 1941,(9) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
was recognized for five minutes and was granted permission to revise 
and extend his remarks. Following Mr. Dickstein's address, Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, demanded

[[Page 10750]]

that certain words used in debate by Mr. Dickstein be taken down. The 
Clerk read the following words:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 87 Cong. Rec. 894, 895, 899, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickstein: I also charge, Mr. Speaker, that 110 facist 
    organizations in this country had the back key, and have now the 
    back key to the backdoor of the Dies committee.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled that the language reported 
was a breach of order and Mr. Rankin moved to expunge the entire speech 
of Mr. Dickstein from the Record. Following debate by Mr. Rankin, the 
House agreed to the motion.

Sec. 51.19 On one occasion, the proceedings under which a Member's 
    remarks were tak-en down were by unanimous consent deleted from the 
    Record and the Member was granted the privilege of revising and 
    extending his remarks.

    On May 31, 1939,(10) Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, asked 
unanimous consent that ``the proceedings under which the remarks of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Sam C. Massingale], in reference to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carl E. Mapes], were taken down may be 
deleted from the Record and that the gentleman from Oklahoma may have 
the right to revise and extend his own remarks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 6465, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The request was granted after Mr. Rayburn gave assurances that the 
request was made with the approval of both Mr. Mapes and Mr. 
Massingale.

Sec. 51.20 A Member, having been called to order for words spoken in 
    debate and those words having been held unparliamentary may not 
    proceed without the permission of the House; and, on motion, the 
    unparliamentary words may be stricken from the Record by the House.

    On Aug. 21, 1974,(11) it was demonstrated that 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 situation is 
properly resolved. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 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

[[Page 10751]]

    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: (12) The gentleman demands that the 
    words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would 
    only like to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts and to the 
    House that as for the gentleman from Massachusetts, I can 
    understand his concern about my objection yesterday. It was the 
    only possible way in which I or any other Member could have 
    actually spoken on the resolution pending.
        If he will look at the page numbers he cited, he will find 
    subsequent to that, that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine), the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dennis), and the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Wiggins), all in my presence asked permission and 
    did extend their remarks. And, of course, the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts got 5 legislative days to extend on his special 
    order. I did not object to any of these requests.
        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that 
    point?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts cannot proceed at 
    this point.
        Mr. Bauman: And, Mr. Speaker, a number of other Members did 
    extend their remarks, and I did not object.
        The Speaker: Is there objection? . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I do object. . . .
        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.

[[Page 10752]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Sisk moves that the words of the gentleman from 
        Massachusetts, Mr. O'Neill, be stricken from the Record.

        Mr. Sisk: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California.
        The motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2546 seems to 
support the proposition that the restriction imposed upon a Member 
whose words are held unparliamentary, which prevents that Member from 
proceeding further in debate, extends only to further debate on the 
``immediately pending question'' and not to subsequent debate during 
that day. But on Jan. 29, 1946,(13) it was held that a 
Member may not again proceed the same day without the permission of the 
House. The prohibition should in any case extend for the entire day 
unless permission of the House to proceed in order is granted, in order 
to properly enforce the Chair's ruling holding the words to be 
unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 533, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Time To Strike Words

Sec. 51.21 When objectionable words are reported to the House from the 
    Committee of the Whole it is the duty of the Chair first to 
    determine whether the words violate the rules of the House before 
    motions are in order for the disposition of the matter.

    On May 13, 1932,(14) certain words used in debate in the 
Committee of the Whole were demanded to be taken down. The Committee 
rose and the Clerk read to the House the words reported from the 
Committee. After the words were reported, Mr. Homer C. Parker, of 
Georgia, addressed Speaker Pro Tempore William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
in order to make a motion with respect to the words objected to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 10135, 10136, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Parker of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the words that 
    have been taken down----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman 
    from Georgia that the preliminary question for the Chair to decide 
    is whether or not the words taken down are opprobrious or in 
    contravention of the rules of the House and of orderly debate. The 
    statement made by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Blanton] has been 
    reported by the Clerk and is now before the House for 
    consideration.
        The present occupant of the chair, of course, regrets 
    personally that he is

[[Page 10753]]

    called upon to make a decision affecting this matter, because the 
    Chair can readily understand how the words in question may have 
    been construed to disparage the gentleman from Georgia, but it is 
    only the duty of the Chair, under the circumstances, to undertake 
    to construe, from a parliamentary standpoint, whether or not the 
    words used are offensive in their nature or tend to bring the 
    gentleman from Georgia into contempt or disrepute before the House.
        However much the Chair would like to have an expression of the 
    House on this language (15) that has been taken down, 
    the Chair is compelled to come to the conclusion that the language 
    in itself does not offend the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The words objected to involved the characterization by one Member 
        (Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas) of another (Mr. Parker, of 
        Georgia) as ``the general who won the war.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 51.22 A motion to exclude words from the Record is not privileged 
    until the Chair has decided that the words are out of order.

