[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§ 47. Criticism of Executive and Governmental Officials; References to Presidential or Vice-Presidential Candidates]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10644-10662]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                         E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
 
Sec. 47. Criticism of Executive and Governmental Officials; References 
    to Presidential or Vice-Presidential Candidates

    Members are permitted wide latitude to criticize the President,

[[Page 10645]]

other officials of the executive branch, and the government it-self, 
contrary to the English parliamentary law which prohibits speaking 
``irreverently or seditiously against the King.'' (18) A 
Member may criticize the motives or action of the President or of other 
executive officials,(19) but such disapproval may not extend 
to personal attacks, innuendo, or ridicule.(20) The Chief 
Executive must be referred to in debate as the President or Chief 
Executive and not by surname.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 370 (1995) for 
        the English rule and the differing practice of the House.
            U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 6, clause 1 protects Members from 
        being questioned outside the House for any reference to the 
        executive branch. See, in general, Ch. 7, supra.
19. See Sec. Sec. 47.3, 47.4, infra; 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5087-5091; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2499, 
        2500.
            The precedents on comity, which prohibit most references in 
        debate to the Senate or Senators, do not apply to the Vice 
        President, who may preside over the Senate but is not a member 
        (see Sec. 47.9, infra).
20. See Sec. 47.1, infra; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5094; and 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 2497.
 1. See Sec. 47.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Members may employ strong language in criticizing the 
government,(2) government agencies,(3) and 
governmental policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 47.3, 47.5, 47.6, infra.
 3. See Sec. 47.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In debating propositions to impeach, Members may freely discuss 
charges and the basis for them,(4) but may not resort to 
personally offensive language.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. Sec. 47.7, 47.8, infra; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5093.
 5. See the report prepared by a select committee pursuant to H. Res. 
        494, 60th Cong. 2d Sess., and cited at 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2497. See also 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5094 for 
        personally offensive and unparliamentary language used in 
        reference to President Andrew Johnson when being impeached. 
        Impeachment proceedings and references to respondent, see Ch. 
        14, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference to President

Sec. 47.1 In discussing the President of the United States in debate a 
    Member may not refer to him contemptuously or by surname.

    On Jan. 23, 1933,(6) Mr. James M. Beck, of Pennsylvania, 
arose to a point of order and stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 76 Cong. Rec. 2297, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McFadden] who is now 
    addressing the House has on more than one occasion in the course of 
    his address referred to the President of the United States as 
    ``Hoover.'' My point of order is that it does not accord with the 
    dig

[[Page 10646]]

    nity of this House that the President of the United States should 
    be contemptuously referred to by his last name.

    Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, sustained the 
point of order.

Sec. 47.2 A statement in debate that a Member would have no more reason 
    for criticizing the administration than for ``shoving the Vice 
    President around'' was held not a breach of order.

    On June 10, 1964,(7) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, stated 
in response to a comment critical of the present administration, ``You 
would not have any more reason for criticizing the administration than 
you would for shoving the Vice President around in Dallas.'' (Addressed 
to Mr. Edgar Franklin Foreman [Tex.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 13275, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The words were demanded to be taken down, and Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that there was nothing objectionable 
or in violation of the rules of the House in the language used, being 
simply an opinion by Mr. Hays.

Conduct of Government Officials

Sec. 47.3 In debate Members may arraign in strong terms the conduct of 
    officials of the executive branch of the government.

    On Oct. 1, 1940,(8) Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin, 
delivered the following remarks in debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 86 Cong. Rec. 12985, 12986, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . God knows our half-baked nitwits who are handling the 
    foreign affairs have been carrying on a course of conduct which 
    inevitably will plunge us into the new European war. . . .

    Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, demanded that those words be taken down, 
and Speaker Pro Tempore Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled that the words 
were not a breach of order since they did not refer to Members of the 
House but to certain officials in the executive branch of the 
government.

Characterization of Government Agency

Sec. 47.4 A statement in debate referring to a federal agency as a 
    socialist and communist experiment was held not to reflect upon the 
    membership of the House and not to be a breach of order.

