[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§ 57. Criticism of Speaker]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10818-10831]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
 
Sec. 57. Criticism of Speaker

    It is not in order to refer invidiously or discourteously to the 
Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.(5) If 
words impugning the Speaker are uttered, the Speaker does not rule on 
the words himself but customarily appoints a Member to occupy the Chair 
and to deliver a decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. For past rulings, see 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1653; 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 2531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recent Congresses, more explicit standards have been enunciated 
relating to debate regarding ethics charges against the 
Speaker.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. Sec. 57.5 and 57.7, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criticism of Speaker's Performance of Duty

Sec. 57.1 It is out of order in debate for a Member to charge that the 
    Speaker committed a dishonest act or that the Speaker repudiated 
    and ignored the rules of the House.

        On Feb. 7, 1935, Mr. George H. Tinkham, of Massachusetts, 
    addressed the House as follows:
        Mr. Chairman, before beginning the argument I want to say that 
    this is an opportunity not only for this House but for the country 
    to see who in this House are international eunuchs, who in this 
    House wish to put us into Europe, who in this House wish us to sit 
    down with Fascist Italy, sit down with national socialistic 
    Germany, with murderous, homicidal communistic Russia. That is the 
    issue in its largest aspect in relation to this appropriation [H.R. 
    5255].(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 79 Cong. Rec. 1680-82, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, then demanded that certain words 
of Mr. Tinkham, made as part of the above statement and referring to 
former Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, and present Speaker Joseph 
W. Byrns, of Tennessee, be taken down. The Committee rose, and Chairman 
William N. Rogers, of New Hampshire, reported the words objected to to 
the House. Speaker Byrns left the Chair and Mr. John J. O'Connor, of 
New York, assumed the Chair as Speaker Pro Tempore. The Speaker Pro 
Tempore then ruled, relying on a former ruling on words critical of the

[[Page 10819]]

Speaker of the House, that Mr. Tinkham's words violated the rules of 
the House and were out of order. The words were then ordered ``expunged 
from the Record.'' On an appeal from the ruling of the Speaker Pro 
Tempore, the House affirmed the decision.

Sec. 57.2 Language used in debate charging that the Speaker dishonestly 
    resolved the House into a Committee of the Whole, and that he 
    repudiated and ignored the rules of the House, was held out of 
    order.

    On May 31, 1934, Mr. Harold McGugin, of Kansas, was called to order 
and certain words used by him in debate were ordered taken down:

        I take the position I am in order because I am charging that 
    the House is not lawfully or honestly, under the rules of this 
    House, in Committee of the Whole . . . for the good and sufficient 
    reason that this House is not now honestly, fairly, truthfully, and 
    within the rules of the House, in the Committee of the Whole, for 
    the good and sufficient reason that the Speaker completely 
    repudiated and ignored the rules of this House.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 78 Cong. Rec. 10167, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Committee rose and Chairman John H. Kerr, of North 
Carolina, reported the objectionable words to the House, the Speaker 
left the chair and Speaker Pro Tempore Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
ruled that the words were clearly out of order. The House ordered that 
the objectionable words be stricken from the Congressional 
Record.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For the entire proceedings on the disorderly words, see id. at pp. 
        10167-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 57.3 The Speaker is addressed as ``the Speaker'' or as ``the 
    gentleman from ---- (his state)'' and not by his nickname or 
    surname (``Tip O'Neill'') and it is improper to refer to him in a 
    manner personally critical.

    On June 25, 1981,(10) the following exchange occurred in 
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 127 Cong. Rec. 14056, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Smith of Oregon asked and was given permission to address 
    the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [Denny] Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, today we in the House 
    face a test of the courage of our convictions. We will vote up or 
    down on a motion that is much more than just a procedural vote. It 
    is a motion that pits Tip O'Neill and his backroom political 
    flimflam against one of the most strongly supported American 
    Presidents in history.
        If you vote with Mr. O'Neill, you vote against President 
    Reagan, against the

[[Page 10820]]

    American people, and against what is best for our country. If you 
    vote with Mr. O'Neill, you are voting for higher taxes and higher 
    Government spending.
        The Speaker: (11) The Chair will remind the 
    gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith)--the Chair appreciates the fact 
    that he is a new Member--that under the precedents which govern 
    conduct in debate in the House, it is not proper to refer to 
    another Member by his name in that manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Oregon: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

        The Speaker: The Speaker knows that the gentleman is not fully 
    acquainted with all the rules and this time will let it pass.
        Mr. Smith of Oregon: Yes, sir.