    On June 14, 1929,(16) Mr. B. Frank Murphy, of Ohio, 
demanded that certain words used in debate by Mr. Fiorello H. 
LaGuardia, of New York, condemning the government as having become 
``something hated, something oppressive'' be taken down. Speaker Pro 
Tempore Thomas S. Williams, of Illinois, directed the Clerk to report 
the words objected to. Immediately following the reading of the words, 
Mr. Murphy moved to exclude the words taken down from the Congressional 
Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 71 Cong. Rec. 2924, 71st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled that the motion was not in order:

        The Chair will say to the gentleman from Ohio that his motion 
    is not in order until the Chair has ruled as to whether the words 
    objected to and demanded to be taken down are out of order.

    On Jan. 17, 1933,(17) Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of 
Pennsylvania, sought to impeach President Herbert C. Hoover for high 
crimes and misdemeanors and introduced a resolution impeaching the 
President. After the resolution was read, Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, moved to lay the resolution of impeachment on the table. Mr. 
Fred A. Britten, of Illinois, then raised a parliamentary inquiry: ``Is 
a motion to expunge the language which has just transpired in the House 
in order at this time?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 76 Cong. Rec. 1965-68, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, indicated that the request could 
be made at that time only by unanimous consent.

Sec. 51.23 A motion to expunge a Member's remarks from the

[[Page 10754]]

    Record, the Chair having held them to be unparliamentary, is in 
    order even though the House by vote has authorized the Member to 
    proceed.

    On June 7, 1933,(18) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, 
was called to order for referring to Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New 
York, by name in debate and for holding him up to ridicule. Mr. John 
E. Rankin, of Mississippi, then moved that Mr. Blanton be permitted to 
proceed in order, and the House by vote so authorized Mr. Blanton to 
proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 77 Cong. Rec. 5203-05, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, then arose to move that 
the words spoken by Mr. Blanton be expunged from the Record. Mr. Rankin 
made the point of order that the motion came too late. Speaker Henry T. 
Rainey, of Illinois, ruled that the motion to expunge was in order 
since no business intervened between the vote on the motion to proceed 
in order and the entering of the motion to expunge words from the 
Record.

Sec. 51.24 A demand that certain words spoken in debate be taken down 
    must be made before further debate intervenes, but a Member may 
    by unanimous consent withdraw from the Record words he had 
    previously spoken.

    During debate on H.R. 11(19) in the Committee of the 
Whole on Feb. 24, 1977,(20) the proceedings described above 
occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        Amendments.
20. 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: (1) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    (Mr. Shuster) asks

[[Page 10755]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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. 51.25 When there is a demand that certain words used in debate be 
    taken down, the words objected to may be withdrawn by unanimous 
    consent by the Member using them, but where the words are not 
    withdrawn, the Speaker will rule on the propriety of the words.

    The proceedings of Mar. 19, 1985, concerning the propriety of words 
spoken in debate by Mr. Harry Reid, of Nevada, are discussed in 
Sec. 51.36, infra.

--Debate on Motion To Strike

Sec. 51.26 Debate on a motion to expunge from the Record certain 
    remarks used in debate and ruled out of order is under the hour 
    rule.

    On Feb. 11, 1941,(2) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
demanded that certain words used in debate by Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of 
New York, impugning the motives and actions of a House committee be 
taken down. After Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words 
used were a breach of order in debate, Mr. Rankin moved to expunge the 
entire speech of Mr. Dickstein from the Record, and asked for 
recognition on his motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 87 Cong. Rec. 894, 895, 899, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When Mr. Rankin asked whether he was recognized for one hour, the 
Speaker responded in the affirmative.
    On June 12, 1947,(3) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, ruled that words used in debate referring to the 
Committee on Un-American Activities as ``the Un-American Committee'' 
were a breach of order. Following the Speaker's ruling, Mr. Rankin 
moved to strike those words from

[[Page 10756]]

the Record and asked for recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 6896, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker responded to a question by Mr. Rankin as to the time of 
debate allowed him on the motion to strike words from the Record:

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I am recognized now for 1 hour and I 
    have a right to yield to any other Member I desire in this 
    discussion?
        The Speaker: As long as the gentleman retains the floor he may 
    yield, of course, but he must retain the floor for 1 hour, if he so 
    desires.

Discipline of Member for Unparliamentary Words

Sec. 51.27 When words used in debate are taken down on demand, ruled 
    out of order and stricken from the Record by the House, it is for 
    the House and not for the Chair to decide what further action by 
    way of discipline or censure shall be taken by motion or 
    resolution.

    On Feb. 22, 1945,(4) Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, 
used allegedly blasphemous language in relation to Mr. John E. Rankin, 
of Mississippi, in House debate. The words were demanded to be taken 
down and Speaker Pro Tempore Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, ruled the 
words out of order and by unanimous consent ordered that they be 
stricken from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 91 Cong. Rec. 1371, 1372, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, then stated a parliamentary 
inquiry whether ``it is in order for this House to enforce some 
discipline or whether the mere striking of such outrageous language 
from the Record is all that is going to occur today.''
    Speaker Pro Tempore Ramspeck responded ``The Chair thinks that is a 
matter for the House to determine by proper action.'' A resolution to 
censure Mr. Hook for his disorderly language was later offered but 
withdrawn.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 1390, 1391, 1445, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 23, 26, 
        1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 51.28 A Member having introduced a resolution to censure another 
    for words spoken in debate later withdrew the resolution by 
    unanimous consent.

