[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§ 52. Permission To Explain or To Proceed in Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10770-10793]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                         E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
 
Sec. 52. --Permission To Explain or To Proceed in Order

    A Member whose words are demanded to be taken down must take his 
seat and if his words are

[[Page 10771]]

held unparliamentary may not proceed on the same day without the 
consent of the House.(4) But he may be recognized to ask 
unanimous consent to modify or withdraw his remarks before a ruling is 
made, and, if granted, he thereby retains the right to proceed in 
debate.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. Sec. 52.4-52.6, infra.
            Parliamentarian's Note: The dicta of the Speaker Pro 
        Tempore in 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2546 that a Member called 
        to order can proceed without the consent of the House after the 
        disposition of the pending question is at variance with the 
        other rulings of the Chair that the disability remains 
        throughout the legislative day.
 5. See Sec. Sec. 52.1, 52.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules provide for motions to allow the Member to explain and to 
proceed in order, which motions must be made by another Member before 
the Speaker rules on the words.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Rule XIV clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On occasion, the Speaker has recognized the Member called to order, 
before ruling on the words, to ask unanimous consent to make a limited 
explanation of his remarks. And the Speaker has permitted explanation, 
by unanimous consent, after ruling the words out of 
order.(7) Generally, however, the Member called to order may 
not debate the demand that his words be taken down or explain his 
remarks pending a ruling in the absence of a motion to that 
effect.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 52.16, infra.
 8. See Sec. 52.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under clause 4 of Rule XIV in recent practice, the motion to permit 
the Member to explain must be disposed of prior to the Chair's ruling, 
and should not be used in the absence of unanimous consent, to question 
the Chair's ruling.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the words have been ruled out of order, the Member may be 
permitted to proceed in order either by motion (10) or by 
unanimous consent,(11) but this is generally preceded by the 
motion to expunge the words from the Record.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. Sec. 52.9, 52.12, infra.
11. See Sec. 52.7, infra.
12. See Sec. 52.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the motion to allow the Member to explain is not normally 
made in contemporary practice, that motion has precedence over the 
motion to allow the Member to proceed in order since it should be made 
prior to the Chair's ruling.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5187.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the House declines to grant permission to proceed in order, the 
Member may not proceed in

[[Page 10772]]

debate on the same day,(14) but does not lose the right to 
demand either a recorded or unrecorded vote in subsequent 
proceedings.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 52.5, 52.17, infra.
15. See Sec. 49.23, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modification of Objectionable Words

Sec. 52.1 Where words are demanded to be taken down, the Member 
    uttering them may by unanimous consent modify his remarks before a 
    ruling is made.

    On June 5, 1962,(16) Mr. John D. Dingell, Jr., of 
Michigan, accused another Member as speaking as ``a mouthpiece for the 
AMA and as a mouthpiece for the house of delegates of the AMA [American 
Medical Association].'' Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, demanded 
that the words be taken down and the Clerk reported the words objected 
to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 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.

Sec. 52.2 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,(17) 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.'' (18) A point of 
order was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 28522, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. The words were stricken from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The gentlewoman will 
    state her point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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?

[[Page 10773]]

        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?
        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 Words

Sec. 52.3 Where a Member is granted unanimous consent to withdraw words 
    ruled out of order by the Speaker, the Member may proceed in debate 
    without the consent of the House, provided his time has not 
    expired.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(20) Mr. Lee E. Geyer, of California, 
moved to strike out the last two words of a pending bill and then 
described in critical terms the personal characteristics of another 
Member while on the floor. The critical words were demanded to be taken 
down, the Committee of the Whole rose, and the words were reported to 
the House. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that the 
words objected to violated the rules of the House because directed to 
personality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 2871, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin, to whom Mr. Geyer's 
objectionable remarks had referred, then asked if the words could not 
be withdrawn by unanimous consent since Mr. Geyer was ``just carried 
away by the debate.'' The Speaker responded that the words could so be 
withdrawn, and Mr. Geyer was granted unanimous consent to withdraw the 
words in question.
    The Committee resumed its sitting and Chairman Frank H. Buck, of 
California, then ruled

[[Page 10774]]

that the granting of the unanimous-consent request permitted Mr. Geyer 
to proceed in order without a motion provided his time had not expired:

        The Chairman: The gentleman from California is recognized for 
    3\1/2\ minutes.
        Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Geyer of California: I do not yield, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mott: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mott: As I understand, Mr. Chairman, the proceeding just 
    had takes the gentleman off the floor, and he may proceed only by 
    unanimous consent.
        The Chairman: The Chair may state that, by unanimous consent, 
    the House permitted the gentleman to withdraw his words. That 
    leaves the gentleman in the position he was before the words were 
    uttered.
        The gentleman from California will proceed.
        Mr. Mott: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Geyer of California: I do not care to yield for another 
    one, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mott: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mott: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the time 
    of the gentleman has expired.
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has not expired. The 
    point of order is overruled.

