[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§ 43. Disorderly Language]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10566-10571]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                         E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
 
Sec. 43. Disorderly Language

    The determination of what language is unparliamentary in debate is 
not subject to immutable rules; the current meaning of language, the 
tone and intent of the Member speaking, and the subject of his remarks, 
must all be taken into account by the Speaker. There have been 
instances in which the same word has on one occasion been ruled 
permissible and on another ruled unparliamentary.(1) A 
colloquialism may be ruled unparliamentary because of its commonly 
known implication.(2) And the context of the debate itself 
must be considered in determining whether the words objected to 
constitute disorderly criticism or merely general opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 43.7, 43.8, infra, for rulings on 
        ``damn'' and ``damnable.''
 2. See Sec. 61, infra, for rulings on colloquialisms used in reference 
        to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the English (3) and American legislative practice 
suggest guidelines to be followed in determining whether certain words 
in relation to a certain subject are disorderly or permissible. For 
example, no reference may be made to gallery occupants.(4) 
And although the proposals of other Members may be criticized, their 
motives and personalities may not be attacked.(5) (Most of 
the rulings on the propriety of certain language in debate have 
involved references to Members and are so numerous as to occupy their 
own portion of this work.) (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Parliamentary law in relation to disorderly words in debate is 
        generally discussed in Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. Sec. 353-379 (1995).
            For an analysis of principles governing the House of 
        Commons, see Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, 
        Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 448-471, Butterworth & Co. 
        Ltd. (London 1964) (17th ed.).
 4. See Sec. 45, infra.
 5. See Sec. 60, infra.
 6. References to Members, to the House and its parties, and to 
        committees are discussed at Sec. Sec. 53 et seq., infra, and 
        are only mentioned here where relevant.

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

[[Page 10567]]

    Several general rules may be safely stated as to disorderly 
language in general. Persons not Members of the House may be freely 
criticized on the floor without restriction as to personalities or 
motive, if such reference is not irrelevant and if language used is not 
in itself objectionable.(7) Profanity may not be voiced in 
debate regardless of the subject of the remarks,(8) and 
remarks with critical racial overtones are out of order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 43.2, 43.3, infra.
 8. See Sec. Sec. 43.6-43.9, infra.
 9. See Sec. Sec. 43.4, 43.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The manner in which a Member addresses or seeks to address the 
House, regardless of his proposed remarks, is subject to a point of 
order under House rules.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 42, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under clause 1 of Rule XIV, Members should refrain from using 
profanity or vulgarity in debate; the Chair has taken the initiative 
against a Member's use of profanity.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See the proceedings of Mar. 5, 1991, at 137 Cong. Rec. 5036, 5037, 
        102d Cong. 1st Sess., during consideration of H. Res. 95 
        (commending Operation Desert Storm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under a new provision of House Rule XIV clause 9(b),(12) 
unparliamentary remarks may be deleted only by permission or order of 
the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 764a (1995), adopted on Jan. 4, 1995 
        (H. Res. 6), 104th Cong. 1st 
        Sess.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

References to State or Region

Sec. 43.1 A statement in debate ``when this committee investigates the 
    recent wave of police lynch murder in Mississippi . . . and in the 
    capital itself'' was held in order.

    On Mar. 9, 1948,(13) the following words in debate, 
referring to the Committee on Un-American Activities, were objected to 
by 
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, and demanded taken down: ``When 
this committee investigates the recent wave of police lynch murder in 
Mississippi, in the area of Jackson, and in the capital itself--''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 2408, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Rankin based his point of order on the fact that the Member 
speaking was accusing Mr. Rankin's state of murder. Speaker Joseph W. 
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the words were not 
unparliamentary and that the Member speaking was merely expressing his 
opinion.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Under the standing rules of the Senate, ``No Senator shall refer 
        offensively to any State of the Union.'' Rule XIX clause 3, 
        Standing Rules of the Senate Sec. 19.3. There is no such House 
        rule nor mention of the subject in Jefferson's Manual. See 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2522-2525 for Senate rulings.

