[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[G. References to House, Committees, or Members]
[Â§ 53. Criticism of House or Party]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10793-10799]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
 
Sec. 53. Criticism of House or Party


    In order that free debate not be hindered in the deliberations of 
the House, Members are permitted to voice critical opinions of 
Congress, of the House, and of the political parties.(10) In 
this regard, a wider latitude is permitted Members today than in early 
Congresses.(11) However, critical opinions in debate of the 
House or of its membership may not extend to gross misstatements of 
motive(12) or to descriptions employing language 
objectionable in itself.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See the statements of Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.), cited at 
        Sec. Sec. 53.2, 53.3, infra.
11. In early Congresses it was held not in order to cast reflections on 
        the House or its membership present or past, 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 5132-5138, 5161, 5162, and the Speaker 
        would intervene on his own initiative to prevent objectionable 
        references. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5132, 5137, 5163. For 
        a recent occasion of such intervention, see Sec. 54.10, infra.
12. See Sec. 53.3, infra.
13. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5135 (``damnable 
        heresies'').                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress

Sec. 53.1 Statements that are critical of Congress will not be ruled 
    out of order for that reason alone; thus, a statement in debate 
    claiming that the campaign expenses of Members were paid by certain 
    interests was held not to be a personal reflection on any Member of 
    the House and to be in order.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(14) Mr. Francis D. Culkin, of New 
York, demanded that the following

[[Page 10794]]

words used in debate be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 2883, 2884, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I will tell you what is behind all this. You need 
    not camouflage it. The Power Trust that paid a lot of campaign 
    expenses last year. That is what is behind it.

    The Committee rose and the words objected to were reported 
to the House whereupon Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled 
that since the language was not a personal reflection upon any 
individual Member of the House, the words did not violate the rules or 
proprieties of debate.
    On Sept. 25, 1961,(15) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, asked unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the 
business of the House he be permitted to proceed for five minutes on 
the topic ``Is the Congress Mentally Ill?''. Mr. Frank T. Bow, of Ohio, 
raised 
a parliamentary inquiry as to whether that was a proper subject for 
debate on the floor of the House, and Speaker Pro Tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, declined to rule in advance as to whether 
the speech would be unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 107 Cong. Rec. 21466, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Political Parties

Sec. 53.2 A statement in debate referring to ``irresponsible actions by 
    members of the President's own party'' was held in order as not 
    reflecting on the character of any House Member.

    On Mar. 27, 1957,(16) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, 
delivered the following words in debate which were demanded to be taken 
down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 103 Cong. Rec. 4557, 4558, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I could not help but admire him [Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode 
    Island] for his courage and for his devotion to the American people 
    to get up here time after time after time to defend the 
    administration's budget against irresponsible actions by members of 
    the President's own party.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled that the words were not 
unparliamentary since they did not reflect on the character of 
any House Member. The Speaker added that objections to words 
in debate could reach the point where a Member could not criticize, 
thereby restricting debate in the House.

Sec. 53.3 A statement in debate referring to members of the Republican 
    Conference as avoiding an issue and describing lynching as a 
    ``proper means of justice'' was held to be in violation of the 
    rules of debate.

[[Page 10795]]

    On July 26, 1951,(17) Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, demanded that words used in debate by Mr. John J. 
Rooney, of New York, in reference to the Republican Conference be taken 
down. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 97 Cong. Rec. 8969, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair in every instance of this kind has been most liberal 
    with the Member who uttered the words objected to, because he has 
    always thought that great liberality must be indulged in so that we 
    may have free and full debate. On very few occasions has the 
    present occupant of the chair held that remarks were a violation of 
    the rules of the House.
        The Chair can hardly agree, however, that the words, applied to 
    the meeting of the Republicans in caucus yesterday were quite 
    proper.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The words used, which were stricken from 
the Record, read as follows: ``The way to handle the situation is to 
work up to it squarely, unashamedly, and straight forwardly, and not 
peek through keyholes, hide behind doors, and tremble at the first sign 
of opposition as you did yesterday [referring to the Republican 
Conference]; they are saying nothing less than lynching is a proper 
means of justice.''

Sec. 53.4 It was not out of order to ask in debate whether it was a 
    proper parliamentary inquiry to ask that a bill be printed in such 
    a way that the Republicans could understand it.

    On Mar. 31, 1938,(18) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
demanded that the following words used in debate by Mr. Thomas F. Ford, 
of California, be taken down: ``Mr. Chairman, is it a parliamentary 
inquiry then to ask that the bill be reprinted in words of one syllable 
so that the Republicans can understand it?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 83 Cong. Rec. 4484, 4485, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that the language 
was not objectionable under the House rules.

Sec. 53.5 A statement in debate that a Member was leading the 
    Republican party in a policy of opportunism was held not to 
    transgress the rules of the House or reflect upon the integrity of 
    Members and therefore to be in order.

    On Feb. 8, 1941,(19) the following words used by Mr. 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, in debate were demanded to be

[[Page 10796]]

taken down by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 87 Cong. Rec. 796, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York who was leading the Republican 
    Party in the policy of opportunism that is being engaged in in 
    connection with a bill serious to the fate of our country relating 
    to our national defense.

    The Committee of the Whole rose and the words were reported to the 
House, where Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words did 
not reflect upon the integrity of any Members and were therefore not 
violative of the rules of the House.

Sec. 53.6 Reference in debate to the minority party as ``having some 
    motivation other than fully objective concern for the House in the 
    timing of a resolution'' and the assertion that the House could 
    proceed with ``greater dignity and honor'' at another time, 
    together with the disclaimer that the minority leader did not 
    necessarily share that motivation, was held not to impugn the 
    motives of any Member and to be parliamentary.

