[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§ 58. Criticism of Legislative Actions or Proposals]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10831-10837]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
 
Sec. 58. Criticism of Legislative Actions or Proposals

    While it has been held unparliamentary to arraign the motives of 
Members (8) or their legislative actions, the content of an 
introduced bill or amendment can be criticized.(9) Whether a 
legislative action is good or bad, needed or not, is after all the 
essence of legislative deliberation.(10) The forces in 
society which sway legislative decisions are ``fair game'' in debate; 
(11) and it has been held within the bounds of propriety to 
indicate the relative importance of Member-sponsorship.(12) 
Criticism of legislative tactics has been upheld.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. Sec. 58.6, 58.12, infra.
 9. See Sec. Sec. 58.1, 58.3, 58.5, infra.
10. See Sec. 58.4, infra.
11. See Sec. Sec. 58.7-58.9, infra.
12. See Sec. 58.2, infra.
13. See Sec. 58.10, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criticism of Bills

Sec. 58.1 Words uttered in debate criticizing a bill, as distinguished 
    from a Member, are held in order.

    On Jan. 31, 1946,(14) while the Committee of the Whole 
was considering a bill providing for appointment of fact-finding boards 
to investigate labor disputes, the following words were used by Mr. 
Emanuel Celler, of New York, in criticism of the bill: ``and, to quote 
the Bible, `would they be like a fool who returneth to his folly, 
or a dog that returneth to his vomit?' ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 92 Cong. Rec. 675, 676, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled that since the name of

[[Page 10832]]

no Member was mentioned, the words taken down were merely an opinion of 
a measure before the House and therefore not unparliamentary.

Sec. 58.2 A statement in debate that if a certain Member sponsors a 
    measure it would receive one or two votes was held in order.

    On June 12, 1934,(15) Mr. Claude A. Fuller, of Arkansas, 
stated in debate, referring to Mr. Charles V. Truax, of Ohio, ``The 
very fact that he espouses a measure . . . is a self-evident fact that 
it will only receive 1 or 2 votes in the entire House.'' Speaker Henry 
T. Rainey, of Illinois, ruled that the words were not objectionable but 
a matter of judgment, and declined to sustain Mr. Truax's claim that 
the language was a deliberate falsehood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 78 Cong. Rec. 11177, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criticism of Amendments

Sec. 58.3 A statement in debate that an amendment offered to a bill 
    would be viewed by every lawyer in America as having no effect on 
    the bill was held in order.

    On Feb. 20, 1946,(16) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, 
stated as follows on an amendment to a bill for school lunch programs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 1500, 1501, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . There is not a lawyer in America who is worthy to be 
    called a lawyer but who knows that the adoption of this language 
    neither adds to nor takes from a single item of the substance of 
    this bill.

    The Committee of the Whole rose and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
ruled that the language used was an opinion expressed on a measure 
which did not reflect upon the character of any Member, and was 
therefore in order.

Sec. 58.4 A statement in debate that a member ``has already admitted 
    that his amendment does not make sense, and he will take any 
    alternative that is offered'' was held not a breach of order.

    On Jan. 21, 1964,(17) Mr. Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen, 
Jr., of New Jersey, stated of an amendment offered by Mr. Adam C. 
Powell, of New York, ``Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the gentleman from 
New York has already admitted his amendment does not make sense, and he 
will take any alternative that is offered.'' Mr. Powell demanded that 
the words be taken down, and Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts,

[[Page 10833]]

ruled that the words objected to were not violative of the rules of the 
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 756, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 58.5 A reference to an amendment that ``where I come from the 
    people do 
    not like slippery, snide, and sharp practices'' was held in order 
    as not reflecting on any Member.

    On July 26, 1951,(18) Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, 
while discussing opposition amendments to a pending bill, stated as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 97 Cong. Rec. 8968, 8969, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Where I come from great faith is put on a man's ability 
    to stand up and fight for what he believes and what he thinks is 
    best for the country. The people in my district do not like 
    slippery, snide, and sharp practices.

    Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, demanded that the words be taken 
down, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:

        . . . The Chair does not think that it should offend anybody 
    for the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rooney] to brag of his 
    constituents, as to their character or as to their ability. It 
    appears to the Chair that these words were spoken with reference to 
    an amendment and not with respect to a Member of the House of 
    Representatives; and therefore, there is no reflection on any 
    Member of the House.

Sec. 58.6 The Speaker ruled out of order remarks in debate 
    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 school children beyond the nearest public school. In 
debate on the amendment, Ms. Bella S. Abzug, of New York, stated as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 41270, 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 
impugned the motives of Mr. Dingell.
    The Committee rose and Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled as 
follows:

        On May 4, 1943 . . . Speaker Rayburn 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

[[Page 10834]]

    are within the framework of this ruling, and without objection the 
    words are therefore stricken from the Record.

Criticism of Opponents

Sec. 58.7 A reference in debate accusing opponents of the repeal of a 
    law of possessing blind, slavish, and shameful opposition to repeal 
    was held in order as merely an argument for the repeal or amendment 
    of a law.