Consent of House To Proceed in Order

Sec. 52.4 Where a Member is called to order for words spoken in debate, 
    and such words are held unparliamentary, he may not proceed without 
    the consent of the House.

    On Oct. 31, 1963,(1) Mr. Edgar Franklin Foreman, of 
Texas, was called to order for referring to another Member of the House 
as a ``pinko.'' Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that 
``to characterize any Member of the House as a `pinko' is in violation 
of the rules.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 109 Cong. Rec. 20742, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Objection was then made to unanimous-consent requests to explain 
the remarks objected to and to allow Mr. Foreman to proceed in order:

        Mr. [Bruce R.] Alger [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask to be 
    recognized.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Alger].

[[Page 10775]]

        Mr. Alger: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the statement the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Foreman] was attempting to deliver. If I 
    understand this copy which he has not been permitted to continue 
    with, the gentleman from Texas was just about to add something 
    which would make the gentleman's objection to what he has had to 
    say really out of order, if he knew what next followed.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to 
    proceed for 1 minute?
        Mr. Alger: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Indiana?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, I desire to propound a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the ruling of the 
    Chair was that the use of the word ``pinko'' involves a violation 
    of the rules of the House.
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Halleck: Under those circumstances may not the gentleman 
    from Texas be permitted to continue with the balance of his 
    statement?
        The Speaker: Only by permission of the House.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Foreman] be permitted to continue with 
    the balance of his statement.
        The Speaker: In order?
        Mr. Halleck: Yes, sir.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Indiana?
        Mr. Rooney of New York: Mr. Speaker, I object.

    On Feb. 22, 1945,(2) Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, was 
called to order for using blasphemous words in debate in reference to 
another Member. After Speaker Pro Tempore Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, 
ruled that the words were a violation of the rules of the House and the 
House ordered them stricken from the Record, Mr. Hook sought 
recognition to propose a parliamentary inquiry. The Speaker Pro Tempore 
ruled that Mr. Hook was required to take his seat and could not proceed 
in debate without the permission of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 91 Cong. Rec. 1371, 1372, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hook: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. The Member from Michigan [Mr. Hook] must keep his seat the 
    rest of the day and keep his mouth shut, under the Rules of the 
    House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Hoffman] will proceed.

[[Page 10776]]

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, my point of order must be ruled on. I 
    am speaking about the Member from Michigan [Mr. Hook] on my left. 
    He has just said he used the word ``------ liar,'' and I do not 
    intend for him to speak in this House again today.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair sustains the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from Mississippi. That is the rule. The 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hook] will be seated.

Sec. 52.5 A Member whose words are taken down and ruled out of order 
    may not again proceed on the same day (even for a previously 
    granted special order) without consent of the House.

    On Jan. 29, 1946,(3) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
demanded that words used in debate referring to certain Senators by Mr. 
Emanuel Celler, of New York, be taken down. The words were reported to 
the House. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Celler, over 
the objection of Mr. Rankin, to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
remarks objected to. Mr. Rankin objected to that request, and the 
Speaker held that the words uttered by Mr. Celler were unparliamentary 
in referring to the action of the membership of another body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 92 Cong. Rec. 533, 534, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although Mr. Celler had a special order to 
address the House later in the day the Speaker did not recognize him, 
thereby holding in effect that Mr. Celler could not again proceed that 
day without the consent of the House.
    On Aug. 14, 1967,(4) certain words used in debate by Mr. 
F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, accusing another Member of having 
prejudicial and bigoted views were demanded to be taken down. Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that the words used were a 
breach of the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 22443, 22444, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker then stated as follows: ``Without objection, the 
gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for the remainder of his one 
minute and the words will be stricken.'' There was no objection, and 
Mr. Hebert concluded his remarks. Further debate took place, and Mr. 
Hebert delivered remarks in response to an inquiry by another Member. 
Mr. William F. Ryan, of New York, then stated a point of order that Mr. 
Hebert had lost the right to proceed in debate on the same day, his 
remarks having been ruled out of order. The Speaker overruled the point 
of order, since no objection had been voiced to the unanimous-consent 
request that Mr. Hebert be allowed to proceed in order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Compare 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2546, where Speaker Pro Tempore 
        Philip P. Campbell (Kans.), held that a Member called to order 
        was not precluded from demanding the yeas and nays, and stated 
        that in his opinion the disability from debate remained only 
        until the disposition of the pending question.