    On Mar. 31, 1954,(9) Mr. Ralph W. Gwinn, of New York, 
speaking on an amendment before the Com

[[Page 10647]]

mittee of the Whole stated as follows: ``Mr. Chairman, we have had 20 
years' experience now with America's first, much-touted, great, 
Socialist, Communist experiment.'' (Referring to the Tennessee Valley 
Authority) Mr. James P. Sutton, of Tennessee, demanded that the words 
be taken down, and Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
ruled, after Mr. Gwinn unsuccessfully attempted to read a definition of 
communism, that nothing in the language cited reflected upon the 
membership of the House or would otherwise be considered 
unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 100 Cong. Rec. 4221, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Criticism of Government

Sec. 47.5 A statement in debate characterizing the national government 
    as a ``labor government, rapidly headed into a labor dictatorship, 
    which, if not checked, will soon run into labor despotism'' was 
    held merely an expression of opinion and not a breach of order.

    On Feb. 26, 1942,(10) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, 
stated in debate: ``We are already living under a labor government, 
rapidly headed into a labor dictatorship, which, if not checked, will 
soon run into labor despotism.'' Mr. Raymond S. McKeough, of Illinois, 
demanded that the words be tak-en down and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 1714, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whatever might be the opinion of anybody who occupies this 
    place, the present occupant would think that it would be going very 
    far, even though words were harsh, if Members were precluded from 
    expressing an opinion with respect to a Government tendency. The 
    Chair sees only in these words the expression of an opinion by the 
    gentleman from Georgia and therefore feels constrained to hold that 
    they are not unparliamentary.

Sec. 47.6 The Speaker held that language condemning the government as 
    having become ``something hated, something oppressive'' did not 
    transgress House rules.

    On June 14, 1929,(11) the following words were used in 
debate by Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, ``Why, Mr. Speaker, 
Uncle Sam, the United States Government, was always considered by the 
American people as something kindly, something to love; instead, now, 
it has become something hated, something oppressive.'' Mr. B. Frank 
Murphy,

[[Page 10648]]

of Ohio, demanded that the words be taken down, and Speaker Pro Tempore 
Thomas S. Williams, of Illinois, ruled that ``the gentleman from New 
York was merely condemning a measure that has been enacted into law. 
That certainly does not transgress any rule of the House and the Chair 
holds the words to be in order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 71 Cong. Rec. 2924, 71st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on Impeachment

Sec. 47.7 In presenting impeachment charges a Member is not confined to 
    a bare statement of the charges but may supplement them with 
    argumentative statements as to the official in question.

    On May 7, 1935,(12) Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, 
rose in order to prefer charges of impeachment against a federal judge. 
During Mr. Dirksen's address, during which he stated his personal 
opinion of the judge in question and of other federal judges, Mr. 
Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, arose to state as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 79 Cong. Rec. 7081, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I am not familiar with the precedents, but I have the 
    impression that in preferring charges of impeachment, argumentative 
    statements should be avoided as much as possible. If I am wrong in 
    that statement with reference to what the precedents and custom 
    have established, I of course withdraw the 
    observation.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 7085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Dirksen stated that he had no desire to violate the precedents 
but stated that there were two additional pages of explanatory matter 
which he desired either to state to the House or to insert into the 
Record to elaborate the statement of specific charges that had been 
made. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:

        The Chair thinks it is entirely up to the gentleman from 
    Illinois so far as the propriety of his statement is 
    concerned.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on Jan. 14, 1936, Mr. Robert A. Green, of Florida, arose 
to present impeachment charges against a federal judge.(15) 
Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, rose to state a point of order that Mr. 
Green was presenting argumentative and personal statements, after Mr. 
Green had delivered the following remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 404, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I am vitally interested in this investigation for two 
    important reasons: First, from a careful study of the evidence I am 
    convinced that Judge Ritter is an ignorant, unjust, tyrannical, and 
    corrupt judge; that a majority of the people in his district have 
    the same convictions that I have; that

[[Page 10649]]

    confidence in him and his court is lacking; that his usefulness as 
    a judge of the southern district of Florida has long since come to 
    an end. Second, a large portion of the district over which Judge 
    Ritter presides is in my congressional district, and my people 
    demand and feel that they are entitled to a judge learned in the 
    law and one who has dignity, honor, and integrity.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Byrns ruled that Mr. Green was entitled to one hour's 
debate on the charges and that he could use all or any portion of the 
hour as he saw fit, including a general discussion of the 
charges.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 47.8 In debating articles of impeachment a Member may refer to the 
    political, social, and family background of the accused.