Sec. 57.4 It is not in order to speak disrespectfully in debate of the 
    Chair by charging dishonesty or disregard of the rules, and pending 
    a point of order, the Speaker Pro Tempore has admonished a Member 
    who had improperly criticized the count of a previous occupant of 
    the chair; but the Member's subsequent assertion of a personal 
    belief that a sufficient number had been standing 
    to demand a recorded vote 
    was held parliamentary as 
    not necessarily charging the Chair with disregard of the rules.

    On July 11, 1985,(12) the House had under discussion a 
motion to instruct conferees on the Defense Authorization bill 
(13) to insist on the House position on an amendment 
relating to the creation of a peacetime espionage offense with a death 
penalty in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Several Members 
questioned an earlier count by Speaker Pro Tempore James C. Wright, 
Jr., of Texas, of Members standing when a recorded vote was demanded on 
a motion to recommit which included the same amendment.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 18545, 18550, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. S. 1160.
14. The ``McCollum'' amendment, by Mr. Ira W. McCollum, of Florida. On 
        June 27, 1985, also, several Members had taken the floor during 
        special orders to complain about counts by the Chair on related 
        demands for record votes. See 131 Cong. Rec. 17893 et seq., 
        99th Cong. 1st Sess. The debate on that occasion was similarly 
        unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: I appreciate the 
    remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I do not attribute any 
    conspiracy to him or to anybody else. I will state emphatically, 
    however, I was on the floor when we made the second attempt on a 
    separate vote on the gentleman's amendment, and I will tell him 
    that I believe absolutely there were more than 44 people standing. 
    I know one Member did a quick count on our side and

[[Page 10821]]

    counted 50, at least 50; our staff counted 60 back there.
        I understand what the gentleman is saying. But I will not take 
    lightly what occurred to us on our side. When our side feels that 
    we cannot get a proper vote. It goes to the very fundamental 
    questions of this House, because, frankly, there is a certain 
    amount of comity that is necessary in this House.
        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I wish to 
    make a point of order. . . .
        I think that this last statement of the gentleman impugns the 
    motives of the Members of this body. I do not want to ask for the 
    words to be taken down, but I think that maybe the gentleman would 
    want to withdraw whatever insinuation along those lines that he has 
    made. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order that motives of a Member 
    of this body have been impugned by the suggestion that there was a 
    deliberate miscount of votes by the Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The Chair will make a 
    general response to the point of order. Under the precedents of the 
    House, it is not in order in debate to speak disrespectfully of the 
    Chair, to charge dishonesty or disregard of the rules. May 31, 
    1934, Speaker pro tempore Burns; February 7, 1935, Speaker pro 
    tempore O'Connor; Hinds' Volume V, 5192, 5188; Cannon's Volume 
    VIII, 2531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Beryl F. Anthony, Jr. (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair believes that any Member assigned to perform the 
    duties of the Chair does so in a nonpartisan and forthright way, 
    and the Chair will not permit to go unchallenged any improper 
    references to the performance or motives of the Chair.
        Mr. Weiss: I thank the Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is making this as a general 
    admonition.
        The point of order is withdrawn.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Lungren: I respect the gentleman's statement, because I 
    would not withdraw those words even if a point of order were raised 
    against me. I tried to state a fact as to what occurred, which I 
    believe, and I said I believed there were, and I cited the number 
    of people that were standing. I will be glad to stand on that at 
    any point in time. I do not think the rules of the House prevent me 
    from saying what I believe actually occurred or stating the truth. 
    . . .
        Mr. Weiss: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that once again the 
    distinguished gentleman from California has, in fact, impugned the 
    motives and behavior of a Member of this body, particularly the 
    Member sitting in the chair at the time that that vote was taken.
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, if I might be heard on the point of 
    order----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that he has read 
    a general statement. The Chair would hope that the gentleman from 
    California would adhere to the principles as contained within that 
    general admonition to the House.
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker would look at the 
    words that I said, he would see that I spoke very

