[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§ 60. Critical References to Members]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10844-10868]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
 
Sec. 60. Critical References to Members

    The form and the substance of 
a Member's reference to another Member in debate are regulated by the 
rules and longstanding practice of the House. So that ``order, decency, 
and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body,'' 
(9) the motives of Members may not be impugned or their 
personalities attacked,(10) and indecent or grossly 
accusatory language may not be used in criticizing a Member. Indeed, 
Rule XIV provides that a Member must confine himself to the question 
under debate, avoiding personality.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 285 (1995). See 
        also id. at Sec. Sec. 353-379, for parliamentary principles as 
        to order in debate.
10. For a distinction between general language used in debate and that 
        involving personalities, see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5153.
            The Speaker may intervene in debate to prevent breaches of 
        order 
        in referring to personalities. See 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 5163.
            Breaches of order include sarcastic or satirical 
        compliments; see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5165, 5167, 
        5168.
            Members may be censured for invoking personalities in 
        debate; see 
        2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1251, 1253, 1254, 1259.
11. Rule XIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proper procedure to be followed when objectionable words are 
used in reference to a Member is the demand that they be ``taken 
down,'' (12) and the House has on occasion demanded an 
apology from or reconciliation between hostile Members.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 49, supra.
13. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1651, 2648, 2650.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senate rules of proceedings are similar to those of the House, the 
Standing Rules of the Senate prohibiting remarks in debate imputing 
conduct or motive unworthy of a Senator to one or more of his 
colleagues.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Rule XIX clause 2, Standing Rules of the Senate Sec. 19.2 
        (1975).
            For a discussion of Senate principles governing references 
        in debate to Members, see 94 Cong. Rec. 8966, 80th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., June 19, 1948 (President Pro Tempore Irving M. Ives 
        [N.Y.]).

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

[[Page 10845]]

    The rules against engaging in personalities in debate have applied 
uniformly whenever questions of order have been raised 
respecting personal references, whether in legislative debate, during 
special orders, or in extension of remarks. Obtaining a special order 
with the specific purpose of discussing a topic such as ``ethics in the 
House'' does not change these standards precluding personal references 
in debate. Neither does informing a colleague that his conduct is going 
to be the subject of discussion on the floor make a subsequent personal 
reflection less objectionable. ``Engaging in personalities'' remains 
contrary to accepted House practice notwithstanding such notification. 
Where the House has under consideration a resolution involving the 
conduct of a Member, a wider range of debate is permitted. In the 
context of a specific legislative proposal involving censure, 
reprimand, or expulsion, or a proposal advocating an investigation of 
misconduct, the facts surrounding the resolution may be discussed, but 
even in these situations debate personally offensive has not been 
permitted.
    Rule XIV, clause 1, prohibits references by one Member in debate to 
newspaper accounts personally critical of another Member in a way that 
would be unparliamentary if uttered as the first Member's own words. 
Generally, the publication of charges in 
another forum does not necessarily legitimize references to such 
charges on the floor of the House. In 1868, a Member from Illinois 
leveled charges against a Member from Minnesota in an article 
(apparently a letter to the editor) 
in a Minnesota newspaper. The House adopted as a question of privilege 
a resolution enabling a select committee to investigate the matter. The 
select committee found that the words of the letter, if uttered on the 
floor of the House, would have been unparliamentary for their tendency 
to provoke disturbance and disorder in the proceedings but that, as 
uttered in a newspaper, had no equal tendency.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2691.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A statement on the floor personally critical of another Member is 
properly challenged by a demand that the ``words be taken down.'' A 
question of personal privilege cannot ordinarily be raised against 
words used in debate,(16) whether or not the Member making 
the

[[Page 10846]]

statement purports to assert it on his own responsibility. However, in 
1910, a Member from Arkansas stated on the floor his understanding, 
apparently derived from the accounts of others, of matters reflecting 
on the conduct of a Member from New York. The Member from New York was 
recognized on a question of personal privilege notwithstanding the 
argument of the Member from Arkansas that he had not made the assertion 
on his own responsibility but instead had said that he was so 
informed.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 60.26, infra.
17. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although debate on a privileged resolution recommending 
disciplinary action against a Member may include comparisons with other 
such actions taken by or reported to the House for purposes of 
measuring severity of punishment, it is not in order to discuss the 
conduct of another Member not the subject of a committee report, or 
make references to similar conduct of another which is not then the 
subject of a question pending before the House.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See the proceedings of Dec. 18, 1987, at Sec. 60.18, infra and Apr. 
        1, 1992.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indulging in Personalities

Sec. 60.1 It is a breach of order in debate to indulge in personalities 
    of other Members or to use unparliamentary language in relation to 
    them.