    On Mar. 2, 1936, Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, called up for 
consideration House Resolution 422, presenting articles of impeachment 
against Federal Judge Halsted L. Ritter.(18) Extensive 
debate ensued on the resolution, and Mr. Louis Ludlow, of Indiana, 
arose to present himself as a ``character witness'' on behalf of Judge 
Ritter. He began to discuss the family background of the accused and 
the ``outstanding character and personality'' of the accused's father.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 80 Cong. Rec. 3066, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, arose to state the point of 
order that Mr. Ludlow was ``endeavoring to read into the Record a 
statement with regard to the progenitors of the gentleman against whom 
these impeachment proceedings are pending.'' Mr. Tarver stated that 
such matters were not properly to be considered by the House and should 
not be discussed.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 3069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled that within the four 
and one-half hours of debate provided for on the resolution, Members 
could address themselves to any subject relating to the articles of 
impeachment and the accused.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Rule of Comity

Sec. 47.9 The Minority Leader stated that the rule of comity, 
    prohibiting any reference in the House to the Senate or to 
    Senators, was not applicable to criticisms in debate of the Vice 
    President as an official of the executive branch, the Vice 
    President not being a member of the Senate.

[[Page 10650]]

    On July 22, 1971,(1) Mr. John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, 
referred critically in debate to Vice President Spiro T. Agnew. The 
Minority Leader, Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, responded that Mr. Dent's 
remarks were inappropriate and in poor taste, and then discussed in the 
same context a special-order speech made on the preceding day by Mr. 
William L. Clay, of Missouri:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 26654, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . If I could, let me add another comment at this point: in 
    a special order yesterday one of the gentlemen from the other side 
    of the aisle, on page 26517, used language in reference to a high 
    official in the U.S. Government that I have never seen used or 
    heard used in this Chamber. I have checked it out, and apparently 
    under the rules of the House, that language of the gentleman from 
    Missouri is not subject to the rules of the House because the Vice 
    President is not a Member of the other body.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: May I say to the gentleman----
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: May I finish my thought? And I appreciate 
    the gentleman giving me this time.
        I cannot imagine somebody in this body on either side of the 
    aisle using language of that kind on the floor of the House in 
    reference to the second ranking Member of the U.S. Government in 
    the executive branch. I could appropriately categorize that 
    language in one way or another, but I would have to use language, 
    in my opinion, that would violate the rules of the House.
        It seems to me that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for 
    having used that language, owes an apology to the House and an 
    apology to the Vice President.

References to Senators, Candidates for President

Sec. 47.10 Although it is not in order in debate to criticize a member 
    of the Senate, where a Senator is also a candidate for President or 
    Vice President, his official policies, actions, and opinions as a 
    candidate may be criticized in terms not personally offensive.

    On Sept. 29, 1988,(2) Speaker James C. Wright, Jr., of 
Texas, set forth the principles governing references to candidates for 
President or Vice-President, particularly where a candidate is a member 
of the Senate. On that day, after a demand that 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 
``hypoc

[[Page 10651]]

risy'' were out of order and should be withdrawn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 134 Cong. Rec. 26683, 26684, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        The Speaker: The Chair has considered closely the question of 
    the use of words to distinguish policies as opposed to individuals. 
    There are precedents touching on proper and improper references in 
    debate and dealing with the preservation of comity between the 
    House and Senate. It is important to recognize that the individual 
    referenced in the remarks not only is a candidate for Vice 
    President of the United States but is a Member of the other body.
        The precedents relating to references in debate to the 
    President, Vice President, or to a Member of the other body who is 
    a nominated or declared candidate for President or Vice President 
    permit criticisms of official policy, actions and opinions of that 
    person as a candidate, but do not permit personal abuse, do not 
    permit innuendo and do not permit ridicule, and they do require 
    that the proper rules of decorum must be followed during any debate 
    relating to the President of the United States or a Member of the 
    other body.
        It could be argued that there is a distinction between calling 
    an individual a hypocrite, for example, and referring to some 
    policy as hypocrisy, but the Chair has discovered a precedent that 
    seems to be directly in point. In 1945, a Member of the House from 
    Georgia referred to another Member and said, ``I was reminded that 
    pretexts are never wanting when hypocrisy wishes to add malice to 
    falsehood or cowardice to stab a foe who cannot defend himself.'' 
    Speaker Rayburn ruled that this was out of order as an 
    unparliamentary reference to another Member of the body.
        By extension, the same identical words should be held out of 
    order in reference to a Member of the other body whether or not he 
    were a can