[[Page 10822]]

    carefully about what I said I observed occurred, what I thought 
    occurred, from my perception. And I do not appreciate the fact that 
    on our side of the aisle we are told that we are to accept 
    everything that happens in this House and if we bring to the 
    attention of our other Members what we believe occurred that 
    somehow rules will be interpreted such that we are not even allowed 
    to utter what we thought occurred.
        I did not cast aspersions on anybody's motivations. I stated 
    what I thought occurred. I stated facts as I saw them. I said that 
    I believe there were more than 44 people standing. I stated that a 
    Member on our side counted at least 50. I stated that several 
    members of our staff counted 60 Members. That is what I stated.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot comment on something 
    that occurred previously. The Chair has the ability to regulate the 
    debate as it occurs today. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss) 
    should consider the comment of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Lungren) at the present time.
        Mr. Weiss: If the Speaker will allow, I have no problem with 
    what the gentleman believes. I have a problem that he states as a 
    matter of fact that there were x number of people standing when the 
    Speaker, the Member who was in the chair, ruled otherwise and 
    counted otherwise. That is not belief. That is in fact questioning 
    the honesty of the vote count. That is what I am objecting to.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is the opinion of the Chair that 
    while the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren) may not in debate 
    charge the Chair with disregard of the rules, he has only stated 
    his personal belief as to something that may have occurred 
    factually.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Allegations of impropriety by the Chair, 
such as a charge of deliberate disregard of the rules, may be raised as 
questions of the privilege of the House, but may not be permitted 
during debate.

Sec. 57.5 Where several Members had improperly engaged in personalities 
    during debate by references to the Speaker and to a Member who had 
    filed a complaint regarding the Speaker's official conduct, the 
    Speaker Pro Tempore (the Majority Leader) took the Chair to 
    announce to the House that Members should not engage in such 
    debate.

    On June 14, 1988,(16) several one-minute speeches 
contained references to charges made by a Member against the Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 134 Cong. Rec. 14317, 14318, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, every Member of 
    the House should be offended by a June 10 letter sent to Members by 
    the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. That letter says, 
    ``You were apparently duped by Newt.'' It goes on to

[[Page 10823]]

    suggest, ``It has become obvious his actions are generated by self-
    serving partisan political motives.''
        That letter from the Democratic Congressional Campaign 
    Committee insults the Committee on Ethics which voted unanimously 
    to investigate the Speaker. It insults Common Cause, the Wall 
    Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and 35 
    other newspapers which have called for an investigation.
        Frankly, this House is rapidly dividing up between those who 
    favor openness, honesty and ethics and those who delay, obscure and 
    defend unethical behavior.

        The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has apparently 
    chosen to cover up rather than clean up. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Thomas of California: Mr. Speaker, I really do 
    not understand what all the controversy is over the book, if we 
    were talking about the book itself, the book, of course, being 
    ``Reflections of a Public Man.'' It only costs $6. I mean, what can 
    one buy for $6 today? Not much. That is what it is--not much. . . .
        The question is not over the book. It is over the procedures 
    involved with the book. On that point, I totally agree with the 
    Washington Post editorial this morning that said that if the 
    procedures surrounding the book are not against the rules of the 
    House of Representatives, then we ought to change the rules. . . .
        Mr. [Mervyn M.] Dymally [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I believe 
    it was last Friday that the New York Times carried a story on the 
    so-called Gingrich charges against the Speaker. In that article the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) openly admits that some of 
    the charges were not founded, but he ``just threw them in there for 
    curiosity,'' recognizing very well that it would make partisan 
    news. . . .
        The politics involved in these charges, in my judgment, are 
    shameful.

    On June 15, 1988,(17) Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas S. 
Foley, of Washington, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 134 Cong. Rec. 14623, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Before the Chair recognizes the 
    distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, the Chair has an 
    announcement.
        The Chair wishes to announce that clause 1 of rule XIV prevents 
    Members in debate from engaging in ``personalities.'' Clause 4 of 
    that rule provides that if any Member transgress the rules of the 
    House, the Speaker shall, or any Member may, call him to order.
        Members may recall that on December 18, 1987, the Chair 
    enunciated the standard that debate would not be proper if it 
    attempted to focus on the conduct of a Member about whom a report 
    had not been filed by the Committee on Standards of Official 
    Conduct or whose conduct was not the subject of a privileged matter 
    then pending before the House. Similarly, the Chair would suggest 
    that debate is not proper which speculates as to the motivations of 
    a Member who may have filed a complaint before the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct against another Member.