    On Feb. 22, 1945,(6) Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, 
used allegedly blasphemous language in criticism of Mr. John E. Rankin, 
of Mississippi. Speaker Pro Tempore Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, ruled 
that the words were a

[[Page 10757]]

breach of order and directed the language to be stricken from the 
Record. The Speaker Pro Tempore then stated in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, that the 
House could take further action by way of enforcing discipline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 1371, 1372, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Feb. 23, the following day,(7) both Mr. Hook and Mr. 
Rankin apologized to the House for their actions on the preceding day. 
Mr. Smith addressed the House in relation to a resolution of the 
censure against Mr. Hook:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 1396.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I feel today as I felt yesterday, that there should be a 
    resolution of censure. I think that, regardless of who the person 
    may be, when language of the type that was used yesterday on the 
    floor of this House is used by a Member, the House cannot ignore it 
    without lowering the dignity and the standing of the House in the 
    Country.

    Mr. Smith introduced House Resolution 147, to censure Mr. Hook; the 
resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules.
    The resolution read as follows:

        Whereas during a discussion in the House of Representatives on 
    the twenty-second day of February, 1945, while Mr. Hoffman of 
    Michigan had the floor, a colloquy occurred between the Member from 
    Mississippi, Mr. Rankin, and the Member from Michigan, Mr. Hook; 
    and
        Whereas the Member from Michigan, Mr. Hook, in response to a 
    remark by the Member from Mississippi, Mr. Rankin, used the 
    following words, ``You are a God damn liar when you say Communist 
    Party.''; and
        Whereas the language of the Member from Michigan, Mr. Hook, 
    flagrantly violated the rules of order of the House, and was 
    unbecoming a gentleman and a Member of this body; and
        Whereas the conduct of the Member from Michigan, Mr. Hook, 
    impinged the dignity and reflected upon the good repute and orderly 
    conduct of the House of Representatives in a manner tending to 
    lower the public regard for the proceedings of the House, and 
    merits the severe censure of the House for the same: Therefore be 
    it
        Resolved, That the said Frank Hook be now brought to the bar of 
    the House by the Sergeant at Arms, and be there publicly censured 
    by the Speaker in the name of the House.

    On Feb. 26, 1945,(8) Mr. Smith obtained unanimous 
consent to ``withdraw'' the resolution (Speaker Pro Tempore John 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, presiding).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 91 Cong. Rec. 1445, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: It is technically not in order, even by 
unanimous consent, to ``withdraw'' a measure which has been introduced 
and referred.

Sec. 51.29 Words uttered by a Member when not under recognition by the 
    Chair are ex

[[Page 10758]]

    cluded from the Record; and while a Member who is held to have 
    breached the rules of decorum in debate is 
    presumptively disabled from further recognition on that day, by 
    tradition the Speaker's ruling and any necessary expungement of the 
    Record are deemed sufficient sanction, and by custom the chastened 
    Member is permitted to proceed in order (usually by unanimous 
    consent).

    The proceedings of July 29, 1994,(9) demonstrate the 
procedures following a breach of decorum in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Maxine] Waters [of California]: Madam Speaker, last 
    evening a Member of this House, Peter King, had to be gaveled out 
    of order at the Whitewater hearings of the Banking Committee. He 
    had to be gaveled out of order because he badgered a woman who was 
    a witness from the White House, Maggie Williams. I am pleased I was 
    able to come to her defense. Madam Speaker, the day is over 
    when men can badger and intimidate women.
        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Madam 
    Speaker, I demand the gentlewoman's words be taken down.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The gentlewoman from 
    California [Ms. Waters] must suspend and be seated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carrie Meek (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the words.
        Ms. Waters:----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman will please desist and 
    take her seat.
        Ms. Waters:----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is about to direct the 
    Sergeant at Arms to present the mace.
        The Speaker: (11) The Clerk will report the words. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        While in the opinion of the Chair the word ``badgering'' is not 
    in itself unparliamentary, the Chair believes that the demeanor of 
    the gentlewoman from California was not in good order in the 
    subsequent period immediately following those words having been 
    uttered.
        Accordingly, the Chair rules that without leave of the House, 
    the gentlewoman from California may not proceed for the rest of 
    today. . . .
        Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Reserving the right 
    to object, Mr. Speaker, does that mean that all of the words will 
    be taken down subsequent to the point that she was ruled out of 
    order and stricken from the Record?
        The Speaker: None of those words will be in the Record, the 
    Chair will state to the gentleman. None of the words will be in the 
    Record subsequent to that since she was not recognized. . . .
        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by the word 
    ``demeanor.'' I was in the Chamber at the time, and I did see the 
    Chair try to gavel the gentlewoman

