[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§ 62. Questionable Motives]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10875-10886]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
 
Sec. 62. --Questionable Motives

    Members may not in debate impugn the motives of other named Members 
in the performance of their legislative duties.(5) A 
reasonable difference of opinion on the intent of another Member in 
offering a bill or debating a proposition may be stated,(6) 
as may an opinion on the general motives of the House or a political 
party in adopting or rejecting a proposition.(7) But an 
assertion that a Member's use of the legislative process is motivated 
by personal gain or is deceitful is not in order.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. A Member must avoid personality in debate. Rule XIV clause 1, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995).
            In the early practice of the House the Speaker customarily 
        intervened in debate to prevent even the mildest imputation on 
        the motives of Members; see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5161, 
        5162.
 6. Compare Sec. Sec. 62.2-62.5, infra.
            Purposely misquoting a Member's remarks is a breach of 
        order. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5150.
 7. See Sec. 62.7, infra (motive of political party).
            If words used to describe the motive of the House are 
        objectionable in themselves, they are a breach of order; see 
        Sec. 65.6, infra (characterization of amendment as 
        ``demogogic'' and ``racist'').
 8. See Sec. 62.8, infra; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5147, 5149; 8 
        Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2546.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally

Sec. 62.1 It is a breach of order in debate to impugn the motives of 
    other named Members.

    On Feb. 7, 1935, certain language was used in the Committee

[[Page 10876]]

of the Whole charging that Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, and 
former Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, in the past had committed 
dishonest acts and repudiated and ignored the rules of the House in the 
course of presiding.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 79 Cong. Rec. 1680, 1681, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, objected to the words uttered by 
Mr. George H. Tinkham, of Massachusetts, and demanded that they be 
taken down. When the committee rose and Speaker Byrns resumed the 
Chair, he appointed Speaker Pro Tempore John J. O'Connor, of New York, 
to preside.
    In defense of the words, Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, 
stated as follows:

        Mr. Speaker, the right of free debate in a parliamentary 
    assemblage is the one privilege which the minority in such a body 
    has, and which no deliberative assembly, certainly no English-
    speaking assembly, has ever sought to abridge or suppress.
        Unparliamentary language is the use of abusive epithets or 
    abuse or improper and excessive use of words, but it does not 
    extend to criticism of anybody connected with the Government or 
    characterization of the acts so criticized, and that is all that is 
    involved here. It is a criticism of what the gentleman charges was 
    done, and it is entirely aside from the question of whether that 
    charge is true or not as to whether the language is 
    unparliamentary. The gentleman has a perfect right to charge that 
    in the conduct of any kind of detail of the function of government 
    certain acts were performed by certain officials. He has the right 
    to condemn those acts, and he has the right to characterize them in 
    any way he sees fit as long as he confines the language in which he 
    makes his criticism to language ordinarily used by a gentleman.

    The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled that the language used was a breach 
of order, since ``It is well established under the precedents of the 
House that it is out of order in debate to arraign the motives of 
Members. Of course, the Speaker is a Member of the House.'' 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Speaker referred to a precedent set on Apr. 19, 1934, 78 Cong. 
        Rec. 6947, 6948, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inconsistency in Motivation

Sec. 62.2 A statement in debate that ``consistency is a virtue of small 
    minds'' was held not to reflect on the motives of any Member of the 
    House and not to be unparliamentary.

    On Apr. 11, 1962,(11) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, 
delivered the following words in debate in relation to Mr. H. R. Gross, 
of Iowa: ``I say

[[Page 10877]]

you have your definition of consistency. My definition is that 
consistency is a virtue of small minds.'' Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 6374, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, both Members were talking about a 
    definition and each definition might apply to others outside the 
    House. The Chair sees nothing about the words taken down that 
    impugns the motives of any Member.

Attributing Legislative Position to Improper Motives

Sec. 62.3 A statement in debate accusing another Member of attacking 
    the intent to enfranchise men in the Armed Forces was held in order 
    as not impugning the motives of the Member.

    On Dec. 15, 1943,(12) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, demanded that the following words used in reference to him 
by Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, in debate be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 10737, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Mississippi saw fit to make an attack on the 
    President's Committee for Fair Employment Practices and also to 
    state his viewpoint with regard to the soldiers' vote bill. 
    Throughout the gentleman's speech the gentleman rests his attack on 
    the Committee for Fair Employment Practices as well as his attack 
    on the attempt to enfranchise the men in American uniform on what 
    he deemed to be the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:

        The Chair read the statement and then listened to its reading 
    and the Chair can hardly think that the language of the gentleman 
    from New York was more than expressing his opinion of the attitude 
    of the gentleman from Mississippi. The Chair very seriously doubts 
    that it is a violation of the rules of the House or a direct charge 
    impugning the gentleman's motives or impugning his character.