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

[[Page 10777]]

Sec. 52.6 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.

    On Aug. 21, 1974,(6) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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). . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    that the gentleman's words be taken down.
        The Speaker: (7) The gentleman demands that the 
    words be taken down. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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).
            Yesterday, by mutual consent of the leadership on both 
        sides of the aisle and by the Members of the Judiciary 
        Committee, I offered to this House a resolution. At the 
        completion of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, I asked that all 
        Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their 
        remarks and it was objected to, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman 
        from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). He gave a reason at that particular 
        time.
            I told him that I thought he should have cleared it with 
        the leadership on his own side of the aisle; but nevertheless, 
        Mr. Speaker, when all the Members had left last night, the 
        gentleman came to the well and asked unanimous consent of the 
        then Speaker of the House who was sitting there, if he may 
        insert his remarks in the Record, with unanimous consent, 
        following the remarks where he had objected. . . .
            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.

[[Page 10778]]

        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that 
    point?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts cannot proceed at 
    this point. . . .
        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.
        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.

Sec. 52.7 A Member may be allowed to proceed in order by motion or by 
    unanimous consent where the Speaker has ruled that words spoken by 
    the Member in debate were unparliamentary.

    On Mar. 24, 1961,(8) Mr. Neal Smith, of Iowa, referred 
in debate to the ``Goldwater-Ayres bill because it is an example of 
exempting multimillion dollar stores in Arizona'' [Where Goldwater was 
the name of a Senator from Arizona]. Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, 
demanded that the words be taken down, the Committee of the Whole 
arose, and the words were reported to the House. Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, ruled that the words were out of order as ``a reference to a 
member of the other body by name.'' Speaker Rayburn then ruled that the 
House could by unanimous consent permit the Member called to order to 
proceed in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Would it be in order at 
    this time to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Iowa be 
    allowed to proceed in order?
        The Speaker: It would.
        Mr. [Carroll D.] Kearns [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    object to that.

        The Speaker: Let the Chair first state the request.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    California that the gentleman from Iowa be allowed to proceed in 
    order?
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: The ruling means that these words will 
    be stricken from the Record?
        The Speaker: If a motion is made to strike them from the 
    Record.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: I would make such a motion and then I 
    would not object.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion.
        The motion was agreed to.

[[Page 10779]]

        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from California that the gentleman from Iowa be allowed to proceed 
    in order?
        There was no objection.

    On Apr. 19, 1934,(9) certain words used in the Committee 
of the Whole in reference to another Member were demanded to be taken 
down. The Committee arose, the words were reported to the House, and 
Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, ruled the words objectionable as 
impugning the motives of another Member. The House agreed to a motion 
to strike the words from the Record. The Speaker then ruled that a 
motion to allow the Member called to order to proceed could be made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 78 Cong. Rec. 6947, 6948, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    gentleman from Texas be allowed to proceed in order.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, should not that 
    motion be made in the Committee rather than in the House?
        Mr. Patman: It can be made either in the House or in the 
    Committee. The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The Chair has now permitted the gentleman from 
    Texas to proceed in order in the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union.
        The Committee will resume its session. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman from Texas is 
    recognized to proceed in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William J. Sears (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 52.8 A Member having uttered objectionable words in debate and 
    such words having been ruled unparliamentary, the Chair may 
    recognize the Member to proceed in order by unanimous consent.

    On Aug. 14, 1967,(11) certain words used in debate by 
Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, accusing another Member of having 
prejudicial and bigoted views were demanded to be taken down. Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that the words used were a 
breach of the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 22443, 22444, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker then stated as follows: ``Without objection, the 
gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for the remainder of his one 
minute and the words will be stricken.'' There was no objection, and 
Mr. Hebert concluded his remarks.
    Thereafter, Mr. Hebert delivered some remarks in debate in response 
to another Member. The Speaker ruled that he had the right to proceed 
in order pursuant to the unanimous-consent request:

[[Page 10780]]

        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman 
    from Louisiana is out of order. His words have been taken down, and 
    the Speaker has ruled that they were of an unparliamentary nature.
        The Speaker: The Chair has already recognized the gentleman 
    without objection. The gentleman from Louisiana is properly 
    addressing the House. The point of order is overruled.