    On Feb. 6, 1950,(20) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
demanded that the following words used in debate by Mr. Anthony 
Cavalcante, of Pennsylvania, be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 96 Cong. Rec. 1513, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, the friends of the Taft-Hartley law show the 
    nature of their mind by their constant opposition to all 
    congressional effort to pass laws that will protect labor against 
    the predatory traits of their masters. This nature is seen in their 
    blind opposition to the repeal of any part of that infamous law; in 
    their slavish opposition to the passage of a more adequate and just 
    social-security law; in their shameful opposition to a Federal 
    national-health program; and in their illogical opposition to put 
    teeth in the coal-mine inspection law.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words were not 
unparliamentary since merely an argument for the repeal or amendment of 
law.

Sec. 58.8 A statement in debate accusing colleagues who opposed a 
    measure of ``loose talk'' was held merely an expression of opinion 
    mentioning no Member by name and not a breach of order.

    On May 6, 1941,(1) the following words used in debate in 
the Committee of the Whole were demanded to be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 87 Cong. Rec. 3670, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If everybody would talk as loosely and recklessly with the 
    truth as some of these opponents of the administration measures 
    that they are carrying on, it is no wonder there is confusion.

    The Committee rose, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that 
the language objected to simply expressed an opinion that certain 
things bring about confusion in the House and mentioned no Member of 
the House by name. Therefore the words were not violative of the rules 
of the House.

Sec. 58.9 A statement in debate that sinister influences were working 
    to the interest of certain Members allegedly conducting a 
    filibuster was held not to be a breach of order.

[[Page 10835]]

    On Mar. 23, 1936,(2) the following words used in debate 
were demanded to be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 80 Cong. Rec. 4235, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Owing to the fact that one or two men want to carry on a 
    filibuster, opposed to the people of the District of Columbia 
    receiving some relief. They are today being gouged by real-estate 
    men. I wonder if the sinister influences are working to the best 
    interests of these gentlemen.

    The Committee of the Whole rose and the words objected to were 
reported to the House. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as 
follows:

        There is no reference in the language to just who is carrying 
    on a filibuster, if one has been carried on during the day. 
    [Laughter.] The Chair is not in position to say that there has been 
    a filibuster carried on. We have had a number of roll calls. The 
    Chair is not going to say officially that there has been an actual 
    filibuster. No reference is made to any particular Member of the 
    House in the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana.
        The Chair fails to see anything objectionable in the language 
    referred to, and so holds.

``Withholding'' Votes

Sec. 58.10 A statement in debate referring to a tactic of 
    ``withholding'' votes until it could be determined whether they 
    would be necessary on the pending question was held in order.

    On July 27, 1965,(3) the following words used in debate 
by Mr. Charles E. Goodell, of New York, were taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 18441, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I would be very interested on this particular issue if we are 
    going to have a repeat of the exhibition on the housing vote with 
    the gentlemen withholding votes and seeing how they are necessary 
    on the issue that comes before us. I hope that this will not be 
    repeated.

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled the point of 
order, stating that the remarks did not reflect on any Member's motives 
or votes.

Criticizing Action of House Conferees

Sec. 58.11 The Speaker has applied the rules governing propriety of 
    debate to posters and charts in the Speaker's Lobby, ordering their 
    removal if the language would have given rise to a challenge if 
    uttered on the floor of the House.

    On June 5, 1930, the House discussed the action of the Speaker in 
ordering removed from the Speaker's Lobby placards posted

[[Page 10836]]

by a Member criticizing the action of House conferees on a particular 
bill (H.R. 2667, a tariff bill).(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 72 Cong. Rec. 10122, 10123, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, stated that he had ordered 
removed the placard under his authority granted by Rule I clause 3, 
empowering him to exercise control over the corridors and passages and 
unappropriated rooms in the House side of the Capitol. The Speaker also 
stated that ``the Chair was of the opinion that at least two of the 
sentences in that document were sentences which, if pronounced on the 
floor of the House, would have been subject to being taken down, and 
were not in order, and, by analogy, the Chair thinks it is even more 
improper to have such publications posted where no one can criticize 
them.''
    The Speaker read the following objectionable language of the 
placard:

        3. The House conferees, in violation of the gentleman's 
    agreement and in disregard of the positive mandate of the House, 
    voted lumber used by the farmers on the dutiable list and polls and 
    ties used by the public utilities on the free list.
        4. The conferees are the servants of the House, not its 
    masters. Will the Members by their votes condone the violation of 
    the gentleman's agreement and the disregard of the positive mandate 
    of the House on the part of its conferees?

    The Speaker stated that the truth or falsity of the document was 
not material, but whether the document cast doubt upon the worthiness 
of the motives of the conferees was relevant to his 
decision.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule I clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 623 (1995) provides: 
        ``He [the Speaker] shall have general control, except as 
        provided by rule or law, of the Hall of the House, and of the 
        corridors and passages and the disposal of the unappropriated 
        rooms in that part of the Capitol assigned to the use of the 
        House, until further order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 58.12 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 pro

[[Page 10837]]

ceedings of June 12, 1979,(6) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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: (7) The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Committee will rise. . . .
        The Speaker: (8) The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 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 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.