[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§ 59. Criticism of Statements or Tactics in Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10837-10844]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
 
Sec. 59. Criticism of Statements or Tactics in Debate

    In order that free debate and discussion be preserved in the House, 
Members may argue with wide latitude against statements made on the 
floor by other Members.(9) But criticism of a Member's 
statements in debate may not extend to personal attacks,(10) 
and the use of certain derogatory terms, such as ``disgraceful'' 
(11) or ``demagogic'' (12) may be ruled out

[[Page 10838]]

as unparliamentary. However, criticism of legislative tactics has been 
upheld.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See the statement of Speaker Pro Tempore John J. O'Connor (N.Y.) 
        cited at Sec. 59.2, infra.
10. See Sec. 59.9, infra. For the rule against invoking personalities 
        in debate, see Sec. 60, infra. A Member may not impugn the 
        motives of another for statements made in debate, see Sec. 62, 
        infra.
11. See Sec. Sec. 59.3, 59.4, 59.9, infra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 60.3-60.6, infra. See also 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5150, 5151, 5163, 5164, for past rulings on 
        unparliamentary criticism of statements made in debate.
13. See Sec. 58.10, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Confusing the Issue'' in Debate

Sec. 59.1 A statement in debate accusing a Member of intentionally 
    confusing an issue was held in order.

    On Sept. 25, 1951,(14) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, 
stated in debate: ``I do not want you to stand up there and try to 
becloud the issue. What you are trying to do is make out that we are 
helping our enemies, when the very purpose of this act is to encourage 
our friends and to make them strong so that we can combat the people 
that we may have to fight against.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 12074, 12075, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Howard H. Buffett, of Nebraska, demanded that the words be 
taken down and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that they were not 
unparliamentary and that there was nothing in the words that should be 
offensive to anybody.

Characterizing Argument as ``Crime''

Sec. 59.2 A statement in debate that another Member ``was guilty of 
    that crime''--referring to such Member's allegedly unwarranted 
    attacks and arguments--was held to be in order.

    On July 23, 1935,(15) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New 
York, rose to object to the following language used in debate by Mr. 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 11699, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish], whether he intended it 
    or not, is guilty of that crime; not only a few days ago, but is 
    again guilty of the same crime on this occasion.

    On the request of Speaker Pro Tempore John J. O'Connor, of New 
York, the words immediately preceding the language objected to were 
also read:

        I respect men who fight hard. I respect men, members of the 
    Republican Party and the Democratic Party, who fight hard for their 
    party, but who fight clean. I respect men who make constructive 
    criticisms; but my general respect for men is somewhat lost when 
    they depart from what should be and what ordinarily is their 
    general conduct and enter into the field of unnecessary, unfair, 
    and unwarranted attacks and arguments.

[[Page 10839]]

    The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled as follows on the point of order:

        The Chair may state, even though it may be gratuitous, that 
    from his personal standpoint there has grown up in this House a 
    ridiculous habit of causing the words of a Member to be taken down, 
    which course often consumes a great deal of time; and, as the Chair 
    said on the floor the other day, it appears to have come to pass 
    recently that a Member cannot even say ``boo'' to another Member 
    without some Member demanding that the words be taken down. This 
    practice has become reductio ad absurdum. . . .
        For the gentleman from Massachusetts to state that what the 
    gentleman from New York did or said was a ``crime'', in the opinion 
    of the present occupant of the chair, is but a loose expression--a 
    word commonly used as a mere figure of speech. The word ``wrong'' 
    in the dictionary is a synonym for ``crime'', and the Chair holds 
    that the use of the word ``crime'', under the particular 
    circumstances, is not unparliamentary language; and the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts may proceed.

    The House then rejected an appeal from the decision of the Chair.

``Disgraceful'' Argument

Sec. 59.3 A statement in debate referring to another Member as speaking 
    in a disgraceful and unparliamentary manner was held not in order.

    On May 16, 1946,(16) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
objected to the use of certain words in debate by Mr. Arthur G. Klein, 
of New York, in the Committee of the Whole. The words were taken down, 
the Committee rose, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the 
words were unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 5106, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The words objected to and stricken from the 
Record read as follows: ``The gentleman took the floor 
and in his self-appointed role as spokesman for the Committee referred 
to me in my absence in a disgraceful and unparliamentary manner.''

Sec. 59.4 A statement in debate charging another Member with using 
    disgraceful language was on demand taken down and ruled out of 
    order.