Sec. 62.4 A statement in debate accusing a Member of attempting to 
    deprive men in the Armed Forces of the right to vote was held to 
    transgress the rules and to be a breach of order in debate.

    On Dec. 20, 1943,(13) the following words used by Mr. 
Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, in debate in relation to Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, were demanded to be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 10922, 10923, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I said that I did not care whether it was my bill, his bill, or 
    any bill; but that it should be a bill that will give them the 
    right to vote [men in the

[[Page 10878]]

    armed forces] and not a bill that will deprive them of that great 
    privilege as the gentleman from Mississippi is trying to do.

    Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as 
follows:

        The Chair feels that the question is very close to the line, 
    but does transgress the rules when the gentleman from Illinois used 
    the words ``deprive them'' in that those words tend to impugn the 
    motives of the gentleman from Mississippi.
        A Member may take the floor and make as vigorous an attack as 
    he desires on any bill and its merits, but when it comes to the 
    question of impugning the motives of another Member, one has to be 
    exceedingly careful. Many times these questions are very close, and 
    the Chair is frankly of the opinion that this is a very close 
    question. But in order to preserve that understanding among Members 
    which is so essential in a legislative body, the Chair is of the 
    opinion that the words used, while very close to the line, tend to 
    transgress the rules of the House.

Sec. 62.5 A statement in debate accusing another Member of past 
    opposition to ``every bill necessary for the defense of our 
    country'' was held to be an expression of opinion and not 
    unparliamentary.

    On Mar. 16, 1949,(14) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, delivered the following words in debate in reference to 
another Member: ``Before Pearl Harbor the gentleman was opposed to 
every bill necessary for the defense of our country.'' Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, to whom the words referred, demanded that the 
words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 2651, 2652, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that he had always been in 
favor of a wide range of discussion and expression of opinion in 
debate; he ruled that the words objected to expressed an opinion, not 
fact, and were therefore not in violation of the rules of the House.

Sec. 62.6 While remarks in debate may not impute questionable personal 
    motivations to a Member for his legislative positions, it is 
    permissible to address political motivations for legislative 
    positions in a manner not constituting a personal attack on a 
    Member.

    On Jan. 24, 1995,(15) Mr. Dan Burton, of Indiana, was 
given permission to address the House for one minute and to revise and 
extend his remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 141 Cong. Rec. p.  ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, the people of this country 
    spoke last

[[Page 10879]]

    November. But it is apparent to anyone who is paying attention to 
    what is going on in this House that the Democratic Party is doing 
    everything they can to derail the Contract With America. They are 
    proposing hundreds of amendments to slow down the process. All I 
    want to say is that it is the height of hypocrisy, the height of 
    hypocrisy for the Democrats to come down here and complain about 
    what the Republicans are doing after the way they have run this 
    House for the last 40 years.
        Mr. [Jerrold L.] Nadler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    that the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Christopher Shays (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It would be out of order for the gentleman to make reference to 
    a particular Member, but precedent suggests that reference to 
    procedures, or amendments, or to parties is not out of order. . . .
        Mr. Nadler: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        The second half of the statement of the distinguished gentleman 
    made reference to the hypocrisy of the Democrats. The context 
    clearly indicated that it was the Democratic Members of the House 
    that he was referring to. My parliamentary inquiry, therefore:
        Since the rules prohibit the impugning of motives of Members of 
    the House, and the gentleman impugned the motives of a group of 
    Members of the House, just under half the Members of the House; so 
    is it not permitted under the rules then to impugn the motives of 
    an individual Member of the House, but to impugn the motives of a 
    group of Members of the House is permitted?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair believes that collective 
    political motivation can be discussed and it was not discernible 
    that it was relating to any particular Member.