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

[[Page 10568]]

References to Associations or Groups

Sec. 43.2 A statement in debate accusing a medical association of 
    ``spurious reasoning'' in regard to their opposition to a bill was 
    held in order.

    On Mar. 19, 1962,(15) a Member stated in debate, ``this 
is an example of the spurious reasoning that the AMA has with regard to 
their opposition to this bill.'' The words were demanded to be taken 
down, and Speaker Pro Tempore W. Homer Thornberry, of Texas, ruled that 
the words were not violative of House rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 4458, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

References to Former President

Sec. 43.3 It has been held in order to state ``that Abraham Lincoln was 
    a Communist.''

    On Nov. 15, 1945,(16) Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, of 
Wisconsin, accused Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, of having termed 
Abraham Lincoln a Communist, and on being corrected by Mr. Rankin, 
stated ``I am delighted to have the record show that there is at least 
one liberal in the past century that Mr. Rankin does not consider as a 
Communist.'' Mr. Rankin then demanded that those words be taken down, 
but Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that they were in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 10736, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker then responded as follows to an additional point of 
order by Mr. Rankin:

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is this: That, 
    taken in the light of his previous statements, where he [Mr. 
    Biemiller] falsely accused me of making a statement with reference 
    to Abraham Lincoln that was exactly opposite from what I did say, 
    his utterance was a violation of the rules of the House.
        The Speaker: Even if the gentleman had given his opinion that 
    Mr. Lincoln was a Communist, that would not have been a violation 
    of the rules of the House.

Remarks as to Race or Class

Sec. 43.4 A statement in debate expressing the opinion of the Member 
    that if he were a Negro he would avoid association with non-Negroes 
    was held not to reflect on any Member of the House and therefore to 
    be in order.

    On Apr. 5, 1946,(17) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
delivered

[[Page 10569]]

the following words in debate, in relation to an amendment denying 
funds to segregated schools offered by Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 92 Cong. Rec. 3229, 3230, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If I were a Negro I would want to be as black as the ace of 
    spades, and I would not be running around here trying to play 
    tennis on a white man's court. I would go with the other Negroes 
    and have the best time in my life.

    Mr. Powell demanded those words be taken down, but Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words used did not refer by name or 
otherwise to any Member and were in order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also Sec. Sec. 65.1-65.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 43.5 It has been held not a breach of order to refer in debate to 
    a class or group 
    of persons as ``Negroes,'' although it was claimed that a 
    corruption of that term was used.

    On Feb. 18, 1947,(19) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, delivered the following remarks in debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 93 Cong. Rec. 1131, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Now, let us turn back to this Negro witness. His name is 
    Nowell. He lived in Detroit. He said he was born in Georgia. Now, I 
    have lived all my life and practiced law for years in a State where 
    we had many, many lawsuits between Negroes and whites and between 
    Negroes themselves. I am used to cross-examining them. I know 
    something of the way they testify, and have a fairly good way 
    weighing testimony, and if I am any judge this Negro, Nowell, was 
    sincere in every word he said.

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then considered 
the following point of order:

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Is it within the rules of 
    this Congress to refer to any group of our Nation in disparaging 
    terms?
        Mr. Rankin: It is not disparaging to call them Negroes, as all 
    respectable Negroes know.
        Mr. Powell: I am addressing the Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair is not aware of the disparaging term 
    used.
        Mr. Powell: He used the term ``nigger'' in referring to a 
    group.
        The Speaker: The Chair understood the gentleman to say 
    ``Negro.''
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I said what I always say and what I am 
    always going to say when referring to these people.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will proceed in order.
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Similarly, on Sept. 21, 1949,(20) Mr. Rankin was 
delivering remarks in debate against Paul

[[Page 10570]]

Robeson, whom he termed a ``Negro Communist.'' Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of 
New York, made the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 95 Cong. Rec. 13124, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Mississippi used the word ``nigger.'' I ask 
    that that word be taken down and stricken from the Record inasmuch 
    as there are two Members in this House of the Negro race, and that 
    word reflects on them.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, stated that he had understood Mr. 
Rankin to say ``Negro.'' Mr. Marcantonio insisted that Mr. Rankin had 
said ``nigger''; the Speaker ruled as follows:

        The Chair holds that the remarks of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi are not subject to a point of order. He referred to the 
    Negro race, and they should not be ashamed of that designation.