    On Feb. 12, 1946,(17) Mr. Hugh DeLacy, of Washington, 
used the following language in debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 92 Cong. Rec. 1241, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I am standing here today to state to the gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] that we do not propose to permit this kind 
    of language to be indulged in on this floor. It is disgraceful.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the language used was 
unparliamentary.

[[Page 10840]]

``Intemperate'' Argument

Sec. 59.5 A reference in debate to another Member's statement as 
    ``intemperate'' was held not to be a breach of order.

    On Aug. 1, 1963,(18) Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, 
referred to Mr. H.R. Gross, of Iowa, as attacking the Secretary of the 
Navy in an ``intemperate way.'' Mr. Gross demanded that the words be 
taken down and Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that 
the language used was not objectionable, since the word ``intemperate'' 
might be used just as the word ``improper'' might be used in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 13865, 13866, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 59.6 The Presiding Officer of the Senate ruled that the words 
    ``the intemperate inference, the thinly veiled implication in which 
    some have indulged'' in reference to his colleagues were not 
    unparliamentary.

    On May 14, 1964,(19) during debate on a resolution 
relating to an investigation, Senator Michael J. Mansfield, of Montana, 
described his colleagues arguments with the words, ``the intemperate 
inference, the thinly veiled implication in which some have indulged.'' 
Senator Clifford P. Case, of New Jersey, rose to make a point of order 
against the language used by Senator Mansfield. Presiding Officer 
Edward M. Kennedy, of Massachusetts, ruled that under the rules of the 
Senate, the language used was not objectionable. Senator Case attempted 
to appeal the ruling of the Chair but the Chair ruled that the 
expiration of the time limitation for debate and adoption of a motion 
to table carried the appeal to the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 10926-31, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Ludicrous'' Argument

Sec. 59.7 A reference to another Member's remarks in debate as 
    ``ludicrous'' were objected to but withdrawn before a ruling was 
    made.

    On May 11, 1964,(20) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, stated as 
follows: ``Does the gentleman think this will give the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. John J. Rooney], ample opportunity to make ludicrous 
statements such as he did the other day with respect to the cost of 
amendments?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 110 Cong. Rec. 10448, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When Mr. Rooney demanded that the words be taken down, Mr. Gross 
obtained unanimous

[[Page 10841]]

consent to withdraw the word ``ludicrous.''

Characterizing Debate as Unfair

Sec. 59.8 It was held not unparliamentary to assert that remarks in 
    debate tended to attack the character of other speakers rather than 
    meet their arguments, particularly since the assertion included a 
    disclaimer conceding possible lack of intention to impugn any 
    Member's motives.

    During consideration of H.R. 2760 (prohibition on covert aid in 
Nicaragua) in the Committee of the Whole on July 28, 
1983,(1) it was demonstrated that when a demand is made in 
Committee for words to be taken down, the Committee rises automatically 
and reports the words to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 129 Cong. Rec. 21461, 21462, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: I am concerned, as I said, 
    about the statements that I have heard on the floor today, because 
    I believe that what they have a tendency to do, even though that 
    may not be the intention, I think they have the tendency to try to 
    assassinate the character of the person making the statement rather 
    than to effectively assassinate the argument.
        Mr. [C.W. Bill] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I demand that 
    the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Committee will rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Natcher, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2760) to amend the 
    Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1983 to prohibit 
    U.S. support for military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua 
    and to authorize assistance, to be openly provided to governments 
    of countries in Central America, to interdict the supply of 
    military equipment from Nicaragua and Cuba . . . certain words used 
    in debate were objected to and on request were taken down and read 
    at the Clerk's desk, and he herewith reported the same to the 
    House.
        The Speaker: (3) The Chairman of the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union reports that during the 
    consideration of the bill, H.R. 2760, certain words used in the 
    debate were objected to [and] taken down and read at the Clerk's 
    desk and does now report the words objected to to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the words objected to. . . .
        The words having been read, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    having very definitely included in his statement a disclaimer that 
    he does not impugn the motives or intentions of any Member of the 
    House, in the opinion of the Chair, in his legislative argument the 
    words of the gentleman from Wisconsin are not unparliamentary and 
    the gentleman may proceed.

[[Page 10842]]

        The Committee will resume its sitting.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
    of the bill, H.R. 2760, with Mr. Natcher in the chair.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker's ruling should not be taken to 
mean that a Member may say anything in debate as long as it is 
accompanied by a disclaimer of intent to impugn the motives of another 
Member, although in this instance the inclusion of the disclaimer made 
it easier to hold the words in order.