[[Page 10652]]

    didate for a high office, and under these circumstances and citing 
    this precedent, the Chair would suggest that the gentleman from 
    Montana withdraw the offending remarks, including the particular 
    word ``hypocrisy,'' and either amend his reference in the permanent 
    Record or delete it. . . .
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that the 
    Speaker's ruling is based upon my characterization of a U.S. 
    Senator, in this case Senator Quayle, that had the Republican Vice-
    Presidential candidate not been at this time a U.S. Senator, that 
    my remarks would, in fact, be in order? . . .
        The Speaker: . . . The Chair would suggest to the gentleman 
    from Montana that there are standards that apply in the Chamber and 
    in the precedents with respect to nominated candidates for 
    President and Vice President. The Chair is not certain if they are 
    precisely the same as applied to a Member of the other body or a 
    Member of this body, but in this instance, it is not necessary to 
    make that hypothetical distinction since the individual involved is 
    a Member of the other body.
        Mr. Williams: Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker: Would 
    it be within the rules of the House if the last sentence of my 1-
    minute, the one which characterizes Senator Quayle's actions as 
    hypocrisy, be removed by unanimous consent from my 1-minute 
    statement?
        The Speaker: The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from 
    Montana that this might be a satisfactory solution.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    last sentence of my 1-minute statement, the sentence in which I 
    characterized Senator Quayle's actions as hypocrisy, be stricken.
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Please, the Chair will recognize the gentleman for 
    a parliamentary inquiry, but, first, please permit the gentleman 
    from Montana to complete his request. . . .
        Mr. Lungren: I reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: That is fine. The gentleman may reserve his right 
    to object, but in the interests of orderly procedure, permit the 
    Chair to allow the gentleman from Montana to complete his request.
        Mr. Williams: Let me be sure the Chair understands my request: 
    I have asked unanimous consent that the last sentence of my 1-
    minute statement be stricken. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . Has the gentleman from Montana completed his 
    request?
        Mr. Williams: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. Both times I have 
    been interrupted as I have attempted to ask unanimous consent that 
    the last sentence of my 1-minute statement be eliminated. That was 
    the sentence which referred to Senator Quayle's actions as 
    hypocrisy. I seek unanimous consent to strike the last sentence of 
    my 1-minute statement.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Montana?
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, Mr. 
    Speaker, under normal circumstances and in the interests of comity 
    of this House and

[[Page 10653]]

    the relationship of this House and the other body, I would not 
    object. However, as is very obvious from the statements of the 
    gentleman, the insult, the language that is not to be used under 
    our rules was repeated three times in an effort to make a point 
    which violates, in my judgment, the sense of the rules of the House 
    and, therefore, since it is not, I believe, appropriate to do that, 
    I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

References to President Made Outside Chamber

Sec. 47.11 The Minority Leader took the floor to criticize the Speaker 
    for making certain remarks in his daily press conference concerning 
    the President of the United States.

    On July 25, 1984,(3) the following statement was made on 
the floor by Minority Leader Robert H. Michel, of Illinois:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 130 Cong. Rec. 20931, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the distinguished 
    majority leader referred to the President as ``intellectually 
    dishonest.''
        Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 1984, United Press International 
    reported that the Speaker of the House said the following things 
    about the President of the United States--and I quote:

            The evil is in the White House at the present time . . . 
        and that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the 
        working class . . . He's cold. He's mean. He's got ice water 
        for blood.

        In almost 30 years in the House, I have never heard such 
    abusive language used by a Speaker of the House about the President 
    of the United States. . . .
        There are precedents in our House rules forbidding personal 
    abuse of a President on the floor of the House.
        Surely the spirit of these rules ought to be adhered to by the 
    Speaker off the floor as well as on the floor.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While there are precedents indicating that 
it is a breach of order in debate to refer to the President 
disrespectfully,(4) the principle has not been extended to 
statements made outside the Chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2497, 2498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inserting in Record Remarks Made in Press Critical of President

Sec. 47.12 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair, while 
    declining to rule on the propriety in prior debates of certain 
    references to the President, indicated that a more permissive 
    standard than that applicable to references to a sitting Member 
    does not permit language personally abusive of the President.