[[Page 10824]]

        Thus, the Chair would caution all Members not to use the 1-
    minute period or special orders, as has already happened, to 
    discuss the conduct of Members of the House in a way that 
    inevitably engages in personalities.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A complaint against the conduct of the 
Speaker should be presented directly for the action of the House and 
not by way of debate on other matters. On one occasion, Speaker Thomas 
B. Reed, of Maine, in sustaining a call to order, stated that criticism 
of past conduct of the Chair is out of order, not because the Chair is 
above criticism but because such piecemeal criticism is not conducive 
to the good order of the House.(18) Indeed, an insult to the 
Speaker has been held to raise a question of privilege not governed by 
the ordinary rule that disorderly words, to be actionable, need be 
taken down as soon as uttered.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5188.
19. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 57.6 The Minority Leader took the floor to criticize 
    the Speaker for making certain remarks in his daily 
    press conference concerning 
    the President of the United States.

    On July 25, 1984,(20) the following statement was made 
on the floor by Minority Leader Robert H. Michel, of Illinois:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 20931, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the distinguished 
    majority leader referred to the President as ``intellectually 
    dishonest.''
        Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 1984, United Press International 
    reported that the Speaker of the House said the following things 
    about the President of the United States--and I quote:

            The evil is in the White House at the present time . . . 
        and that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the 
        working class . . . He's cold. He's mean. He's got ice water 
        for blood.

        In almost 30 years in the House, I have never heard such 
    abusive language used by a Speaker of the House about the President 
    of the United States. . . .
        There are precedents in our House rules forbidding personal 
    abuse of a President on the floor of the House.
        Surely the spirit of these rules ought to be adhered to by the 
    Speaker off the floor as well as on the floor.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While there are precedents indicating that 
it is a breach of order in debate to refer to the President 
disrespectfully,(1) the principle has not been extended to 
statements made outside the Chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2497, 2498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 57.7 The Chair has reaffirmed that it is not in order to speak 
    disrespectfully of

[[Page 10825]]

    the Speaker or to arraign 
    the personal conduct of the Speaker, and that under the precedents 
    the sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary 
    requirements for timeliness of challenges.

    On Jan. 4, 1995,(2) the Chair made the following 
announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (3) The Chair would like all Members to 
    be on notice that the Chair intends to strictly enforce time 
    limitations on debate. . . . Furthermore, the Chair may immediately 
    interrupt Members in debate who transgress rule XIV by failing to 
    avoid ``personalities'' in debate with respect to references to the 
    Senate, the President, and other Members, rather than wait for 
    Members to complete their remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Newt Gingrich (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Finally, it is not in order to speak disrespectfully of the 
    Speaker, and under the precedents the sanctions for such violations 
    transcend the ordinary requirements for timeliness of challenges. 
    This separate treatment is recorded in volume 2 of Hinds' 
    Precedents, at section 1248.

    On Jan. 18, 1995,(4) remarks pertaining to the Speaker 
were ordered to be taken down, and discussion ensued as to the proper 
limits of references to the Speaker and other Members:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mrs. Meek of Florida asked and was given permission to address 
    the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
        Mrs. [Carrie P.] Meek of Florida: Mr. Speaker, the Speaker's 
    unbelievably good book deal, after all these secret meetings and 
    behind the scenes deal-making, which each day brings to light new 
    and more startling revelations, I am still not satisfied with the 
    answers I am getting about this very large and lucrative deal our 
    Speaker has negotiated for himself.
        Now more than ever before the perception of impropriety, not to 
    mention the potential conflict of interest, still exists and cannot 
    be ignored. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 

    the gentlewoman's words be taken down. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The Clerk will read the 
    gentlewoman's words.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Cliff B. Stearns (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            News accounts tell us that while the Speaker may have given 
        up the $4.5 million advance, he stands to gain that amount and 
        much more. That is a whole lot of dust where I come from. If 
        anything now, how much the Speaker earns has grown much more 
        dependent on how hard his publishing house hawks his book.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is the Speaker's opinion that 
    innuendo and critical references to the Speaker's personal conduct 
    are not in order.