    On Mar. 11, 1936,(19) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, commented on the subject of the conduct of debate in the 
House. He cited Rule XIV of the House rules governing the subject and 
quoted relevant sections of Jefferson's Manual. The Speaker expressed 
the hope that Members would cease indulging in the personalities of 
other Members in debate, cease addressing a Member in other than the 
third person, and expressed his intention to call any Member violating 
rules of decorum and debate to order. He also requested any Members who 
would be called upon to preside as Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole to pursue a similar practice.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 80 Cong. Rec. 3577, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. See also 96 Cong. Rec. 5539, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 12, 1950; 80 
        Cong. Rec. 3894, 3895, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 17, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Proper Form of Address

Sec. 60.2 The proper form of reference to another Member is ``the 
    gentleman (or gentlewoman) from (state),'' and not any other 
    appellation or characterization.

[[Page 10847]]

    On Oct. 2, 1984,(1) during consideration of the balanced 
budget bill (H.R. 6300) in the House, the Chair, in responding to a 
parliamentary inquiry, reminded the Members of the proper form of 
reference to other Members:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 130 Cong. Rec. 28519, 28520, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Well, Mr. Speaker, 
    thank God this is not a medical research center, because if you 
    believe laetrile cures cancer, you think that Dr. ``Feelgood's'' 
    bill here on the floor is going to do something, but the fact of 
    the matter is that it has nothing to do with the legislation on the 
    floor; it has to do with the will of the Members of Congress. . . .
        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Speaker, is it a 
    violation of the comity and custom of the House to refer to a 
    Member of this body in terms other than as the gentleman from a 
    particular State?
        The Chairman of this committee was referred to as ``Dr. 
    Feelgood Jones,'' and I would think that is in violation of the 
    comity and custom of the House. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The gentleman is 
    correct in stating that it is the custom and practice and tradition 
    of the body that Members of the body should be referred to as the 
    gentleman or gentlewoman from a certain State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

References to Demagoguery

Sec. 60.3 A statement in debate that a Member would not ``yield to any 
    more demagogs'' was held not to avoid personalities and therefore 
    to be unparliamentary and out of order.

    On May 4, 1943,(3) while Mr. Harold Knutson, of 
Minnesota, had the floor, Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, asked him to 
yield. Mr. Knutson replied ``No. I do not yield to any more demagogs.'' 
Mr. Patman rose to a point of order and demanded that the words be 
taken down, and the Committee of the Whole rose. In the House, a third 
Member, Mr. J. William Ditter, of Pennsylvania, opposed the point of 
order and cited the dictionary definition of a demagog: ``A leader or 
orator and popular with or identified with the people.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 3915, 3916, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, stated that he had passed upon 
identical language in the past and would conform to his prior ruling, 
holding that words accusing a Member of demagoguery does not avoid 
personalities and is therefore a breach of order.

Sec. 60.4 Reference in debate to a Member as ``president of the Demagog 
    Club'' was held to be a breach of order.

    On Feb. 15, 1940,(4) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
de

[[Page 10848]]

manded that the following words used by Mr. Michael J. Bradley, of 
Pennsylvania, in debate in relation to Mr. Martin Dies, Jr., of Texas, 
also a Member of the House, be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 86 Cong. Rec. 1529, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As I say, he is a pretty smart fellow, and, after all, he has 
    not been president of the Demagog Club for 8 years for nothing, 
    without learning how to take care of his prerogatives as far as 
    publicity is concerned.

    Speaker Pro Tempore Sam Rayburn, of Texas, found that the point of 
order presented a ``pretty close question, but the Chair feels 
constrained to hold that in the language the gentleman used he did not 
avoid personality.''

Sec. 60.5 The Speaker ruled that language characterizing debate as 
    demagogic was not a breach of order.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(5) Mr. Frank Thompson, Jr., of New 
Jersey, stated as follows in debate: ``I might suggest further you can 
beat this dog all you want for political purposes; you can demagog 
however subtly and try to scare people off at the expense of the 
Nation's schoolchildren with your demagoguery--''. Mr. Charles E. 
Goodell, of New York, demanded that the words be taken down. Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that the language did not 
violate the rules of the House since Members in debate have reasonable 
flexibility in expressing their thoughts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 6107, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 60.6 The Speaker ruled out 
    of order in debate remarks characterizing the motives behind 
    certain legislation as ``demagogic and racist.''

