[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§ 54. Criticism of Committees or Their Members]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10799-10805]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
 
Sec. 54. Criticism of Committees or Their Members

    Although a Member may generally criticize the action or inaction of 
a House committee or subcommittee or a member thereof,(5) he 
may not impugn the motives or honesty of committee members 
(6) such as charging that a committee proceeding is 
motivated by a desire to violate House rules in order to defame a 
witness.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 54.6, 54.8, 54.13, infra.
 6. See Sec. Sec. 54.1-54.5, infra.
 7. See Sec. Sec. 54.1 et seq., 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Particular Allegations; Abuse of Committee Power

Sec. 54.1 Although improper charges of unlawful committee activity have 
    been stricken from the Record, a Member in debate may generally 
    criticize the actions of a committee, as by alleging an abuse of 
    its powers.

    On Jan. 17, 1949,(8) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
objected to the following language used in debate by Mr. Chet 
Holifield, of California, in reference to a House committee: ``The 
gentleman from California [Mr. Havenner] has been the victim of the 
abusive, vicious, and irresponsible use of the power of a congressional 
committee twice.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 95 Cong. Rec. 428, 429, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled as follows:

        The Chair thinks that the gentleman would be going quite far 
    afield if he said a Member of the House would not have the right to 
    criticize the actions of a committee of the House. The gentleman 
    from California will proceed in order.

    On June 24, 1958,(9) during a discussion on the floor of 
the House about the proceedings in a subcommittee hearing, allegations 
were made that the subcommittee was deliberately trying to defame 
certain individuals. The precise words (which do not appear in the 
Record) were: ``There is no question but that this procedure is the

[[Page 10800]]

very thing that the House sought to forbid in Rule XI, paragraph m. and 
o. [now Rule XI, clause 2(k)]. Indeed the purpose of the tactics of the 
subcommittee on this measure demonstrate that its real purpose was to 
use the forum of the subcommittee to defame and degrade a person.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 104 Cong. Rec. 12120, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The words were objected to and taken down; and Speaker Rayburn held 
the words unparliamentary, stating:

        The Chair thinks it is very clear that this is a reflection on 
    a committee of the House of a very serious type and, therefore, 
    holds that the language is not parliamentary.

    The words were expunged by unanimous consent from the Congressional 
Record.

Sec. 54.2 A statement in debate charging an investigative committee 
    with ``unlawful prying'' was held unparliamentary and on motion 
    stricken from the Record.

    On Apr. 16, 1946,(10) the following words by Mr. Herman 
P. Kopplemann, of Connecticut, in relation to the Committee on Un-
American Activities were objected to and ordered taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 3761, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This would mean that all of our institutions up to and 
    including our churches would be exposed to the unlawful prying of a 
    committee.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled as follows:

        The Chair does not want it to be understood that he is ever 
    going to hold out of order proper words that express the opinion of 
    a Member of the House of Representatives.
        Two words, especially one in this statement, are very strong 
    words. . . .
        The Chair holds that the words ``unlawful prying'' attributed 
    to a committee of the House are improper words and therefore 
    unparliamentary.

    The words were then on motion stricken from the Congressional 
Record.

External Influence

Sec. 54.3 A statement by a Member that certain fascist organizations 
    exercised extensive influence on a special House committee was held 
    to impugn the motives and actions of a committee and of the 
    individual members and was ruled a breach of order.

    On Feb. 11, 1941, during consideration of House Resolution 90 to 
continue investigation by a special committee [the Dies Committee] on 
un-American activities, Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, asked and 
was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 894, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 10801]]

    Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, interrupted Mr. Dickstein's 
remarks and demanded that the following words be taken down as a 
violation of the rules of the House:

        I also charge, Mr. Speaker, that 110 Fascist organizations in 
    this country had the back key, and have now the back key to the 
    back door of the Dies committee.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled that the language noted 
``certainly impugns the motives and actions of a committee and the 
individual members thereof.'' The House then expunged Mr. Dickstein's 
entire speech from the Congressional Record.

Charges Reflecting on Integrity; Falsehood

Sec. 54.4 Language in a telegram read in debate in the House which 
    repudiated ``lies and half-truths'' of a House committee report was 
    held out of order as reflecting on the integrity of committee 
    members.

    On June 16, 1947,(12) Mr. Chet Holifield, of California, 
read in the House a telegram from the Southern Conference for Human 
Welfare. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a point of order 
against certain words in the telegram and demanded that they be taken 
down: ``We completely repudiate the lies and half-truths of the report 
that was issued and consider it un-American'' (in reference to a report 
of the Committee on Un-American Activities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 7065, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the 
words objected to were unparliamentary, since they ``reflect upon the 
character and integrity of the membership of a committee.'' The words 
were stricken by motion from the Congressional Record.

Sec. 54.5 A statement in debate in reference to a House committee ``I 
    cannot respect the actions or even the sincerity of some of the 
    committee members'' was ruled out of order.

    On June 26, 1946,(13) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, demanded that the following words used by Mr. Donald L. 
O'Toole, of New York, in reference to a House committee be taken down: 
``I cannot respect the actions or even the sincerity of some of the 
committee members.'' Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the 
words ob

[[Page 10802]]

jected to were clearly offending remarks and improperly used in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 7596, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The objectionable words were stricken by motion from the Record.

Committee Inaction

Sec. 54.6 An editorial read by a Member charging a committee with 
    ``pigeon-holing'' certain legislation was held in order as not 
    reflecting on 
    the personal conduct of any Member but rather criticizing committee 
    procedure.