                           Parliamentary Inquiry

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his inquiry.

[[Page 10826]]

        Mr. Volkmer: Is the Speaker now saying it is the ruling of the 
    Chair that any statements as to activity, whether it is illegal or 
    not, by the Speaker of the House in his private actions cannot be 
    brought to the floor of this House? Is that the Chair's ruling? It 
    appears that it is. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In answer to the gentleman's question, 
    first, it has been the Chair's ruling, and the precedents of the 
    House support this, a proper level of respect is due to the 
    Speaker. . . .

        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

                   Motion To Table Offered by Mr. Linder

        Mr. [John] Linder [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Linder moves to lay the Volkmer motion on the table. . 
        . .

        So the motion to table was agreed to. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the words will be 
    stricken from the Record.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I object. . . 
    .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The question is: Shall the words 
    be stricken from the Record? . . .
        So the motion to strike the words was agreed to. . . .
        Mrs. Meek of Florida: Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the gentlewoman 
    from Florida [Mrs. Meek] may proceed in order.
        (There was no objection.)
        Mrs. Meek of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed my statement 
    carefully. I do not see anything in my statement that should be so 
    objectionable and obnoxious. I have been elected to this House to 
    speak the truth. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Wise, [Jr., of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is based upon the 
    Speaker's recent ruling and the action by this Chair and by this 
    body. The question I have may involve several Members about to 
    speak.
        Is the Speaker entitled to a higher level of avoidance than 
    other Members? That seems to be the issue raised in the Speaker's 
    response on this. . . .
        Does the body refrain from raising certain questions about the 
    Speaker that it could raise about other Members in the Chamber?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: All Members are entitled to have no 
    personal references made about them when that question is brought 
    up.
        Mr. Wise: Mr. Speaker, continuing my parliamentary inquiry, 
    then the Speaker is not entitled to any higher standard than any 
    other Member in regard to personal references, is that correct, or 
    any lower standard?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has already ruled, but the 
    Speaker as a Member and as presiding officer is entitled to the 
    respect of all Members.
        Mr. Wise: But what about the Speaker? Is the Speaker as Speaker 
    entitled to any different level of attention or respect than any 
    other Member in the Chamber?

[[Page 10827]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Speaker is entitled to respect. . 
    . .
        Mr. Wise: Is it the Chair's position that no questions can be 
    raised about the Speaker's personal financial dealings?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: There are proper channels in the House 
    for questioning the conduct of Members, including the Speaker. . . 
    .
        Mr. Wise: With a privileged resolution or an ethics resolution 
    not pending, is it appropriate to question any of the financial 
    dealings of the Speaker in the context of 1-minute speeches or 
    other activities?
        Mr. [Tom] DeLay [of Texas]: Regular order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is entertaining a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Simply put, in debate references personally to the Speaker are 
    not in order. . . .
        Mr. [Robert G.] Torricelli [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    further parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Speaker, while the Chair has ruled, it must now be clear to 
    all Members that the comity of this House and our ability to 
    proceed depends upon an understanding of the Chair's ruling. I 
    would therefore inquire as to what precedents the Chair has relied 
    upon. . . .
        Clearly there are Members of the institution who recall that . 
    . . a Member of this institution came to the floor raising 
    questions about former Speaker Wright's publishing activities. Did 
    therefore the Parliamentarian at any time rule that those inquiries 
    were inappropriate? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state that on June 15, 
    1988, Speaker pro tempore at that point Tom Foley cautioned all 
    Members to avoid personal references to the conduct of the Speaker 
    and to those who brought charges.
        Mr. Torricelli: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry was this: 
    Was the Member from Georgia's words . . . ever taken down when he 
    rose on the floor and raised questions about the $12,000 publishing 
    deal of Mr. Wright? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . [T]he Speaker pro tempore 
    announced a standard but did not rule in response to a point of 
    order on that occasion. And more importantly, those words were not 
    challenged at the time. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, the Chair has made the ruling that it 
    is not parliamentary language to raise questions by innuendo. May I 
    inquire of the Chair what that means with regard to the right of 
    Members to raise questions about the propriety of the behavior of 
    other Members of this body under either the rules or the statutes 
    of the United States and the House of Representatives?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Personal references to Members are 
    clearly not in order.
        Mr. Dingell: What about questions, though, Mr. Speaker, 
    relative to the propriety of the behavior of Members under the 
    rules of the House of Representatives and the laws of the United 
    States? Are those questions still permitted to be raised under the 
    rules and have the rules of the House been changed with regard to 
    those matters? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman realizes, there are 
    rules and