    On Dec. 13, 1973,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11450, the Energy Emergency Act. Mr. John D. Dingell, 
of Michigan, offered an amendment to prohibit the use of petroleum for 
the busing of schoolchildren beyond the nearest public school. In 
debate on the amendment, Ms. Bella S. Abzug, of New York, stated as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 41271, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, demanded that the words be taken 
down; 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:

[[Page 10849]]

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

References to Member's Representative Capacity

Sec. 60.7 A reference in debate to another Member as not representing a 
    certain class of people in his state was held not unparliamentary.

    On Apr. 28, 1953,(7) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
stated of Mr. Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania: ``you do not 
represent the hard-working Dutch people up there--not by a long shot. 
You live in the city where you want everything brought to you.'' Mr. 
Eberharter demanded that the words be taken down, but Speaker Joseph W. 
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the words used by Mr. Hoffman 
did not indicate any intent to reflect upon the character or integrity 
of Mr. Eberharter, and were therefore not objectionable under House 
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 99 Cong. Rec. 4126, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 60.8 A statement by a Member (referring to the actions of another 
    Member on the floor) that ``I think in my opinion it was a cheap, 
    sneaky, sly way to operate'' was held to be unparliamentary by the 
    Speaker and those words were, on motion, stricken from the Record 
    by the House.

    On Aug. 21, 1974,(8) the procedure for taking down words 
in the House, finding those words unparliamentary and striking the 
offending words from the Record was demonstrated, as set out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 29652, 29653, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    take this time so I may direct my remarks to the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
        Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, by mutual consent of the leadership on 
    both sides of the aisle and by the members of the Judiciary 
    Committee, I offered to this House a resolution. At the completion 
    of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, I asked that all Members may have 5 
    legislative days in which to extend their remarks and it was 
    objected to, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman). He gave a reason at that particular time.
        I told him that I thought he should have cleared it with the 
    leadership on his own side of the aisle; but nevertheless, Mr. 
    Speaker, when all the Members had left last night, the gentleman

[[Page 10850]]

    came to the well and asked unanimous consent of the then Speaker of 
    the House who was sitting there, if he may insert his remarks in 
    the Record, with unanimous consent, following the remarks where he 
    had objected.
        So, Mr. Speaker, in today's Record on page H8724 you will find 
    the remarks of Mr. Bauman. You will not find the remarks of Mr. 
    McClory, one of the people who had asked me to do this. You will 
    not find the remarks of other members of the Judiciary Committee, 
    who were prepared at that time to put their remarks in the Record; 
    but you will find the remarks of Mr. Bauman and Mr. Bauman alone.
        [I just want to say that I think in my opinion it was a cheap, 
    sneaky, sly way to operate.]
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    that the gentleman's words be taken down.
        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman demands that the 
    words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I take this time so I may direct 
        my remarks to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). . . .
            I just want to say that I think in my opinion it was a 
        cheap, sneaky, sly way to operate.

        The Speaker: The words in the last sentence are not 
    parliamentary. Without objection, the offending words will be 
    stricken from the Record. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I do object . . . .
        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Sisk moves that the words of the gentleman from 
        Massachusetts, Mr. O'Neill, be stricken from the Record.

        Mr. Sisk: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California.
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 60.9 Words that would ordinarily be subject to a point of order in 
    debate as inappropriate references to another Member may be 
    permissible when a resolution to expel such Member is pending, if 
    the words are within the scope of the subject matter of the 
    resolution.

    During consideration, on Mar. 1, 1979,(10) of a 
resolution to expel a Member, such Member was characterized as 
``arrogant'' by another Member.(11) No objection was raised, 
and probably the reference would not in any event have been ruled out 
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 3746-53, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. Proceedings relating 
        to the resolution to expel Mr. Charles C. Diggs, Jr., of 
        Michigan, are discussed further at Sec. Sec. 23.58, supra, and 
        80.7, infra.
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 3751, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 60.10 It is not unparliamentary in debate to charac