[[Page 10759]]

    down, but I can understand why she could not hear, because there 
    were so many people at mikes and I think she was confused by that. 
    So I am a little troubled about that. How can you challenge 
    ``demeanor''?
        The Speaker: The Chair wishes to advise the gentlewoman from 
    Colorado that it is the opinion of the Chair that the Chair at the 
    time was attempting to insist that the gentlewoman from California 
    desist with any further statements and sit down. She did not accord 
    cooperation to the Chair and follow the Chair's instructions. 
    Consequently, it is the finding of the Chair that her demeanor at 
    that point in refusing to accept the Chair's instructions was out 
    of order.
        The Chair wishes to ask if there is objection to the 
    gentlewoman from California proceeding in good order.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right 
    to object, Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the Chair is putting 
    the question to the House under unanimous consent of the 
    gentlewoman being able to proceed for the rest of the day?
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair.
        The Speaker: Without objection, so ordered.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 51.30 A Member was disciplined for stating that the President had 
    given ``aid and comfort to the enemy,'' and the Chair indicated 
    that the Member would not be allowed to speak on the floor of the 
    House or to insert remarks in the Record in any manner or form for 
    24 hours.

    On Jan. 25, 1995,(12) a Member was disciplined for 
remarks relating to the President:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Dornan asked and was given permission to address the House 
    for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: . . . I was offended by 
    Clinton's speech last night on 15 points.
        I will do a 5-minute special order tonight I have just signed 
    up for. I can only mention four.
        The first one is new covenant. The Ark of the Covenant was the 
    Old Covenant. The New Covenant was the Son of God, Jesus Christ. . 
    . .
        No. 2, to put a Medal of Honor winner in the gallery that 
    joined the Marine Corps at 16, fudging his birth certificate, that 
    pulled that second grenade under his stomach, miraculously 
    surviving and saving his four friends, he did that 6 days past his 
    17th birthday.
        Does Clinton think putting a Medal of Honor winner up there is 
    not going to recall for most of us that he avoided the draft three 
    times and put teenagers in his place possibly to go to Vietnam?
        No. 3, the line on the cold war. . . .
        By the way, Mr. Speaker, the second amendment is not for 
    killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without 
    an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians, like Grozny, 
    1776, when they take your independence away. . . .

[[Page 10760]]

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio of California: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) All Members will 
    suspend. The Clerk will report the words spoken by the gentleman. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John J. Duncan, Jr. (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Even Andrea Mitchell of NBC took note that [it] is Ronald 
        Reagan's prerogative, George Bush's and all of us who wore the 
        uniform or served in a civilian capacity to crush the evil 
        empire. Clinton gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In the opinion of the Chair, that is 
    not a proper reference to the President. Without objection, the 
    words are stricken from the Record. . . .
        Mr. Fazio of California: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
    object, I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] owes the 
    entire institution, the Congress, and the President an apology.
        Mr. Dornan: Hell no; hell, no. . . .
        Unanimous consent to proceed for 15 seconds? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Fazio] has the floor at this moment.
        Mr. Fazio of California: I would be happy to yield to my 
    colleague from California, since I have the time, to hear his 
    response.
        Mr. Dornan: Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Fazio of California: I yield to the gentleman from 
    California.
        Mr. Dornan: To my distinguished friend and colleague, Maj. Earl 
    Kolbile, Lt. Comdr. J. J. Connell was beaten to death in Hanoi. I 
    have had friends beaten to death in Hanoi, tortured and beaten. You 
    have not. . . .
        I will not withdraw my remarks. I will not only not apologize. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: I ask that the words of 
    the gentleman from California be taken down.
        Mr. Dornan: Good. I will leave the floor, no apology, and I 
    will not speak the rest of the day. The truth is the truth.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House will be in order. The 
    gentleman's words have already been taken down. . . .
        Mr. Fazio of California: The gentleman is challenging the words 
    that were uttered in response to my question.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair rules that those words as 
    follows ``I believe the President did give aid and comfort to the 
    enemy, Hanoi,'' were also out of order. The Chair has ruled that, 
    based on the precedents of the House, the words of the gentleman 
    from California were out of order, and without objection, both sets 
    of words will be stricken from the Record. . . .
        Mr. Fazio of California: I have a parliamentary inquiry of the 
    Speaker at this point.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
        Mr. Fazio of California: When the Speaker rules that the 
    gentleman should not be allowed to speak for 24 hours, does that 
    encompass remarks that might be placed in the Record, participation 
    in special orders, and other activities that might not involve the 
    gentleman speaking on the floor?

[[Page 10761]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is the House's determination as to 
    whether or not the Member should be allowed to proceed in order for 
    the remainder of the day. That determination shall not be made by 
    the Chair.
        Mr. Fazio of California: In other words, is the House required 
    to vote on whether or not remarks should be placed in the Record?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Unparliamentary remarks cannot be 
    inserted in the Record.
        Mr. Fazio of California: But remarks that are not ruled 
    unparliamentary may be placed in the Record if they are not uttered 
    on the floor; is that the ruling of the Speaker?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Unparliamentary remarks should not be 
    inserted in the Record in any manner or form. . . .
        Mr. Fazio of California: So in other words, just to confirm the 
    Speaker's ruling, we will not read or hear from the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Dornan] for the next 24 hours; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Unless the House permits him to 
    proceed in order, the gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Fazio of California: And for the House to permit that would 
    require a majority vote?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would require either unanimous 
    consent or a majority vote of the House to permit the gentleman to 
    proceed in order. . . .
        Mr. [David E.] Bonior [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman 
    from California [Mr. Dornan] is on his feet. Is he not supposed to 
    remain seated until the determination?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman can either be seated or 
    leave the Chamber.
        Mr. Bonior: He chose to leave the Chamber; OK. . . .