[[Page 10654]]

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Feb. 25, 1985: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 131 Cong. Rec. 3344-47, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(6) Under a previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is 
    recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam B. Hall, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Yet twice the House has voted to deny McIntyre the seat 
        while it investigates. . . .
            A few Republicans near each election try to remind voters 
        that the Democrats' first vote will be for O'Neill and that 
        vote signals bondage. This year it meant the abandonment of 
        fairness. . . .

        Mr. Gingrich: . . . I was asking the Chair to rule in this sort 
    of setting if one is reporting to the House on the written opinion 
    of a columnist in which the columnist has said very strong things, 
    is it appropriate for the House to be informed of this and, if so, 
    what is the correct procedure?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The ruling of the Chair is that the 
    gentleman should not read into the Record things which would 
    clearly be outside the rules of this House. . . .
        Mr. Gingrich: If I may continue a moment to ask the gentleman, 
    if we are in a situation where in the view of some people, such as 
    Mr. Williams of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, very strong 
    things are legitimately being said, and this is obviously his 
    viewpoint, what is the appropriate manner in which to report his 
    language to the House?
        That is not me saying these things; he is saying these things.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman knows the rules of the 
    House, I am certain, and he can take out or delete any things that 
    he knows would violate the rules of this House if spoken from the 
    floor. . . .
        Mr. Gingrich: If I may reclaim my time and also ask the Chair . 
    . . would the Chair uphold the same precedents on the 
    unparliamentary remarks with respect to the President of the United 
    States?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If they violate the rules of the House 
    the Chair would certainly do that. If the President is personally 
    being abused on the floor of this House, the Chair would do so. . . 
    .
        Anyone could raise a point of order concerning such language, 
    and the Chair cannot now say how the Chair would rule. . . .
        Mr. Gingrich: But it is the Chair's--I will yield in just a 
    second--but it would be the Chair's understanding, or the Chair's 
    inclination that the President has the same basic protection as a 
    Member of the House in terms of his name?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman would recognize that it 
    is not quite the same standard, but nonetheless anyone, of course, 
    is capable of making an objection.
        In Cannon's Procedure, as to the President, section 370, it 
    says:

[[Page 10655]]

            The principles of decorum and courtesy governing the 
        relations of the two Houses should extend to the relations of 
        the House with the President. In referring to the President a 
        Member shall abstain from language personally offensive and 
        shall eschew terms of [opprobrium]. It is the duty of the House 
        to protect the President from personal abuse or innuendo.

        Mr. Gingrich: So about a year ago when the very distinguished 
    majority leader referred to him I think 16 times in 1 minute, using 
    words like ``untrue'' and ``lie''----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: First of all let the Chair say to the 
    gentleman from Georgia that the Chair is not going to rule on 
    something that happened before. . . .
        The Chair heard no objection to that speech to which the 
    gentleman is referring.

Addressing President in Debate

Sec. 47.13 Although Members may discuss past and present Presidential 
    actions and suggest possible future Presidential actions, it is not 
    in order to address remarks in debate directly to the President, as 
    in the second person.

    On Oct. 16, 1989,(7) during the period for one-minute 
speeches in the House, the Speaker cautioned Members against a renewed 
tendency to address remarks in debate directly to the President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 135 Cong. Rec. 24715, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert G.] Torricelli [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, George 
    Bush's honeymoon is most assuredly now over. . . .
        Mr. President, it is time to get to work, time to decide why is 
    it you sought the Presidency, to tell us where it is you would take 
    America. . . .
        Mr. President, listen to this, if you will, from the president 
    of the Chase Manhattan Bank: ``There are some very significant 
    issues out there such as the fiscal deficit, our relations with 
    Japan, that have to be the subject of major initiatives. I'd like 
    to see that initiative, and I haven't. There is no agenda.''
        Mr. President, listen to not only your critics but to your 
    fans. It is time to lead our country.
        The Speaker: (8) As the Chair announced on July 23, 
    1987, it is not in order to address the President in debate. 
    Members must address their remarks to the Chair. Although Members 
    may discuss past and present Presidential actions and suggest 
    possible future Presidential actions, they may not directly address 
    the President, as in the second person.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
 9. See also the proceedings of May 17, 1989 (remarks of Mrs. Barbara 
        Boxer, of California); and, in the 101st Cong. 2d Sess., the 
        proceedings of May 8, 1990 (remarks of Mr. Richard J. Durbin, 
        of Illinois) and May 9, 1990 (remarks of Mr. Charles E. 
        Schumer, of New York).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 47.14 Under clause 1 of Rule XIV, remarks in debate

[[Page 10656]]

    should be addressed to the Chair, and it is not in order to direct 
    remarks outside the Chamber or to address others, including the 
    President, in the second person.