[[Page 10851]]

    terize Members as having praised a foreign dictator in the past in 
    prior debate.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Apr. 12, 
1984,(12) during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 290 (expressing the sense of Congress that no appropriated 
funds be used for the purpose of mining the ports or territorial waters 
of Nicaragua):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 130 Cong. Rec. 9480, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: I ask the Members to turn the clock 
    back to 1978 and 1979 when all the debates were going on about 
    supporting Somoza. And the same Members who are taking the floor 
    tonight to argue against this resolution are the same Members in 
    1978 and early 1979 who rose time and time again to tell us how 
    great Somoza was and to tell us how we had to keep arming and 
    supporting General Somoza in Nicaragua. They continually voted to 
    send more arms to Somoza.
        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Harkin: No, of course not.
        Mr. Hyde: A statement has been made, a misstatement.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The gentleman is out 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be 
    taken down. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The words of the gentleman will be 
    taken down. What specific words?
        Mr. Hyde: He said the same people that stood up here tonight 
    were praising Somoza, and I was here in this House then and I have 
    never said a syllable of praise for that man. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the words.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: (14) In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    words do not apply to any specific Member (15) in an 
    unparliamentary manner and consequently there has been no 
    infraction of the rules of the House by the gentleman from Iowa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
15. Note: The remarks would probably not be ruled out of order even if 
        referring to a specific Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

References to Ethics Charges and Disciplinary Proceedings

Sec. 60.11 Although debate must avoid personalities under Rule XIV 
    clause 1, discussion as to a Member's official conduct is 
    appropriate, including evidence of charges not sustained by the 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, where a disciplinary 
    resolution relating to that Member is pending.

    For examples of debate in the House relating to disciplinary 
resolutions against Members, see Sec. 35.13, supra, discussing the 
proceedings at 124 Cong. Rec. 36976 et seq., 95th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct.

[[Page 10852]]

13, 1978, relating to House Resolution 1414, in the matter of 
Representative Charles H. Wilson of California; and see 124 Cong. Rec. 
37005 et seq. for proceedings relating to House Resolution 1415, in the 
matter of Representative John J. McFall of California.

Sec. 60.12 Where a resolution to expel a Member is pending before the 
    House, a transcript of court proceedings on which the proposal of 
    expulsion is based may be read or inserted in the Record with the 
    permission of the House, and no point of order lies that the House 
    may not consider such information.

    For an illustration of proceedings in which permission was sought 
to read from a transcript 
of court proceedings, see Sec. 80.7, infra.

Sec. 60.13 In one instance, during a special-order speech urging the 
    future expulsion of a Member who refused to refrain from voting in 
    the House pending his appeal of federal felony convictions relating 
    to his official conduct, another Member read into the Congressional 
    Record the indictment in federal court of the Member in question, 
    where no point of order was raised.

    On Feb. 28, 1979,(16) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 3495, 3496, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (17) Under a previous order of the 
    House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is recognized for 
    60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newton L.] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, this 
    evening I have asked for this special order to talk briefly about . 
    . . the question of whether or not a Member should be expelled.
        I have requested the gentleman from the 13th District of 
    Michigan refrain from voting precisely because something did 
    happen--he did violate his oath to this House. . . .
        [T]omorrow I will offer a privileged motion, the motion of 
    expulsion, immediately before the House takes up 
    its other legislative business for the day. . . .
        One of our former colleagues has commented on this issue. . . .
        I would like to share with my colleagues a letter he wrote 
    earlier this year:

    The letter from Mr. Charles E. Wiggins, former Member from 
California, stated in part:

        There are two aspects to the question posed: Does the House 
    have the power to act under the circumstances? And, if so, should 
    it do so as a matter of sound policy?
        The first question is, I believe, free of serious doubt. The 
    source of Con

[[Page 10853]]

    gressional power is Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution. . . .
        Congressman Diggs has been convicted of multiple counts of a 
    felony which, stripped to its essentials, involves stealing from 
    the public. Whether such an offense is sufficiently serious as to 
    justify his expulsion, I submit to your good judgment. Personally, 
    I believe it does, for the public itself is uniquely the victim of 
    his crime and the circumstances of its commission involve a 
    criminal misuse of the office itself.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The reading and insertion of the 
indictment, and possibly portions of the Wiggins letter, would have 
been subject to a point of order since in effect impugning the 
integrity, motives, and official conduct of a Member when a 
disciplinary measure against the Member was not pending on the floor of 
the House. Subsequently, Mr. M. Caldwell Butler, of Virginia, obtained 
unanimous consent to insert the entire indictment in the Record rather 
than read it from the floor. The effect of such request was to preclude 
a demand that the words be taken down, inasmuch as the words were not 
being uttered on the floor. A question of privileges of the House could 
thereafter have been raised by a resolution to strike the offending 
words from the Record.

Sec. 60.14 The Speaker reminded the Members, pending the consideration 
    of a resolution to censure and punish a Member, that while a wide 
    range of discussion relative to such Member was permitted during 
    debate, Rule XIV, clause 1, prohibited personalities in debate and 
    the use of language which is personally abusive.