    In a further ruling, the Chair stated that the following words were 
not unparliamentary:

            By the way, Mr. Speaker, the Second Amendment is not for 
        killing little ducks and leaving Huey, Duey and Louie without 
        an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians, like Grozny, 
        1776, when they take your independence away. Thank you, Mr. 
        Speaker.

Motion To Strike Words

Sec. 51.31 A motion to table is 
    a preferential motion which may be raised to dispose of a motion to 
    expunge certain words from the Record.

    On June 16, 1947,(14) certain words used in debate 
characterizing a committee report as containing ``lies and half-
truths'' 
were demanded to be taken down. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., 
of Massachusetts, ruled that the words used were unparliamentary. Mr. 
John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved to strike the entire statement 
from the Record. On that motion he asked for recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 7065, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, moved to lay the motion to

[[Page 10762]]

strike words on the table. Mr. Rankin objected that he had already been 
recognized. Speaker Martin ruled that the motion to table was 
``preferential and not debatable.'' The House rejected the motion to 
table.

--Subject to Germane Amendment

Sec. 51.32 Where a motion was made to expunge the remarks of a Member, 
    an amendment to it proposing to expunge the remarks of another 
    Member was held not germane.

    On June 7, 1933,(15) Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New 
Jersey, made a motion to expunge from the Record certain words used in 
debate by Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, which had been ruled out of 
order by Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois. Before the question was 
put on the motion to expunge, Mr. William B. Oliver, of Alabama, 
offered an amendment to the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 77 Cong. Rec. 5205, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I move to amend the motion of the gentleman from 
    New Jersey [Mr. Lehlbach] by including in the language to be 
    stricken out the language used by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Snell], which reflects on the President.

    Mr. Lehlbach made the point of order that Mr. Oliver's amendment 
was not germane since the House was ``dealing with language reported to 
the House and uttered by the gentleman from Texas, and language spoken 
in committee by anybody else is not a germane amendment, to my 
motion.''
    Speaker Rainey sustained the point of order.

--Question of Privilege--To Strike Words

Sec. 51.33 On occasion, a resolution seeking to expunge unparliamentary 
    words from the Record has been offered as a question of privilege 
    of the House and agreed to.

    A resolution offered on Sept. 5, 1940,(16) sought to 
expunge from the Record certain unparliamentary remarks uttered on 
Sept. 4. Timely objection to the remarks had been made, and there had 
subsequently been some dispute as to whether unanimous consent had been 
given for the withdrawal of some or all of the remarks in question. The 
proceedings of Sept. 5 were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 11552, 11553, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the privilege of the House.

[[Page 10763]]

        The Speaker: (17) The gentleman will state his 
    question of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, I will not make a lengthy statement--
    --
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. In order to get recognition on the question of the privilege 
    of the House it is necessary for a Member to offer a resolution 
    first?
        The Speaker: That is the rule. . . .
        Mr. Hoffman: Must I offer the resolution before I state my 
    question?
        The Speaker: The gentleman must offer his resolution first, 
    under the rule.
        Mr. Hoffman: Very well, but I desire to be heard on the 
    question. However, I will not take more than 5 minutes.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman. The Clerk will 
    report the resolution.

                              House Resolution 591

            Whereas the gentleman from the Second District of Kentucky 
        [Mr. Vincent], referring to the gentleman from the Twentieth 
        District of Ohio [Mr. Sweeney], stated on the floor of the 
        House on September 4, 1940, as appears in the [daily] Record on 
        page 17450, ``I said I did not want to sit by a traitor to my 
        country;'' and
            Whereas such words were a violation of the rules of the 
        House and, as reprinted in the Record, charge the Member from 
        Ohio with a lack of patriotism, and with disloyalty to his 
        country, reflect upon him in his representative capacity and 
        upon the dignity of the House: Therefore, be it
            Resolved, That the words, ``I said I did not want to sit by 
        a traitor to 
        my country,'' be expunged from the Record. . . .

        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, the Record this morning contains that 
    statement. Most of the Members of the House are familiar with what 
    occurred last night. It is not my purpose to take the time of the 
    House to discuss the question of the privilege of the House. I will 
    present the resolution, and then move the previous question. The 
    facts upon which the question of the privilege of the House which I 
    raise are these:
        Yesterday, September 4, 1940, on the floor of the House, the 
    following occurred:
        The gentleman from the Second District of Kentucky rose and 
    made the following statement, as appears from the official 
    transcript of the reporter:

            Mr. Vincent of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I served in the World 
        War, and the World War, as I understood it then and as I 
        understand it now, was fought because we were being attacked by 
        submarines and women and children murdered on the high seas. To 
        say that my President of that time brought on that war to me 
        was an untruth. . . .
            When he came down to sit with me, I got up and moved. . . . 
        I said I did not want to sit by a traitor to my country. Then 
        he attacked me and you know what happened.