    During a one-minute speech in the House on Oct. 11, 
1990,(10) the Chair admonished a Member against directing 
his remarks to any individual other than the Chair. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 136 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I am truly amazed at 
    the President's flip-flop on whether the wealthy should pay their 
    fair share of income taxes. . . .
        Well, Mr. President, you were elected to know what to do.
        The American people are confused. They want you to lead. Let me 
    make a suggestion:
        Drop your commitment to no new taxes for your rich friends, and 
    take a stand for the middle class and say, ``I am with you. I'm 
    going to make this Tax Code fair for American working families.'' . 
    . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The Chair is 
    constrained to remind Members that it is not proper directly to 
    address the President from the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unparliamentary References to President

Sec. 47.15 Language in debate charging that the President has been 
    ``intellectually dishonest'' is a breach of order connoting an 
    intent to deceive that is personally abusive of the President; the 
    Chair clarified his ruling in this instance by comparing similar 
    words that were distinguishable in connotation.

    On May 9, 1990,(12) following an admonition to a Member 
to refrain from unparliamentary references to the President, the Chair 
clarified that earlier ruling, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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----

[[Page 10657]]

        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 (13) stating as follows:]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 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.

    Subsequently in the proceedings, the Chair stated as follows:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the Chair could have order, let the 
    Chair clarify his ruling.
        The Chair would like to clarify his earlier ruling on the words 
    of the gentleman from New Jersey.
        The Chair does not believe that an allegation of intellectual 
    inconsistency is necessarily unparliamentary.
        However, to whatever extent the phrase ``intellectual 
    dishonesty'' may connote an intent to deceive, the Chair believes 
    that it does tend to be personally offensive and therefore 
    unparliamentary.

Sec. 47.16 Debate may not include remarks personally offensive toward 
    the President, including references to accusations of sexual 
    misconduct, and the Chair will caution Members against using such 
    personally offensive references.

    On May 10, 1994,(14) in response to frequent remarks 
relative to allegations of sexual misconduct by the President, the 
Speaker reminded all Members that the rules of comity prevent 
discussions of the President's personal character.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (15) Under the Speaker's announced 
    policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) 
    is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lamar S.] Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago 
    Newsweek published an article the likes of which I have never seen 
    before concerning a current President. Titled ``The Politics of 
    Promiscuity,'' it examines the basic question of President 
    Clinton's character. . . .
        The Newsweek author is not talking about promiscuity's most 
    common meaning, but its fullest meaning--casual or irregular 
    behavior. Whether at home or abroad, this kind of careless, 
    cavalier conduct has been the trademark of this administration. . . 
    .
        President Clinton's financial dealings are a case in point. . . 
    .
        The President has insisted that he lost money on his financial 
    transactions and he believes that should be the end of the 
    discussion. . . .
        The question is not whether money was made, but why was he 
    involved in the first place? And the answer is that he had no 
    business doing business with people whose business it was his 
    business to regulate.
        If this fault were the only lapse--or if the administration's 
    faults were only lapses--then there would not be such a

[[Page 10658]]

    cause for concern. But as the administration's faults continue to 
    mount and continue to erode America's foundations, it becomes daily 
    more obvious that they are not lapses. They are not strayings from 
    a shared path of principles, but a new route of questionable rights 
    and values altogether. . . .
        The Newsweek article observes President Clinton tells his 
    closest advisers that ``character is a journey, not a 
    destination.'' Klein writes:

            This evolutionary notion of character is something of a 
        finesse: it can drift from explaining lapses to excusing them. 
        There is an adolescent, unformed, half-baked quality to it--as 
        there is to the notion of promiscuity itself: an inability to 
        settle, to stand, to commit. It will not suffice in a 
        president. . . .