    During consideration of House Resolution 578 (directing the 
Committee on Rules to make certain inquiries) on Feb. 13, 
1980,(20) the following proceedings occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 2768, 2769, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I send to the 
    desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 578) and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 578

            Resolved, Whereas it was reported in the public press on 
        February 9, 1980, that, ``The House of Representatives this 
        week lost a secret effort in court to obtain a ruling that 
        congressmen do not have to respond to federal grand jury 
        subpoenas for House records; '' . . .
            Therefore be it resolved, That the Committee on Rules be 
        instructed to inquire into the truth or falsity of the 
        newspaper account and promptly report back to the House its 
        findings and any recommendations thereon. . . .

        Mr. Bolling: . . . The gentleman from Missouri has not felt 
    more strongly about a matter in a very long time than he does about 
    this. . . . The gentleman from Missouri obviously has no difficulty 
    with the content of the resolution and feels that he could in honor 
    offer it. The gentleman from Missouri has a very, very strong 
    feeling about the timing of the offering of this proposal by the 
    minority, and the gentleman from Missouri has carefully 
    differentiated between what he has said earlier about the minority 
    leader and what he is now saying about the minority.
        I fear me, and I do not suspect the gentleman from Arizona of 
    having this

[[Page 10797]]

    view, I fear me that there is some motivation other than fully 
    objective concern for the House in the timing of the resolution, 
    not in the content. And that is the reason that the gentleman from 
    Missouri took the unusual course of offering the minority's 
    proposition. He feels that it is appropriate for the House, through 
    the Rules Committee initially, to look into this matter. But he 
    thinks it might be done with greater dignity, and one might say 
    with greater honor, if it were not done at this particular time of 
    confusion. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    that the words of the gentleman from Missouri be taken down. . . .
        If the record is read back by the Clerk, I believe the Chair 
    will find that the gentleman from Missouri referred to the 
    motivation behind the offering of this resolution at this time and 
    referred to the minority leader and the members of the minority 
    party. Subsequent to that the gentleman from Missouri referred to 
    that motivation being dishonorable. I think this falls within the 
    rules of the House that clearly say that a Member of the House 
    cannot question the motivation of other Members of the House in 
    their actions. The gentleman from Missouri did refer to the 
    minority leader, and all of the Members of the minority and their 
    motivation.
        The Speaker: (1) The Clerk will report the words. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Missouri has referred in his remarks that he 
    feels that it is appropriate for the House, through the Rules 
    Committee, initially to look into this matter, and he thinks it 
    might be done with greater dignity and, one might say, with greater 
    honor if done by the committee or considered at another time.
        The Chair, in its opinion, feels that he has not transgressed 
    on the honor or the dignity of the minority party or the minority 
    leader, and the point of order is not well taken.
        The gentleman from Missouri.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, would the Chair address himself to the 
    issue of motivation the gentleman from Missouri raised, as to 
    whether that is a correct use of parliamentary language.
        The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair the gentleman did not 
    talk about or refer to the dishonor of any Member of the House, nor 
    did he characterize the motives of any specific Member in an 
    unparliamentary way.
        The Chair repeats, the point of order is not well taken.

Stealing an Election

Sec. 53.7 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that it was not in order in debate to refer to an identifiable 
    group of sitting Members as having committed a crime, such as 
    ``stealing'' an election.

    The prohibition in Rule XIV, clause 1,(2) against 
Members' engaging in ``personality'' during debate, applies to 
allegations that an identifiable group of sitting

[[Page 10798]]

Members have committed a crime. Such application of the rule is shown 
by the proceedings of Feb. 27, 1985,(3) in which a statement 
made by Mr. John Rowland, of Connecticut, as indicated below, 
concerning an allegedly ``stolen'' election, was the subject of a 
demand that the words be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995).
 3. 131 Cong. Rec. 3898, 3899, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the gentleman's words be taken down in that he said ``stolen.''
        The Chairman: Words will be taken down.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The Clerk will read the 
    words taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Tommy F. Robinson (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The scary thing about it, as a person who served in the 
        legislature for 4 years, and as a person who happens to be 
        sitting as the youngest Member of Congress, I find it difficult 
        that the first situation that we run into in this House, the 
        first class project, as we may call it, is trying to retain a 
        seat that has been stolen from the Republican side of the 
        aisle, and I think it is rather frustrating.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the gentleman care to modify his 
    remarks before the Chair rules?
        Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In what way does the gentleman care to 
    modify?
        Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: I would like to ask unanimous 
    consent that the words objected to be withdrawn. . . .
        The word ``stolen,'' Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Connecticut?
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Georgia is 
    recognized.
        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: I would yield in just a 
    moment, after asking the Chair if in fact Members were convinced an 
    action were being taken which involved a word which was ruled by 
    the Chair to be inappropriate, how could a Member report to the 
    House on that action? Should we substitute the word ``banana''? 
    What is it one should say if in fact--not just as a joke, but if in 
    fact--Members of 
    the Republican side honestly believed strongly something is being 
    done? In other words, is ``unconstitutional'' an acceptable term 
    but ``illegal'' not acceptable? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Simply put, Members should not accuse 
    other Members of committing a crime. When the majority is accused 
    of ``stealing,'' that may suggest illegality. Other words could be 
    used but not those accusing Members of committing a crime.
        Mr. Gingrich: What if one honestly believes, for a moment, that 
    a crime is being committed? Would it in fact be against the rules--
    --
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members may not engage in 
    personalities.
        Mr. Gingrich: But he did not talk in personalities.
        Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Gingrich: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.

[[Page 10799]]

        Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that I did not refer to 
    anybody stealing an election. I just referred to the frustration 
    that we as freshmen are exhibiting and fearing as we go through the 
    deliberations. I did not refer to anybody.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman seemed to refer to the 
    majority of the House, that it had stolen the election.