[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§ 65. Race and Prejudice]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10891-10895]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
 
Sec. 65. --Race and Prejudice

    It is not in order in debate to accuse a Member of bigotry or 
racism.(8) However, a Member may express the opinion in 
debate that another Member is by his actions and words doing a 
disservice to a minority race if terms not objectionable in themselves 
are not used.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Compare Sec. Sec. 65.5-65.7, infra.
 9. See Sec. 65.4, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remarks Relating to Race Generally

Sec. 65.1 A statement in debate expressing the opinion of the Member 
    that if he were a Negro he would avoid association with non-Negroes 
    was held not to reflect on any Member of the House and therefore to 
    be in order.

    On Apr. 5, 1946, Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, offered to 
H.R. 5990, the District of Columbia appropriation bill of 1947, an 
amendment to deny funds to any agency, office, or department which 
segregated citizens on the basis of race, color, creed, or national 
origin.(10) In commenting on the amendment, Mr. Powell 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 3227, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If you do not believe that segregation is practiced here by the 
    District government may I say look at me, one of your fellow 
    Congressmen. I cannot get a card to play tennis, for instance, in 
    any of the parks of the District of Columbia. . . .

    Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, then commented as follows on 
the amendment:

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment to deny funds to separate schools 
    here in Washington is another one of those communistic movements to 
    stir up 
    race hatred in the District of Columbia. . . .
        If I were a Negro I would want to be as black as the ace of 
    spades, and I would not be running around here trying to play 
    tennis on a white man's court. I would go with the other Negroes 
    and have the best time in my life. . . .

    Mr. Powell demanded that the last paragraph of Mr. Rankin's remarks 
be taken down. The Committee of the Whole rose and Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, ruled as follows:

        The Chair would think and would be compelled to hold that there 
    is nothing

[[Page 10892]]

    in this language that refers to any specific person by name or 
    otherwise as a Member of the House of Representatives, does not 
    reflect upon his character, his integrity, or attribute to him any 
    moral turpitude.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 3229, 3230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 65.2 The Speaker held that reference to a class or group of 
    persons as ``Negroes'' was in order, although it was objected that 
    a corruption of that term had been used, thereby insulting some 
    Members of the House.

    On Sept. 21, 1949,(12) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, was delivering remarks in debate against Paul Robeson, 
whom he termed 
a ``Negro Communist''. Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, made the 
following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 13124, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that he had understood Mr. 
Rankin to say ``Negro,'' and Mr. Rankin added that he had used that 
term ever since he had learned to talk. Mr. Marcantonio insisted that 
Mr. Rankin had said ``nigger,'' and Speaker Rayburn ruled as follows:

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

    Similarly, on Feb. 18, 1947,(13) Mr. Rankin delivered 
the following remarks in debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 93 Cong. Rec. 1131, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The following point of order and ruling by Speaker Joseph W. 
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then took place:

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Is it within the rules of 
    this Congress to refer to any group of our Nation in disparaging 
    terms?
        Mr. Rankin: It is not disparaging to call them Negroes, as all 
    respectable Negroes know.

        Mr. Powell: I am addressing the Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair is not aware of the disparaging term 
    used.
        Mr. Powell: He used the term ``nigger'' in referring to a 
    group.

[[Page 10893]]

        The Speaker: The Chair understood the gentleman to say 
    ``Negro.''
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I said what I always say and what I am 
    always going to say when referring to these people.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will proceed in order.
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 65.3 It is not in order to impugn the motives of other Members as 
    being racially prejudiced.

    On Aug. 14, 1967,(14) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled that the use of the word ``bigoted'' in reference 
to another Member was not consistent with the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 22443, 22444, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on Dec. 13, 1973,(15) Speaker Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, ruled that the use of the words ``demagogic and racist'' in 
relation to the motivation for an amendment was a breach of the rules 
of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 41271, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 65.4 In referring to another Member in debate the proper reference 
    is ``the gentleman from `the state from which he comes' '' and not 
    ``the Jewish gentleman from New York.''