    The scope of permissible discussion of motivation was further 
clarified by the Chair on Mar. 8, 1995,(17) in his response 
to a parliamentary inquiry. The Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 956, to establish legal standards and procedures for 
product liability litigation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 141 Cong. Rec. p.  ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Bliley [Jr., of Virginia]: . . . I will point 
    out to the gentleman on the other side that between 1973 and 1988 
    product liability suits in Federal courts increased 1,000 percent. 
    In State courts, the increase was between 300 and 500 percent. One 
    estimate of the total cost of these suits is $132 billion a year. . 
    . .
        To the gentleman from Massachusetts I would say, when we were 
    accused today in a bill that we passed overwhelmingly with 
    bipartisan support for securities litigation reform, that we were 
    bringing this because we were rewarding our fat cats, maybe some of 
    us might beg to say that the gentleman on the other [side] might be 
    trying to defend them.
        Mr. Chairman, that may be one of the reasons that they so 
    vociferously

[[Page 10880]]

    defend the current system is that one of the heaviest contributors 
    to their campaign coffers are the trial lawyers of the United 
    States. . . .
        Mr. [John] Bryant of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Do the rules prohibit implying a motive or the improper motive 
    on the part of your adversary in debate for presenting legislation?
        The Chairman: (18) The rules of the House prevent 
    Members from engaging in personal attacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. David Dreier (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bryant of Texas: I thank the Chair. But my further inquiry 
    was, do the rules prohibit you from implying a prohibited motive, 
    unsavory motive for offering amendments for advocating legislation?
        The Chairman: The rules do not prohibit Members from engaging 
    in discussions of political motivation.
        Mr. Bryant of Texas: What about motivations that relate to your 
    personal occupation or your personal sources of income?
        The Chairman: The rules prohibit Members from engaging in 
    personal attacks.

Opportunism as Motive

Sec. 62.7 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 
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. 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.

Personal Gain as Motive

Sec. 62.8 Where a Member charged another with opposing a rent bill 
    because he was a landlord, the Speaker ruled the reference a breach 
    of order.

    On Apr. 17, 1936, (20) during consideration of a 
District of Columbia rent bill in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. 
Marion A. Zioncheck, of Washington, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 80 Cong. Rec. 5647, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, there has been a bad rumor running around the 
    town that

[[Page 10881]]

    the reason the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Blanton] objects to this 
    bill is that he is a landlord.

    Mr. Thomas L. Blanton made a point of order against those remarks, 
and Chairman William B. Umstead, of North Carolina, ruled as follows:

        . . . The gentleman from Washington will confine his remarks to 
    the amendment which he offered and avoid personalities, and please 
    proceed in order.

    Following another personal remark by Mr. Zioncheck, the Chairman 
again reminded him that he could not indulge in personalities.

Sec. 62.9 While it may be appropriate in debate to characterize the 
    effect of an amendment as deceptive or hypocritical, the Speaker 
    has ruled out of order words taken down in Committee of the Whole 
    characterizing the motivation of a Member in offering an amendment 
    as deceptive and hypocritical.

    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 and ruled out of order by the 
Speaker. The proceedings of June 12, 1979,(1) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 14461, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I expected 
    resistance to this amendment and not necessarily my getting 
    involved. I am not a member of this committee. But this amendment 
    is probably the most detrimental to the main purposes of equal 
    opportunity of education to the most needed segments of our society 
    that has been presented thus far and probably could ever be 
    presented. 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.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    demand that the words be taken down.
        The Chairman:(2) The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Committee will rise. . . .
        The Speaker: (3) The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            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 word, 
    ``deceptive,'' or the word, ``hypocritical,'' in characterizing an 
    amendment's effect but when a Member so

[[Page 10882]]

    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.

--Party Motivation in Offering Question of Privilege

Sec. 62.10 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,(4) the following proceedings occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 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 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

[[Page 10883]]

    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: (5) The Clerk will report the words. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 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.

Indirect Derogatory Reference

Sec. 62.11 Under Jefferson's Manual,(6) it is not in order 
    during debate to refer to a particular Member of the House in a 
    derogatory fashion, and the Chair will intervene to prevent 
    improper references where it is evident that 
    a particular Member is being described although not named.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 361 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 28, 1981: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 127 Cong. Rec. 25723, 25725, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) Under a previous order 
    of the House,