[[Page 10828]]

    proper channels for bringing conduct of Members before the House.
        Mr. Dingell: And I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but that does 
    not respond to my question. I asked, are Members now precluded from 
    raising questions about the behavior of other Members of this body?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would depend upon whether it was a 
    personality in the debate.
        Mr. Dingell: Have the rules been changed to effect a different 
    order of precedents and dignity to the Speaker? Is he now treated 
    differently than other Members of this body so that questions about 
    propriety of behavior of other Members may be raised but questions 
    about the propriety of the behavior of the Speaker may not now be 
    raised?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Simply put, personalities in regard to 
    all Members should not be part of the debate.

    On the following day,(6) a point of order was raised 
concerning 
the account in the Congressional Record of the Chair's ruling, and 
further discussion ensued with 
respect to the limits placed on 
Members' references to others, including the Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 19, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barney] Frank of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman from 
    Massachusetts is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. David Dreier (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of 
    this session, the House adopted a new rule which says the 
    Congressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of 
    remarks made during the proceedings of the House, subject only 
    to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized 
    by the Member making the remarks involved.
        In the Congressional Record that we received this morning, 
    reflecting yesterday's proceedings, at page H301 in the transcript 
    of the remarks of the Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman from 
    Florida, there are two changes that were made between what he, in 
    fact, said and what is in the Record.
        The first change is as follows:
        He said yesterday with regard to the statements of the 
    gentlewoman from Florida about the book of the Speaker, ``It is the 
    Speaker's opinion that innuendo and personal references to the 
    Speaker's conduct are not in order.''
        That has been altered and that does not appear verbatim in the 
    Congressional Record. Instead, it says, ``It is the Speaker's 
    opinion that innuendo and critical references to the Speaker's 
    personal conduct are not in order.''
        Additionally, later on in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    from the gentleman from Missouri, the Speaker pro tempore said, as 
    I recollect it, ``It has been the Chair's ruling, and the 
    precedents of the House support this, a higher level of respect is 
    due to the Speaker.''
        In the Congressional Record that has been changed to ``a proper 
    level of respect.''
        Now, I do not believe that changing ``personal'' to 
    ``critical'' and ``proper'' to

[[Page 10829]]

    ``higher'' is either technical, grammatical, or typographical. . . 
    .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair might respond to the 
    gentleman.
        The Chair would recite from the manual that in accordance with 
    existing, accepted practices, the Speaker may make such technical 
    or parliamentary insertions, or corrections in transcript as may be 
    necessary to conform to rule, custom, or precedent. The Chair does 
    not believe that any revision changed the meaning of the ruling.

        The Chair would under the circumstances inform the House on 
    behalf of the Parliamentarian that the new rule is as it might 
    apply to the role of the Chair will be examined. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: . . . Yesterday the Speaker then presiding made a 
    ruling which now appears in the precedents of the House. It 
    interpreted the precedents of the House. It related to the rights, 
    the behaviors, the dignities of the Members, and it dictated the 
    future course of conduct of Members of this body.
        Is the Chair informing us that the rulings of the Chair 
    yesterday stand, that the rulings of the Chair yesterday have been 
    changed without approval by the House? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair must reiterate that the 
    principles of decorum in debate relied on by the Chair yesterday 
    with respect to words taken down are not new to the 104th Congress.
        First, clause 1 of rule XIV establishes an absolute rule 
    against engaging in personality in debate where the subject of a 
    Member's conduct is not the pending question.
        Second, it is the long and settled practice of the House over 
    many Congresses to enforce that standard by demands from the floor 
    that words be taken down under rule XIV. Although the rule enables 
    the Chair to take initiative to address breaches of order, the 
    Chair normally defers to demands that words be taken down in the 
    case of references to Members of the House. On occasion, however, 
    the Chair has announced general standards of proper reference to 
    Members, as was the case on June 15, 1988. There, in response to a 
    series of 1-minute speeches and special order debates focusing on 
    the conduct of the Speaker as the subject of an ethical complaint 
    and on the motives of the Member who filed the complaint, the Chair 
    stated as follows:

            Thus, the Chair would caution all Members not to use the 1-
        minute period or special orders, as has already happened, to 
        discuss the conduct of Members of the House in a way that 
        inevitably engages in personalities.