Motion To Proceed in Order

Sec. 52.9 A motion that a Member be permitted to proceed in order is a 
    privileged motion after the Chair has held the Member to be out of 
    order.

    On June 7, 1933,(12) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, 
referred to another Member of the House, Bertrand H. Snell, of New 
York, critically and by name in debate. Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of 
New Jersey, demanded that the words be taken down, and Speaker Henry T. 
Rainey, of Illinois, ruled that the words were a violation of the rules 
of the House in that they referred to a Member by name and held him up 
to ridicule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 77 Cong. Rec. 5203-05, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Rankin then moved that Mr. Blanton be permitted to proceed in 
order and the question was immediately put on the motion.

Sec. 52.10 After words taken down in debate in Committee of the Whole 
    have been reported to the House and ruled out of order by the 
    Speaker, a privileged motion that the Member whose words were ruled 
    out of order be permitted to proceed in order may be made.

    During consideration of the Department of Education Organization 
Act of 1979 (H.R. 2444) in the Committee of the Whole, certain words 
used in debate were reported to the House, the Speaker ruled on those 
words and a motion to allow the Member whose words were ruled out of 
order to proceed in order was agreed to. The proceedings of June 12, 
1979,(13) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 14461, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (14) The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: . . . The insidiousness 
        of the amendment is compounded by the sponsor's deceptive--I 
        should say hypocritical--presentation of this amendment, 
        disguising it as a quota prohibition.

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair, having read the references concerning deception and 
    hypocrisy, will state that there have been previous opinions by the 
    Chair that there is nothing wrong with using the

[[Page 10781]]

    word, ``deceptive,'' or the word, ``hypocritical,'' in 
    characterizing an amendment's effect but when a Member so 
    characterizes the motivation of a Member in offering an amendment 
    that is not in order.
        Consequently, the words in the last sentence read by the Clerk 
    are unparliamentary and without objection, the offensive words are 
    stricken from the Record. . . .
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks).
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) be allowed to proceed in order.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The Committee will resume its sitting.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
    of the bill, H.R. 2444, with Mr. Nedzi in the chair.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Gonzalez) has the floor, and the gentleman will proceed in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 52.11 While clause 4 of Rule XIV provides that a Member whose 
    words are ruled out of order may not automatically proceed in 
    debate, the precedents of the House authorize a motion to permit 
    the offending Member to proceed in order.

    On May 9, 1990,(16) it was demonstrated that 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. The proceedings in the House were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 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 America, 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 (17) stating as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John P. Murtha (Pa.).

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

[[Page 10782]]

        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?
        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

[[Page 10783]]

    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.

Sec. 52.12 When a Member is called to order for words used in debate, 
    he may be permitted to proceed in or-der by unanimous consent, or 
    by a motion ``that the gentleman be allowed to proceed in order'' 
    which may be stated on the initiative of the Chair.

    The proceedings of Mar. 29, 1995,(18) where Speaker Pro 
Tempore Peter G. Torkildsen, of Massachusetts, took the initiative in 
moving that a Member called to order for words used in debate be 
permitted to proceed in order, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            I had specific conversation with the gentleman from 
        Michigan, and he stated to me very clearly that it is his 
        intention to vote against this bill on final. Now, if that is 
        not a cynical manipulation and exploitation of the American 
        public, then what is? What could be more cynical? What could be 
        more hypocritical?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In the opinion of the Chair, ascribing 
    hypocrisy to another Member has been ruled out of order in the 
    past, and is unparliamentary.
        Without objection, the words are stricken from the record.
        There was no objection.
        Without objection, the gentleman may proceed in order.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Speaker. I have been waiting for an apology from the 
    gentleman. I know he wants to apologize and does not want to leave 
    these things on the record, because I am sure he realizes that it 
    reflects unfavorably upon him, as it does upon me, so I am waiting 
    for the apology. I know the gentleman wants to give it to me.
        Mr. [Martin R.] Hoke [of Ohio]: Mr. Dingell, I very clearly 
    stated that I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my words, and I 
    requested that that be done. You objected to that.
        I have told you on the Record that I will not apologize.