[[Page 10884]]

    the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) is recognized for 60 
    minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Nick J. Rahall, 2d (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Bliley [Jr., of Virginia]: . . . Mr. Speaker, 
    my constituent is disgusted and I am disgusted. Disgusted to think 
    that any Member of this House would sanction the use of his 
    signature on this kind of scurrilous fabrication. Yes, outright 
    fabrication. . . .
        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: . . . [People] who 
    asked for our trust and the trust of the American people in solving 
    the problem, are telling us now that what the President is trying 
    to do is destroy the system, and one party, one party will save it 
    and make it a partisan issue.
        Unfortunately, the signer of this terrible appeal for cash is a 
    most distinguished member of the Committee on Aging.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    to confine his remarks to parliamentary and legislative issues and 
    not refer to Members of the body individually.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Lungren's reference had been to the 
chairman of the Select Committee on Aging, Mr. Claude Pepper, of 
Florida, and in the context of the full special order containing 
remarks relating to unidentified members of the majority party who had 
solicited campaign funds under the guise of a ``Social Security 
Notice'', the reference to Mr. Pepper was unparliamentary. Mr. Lungren 
revised his remarks to delete any reference to the chairman, over whose 
signature the controversial letter in question had been mailed out.

Challenging Motive of Minority Party

Sec. 62.12 A demand that words be taken down (in this instance, 
    language arguably impugning the motives of other Members) is 
    untimely if further debate has intervened.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 4, 
1985,(9) during consideration of House Resolution 97 (to 
seat Richard D. McIntyre as a Member from Indiana):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 131 Cong. Rec. 4277, 4283-85, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of privilege.
        Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. 
    Res. 97) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 97

            Whereas a certificate of election to the House of 
        Representatives always carries with it the presumption that the 
        State election procedures have been timely, regular, and fairly 
        implemented; and . . .
            Whereas the presumption of the validity and regularity of 
        the certificate of election held by Richard D. McIntyre has not 
        been overcome by any substantial evidence or claim of 
        irregularity: Now, therefore be it

[[Page 10885]]

            Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and 
        directed to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from 
        Indiana, Mr. Richard D. McIntyre. . . .

        Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the resolution be referred to the Committee on House 
    Administration. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The gentleman is 
    entitled to 1 hour under that motion, during which time the 
    gentleman from Arkansas controls the time. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: . . . Mr. Speaker, this 
    issue is being handled now in a manner being allowed in this House 
    that does not meet the dignity of this body which is very much 
    needed at the moment. At the time that the people of this country 
    are wondering whether or not the Congress is going to do the things 
    that are necessary, some of them painful, to protect our country, 
    we have Members playing petty politics over there in a way that is 
    calculated to do nothing except destroy public confidence in this 
    body.
        I can see how people would lose confidence in the House, which 
    is put into this kind of mess by this bushwhacking method of 
    causing a vote. . . . [W]e count on assertions from our leaders on 
    both sides that on particular days you can take care of other 
    important matters because there will not be rollcalls. They know 
    that many of the Members are being deprived, who have been seated, 
    of representing their districts because of the way in which this 
    vote is called up. And if they want to show good faith at this 
    point, Mr. Speaker, then the gentleman should withdraw his motion 
    and move to take it up at a time when due notice has been given so 
    that my constituents and all of the districts in Michigan will have 
    their representative here to vote on them. . . .
        Mr. [Carroll] Campbell [Jr., of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, am I correct in saying that we do not seek to 
    impugn the motives of a Member when they bring a matter to the 
    floor? Is that correct under the way this House operates? And that 
    when a Member's motives have been impugned that that Member or 
    others on their behalf would have a right to ask that words be 
    stricken? Is that a correct assumption?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct that no 
    Member's motive is to be impugned by another Member in the course 
    of orderly debate on the House floor.
        Mr. Campbell: Well, Mr. Speaker, my concern lies with the fact 
    that with the previous speaker that the motivation of those of us 
    who are concerned with this matter may have been impugned when the 
    accusation was made that this was being done under petty politics 
    and that it was bushwhacking and instead of the motivation of 
    trying to protect legitimately the rights of a Member of the 
    minority party who had been denied, though being certified, his 
    seat.
        To make that charge I raise the point of order does impugn the 
    motivation of those of us who seek to seat Mr. McIntyre. I ask that 
    the gentleman's words be stricken.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's point of order in this 
    par

[[Page 10886]]

    ticular instance comes too late. Intervening debate has proceeded.
        Mr. Campbell: The gentleman who previously spoke, Mr. Speaker, 
    I was on my feet asking to be recognized on a point of order, who 
    had made those accusations.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state the Chair expects 
    all Members to maintain the dignity of the Chamber, and that 
    includes the proper use of language in reference to their 
    colleagues of either political party.
        The Chair will state that the point of order made by the 
    gentleman at this time is not timely made. But the Chair will 
    instruct all Members with the expectation that parliamentary 
    language will be observed.