        Third, longstanding precedents of the House provide that the 
    stricture against personalities has been enforced collaterally with 
    respect to criticism of the Speaker even when intervening debate 
    has occurred. This separate treatment is recorded in volume 2 of 
    Hinds' Precedents, at section 1248.
        Finally, a complaint against the conduct of the Speaker is 
    presented directly for the action of the House and not by way of 
    debate on other matters. As Speaker Thomas B. Reed of Maine 
    explained in 1897, criticism of past conduct of the presiding 
    officer is out of order not because he is above criticism but, 
    instead, because of the tendency of piecemeal criticism to impair 
    the good order of the House.

[[Page 10830]]

        Speaker Reed's rationale is recorded in volume 5 of Hinds' 
    Precedents section 5188 from which the Chair now quotes as follows:

            The Chair submits to the House that allusions or criticisms 
        of what the Chair did at some past time is certainly not in 
        order not because the Chair is above criticism or above attack 
        but for two reasons: first, because the Speaker is the Speaker 
        of the House, and such attacks are not conducive to the good 
        order of the House; and, second, because the Speaker cannot 
        reply to them except in a very fragmentary fashion, and it is 
        not desirable that he should reply to them. For these reasons, 
        such attacks ought not be made.

        Based on these precedents, the Chair was justified in 
    concluding that the words challenged on yesterday were in their 
    full context out of order as engaging in personalities. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: . . . My question is: What is now the status of 
    the original ruling by the previous occupant of the chair in 
    connection with the matter of the 1-minutes yesterday and the 
    remarks of the gentlewoman from Florida? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In response to the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry, the Chair has interpreted there will not be 
    a change based on the precedents that have been established. The 
    statement that appeared in the Record was not different than that 
    that had been provided. . . . [T]he revisions that were made were 
    technical and not substantive. That is the ruling of the Chair. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Richard J.] Durbin [of Illinois]: . . . If I might, I 
    would like to ask the Chair's position as to whether Members in 
    statements on the floor can make any references to activities of 
    Members which may raise ethical questions.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair must reiterate that the 
    principles of decorum in debate relied on by the Chair yesterday 
    with respect to words taken down are not new to the 104th Congress.
        First, clause 1 of rule 14 establishes an absolute rule against 
    engaging in personality in debate where the subject of a Member's 
    conduct is not the pending question.
        Second, it is the long and settled practice of the House over 
    many Congresses to enforce that standard by demands from the floor 
    that words be taken down under rule 14. Although the rule enables 
    the Chair to take initiative to address breaches of order, the 
    Chair normally defers to demands that words be taken down in the 
    case of references to Members of the House. . . .
        Mr. Durbin: . . . I just would like to ask two questions by 
    parliamentary inquiry and then I will sit down. I thank the Chair 
    for rereading the ruling. It is improving every time he reads. But 
    I would ask this question. Can a Member during the course of a 1-
    minute make any reference to an activity of another Member, 
    including the Speaker, which has taken place outside this Chamber?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Based on the precedents, only a 
    factual reference can be made.
        Mr. Durbin: A factual reference can be made.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without any suggestions whatsoever of 
    impropriety.

[[Page 10831]]

        Mr. Durbin: One further inquiry. Does this limitation in terms 
    of reference to personal conduct beyond factual conduct apply to 
    those who serve in Government and the executive branch as well as 
    the legislative branch?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It applies to the President of the 
    United States.
        Mr. Durbin: Does it apply to anyone else serving in the 
    executive branch?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It applies to the President of the 
    United States.
        The gentleman from Michigan.
        Mr. [David E.] Bonior [of Michigan]: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker, and this will be the final comment by me on this issue. We 
    are eager to get on with the business of the House. But there are 
    some very fundamental issues, as we have heard on the floor this 
    morning, at stake here. We are being told that the Speaker is being 
    placed above criticism and comments.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is incorrect in drawing 
    that conclusion.