    On May 6, 1940,(14) Mr. C. 
Arthur Anderson, of Missouri, quoted the following language from a 
newspaper editorial:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 5628, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Unadulterated, self-seeking politics cast the vote that pigeon-
    holed the supplementary Hatch measure in the House Judiciary 
    Committee Wednesday. Election-year jitters had solons by the napes 
    of their necks. Rather than risk crippling State machines they 
    chose to sink a harpoon into this excellent Government reform.

    Objection was made to the language by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, and the words were taken down. Speaker Pro Tempore Jere 
Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled that the ``words reported do not go to the 
personal conduct of any Member of the House and are rather a criticism 
of procedure that may have been employed. Therefore the point of order 
is overruled.''

Sec. 54.7 A statement by a Member in debate that ``somebody is going to 
    have the idea that the action of that committee was more or less 
    pusillanimous'' was held in order.

    On May 31, 1939,(15) Mr. Sam C. Massingale, of Oklahoma, 
in discussing a general welfare bill stated of the Committee on Ways 
and Means ``somebody is going to have the idea that the action of that 
committee was more or less pusillanimous, because that committee . . . 
has done nothing.'' Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, raised a point 
of order against Mr. Massingale and asked that the allegedly 
objectionable words be taken down. The Committee of the Whole rose and 
the words were reported to the House, but Speaker William B. Bankhead, 
of Alabama, ruled that he could find nothing objectionable in the words 
reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 6445, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 54.8 A statement in debate accusing a committee of dereliction was 
    held not to violate the rules of the House.

[[Page 10803]]

    On Mar. 7, 1942,(16) Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, 
stated ``since the gentleman from Texas raised the question here of 
dereliction of duty, I say that dereliction in this manner rests at the 
doorstep of his committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 2056, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order was made 
and the words were taken down. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as 
follows:

        The Chair thinks that if he were to hold upon as fine a point 
    as that, at some time free debate in the House 
    of Representatives might cease. The Chair holds that the language 
    does not violate the rules of the House.

Sec. 54.9 A statement in debate, ``When this committee investigates the 
    recent wave of policy lynch murder in Mississippi'' was held in 
    order.

    On Mar. 9, 1948,(17) the following words in debate, 
referring to the Committee on Un-American Activities, were objected to 
by 
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, and demanded taken down: ``When 
this committee investigates the recent wave of policy lynch murder in 
Mississippi, in the area of Jackson, and in the capital itself--''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 2408, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Rankin based his point of order on the fact that the Member 
speaking was accusing Mr. Rankin's home state of an act of murder. 
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the words 
were not unparliamentary and that the Member speaking was merely 
expressing his opinion.

``Packing'' a Committee

Sec. 54.10 A statement referring to the ``painless method of packing 
    the Rules Committee'' received the disapproval of the Speaker 
    (against whom the allegation was directed) but the House adjourned 
    before a decision was reached on the question.

    On Jan. 12, 1961,(18) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, on 
his own initiative called Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, to order for 
referring in debate to the ``so-called painless method of packing the 
Rules Committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 107 Cong. Rec. 650, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impugning Motives

Sec. 54.11 A reference in debate to the Committee on Un-American 
    Activities as ``the Un-American Committee'' was held out of order.

[[Page 10804]]

    On June 12, 1947,(19) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, demanded the taking down of the reference by Mr. Chet 
Holifield, of California, in debate to the Committee on Un-American 
Activities as the ``Un-American Committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 93 Cong. Rec. 6895, 6896, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the 
reference impugned the motives of the committee in question and were 
used in debate in violation of the rules of the House.

Sec. 54.12 The asking of the question ``Did the gentleman's committee 
    also find paid agents of Hitler on the congressional payroll?'' was 
    held not in violation of House rules.

    On Mar. 31, 1943,(20) the following question by Mr. 
Howard J. McMurray, of Wisconsin, in debate was ordered taken down as a 
violation of the rules of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 89 Cong. Rec. 2787, 2788, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Did the gentleman's committee also find paid agents of Hitler 
    on the congressional payroll?

    Speaker Pro Tempore William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, ruled 
as follows:

        The gentleman from Wisconsin asked a question. The mere asking 
    of the question propounded by the gentleman from Wisconsin is not 
    in violation of any rule of the House so far as the Chair has been 
    advised.

Sec. 54.13 It is not a personality to characterize as ``badgering'' a 
    colleague's questioning of a witness in a committee hearing.

    On July 29, 1994,(1) the Chair, while ruling that words 
objected to were not unparliamentary, ruled that a Member's subsequent 
behavior was a breach of decorum:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 140 Cong. Rec. p.  ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Maxine] Waters [of California]: Madam Speaker, last 
    evening a Member of this House, Peter King, had to be gaveled out 
    of order at the Whitewater hearings of the Banking Committee. He 
    had to be gaveled out of order because he badgered a woman who was 
    a witness from the White House, Maggie Williams. I am pleased I was 
    able to come to her defense. Madam Speaker, the day is over 
    when men can badger and intimidate women.
        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Madam 
    Speaker, I demand the gentlewoman's words be taken down. . . .
        The Speaker: (2) The Clerk will report the words. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        While in the opinion of the Chair the word ``badgering'' is not 
    in itself unparliamentary, the Chair believes that the demeanor of 
    the gentlewoman from

[[Page 10805]]

    California was not in good order in the subsequent period 
    immediately following those words having been uttered.
        Accordingly, the Chair rules that without leave of the House, 
    the gentlewoman from California may not proceed for the rest of 
    today.