        Following the word ``happened,'' the gentleman from the Second 
    District of Kentucky continued:

            I have no apology to make--

        And followed that by a sentence consisting of 18 words, which 
    were subsequently deleted from the stenographer's copy sent to the 
    printer.
        Then the following occurred:

            Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Speaker, I demand recognition on a point 
        of order.

[[Page 10764]]

            The Speaker pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
            Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the 
        gentleman who just left the floor be taken down, because they 
        violate the rules of the House.
            The Speaker pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words 
        complained of.
            Mr. Vincent of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
        consent to withdraw the last sentence of my statement.
            Mr. Dworshak. I object, Mr. Speaker.
            The Speaker pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky asks 
        unanimous consent to withdraw the statement. Is there 
        objection? The Chair hears none.
            Mr. Bradley of Michigan. I object, Mr. Speaker. . . .

        Later, the following occurred: . . .

            Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Speaker, a moment ago certain words were 
        uttered by the gentleman on the floor of the House which I 
        demanded be taken down. No report was made of those words. I 
        demand the regular order--the taking down of the words, the 
        report of the words, and the reading by the Clerk.
            The Speaker pro tempore. Subsequently, unanimous consent 
        was granted for the words to be withdrawn.
            Mr. Hoffman. Oh, no, Mr. Speaker; three Members were on 
        their feet--I was one of them--and objecting to that.
            The Speaker pro tempore. That was the ruling of the Chair. 
        . . .

        If it be true that there was no objection to the unanimous-
    consent request of the gentleman from the Second District of 
    Kentucky, that consent, according to the printed Record and 
    according to the reporter's record, was as follows:

            Mr. Vincent of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
        consent to withdraw the last sentence of my statement.

        The last sentence of the statement was the sentence consisting 
    of 18 words and, had unanimous consent been granted to withdraw the 
    last sentence of the previous statement made by the gentleman from 
    the Second District of Kentucky, there was no consent to withdraw 
    the words, ``I have no apology to make.''
        The striking out of those words from the official transcript 
    furnished by the reporter and the failure to print them in the 
    record of the House renders the Record inaccurate and untrue.
        The words, as they now appear in the daily printed Record, 
    September 4, page 17450--

            I said I did not want to sit by a traitor to my country--

        Were a violation of the rules of the House and, as reprinted in 
    the Record, charge the Member from Ohio with a lack of patriotism, 
    and with disloyalty to his country, reflect upon him in his 
    representative capacity and upon the dignity of the House.
        These words were objected to; a demand was made that they be 
    taken down; and, under the rules of the House, they should either 
    have been taken down or unanimous consent should have been obtained 
    to withdraw them from the Record.
        Unanimous consent to withdraw these words just quoted--that 
    is--

            I said I did not want to sit by a traitor to my country--

        Was not given. The words were not taken down and read to the 
    House.

[[Page 10765]]

    They now appear in the Record. They reflect upon the Member from 
    Ohio. They bring disrepute upon the House and reflect upon the 
    integrity of the House, if permitted to remain in the Record.
        Mr. Speaker, I therefore move the adoption of the resolution, 
    and, upon that, move the previous question.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 51.34 The House, on a question of privilege of the House, ordered 
    expunged from the Record unparliamentary remarks after the Member 
    using them failed to withdraw them pursuant to a leave to revise.

    The proceedings of Sept. 5, 1940, are discussed in Sec. 51.33, 
supra.

Sec. 51.35 The House considered as a question of privilege of the House 
    and adopted a resolution expunging from the Record unparliamentary 
    remarks inserted by a Member without permission to revise and 
    extend.

    On Aug. 27, 1940,(18) Mr. Jacob Thorkelson, of Montana, 
arose to a question of personal privilege and to a question of the 
privilege of the House. He introduced the following resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 11046-49, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas the gentleman from the Fifth District of Illinois, Mr. 
    Sabath, caused to be inserted in the Congressional Record of August 
    14, 1940, on page 10342, the following remarks:
        ``The House will recall that in Appendix of the Record, pages 
    3006-3010, I showed that he had placed in the Record up to that 
    time 210 full pages of scurrilous matter at a cost of $9,400 to 
    taxpayers. I showed that he had imposed upon the House by inserting 
    in one of his leaves to print a forged letter of Col. E. M. House, 
    confidant of the late Woodrow Wilson, in which Colonel House was 
    placed in the false position of being in a conspiracy to restore 
    the American Colonies to Great Britain. After that performance, and 
    before, I lost all confidence in him.''
        And whereas such insertion is a violation of the privilege of 
    the House, in that said remarks charge a Member of the House with 
    having inserted in the Record a forged letter; and