Sec. 59.9 Clause 1 of Rule XIV, 
    requiring all Members engaging in debate to ``avoid 
    personality'' applies to the Speaker when he takes the floor in 
    debate; and on one occasion, the Speaker's opinion expressed in 
    debate that a Member had deliberately stood in the well before an 
    empty House and challenged the Americanism of other Members, ``and 
    it is the lowest thing that I have ever seen in my thirty-two years 
    in Congress'' was held to 
    constitute an unparliamentary characterization of that Member's 
    motives and actions and was ruled out of order on a demand that the 
    words be taken down.

    On May 15, 1984,(4) a demand was made that Speaker 
Thomas P. O'Neill's words, spoken from the floor, be taken down, as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 130 Cong. Rec. 12201, 12202, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: . . . My 
    personal opinion is this: You deliberately stood in that well 
    before an empty House and challenged these people, and you 
    challenged their Americanism, and it is the lowest thing that I 
    have ever seen in my 32 years in Congress.
        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim 
    my time, let me say first of all that----
        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I demand that 
    the Speaker's words be taken down.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. On an earlier occasion (Feb. 12, 1798), words spoken by Speaker 
        Jonathan Dayton, of New Jersey, were ruled out of order as he 
        participated in debate in Committee of the Whole. See 2 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 1367 (note).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) Words will be taken 
    down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the words.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            My personal opinion is that you deliberately stood in that 
        well before an empty House and challenged these people and you 
        challenged their Americanism and it is the lowest thing that I 
        have ever seen in my 32 years in Congress. . . .

        Mr. Lott: If the Chair would rule, I have a request that I 
    would like to make.

[[Page 10843]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair feels that that type of 
    characterization should not be used in debate.
        Mr. Lott: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent at this point 
    that the Speaker be allowed to continue in order. . . .
        Our point has been made. I think that we want to change the 
    tenor of this debate and we should now proceed on a higher plane 
    with this debate. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Mississippi?
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. O'Neill: I am not questioning the gentleman's patriotism, I 
    am questioning his judgment. I also question the judgment of the 
    Chair. . . .
        Mr. [Vin] Weber [of Minnesota]: A point of parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        Do the rules of the House apply to the Speaker of the House?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The rules of the House apply to all 
    Members of the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker's words, though ruled to be 
unparliamentary, were not ordered stricken from the Record by the 
House; the Chair did not so order and no other Member moved that the 
words be stricken.

Sec. 59.10 A Member's statement during debate that another Member's 
    demand that words be taken down during a special-order speech was 
    ``an unfair stealing of time'' was held not to be unparliamentary, 
    as not necessarily implying an illegal action.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Feb. 27, 1985: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 131 Cong. Rec. 3899, 3900, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] McEwen [of Ohio]: . . . I [have] observed what I see 
    as an increasing parliamentary maneuver to destroy and steal the 
    time of people who are trying to present their position on the 
    floor of this House. . . . I have seen a significant deterioration 
    over recent years of the privilege and courtesy of Members to yield 
    time. When a debate is progressing in a direction [with] which they 
    disagree, they take upon themselves the courtesy that is usually 
    extended another Member, that of yielding, grab the microphone and 
    continue to shout, ``Will the gentleman yield''? until such time as 
    his train of thought is destroyed or his point has been stopped.
        When that is unsuccessful, I have observed on more recent 
    occasions an effort to request that words be taken down which, upon 
    their repetition by the Clerk, are obviously not offensive to 
    anyone, and yet the debate has been destroyed and an effort has 
    been made to prevent the point that the speaker was attempting to 
    present from going forward. . . . I think the Members should be 
    allowed to express themselves during special orders without this 
    kind of unfair stealing of time. . . .
        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the words be taken down.

[[Page 10844]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The Clerk will report 
    the words taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Tommy F. Robinson (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            . . . I think the Members should be allowed to express 
        themselves during special orders without this kind of unfair 
        stealing of time.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair thinks in the connotation 
    that the words were used, there is no allegation of illegality. The 
    words are not unparliamentary, in the opinion of the Chair. . . .
        Mr. McEwen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it abundantly clear 
    that at no time in my presentation did I accuse anyone or intend to 
    imply that anyone was stealing anything.
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.