[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§ 64. Lack of Intelligence]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10889-10891]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
 
Sec. 64. -- Lack of Intelligence

    Wide latitude is permitted in debate to criticize the understanding 
of other Members or groups of Members in relation to pending 
legislation. But such remarks may not extend to personal attacks on the 
intelligence of another Member.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 64.4, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implication in Debate

Sec. 64.1 An implication in debate that another Member did not 
    understand English was held in order.

    During debate on Mar. 9, 1936,(4) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, 
of

[[Page 10890]]

Texas, stated in reference to Mr. Henry Ellenbogen, of Pennsylvania, 
``Here is the answer, if the gentleman can understand English.'' The 
words were taken down, but Speaker Pro Tempore John J. O'Connor, of New 
York, ruled that there was nothing objectionable in the language noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 80 Cong. Rec. 3465, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 64.2 A question in debate whether it was a parliamentary inquiry 
    to ask that a bill be printed in such a way that the Republicans 
    could understand it was held in order.

    On Mar. 31, 1938,(5) 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?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 83 Cong. Rec. 4484, 4485, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 64.3 Where a Member characterized another Member's comment on a 
    pending amendment as a ``dumb interpretation in my opinion,'' the 
    words were taken down but withdrawn by unanimous consent before a 
    ruling was made.

    On June 10, 1964,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering an amendment to a pending bill offered by Mr. Olin E. 
Teague of Texas. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, described his view of the 
amendment's effect, and Mr. Teague replied ``It is a dumb 
interpretation in my opinion.'' Mr. Gross demanded that the words be 
taken down but Mr. Teague asked unanimous consent that the words be 
withdrawn before any ruling was made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 13254, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 64.4 A reference in debate 
    to a Member as one who 
    was incapable of ascertaining whether a document has been forged 
    was held to transgress rules of debate.

    On Mar. 1, 1940,(7) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
referred in debate to Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, as a person ``who 
never can tell whether a document has been forged or whether it has 
not.'' Mr. Hook demanded that the words be taken down, and Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Ala

[[Page 10891]]

bama, ruled that the language violated the rules of debate since 
directed to the personality of another Member. The words were stricken 
from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 86 Cong. Rec. 2229, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------