    On July 31, 1979,(18) the Speaker (19) made a 
statement regarding procedures to be followed during debate of a 
privileged resolution reported from the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct censuring and punishing a Member, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 21584, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 378) in the matter of Representative 
    Charles C. Diggs, Jr., and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 378

            Resolved,
            (1) that Representative Charles C. Diggs, Junior, be 
        censured . . . .

        The Speaker: The Chair wishes to make a statement after which 
    the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) will be recognized for 1 
    hour.
        The Chair must acknowledge the gravity of the pending 
    resolution inso

[[Page 10854]]

    far as the House will be called up to discipline one of its 
    Members. While there should, of course, be an opportunity to debate 
    all aspects of this matter, the Chair wishes to remind Members of 
    the restrictions imposed by clause I, rule XIV, and by the 
    precedents relating to references to Members in debate. These 
    restrictions indicate that Members should refrain from using 
    language which is personally abusive. While a wide range of 
    discussion relating to conduct of the Member in question will be 
    permitted, it is the duty of the Chair to maintain proper decorum 
    in debate. It is the intention of the Chair to enforce the rules.

Sec. 60.15 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.

    The proceedings of June 14 and 15, 1988, are discussed in 
Sec. 57.5, supra.

Sec. 60.16 It is not in order in debate to ``list Members of the House 
    who have had ethical clouds cast upon them'' unless the subjects of 
    a pending report from the Committee on Standards of Official 
    Conduct or otherwise before the House on a question of privilege.

    On June 15, 1988,(20) Speaker Thomas S. Foley, of 
Washington, responded to an inquiry regarding the use of personalities 
in debate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 134 Cong. Rec. 16629, 16630, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Schumer asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [Charles E.] Schumer [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, Attorney 
    General Meese said yesterday that he had to step down to pursue 
    opportunities in the private sector. . . .
        The issue was not just Ed Meese. It was this administration's 
    disdain for Government that led to its appalling lack of ethical 
    standards. Ed Meese is just one fish in a foul sea.
        Just consider a partial list of Bush-Reagan appointees who have 
    resigned under a cloud: Richard Allen, Anne Gorsuch Burford, 
    Michael Deaver, John Fedders, Edwin Gray, Rita Lavelle, Robert 
    McFarlane, Lyn Nofziger, Oliver North, Theodore Olsen, Melvyn 
    Paisley, John Poindexter, Paul Thayer, and James Watt. American 
    voters will remember the hall of shame in November.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, if a 
    Member were to list a similar group of Members of the House who 
    have had an ethical cloud cast upon them, would it

[[Page 10855]]

    be proper to read such a list on the House floor?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is not proper, as the Chair has 
    previously stated, under the rule against personalities in debate, 
    unless the Members' names are subjects of a report being debated 
    from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or are 
    otherwise being raised under questions of privilege.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair, because it is very 
    interesting that once again we have this double standard in the 
    House of Representatives, that a Member can come on and criticize 
    the administration and criticize a whole list of people, some of 
    whom have never had any charges brought against them whatsoever, 
    and call that a sleaze factor; but in the House of Representatives, 
    if we have Members of the House who have similar kinds of clouds 
    assigned to them, it cannot be mentioned in this well.

Sec. 60.17 It is a breach of order under clause 1 of Rule XIV to allege 
    in debate that a Member has engaged in conduct similar to the 
    subject of a complaint pending before the Committee on Standards of 
    Official Conduct against another Member; and under clause 4 of that 
    rule, the Chair takes the initiative in calling to order Members 
    improperly engaging in personalities in debate.

    Speaker Pro Tempore G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery, of Mississippi, 
called a Member to order in the House on Mar. 22, 1989,(1) 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 135 Cong. Rec. 5130, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Alexander asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, after arriving 
    at the Capitol a few minutes ago on this glorious spring day, I 
    learned that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
    conducted an election for minority whip resulting in the election 
    of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) as minority whip. . . 
    .
        I would note to those who are observing that the gentleman from 
    Georgia made his name, so to speak, by a sustained personal attack 
    on the good name of Jim Wright, the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives who has devoted decades of meritorious service to 
    our country. The gentleman from Georgia alleged that the Speaker 
    has circumvented minimum income limits of Members of Congress by 
    writing a book for which he received a royalty.
        Now, it is also to be noted that just this week it was learned 
    that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) also allegedly has a 
    book deal. It is alleged in the Washington Post this week that the 
    gentleman from Georgia received a royalty or a payment in the 
    nature of a royalty. This is apparently similar to the Wright 
    arrangement which is the basis of the gentleman from Georgia's 
    complaint before the Ethics Committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman

[[Page 10856]]

    that he cannot make personal references, as the gentleman has done 
    in his remarks.