    On Oct. 24, 1945,(16) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, in debate referred to Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, as 
the ``Jewish gentleman from New York.'' The words were demanded to be 
taken down by Mr. Celler, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled them 
out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 10032, 10033, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Rankin then continued with his remarks and criticized Mr. 
Celler for protesting reference to him as a ``gentleman of his race''.
    Mr. Celler demanded that those words be taken down on the grounds 
that Mr. Rankin was again referring to him by innuendo as the Jewish 
gentleman from New York. Speaker Rayburn ruled that there was no breach 

of order in referring to another Member merely as a member of a 
minority race. Mr. Rankin then asked the Speaker:

        . . . I wish to proceed in order. Does the Member from New York 
    [Mr. Celler] object to being called a Jew or does he object to 
    being called a gentleman? What is he kicking about?
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The Chair desires to make a little statement.
        The Chair trusts that points of order may be properly points of 
    order here

[[Page 10894]]

    after, and that a Member before he makes a point of order secures 
    the recognition of the Chair.
        The gentleman from Mississippi will proceed in order, and the 
    Chair trusts that the gentleman from Mississippi understands what 
    the Chair means.

    On May 22, 1947,(17) Mr. Rankin delivered the following 
words in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 5663, 5664, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I might say in the beginning that I know of no man 
    who in my opinion has done the Jews of this country more harm than 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler].

    The words were demanded to be taken down by Mr. Celler and Speaker 
Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the words used were 
merely an expression of an individual opinion and that they did not 
reflect in an unparliamentary manner upon Mr. Celler.

Sec. 65.5 It is not in order in debate to refer to a Member 
    as having reached ``bigoted'' conclusions.

    On Aug. 14, 1967,(18) the following words used in debate 
by Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, in relation to another Member 
were demanded to be taken down: ``His conclusions have already been 
reached. They are prejudicial and bigoted.'' Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, ruled that the use of the word ``bigoted'' was not 
consistent with the rules of the House. The words were stricken from 
the Record and Mr. Hebert was recognized for the remainder of his time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 22443, 22444, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 65.6 The Speaker ruled out 
    of order in debate remarks characterizing the motivation for an 
    amendment as ``demagogic'' and ``racist.''

    On Dec. 13, 1973,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11450, the Energy Emergency Act. Mr. John D. Dingell, 
of Michigan, offered an amendment to prohibit the use of petroleum for 
the busing of schoolchildren beyond the nearest public school. In 
debate on the amendment, Ms. Bella S. Abzug, of New York, stated as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 41271, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        An amendment like this can only be demagogic or racist because 
    it is only demagoguery or racism which impels such an amendment 
    like this.

    Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, demanded that the words be taken 
down and Ms. Abzug responded that her language had not in any way im

[[Page 10895]]

pugned the motives of Mr. Dingell.
    The Committee rose and Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled as 
follows:

        On May 4, 1943 . . . Speaker [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas] held:
        Statement by Newsome of Minnesota that, ``I do not yield to any 
    more demagogues,'' held not in order.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that the statements reported to 
    the House are within the framework of this ruling, and without 
    objection the words are therefore stricken from the Record.

Exciting To Prejudice

Sec. 65.7 A statement in debate accusing a Member of remarks on the 
    floor calculated to stir up race prejudice was ruled in order as a 
    statement of opinion and not reflecting upon the character or 
    integrity of the Member mentioned.

    On Feb. 25, 1948,(20) Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, 
used the following words in debate in relation to Mr. John E. Rankin, 
of Mississippi:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 1707, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]hat statement of the gentleman from Mississippi is just as 
    wrong as many of the other inflammatory statements which he makes 
    on the floor of this House in an attempt to stir up race prejudice 
    that ought to be subdued rather than stirred up.

    Mr. Rankin demanded that the words be taken down and Speaker Joseph 
W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that Mr. Keefe had merely 
stated his opinion and did not reflect upon the character or integrity 
of Mr. Rankin. The Speaker ruled that the statement was not 
unparliamentary since it only expressed a difference of opinion.