[[Page 10784]]

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker. I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        The question is: Shall the gentleman be allowed to proceed in 
    order?
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John] Conyers [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    212, nays 197, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 23, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] was allowed to proceed in 
    order.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Richard J.] Durbin [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the nature of 
    his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Durbin: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Chair to clarify the 
    vote that was just taken. It is my understanding that words were 
    taken down, words uttered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] and 
    those words were determined by the Speaker to be out of order. At 
    which point, if I recall correctly, the words were stricken, and 
    the Chair stated a unanimous-consent request that the gentleman be 
    able to proceed.
        There was objection to that unanimous-consent request, at which 
    point, if I am not mistaken, the Chair then stated a motion to give 
    the gentleman the opportunity to proceed and speak.
        Is my recollection correct, is that the motion which we just 
    voted on?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's recollection is 
    correct.
        Mr. Durbin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this of the Chair 
    then; it is my understanding that the Chair has the right under the 
    rules to make a unanimous-consent request that an individual be 
    allowed to proceed after his words have been stricken, but in this 
    case I wonder if it is the prerogative of the Chair to make such a 
    motion, or whether it should have been made by a Member of the 
    body?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has the right to entertain 
    unanimous-consent requests. Under previous rulings of the Chair in 
    1991, the Chair does have the right to put that question to the 
    body.
        Mr. Durbin: Beyond the unanimous-consent request?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Beyond the unanimous-consent request, 
    since it is ultimately the House's decision, no Member sought to 
    question the ruling of the Chair, the question was put to the 
    House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While under section 394 of Jefferson's 
Manual no motion can be made without rising and addressing 
the Chair (5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4984, 4985), in the 
circumstance where the House must decide whether to permit a Member who 
has been ruled out of order in debate to proceed in order, the

[[Page 10785]]

Speaker has put that question to a vote without necessarily 
entertaining a motion from the floor. See Sec. 52.13, infra.

Sec. 52.13 The motion to permit a Member called to order to proceed in 
    order is debatable (and as such may be laid on the table under 
    clause 4 of Rule XVI).

    As demonstrated by the proceedings of Oct. 8, 1991,(19) 
the motion ``shall (a Member) be permitted to proceed in order?'' may 
be put by the Chair sua sponte and is debatable under the hour rule. 
Since the motion is debatable, it is subject to the motion to table. 
Where the Chair states the motion on his own initiative, the Chair has 
discretion in recognition of a Member to control one hour of debate. 
Debate is limited to the question of whether to permit the offending 
Member to proceed in order. Finally, adoption of the motion permits the 
offending Member to proceed in order for the remainder of his/her 
debate time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 137 Cong. Rec. 25757-25760, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Rosa L.] DeLauro [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, the Senate 
    is about to embark on a misguided journey.
        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, 
    point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The gentlewoman will 
    refrain from direct reference to the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. DeLauro: How can there be a vote to place Judge Thomas in a 
    lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court under this cloud? To be 
    sure, a person is innocent until proven guilty, but without a full 
    and public hearing about the veracity of these very serious charges 
    of sexual harassment, a decision this evening to elevate Judge 
    Thomas to the Supreme Court casts doubt on the entire process.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, I demand the gentlewoman's 
    words be taken down.
        Ms. DeLauro: The actions of the Committee on the Judiciary say 
    loud and clear----
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, I demand the words of the 
    gentlewoman be taken down.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman will suspend.
        The Chair has repeatedly asked Members to refrain from specific 
    reference to the other body and would admonish the gentlewoman to 
    do so.
        Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] insist on 
    his request?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do. I think the 
    precedent ought to be set and put in the precedents of the House on 
    what the extent of the prohibition against discussing the 
    proceedings in the other body are.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair's rulings previously today 
    are consistent with and constitute the precedents of the House. The 
    Chair

[[Page 10786]]

    will insist upon compliance with those precedents.
        Under those circumstances, does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    [Mr. Sensenbrenner] still insist?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the words that 
    are objected to. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            . . . to be sure a person is innocent until proven guilty, 
        but without a full and public hearing about these very serious 
        charges a decision this evening to elevate Judge Thomas to the 
        Supreme Court casts doubt on the entire process.

        The Speaker: (1) It is the Chair's opinion that the 
    words inevitably relate to an action to be taken by the Senate with 
    respect to a nomination by the President subject to the 
    confirmation of the Senate and, accordingly, are not in order, and 
    the words, accordingly without objection, will be stricken from the 
    Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Without objection the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. 
    DeLauro] may proceed in order.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.
        The question is: Shall the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. 
    DeLauro] be permitted to proceed in order?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Sensenbrenner moves to table the motion.