Profanity

Sec. 43.6 It is a breach of order in debate to use words bordering on 
    profanity.

    On July 18, 1951,(1) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
ruled after objection had been made to the use of the word ``damn'' in 
debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 97 Cong. Rec. 8415, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is bound to hold that the using of words like those 
    just used . . . or any other words bordering on profanity, is a 
    violation of the rules of the House.

Sec. 43.7 Use of the word ``damnable'' has been held in order, although 
    the Speaker in ruling on those words found the term rather harsh 
    and expressed the hope that his ruling would not be a precedent for 
    further use.

    On Jan. 15, 1948,(2) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
stated in reference to the remarks on Palestine of Mr. John E. Rankin, 
of Mississippi:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 94 Cong. Rec. 205, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [H]e makes an aspersion upon those who, with great 
    intrepidity and great wisdom, pioneered to set up that state, that 
    they are inclined to be Communists or are Communists. That is a 
    damnable statement to make.

    Mr. Rankin objected to the use of the word ``damnable'' as a 
violation of House rules and of ``all rules of common decency,'' and 
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled as follows:

        The Chair is not too conversant with the word ``damnable'' but 
    does not find that it is banned in the rules of 
    parliamentary procedure. The Chair thinks it is a rather harsh 
    word.
        The Chair hopes that the Members will not take this as a 
    precedent for using the word on too many occasions.

Sec. 43.8 A statement that a group does ``not give a damn'' was held to 
    be a violation of rules on debate.

[[Page 10571]]

    On July 18, 1951,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering amendments to H.R. 3871, the Defense Production Act of 
1950. Mr. William J. Green, Jr., of Pennsylvania, made the following 
remarks about an amendment offered by Mr. Wingate H. Lucas, of Texas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 97 Cong. Rec. 415, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Certainly I have a great deal of respect and admiration 
    for the gentleman from Texas and for the other people that support 
    these issues, but they all remind me of the fellow who sold a blind 
    horse to the farmer. When the horse walked into the barn the farmer 
    said to the city slicker, ``Why, that horse is blind.'' He said, 
    ``No, he is not blind; he just doesn't give a damn.''

    Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, demanded that the statement 
implying that a group of Members didn't give a damn be taken down, and 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled the words out of order as 
bordering on profanity. Mr. Green then obtained unanimous consent to 
withdraw the objectionable words.

Blasphemous Words

Sec. 43.9 The Speaker ordered allegedly blasphemous words stricken from 
    the Record without awaiting objection by the House.

    On Feb. 22, 1945, Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, used critical and 
allegedly blasphemous language in debate, directed against Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi. After some disturbance on the floor, Mr. Rankin 
demanded the words be taken down. Speaker Pro Tempore Robert Ramspeck, 
of Georgia, ruled the language a breach of order and immediately ruled 
the words stricken from the Record, without awaiting the objection of 
the House.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 91 Cong. Rec. 1371, 1372, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The exact words used were stricken and do 
not therefore appear in the Record. Normally the Speaker says ``without 
objection'' the offending words will be stricken from the Record since 
the House, not the Chair, controls the Record. Mr. Rankin claimed that 
Mr. Hook had referred to him as a ``God damn liar'' but Mr. Hook 
contended he had stated ``you are a dirty liar.'' The language used 
precipitated a short affray on the floor, but both Mr. Hook and Mr. 
Rankin apologized to the House, which took no further 
action.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at pp. 1371, 1372, 1390, 1391, 1445.

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

[[Page 10572]]