        Whereas the insertion of said remarks results in the Record 
    being inaccurate, in that the Record as printed contains statements 
    which from the Record appear to have been made on the floor of the 
    House, but for which permission for insertion in the Record was not 
    obtained; and
        Whereas said remarks, as so inserted, were not in order and 
    were an abuse of the privilege of the House: Therefore, be it
        Resolved, That the remarks appearing on page 15814 of the 
    Congressional Record under date of August 14, 1940, to wit: ``The 
    House will recall that in the Appendix of the Record, pages

[[Page 10766]]

    3006-3010, I showed that he had placed in the Record up to that 
    time 210 full pages of scurrilous matter at a cost of $9,400 to 
    taxpayers. I showed that he had imposed upon the House by inserting 
    in one of his leaves to print a forged letter of Col. E. M. House, 
    confidant of the late Woodrow Wilson, in which Colonel House was 
    placed in the false position of being in a conspiracy to restore 
    the American Colonies to Great Britain. After that performance, and 
    even before, I lost all confidence in him'' be, and they hereby 
    are, expunged from the Congressional Record, and are declared to be 
    not a legitimate part of the official Record of the House.

    Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, first ruled that a 
statement by a Member that another Member had introduced a forged 
letter into the Record was not grounds for a question of personal 
privilege. However, the Speaker requested Mr. Thorkelson to withhold 
his question of privilege of the House for the time being so that the 
Chair could have the opportunity to find out from the reporters' notes 
whether Mr. Adolph J. Sabath had been granted permission to revise and 
extend his remarks in the Record.
    On the following day, Aug. 28, 1940,(19) the question of 
privilege presented by Mr. Thorkelson was considered in the House as 
the unfinished business from the preceding day. Speaker Bankhead ruled 
that extension of remarks in the Record by a Member without first 
obtaining permission of the House to revise and extend was grounds for 
a question of privilege of the House. The House then adopted the 
resolution offered by Mr. Thorkelson expunging from the Record remarks 
inserted by Mr. Sabath without such permission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 11150-58, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Proceed in Order

Sec. 51.36 Where unparliamentary words used in debate have been 
    stricken from the Record, the offending Member may be permitted to 
    proceed in order by unanimous consent or by nondebatable motion; 
    but a Member who is not permitted by the House to proceed in order 
    loses the floor and may not participate in debate on the same day 
    even on time yielded to him by another Member.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 19, 1985: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 5532, 5533, 5537, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harry] Reid [of Nevada]: Mr. Speaker, on February 26 of 
    this year one of my constituents traveled nearly

[[Page 10767]]

    3,000 miles to Washington specifically to see me about a critical 
    issue, but he did not. . . . I was called away from something very 
    important to become captive, once again, to an abusive practice, an 
    abuse inflicted upon the entire House of Representatives and the 
    legislative process itself, voting on the Journal.

    Mr. Reid made further comments, indicated below, which were the 
subject of a demand that the words be taken down:

        Mr. [Vin] Weber [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the 
    gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, would it be in order, in view of the gentleman's 
    statement a minute ago, for me to ask unanimous consent that he be 
    permitted to withdraw his words?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Yes. The Chair would 
    entertain such a motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that I appreciate 
    the request of the gentleman from Minnesota, but I do not think I 
    said anything offensive, and I would ask for a ruling on that.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule.
        The Clerk will report the words.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            One of the most important things to remember is that those 
        Members who call for these wasteful votes are led by my 
        distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker, who 
        speaks constantly of the need to do away with government waste, 
        and he is literally speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would announce that it is 
    not proper to impugn the motive of another Member. We have 
    precedents here in the House. Mr. Knutson, of Minnesota: ``I cannot 
    believe that the gentleman from Mississippi is sincere in what he 
    has just said.'' And that was held not in order on November 2, 
    1942.
        The Chair must state that the words of the gentleman from 
    Nevada have, in his opinion, an unparliamentary connotation and 
    shall be stricken.
        Without objection, the gentleman from Nevada may proceed. Do I 
    hear an objection?
        Mr. Weber: Yes, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Would the Chair clarify the parliamentary situation in which 
    the gentleman from Nevada finds himself?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The Chair has ruled that the 
    gentleman from Nevada misspoke on the words ``speaking out of both 
    sides of his mouth,'' and therefore those words shall be stricken.
        The Member only can proceed by permission of the House. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the gentleman from Nevada may be permitted 
    to proceed.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Washington that the gentleman from Nevada be 
    allowed to finish his remarks?
        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Reserving the right to 
    object----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California reserves 
    the right to object. . . .