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] to lay on the table 
    the motion to proceed in order. . . .
        So the motion to table was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: This is my 
    parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker: Is the motion now before the 
    House a motion which is debatable?
        The Speaker: The motion now before the House is subject to 
    debate, the gentleman is correct, within the narrow limits of the 
    motion.

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, who would control the time?
        The Speaker: The Chair intends to recognize the majority 
    leader, Mr. Gephardt, to control the time, since the Chair put the 
    question sue sponte on the motion when objection was heard.
        Mr. Walker: And the subject matter would be strictly----
        The Speaker: The question is whether the gentlewoman from 
    Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] should be permitted to proceed in order.
        Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair.
        If the gentlewoman was permitted to proceed in order, would she 
    be allowed to continue the remarks that she was engaged in at the 
    time that she was called to order by the Chair?
        The Speaker: The gentlewoman from Connecticut will be permitted 
    to

[[Page 10787]]

    proceed in order as long as her remarks are in order. Members are 
    allowed to proceed as long as their remarks are in order. . . .
        The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] is recognized for 1 
    hour. . . .
        Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I 
    would say to the Members that the resolution we have before us 
    makes it clear that the gentlewoman's words are to be taken down. 
    The resolution calls for her being allowed to proceed with her 
    statement. . . .
        Mr. Walker: . . . Mr. Speaker, our concern I think is that we 
    are developing a pattern where the taking down of words carries 
    with it no penalty. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
    correct in stating that taking down of words is supposed to carry 
    with it the penalty that the Member 
    of Congress who utters the unparliamentary words is to be taken off 
    their 
    feet for the rest of that legislative day. . . .
        Mr. Gephardt: The motion that is in front of us is to take 
    words down and to proceed, obviously with the admonition that the 
    precedents which are now clear will be followed.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the gentlewoman from 
    Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] be allowed to proceed in order?
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    260, noes 145, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 26. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman from Connecticut is 
    recognized for the balance of her 1 minute which shall constitute 
    28 seconds.
        Ms. DeLauro: I thank the Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, allegations of sexual harassment are serious 
    charges which deserve serious consideration. The Justices of the 
    Supreme Court must demonstrate respect for law and for individual 
    rights. To impugn the integrity of Professor Hill, to elevate that 
    of Judge Thomas, is not appropriate nor is it a credible tactic. 
    The American people deserve more than a dismissal of Professor 
    Hill's charges. They deserve to know the truth.
        Mr. Speaker, let us take the time to uncover the truth.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentlewoman from 
    Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] has expired.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While clause 4 of Rule XIV suggests that a 
Member whose words are ruled out of order may not automatically proceed 
in debate, traditionally the Speaker's ruling is sufficient sanction 
and the chastized Member is permitted to proceed in order by unanimous 
consent; however the House may dictate the further consequences of the 
ruling by proper motions under clauses 4 or 5 of Rule XIV to strike the 
unparliamentary remarks from the Record and to proceed in order.

[[Page 10788]]

Striking Words From Record

Sec. 52.14 Where a unanimous-consent request that a Member be permitted 
    to proceed in order is pending, the Speaker having held certain 
    words unparliamentary, a motion to strike those words from the 
    Record is in order.

    On Mar. 24, 1961,(2) certain words used in debate in the 
Committee of the Whole and objected to were reported to the House. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words were a violation of 
the rules of the House. A unanimous-consent request that the Member 
called to order be allowed to proceed in order was then made and stated 
by the Chair. Pending the request, a parliamentary inquiry was stated 
and Speaker Rayburn ruled that pending the unanimous-consent request a 
motion to strike the words from the Record was in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Would it be in order at 
    this time to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Iowa be 
    allowed to proceed in order?
        The Speaker: It would.
        Mr. [Carroll D.] Kearns [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    object to that.
        The Speaker: Let the Chair first state the request.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    California that the gentleman from Iowa be allowed to proceed in 
    order?
        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: The ruling means that these words will 
    be stricken from the Record?
        The Speaker: If a motion is made to strike them from the 
    Record.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: I would make such a motion and then I 
    would not object.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from California that the gentleman from Iowa be allowed to proceed 
    in order?
        There was no objection.