Sec. 60.18 While comparisons of the recommended disciplinary action 
    pending before the House in a privileged resolution may be made 
    with other such actions taken by or reported to the House by an 
    investigating committee for the purpose of measuring severity of 
    punishment, it is not in order to discuss the conduct of other 
    Members where such conduct has not been the result of a committee 
    reported action.

    On Dec. 18, 1987,(2) during consideration of a 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 335, disciplining a Member) in the 
House, it was held that debate on a resolution recommending a 
disciplinary sanction against a Member may not exceed the scope of the 
conduct of the accused Member. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 133 Cong. Rec. 36266, 36271, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 335) in the matter of Representative 
    Austin J. Murphy, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                H. Res. 335

            Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the 
        report by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated 
        December 16, 1987, in the matter of Representative Austin J. 
        Murphy of Pennsylvania.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Dixon] is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Dave McCurdy (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I commend the 
    committee for its report and its recommendation. Given the facts, a 
    reprimand is a reasonable recommendation and I will vote ``yes'' 
    but I sympathize with the plight of Mr. Murphy. We must be careful 
    not to make a scapegoat of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        This committee's earlier report on the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island should be reexamined with this new yardstick. The 
    committee's letter on the gentlewoman from Ohio should be 
    scrutinized with this new yardstick. The admission of $24,000 in 
    election law violations by the gentleman from California should be 
    held up to this new yardstick.
        Finally, the numerous allegations about the Speaker must be----
        Mr. [Tommy F.] Robinson [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I thought we were here today to hear a very serious charge 
    against one of our colleagues from Pennsylvania, not from 
    California or other States.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman suspend? Does the 
    gentleman from Georgia yield?

[[Page 10857]]

        Mr. Gingrich: No, I do not yield, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that we are 
    here to consider the committee's report against our colleague 
    Austin Murphy and not against other Members today that the charges 
    have not been substantiated or presented to the committee. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . On the debate currently ongoing, 
    there can be references made to other cases reported by the 
    committee, not by individual or by name. The gentleman from 
    Georgia, as the Chair understands, has not mentioned other 
    individuals and the gentleman from Arkansas----
        Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, he has, too.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman may compare disciplinary 
    actions reported by the committee and should confine his remarks to 
    the matters before the House.
        Mr. Robinson: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker. To my knowledge, these charges are not before the 
    committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Georgia will 
    proceed in order.

Sec. 60.19 Reference should not be made in debate to pending 
    investigations undertaken by the Committee on Standards of Official 
    Conduct, including suggestions of courses of action, nor should 
    critical characterizations be made of members of that committee who 
    have investigated a Member's conduct.

    On Mar. 3, 1995,(4) the Speaker responded to inquiries 
made about the propriety of remarks made by a Member with reference to 
certain investigations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 141 Cong. Rec. p.____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. See also the 
        proceedings of Apr. 1, 1992 (138 Cong. Rec. p.____, 102d Cong. 
        2d Sess.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, last year 
    Members of the present majority complained about the investigation 
    by Special Counsel Robert Fiske. They claimed that Fiske was a 
    friend of the White House and that his investigation of Whitewater 
    was not going far enough.
        I ask the Members of the House to consider these facts. The 
    current chairman of the House Ethics Committee cast the deciding 
    vote for the Speaker in the 1989 whip's race. The chairman of the 
    Ethics Committee seconded the nomination for Speaker this year. The 
    chairman of our Ethics Committee last year tried to help our 
    current Speaker by closing the pending Ethics Committee complaint 
    against him.
        Two other majority members of the House Ethics Committee have 
    had personal dealings with the personal PAC of the Speaker, GOPAC, 
    one of them as a contributor, and another as a recipient for his 
    reelection.
        Given these facts, I am sure those who call for a replacement 
    of Special

[[Page 10858]]

    Counsel Fiske will now join me in calling for a special counsel to 
    investigate the allegations against Speaker Gingrich, and it should 
    not take 100 days.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John T. Doolittle (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, was not the entire speech of the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], just a moment ago, out of 
    order, because it was a direct reference to Members of this body? . 
    . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not refer to pending 
    Standards Committee investigations.
        Mr. Walker: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Beyond the pending ethics investigation, he also 
    may have had personal references to the chairman of the Ethics 
    Committee. Is that also not out of order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not so refer to the 
    Standards Committee or any Members thereof.
        Mr. Walker: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. My 
    understanding is that what the gentleman has just done in the House 
    was a speech which was entirely out of order before the body: is 
    that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is responding in a general 
    way to the proper debate in the House with respect to ethics 
    investigations.
        Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Volkmer: Is the Chair ruling that it is improper for any 
    Member to request a special counsel in an investigation being 
    conducted by the Ethics Committee, which action has not been taken 
    by the Ethics Committee?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not refer to pending 
    Standards Committee investigations, or suggest courses of action 
    within that committee.
        Mr. Volkmer: I thank the Chair.