        (Mr. Ballenger asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [Cass] Ballenger [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    President has hired Robert Bennett, the noted defense attorney, to 
    defend him against charges of sexual harassment.
        Can Bennett defend the President against charges of factual 
    harassment? This is where the President says one thing, but does 
    another.
        His health care plan was supposed to promote health security 
    for all, but in reality would lower health care quality while 
    costing a million jobs.
        He promised to end welfare as we know it, but if he has a plan 
    he will not show it. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair wishes to remind Members that comments 
    regarding the President of the United States are covered by House 
    rules of comity, and Members should avoid any references to the 
    President that involve suggestions of a personal character.
        The Chair wishes to allow reasonable latitude for debate on 
    subjects of personal interest and importance, but Members will 
    observe the rules of comity with regard to the President, Members 
    of the other body, and their fellow Members.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker, with the concurrence of the 
Minority Leader, advised the Parliamentarian that extraneous matter 
inserted in the Record should also be perused for conformity with the 
Speaker's statement on this matter.

Sec. 47.17 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,(16) a Member was disciplined for 
remarks relating to the President:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 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.

[[Page 10659]]

        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 Louis without 
    an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians, like Grozny, 
    1776, when they take your independence away. . . .
        Mr. [Vic] Fazio of California: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) All Members will 
    suspend. The Clerk will report the words spoken by the gentleman. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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. . . .

[[Page 10660]]

        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?
        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.

References to President's Family

Sec. 47.18 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the

[[Page 10661]]

    Speaker advised that it is not in order in debate to refer to the 
    President in terms personally offensive; but that the traditional 
    protections (in Jefferson's Manual and the precedents) against 
    unparliamentary references to the President do not necessarily 
    extend to members of his family.

    On July 12, 1990,(18) after the Chair had exercised his 
initiative in cautioning a Member against improper references to 
individual Senators, he responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding 
references to the President. The proceedings in the House were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 136 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous 
    for the Senate Democratic leader to publicly demand higher taxes 
    and a massive 25-percent increase in the income tax top rate. The 
    Senate Democratic leader is threatening to destroy the budget 
    summit.
        Mr. Speaker, Senator Mitchell does not attend summit meetings. 
    He publicly demands tax increases. Senator Mitchell does not offer 
    serious budget reforms. He publicly demands tax increases. . . .
        The Speaker: (19) The Chair will . . . caution the 
    gentleman from Georgia that such references to Members of the other 
    body are not in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Debate may include references to actions taken by the 
        Senate or by committees thereof, which are a matter of public 
        record . . . but may not include other references to individual 
        Members of the Senate or other quotations from Senate 
        proceedings.

        Mr. Gingrich: Let me then ask the Speaker:
        Is the Chair prepared, because there is a similar phrase about 
    protecting the integrity of the President, is the Chair as prepared 
    to rule tightly when members of the Democratic Party describe 
    President Bush and his immediate family? Are we going to have a 
    standard by which I may not refer to the action of the Democratic 
    leader in the Senate, which is a public action in a newspaper, but 
    the members of the Democratic Party may say virtually anything 
    weakening, and defaming and insulting the President of the United 
    States? . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will tell the gentleman from Georgia 
    [Mr. Gingrich] that references to the President of the United 
    States that are personally offensive references are not permitted 
    in debate. They are not covered by this particular rule. This rule 
    reflects upon references to the other body and is in a long 
    tradition of comity between the two bodies of the Congress. It has 
    been recently amended to permit references to Senate actions, but 
    the tradition against making references to individual Senators or 
    characterizing their activity on or off the floor is against the 
    rule and traditions of the House. . . .
        Mr. Gingrich: . . . I would simply want to serve notice to my 
    colleagues

[[Page 10662]]

    on the Democratic side that we will ask the Chair to be as strict 
    in protecting the President and his immediate family as the Chair 
    is legitimately being with respect to the other body.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] has, in 
    effect, cooperated with the Chair on the matter. . . .
        Mr. [Dennis E.] Eckart [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        To what extent do the rules of the House extend to individuals 
    who may be related to public officials.
        The Speaker: The traditions only go to the references to 
    Members of the other body personally or to the President 
    personally, but do not necessarily go to the matters of the 
    President's family.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In some instances, of course, a particular 
criticism of the President's family might constitute a personal affront 
to the President himself.