Explanation by Member Called to Order

Sec. 52.15 When a demand is made that the words of a Member be taken 
    down, such Member may not debate the demand or explain his remarks 
    absent special permission from the House.

    On Mar. 24, 1961,(3) words used in debate by Mr. Neal 
Smith, of Iowa, were demanded to be taken down. When Mr. Smith rose to 
ob

[[Page 10789]]

ject to the demand on the ground that he had not violated the rules of 
the House, Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruled pursuant 
to a point of order that Mr. Smith was required to take his seat 
pursuant to a demand that his words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 9, 1940,(4) Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, objected 
to certain words used in debate by Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin, 
and demanded that they be taken down. When Mr. Schafer attempted to 
explain his remarks and to contend that he was proceeding in order, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled pursuant to a point of order by 
Mr. Bloom that Mr. Schafer was required to take his seat.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 86 Cong. Rec. 13477, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 5. See also 94 Cong. Rec. 205, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 15, 1948; and 
        87 Cong. Rec. 894, 895, 899, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 11, 
        1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 52.16 When words are taken down, the Speaker may, without 
    objection, permit the offending Member to explain his words, 
    following which the Speaker may make his final ruling on whether 
    the remarks are in violation of the rules.

    On Nov. 10, 1971,(6) certain words used in debate by Mr. 
John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, were demanded to be taken down by Mr. 
John N. Erlenborn, of Illinois, and reported to the House, whereupon 
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled them out of order. The Speaker 
allowed Mr. Dent, by unanimous consent, to explain the objectionable 
words and on the basis of the explanation ruled that the words were not 
in fact unparliamentary:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 117 Cong. Rec. 40442, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 86 Cong. Rec. 
        954, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 1, 1940, in which the Chair 
        overruled a point of order that a Member was quoting testimony 
        taken before an executive session of a committee, upon the 
        Member's assurance that he was not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Dent: The second lie which is deliberate, in my 
        opinion, and ought not to be brought back time after time into 
        this controversy, is that there is no such thing----

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the words ``second lie'' 
    are not parliamentary, and without objection will be stricken from 
    the Record.
        Mr. Dent: Mr. Speaker, what part of that was being stricken?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the words are ``the 
    second lie.''
        Mr. Dent: Mr. Speaker, I have not said what the second lie is. 
    How can you strike it?
        The Speaker: The manner in which the gentleman referred to the 
    words in the following statement: ``the second lie which is 
    deliberate.'' Without objection,

[[Page 10790]]

    the gentleman may explain his statement.
        Mr. Dent: But I have not said what the lie is. I have not 
    accused anybody here of lying. I have accused the second lie of 
    being propagandized all over the State, and through different 
    individuals, and the third lie and the fourth lie. I have not 
    accused the gentleman. There have been many persons on this floor--
    not many on the floor--but many persons who have put out the word 
    that this deliberately wipes out X-rays as a means of determining 
    pneumoconiosis, and the bill does not do that. And if it does not 
    do that it is all untrue.
        The Speaker: The Chair will request the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania to state whether the gentleman was referring to any 
    Member of the Congress.
        Mr. Dent: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to have 
    that cleared up. But I have not said or named a Member's name yet.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman was not referring to a Member of 
    the House----
        Mr. Dent: I was not. I was referring to two lies, and they are 
    lies, and they have been put out all over the State in letters and 
    newspaper items.
        The Speaker: But the gentleman from Pennsylvania states that he 
    was not referring to a Member of the House?
        Mr. Dent: The Record will show that I did not refer to a Member 
    of the House.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman state again that he was not 
    referring to a Member of the House?
        Mr. Dent: Yes; if I said it, it would have been in the Record.
        The Speaker: Then the Chair will state that the gentleman's 
    words are not unparliamentary, and the Committee will resume its 
    sitting.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XIV clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995) provides 
        that a Member called to order ``immediately sit down, unless 
        permitted, on motion of another Member, to explain. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member Cannot Proceed for Balance of Day

Sec. 52.17 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 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 in 
    time yielded to him by another Member.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 19, 
1985:(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 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 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

[[Page 10791]]

    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:(9) Yes. The Chair would 
    entertain such a motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 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. . . .
        Let the Chair restate what has occurred here.

[[Page 10792]]

        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 re-marks. . . .
        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 10793]]

        There was no objection.

Sec. 52.18 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).

    See the proceedings of July 29, 1994, discussed in Sec. 48.13, 
supra.