References to Groups of Members

Sec. 60.20 Clause 1 of Rule XIV proscribes Members in debate from 
    engaging in personalities, including references that an 
    identifiable group of Members (``the Democratic leadership'') 
    committed a crime (``stole'' an election).

    On Mar. 21, 1989,(6) the Speaker took the initiative to 
focus the attention of Members on the prohibition in clause 1 of Rule 
XIV against Members engaging in personalities during debate and called 
to order a Member alleging

[[Page 10859]]

that an identifiable group of sitting Members had committed a crime. 
The proceedings in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 135 Cong. Rec. 5016, 5017, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, 
    bipartisanship in the House has taken a curious twist. It now 
    appears that the Democrat leadership is attempting to influence and 
    interfere in the race for Republican whip. . . .
        To those Democrats who have been a part of trying to influence 
    the outcome of this election, let it be noted that the last time 
    you played this game, you stole the Indiana seat from the 
    Republican Party. That outrage and this one tell us more than we 
    need to know about your definition of bipartisanship.
        The Speaker: (7) The gentleman is not proceeding in 
    a parliamentary manner. He used the word ``stole.'' His accusation 
    that Members of the House stole an election is improper, and the 
    gentleman realizes that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In addition, his imputation that individuals on the broad 
    generic term ``House leadership'' in an attempt to interfere with 
    his election is also, I think, incorrect, and I would ask the 
    gentleman to reconsider his thoughts on that. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, instead of ``House leadership,'' 
    should I name names?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is engaging in personalities and 
    when he uses words like the word ``stole'' with reference to an 
    identifiable group of Members, that has been held improper.

Sec. 60.21 The Speaker ruled that a statement made in Committee of the 
    Whole that another Member should not ``let this element over here 
    who advocates unilateral disarmament to browbeat you into thinking 
    they know more than you do'' did not refer to or reflect on a 
    particular Member of the House and was therefore in order, but the 
    Speaker cautioned that in the tone or mannerisms of a Member 
    speaking in debate it is not in order to make any statement which 
    would be personally offensive to another Member.

    On May 26, 1983,(8) it was demonstrated that, when a 
demand is made that words spoken in debate in Committee of the Whole be 
taken down, the words are reported by the Clerk, the Committee rises 
and the words are reported again to the House, and the Speaker rules 
whether the words are in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 14048, 14049, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: . . . The 
    gentleman from California, for whom I have a great deal of respect, 
    is, through his proposals, through his amendment, advocating 
    unilateral disarmament on behalf of the United States. . . .
        I would say to my colleague from Indiana that when we are told 
    by the gentleman from California that we go

[[Page 10860]]

    beyond a deterrence to a war-fighting capability, that when your 
    deterrence is no longer a deterrence it is probably time that you 
    build that deterrence at least to a war-fighting capability.
        I do not want my colleague from Indiana to be ashamed 
    whatsoever or to let this element over here who advocates 
    unilateral disarmament to browbeat you into thinking they know more 
    than you do.
        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    object and I move that the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) . . . The Clerk will 
    report the words of the gentleman from South Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Thomas J. Downey (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hartnett. I do not want my colleague from Indiana to be 
        ashamed whatsoever or to let this element over here who 
        advocates unilateral disarmament to browbeat you into thinking 
        they know more than you do. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Committee will rise.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Downey of New York, Chairman pro tempore of the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
    that the Committee having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
    2969) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1984 for the 
    Armed Forces . . . and for other purposes, reported that certain 
    words used in the 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: (10) The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The statement as made by the gentleman from South Carolina is 
    apparently not directed at any particular Member.
        The House has had rulings in situations, perhaps analogous to 
    this in the past. A statement by the gentleman from Mississippi 
    (Mr. Rankin), that ``It has been amazing to me to hear these 
    Members rise on the floor and give aid and comfort to those 
    enemies, those traitors within our gates, for every Communist in 
    America is a traitor to our Government and is dedicated to its 
    overthrow.'' That was held in order by Speaker Martin on November 
    24, 1947, since it did not reflect on any individual Members.
        This is a ruling that has been made by this House before and it 
    seems that there is an established precedent.
        While the remarks of the gentleman are in order, the Chair 
    would caution him that in the tone of his voice or things of that 
    manner it is against the rules of the House to make any statement 
    that would be personally offensive.
        The Chair has ruled that both the gentleman's statements were 
    not personal to any particular Member of the House.
        The Committee will resume its sitting.