[[Page 10768]]

        Let the Chair restate what has occurred here.
        The gentleman has propounded a parliamentary inquiry, and the 
    Chair has responded that the Chair has ruled that those words are 
    offensive and shall be stricken. It is not a matter of further 
    debate.
        Mr. Lungren: I understand. I am still proceeding under my 
    reservation, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question occurs now on whether or 
    not the gentleman is allowed to proceed with the understanding that 
    those words have been stricken. . . .
        Mr. Lungren: . . . Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, I ask the 
    gentleman at this point in time whether he would agree to withdraw 
    his remarks. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is not in the parliamentary 
    procedures or rules of the House for any further debate on this 
    matter. The Chair has ruled affirmatively that the words shall be 
    stricken.
        The only question now before this House is whether or not----
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, you have constrained me to object, 
    and I do object at this time. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from 
    Arkansas (Mr. Alexander) is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
        Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    recognize the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Reid). I yield to the 
    gentleman from Nevada. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman cannot be yielded to at 
    this time. . . .
        Is there objection to the gentleman from Arkansas yielding 
    further to the gentleman from Nevada?
        Mr. Alexander: . . . Do I not have a right to yield to any 
    Member of this House? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that if a Member 
    in this particular case has been precluded from continuing, he 
    cannot be yielded to on this subject without unanimous consent.
        If the gentleman wants to propound the unanimous-consent 
    request, and hearing no objection, he could yield.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Arkansas to yield to the gentleman from Nevada? . . .
        Mr. Lungren: . . . I will be constrained to object, and I do 
    object at this time. . . .
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have not announced the subject 
    which I intend to address. How can the Chair rule against me 
    yielding to another Member when the Chair does not know the subject 
    that I intend to address?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would announce to the 
    distinguished gentleman from Arkansas that, under the rules of the 
    House, at any time a Member's words are taken down, under the rules 
    he is not permitted on that particular legislative business day to 
    speak to the House without permission of the body. An objection was 
    heard to the unanimous-consent request. . . .
        Mr. Weber: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Reid) be allowed to proceed.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Minnesota?

[[Page 10769]]

        There was no objection.

Sec. 51.37 The motion that a Member ruled out of order for words spoken 
    in debate be permitted to proceed in order is not inconsistent with 
    the prohibition in clause 4 of Rule XIV that the offending Member 
    may not automatically proceed, since it permits the House to 
    determine the extent of the sanction for the breach of order.

    On May 9, 1990,(2) the following proceedings occurred in 
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 136 Cong. Rec. 9828, 9829, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Torricelli asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [Robert G.] Torricelli [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, you 
    heard it here today: Republican Member after Republican Member 
    taking the floor, predicting that the President will never raise 
    taxes.
        I am here to predict that he will raise taxes. And, Mr. 
    Speaker, we are both right because no doubt, for the President's 
    friends, for those of privilege in American, he will never raise 
    taxes.
        But for you and for me and for the overwhelming majority of 
    Americans, he is--he says that he is going to, and he is about 
    doing it. It isn't, Mr. Speaker, that the President is 
    intellectually dishonest, though indeed in the last election he 
    was. It is about the fact that he has a $500 billion----
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    that the gentleman's words be taken down.
        [The words in question were held to be unparliamentary, the 
    Speaker Pro Tempore (3) stating as follows:]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In referring to the President during debate a Member shall 
    abstain from ``terms of approbrium,'' such as calling the President 
    a ``liar''--V, 5094, VIII, 2498.
        Without objection the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
    Torricelli] may proceed in order.
        [Objection was heard.]
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does any Member move that the 
    gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] may proceed in order? . 
    . .
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make that 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion of the 
    gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. . . .

        So the motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The House has voted to allow the 
    gentleman to proceed in order. The gentleman has 16 seconds 
    remaining. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Pennsylvania will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: If I understand correctly what just happened in the 
    course of events, it was that the Chair did rule that the 
    gentleman's words were inappropriate, is that correct?

[[Page 10770]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair did so rule.
        Mr. Walker: And the penalty for such a ruling would normally be 
    that the gentleman would not be allowed to speak for the rest of 
    the day in the House Chamber, is that not correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House permitted him to proceed in 
    order.
        Mr. Walker: Under the rules, Mr. Speaker, the rules state that 
    someone having had the Chair so rule is not permitted to speak in 
    the House for the rest of the day, is that not correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Walker: So by taking the action which the party did a few 
    minutes ago, the majority party did, what they did was basically 
    overrule the rules with regard to the penalty for having words 
    taken down.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The motion to allow the gentleman to 
    proceed is a proper parliamentary motion under the same rule.
        Mr. Walker: Yes. I understand. But the effect of the action, 
    the effect of the motion, was to override the rules of the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rules of the House the Chair 
    cannot say that one part of the rule has precedence over the 
    practice of the House paramount to that rule.
        Mr. Walker: Well, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: If the motion had not been made, the gentleman 
    would not have been permitted to speak for the rest of the day, is 
    that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Walker: So the effect of the motion was to allow the 
    gentleman to do something which the rules would otherwise not 
    permit him.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House has followed the normal 
    practice. There are two aspects to the rule. The House proceeded 
    under the rules, and both procedures are proper. The House voted 
    and the gentleman was allowed to proceed for 16 seconds.
        Mr. Walker: I have a further parliamentary inquiry. So in other 
    words what the Chair is saying is that the will of the majority can 
    prevail, even though it is over and above the rules that are 
    adopted by the----
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, regular order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Yates] is absolutely correct. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where the House has voted to allow a Member 
called to order to proceed in order, the offending Member is recognized 
for the remainder of his debate time, as indicated above.