Sec. 60.22 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that it was not in order in debate to

[[Page 10861]]

    refer to an identifiable group of sitting Members as having 
    committed a crime, such as ``stealing'' an election.

    The prohibition in Rule XIV, clause 1,(11) against 
Members' engaging in ``personality'' during debate, applies to 
allegations that an identifiable group of sitting Members have 
committed a crime. Such application of the rule is shown by the 
proceedings of Feb. 27, 1985,(12) in which a statement made 
by Mr. John Rowland, of Connecticut, as indicated below, concerning an 
allegedly ``stolen'' election, was the subject of a demand that the 
words be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995).
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 3898, 3899, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the gentleman's words be taken down in that he said ``stolen.''
        The Chairman: Words will be taken down.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The Clerk will read 
    the words taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Tommy F. Robinson (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The scary thing about it, as a person who served in the 
        legislature for 4 years, and as a person who happens to be 
        sitting as the youngest Member of Congress, I find it difficult 
        that the first situation that we run into in this House, the 
        first class project, as we may call it, is trying to retain a 
        seat that has been stolen from the Republican side of the 
        aisle, and I think it is rather frustrating.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the gentleman care to modify his 
    remarks before the Chair rules?
        Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In what way does the gentleman care to 
    modify?
        Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: I would like to ask unanimous 
    consent that the words objected to be withdrawn. . . .
        The word ``stolen,'' Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Connecticut?
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Georgia is 
    recognized.
        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: I would yield in just a 
    moment, after asking the Chair if in fact Members were convinced an 
    action were being taken which involved a word which was ruled by 
    the Chair to be inappropriate, how could a Member report to the 
    House on that action? Should we substitute the word ``banana''? 
    What is it one should say if in fact--not just as a joke, but if in 
    fact--Members of the Republican side honestly believed strongly 
    something is being done? In other words, is ``unconstitutional'' an 
    acceptable term but ``illegal'' not acceptable? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Simply put, Members should not accuse 
    other Members of committing a crime. When the majority is accused 
    of ``stealing,'' that may suggest illegality. Other

[[Page 10862]]

    words could be used but not those accusing Members of committing a 
    crime.
        Mr. Gingrich: What if one honestly believes, for a moment, that 
    a crime is being committed? Would it in fact be against the rules--
    --
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members may not engage in 
    personalities.
        Mr. Gingrich: But he did not talk in personalities.
        Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Gingrich: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that I did not refer to 
    anybody stealing an election. I just referred to the frustration 
    that we as freshmen are exhibiting and fearing as we go through the 
    deliberations. I did not refer to anybody.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman seemed to refer to the 
    majority of the House, that it had stolen the election.

Characterizations of Member

Sec. 60.23 A statement in debate attacking personal characteristics of 
    another Member while on the floor is not in order.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(14) Mr. John Taber, of New York, 
demanded that certain words used by Mr. Lee E. Geyer, of California, in 
reference to another Member be taken down. Mr. Geyer used derogatory 
terms in describing the Member's physical characteristics and his 
overbearing manner in debate. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 2871, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The words objected to and which have been taken down and read 
    from the Clerk's desk very patently violate the rule, because the 
    words alleged do involve matters of personal reference and 
    personality.

    Mr. Geyer then asked and was granted unanimous consent to withdraw 
the words in question.

Sec. 60.24 A statement in debate referring to another Member's record 
    with the FBI was held unparliamentary.

    On Apr. 30, 1945,(15) certain words used in debate by 
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, were objected to by Mr. Vito 
Marcantonio, of New York, and demanded to be taken down. Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words were not parliamentary and by 
unanimous consent the words were stricken from the Congressional 
Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 3992, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The statement objected to read as follows: 
``I will say to the gentleman

[[Page 10863]]

now, don't you start--don't you start comparing anybody's record, 
because I have got yours for a long time back with both the Dies 
Committee and the FBI.''

Sec. 60.25 In response to a parliamentary inquiry during debate on a 
    question of personal privilege (involving derogatory statements to 
    the press by one Member against others), the Speaker Pro Tempore 
    advised that the term ``crybaby'' would not be an appropriate 
    phrase to be used in the debate as a reference to a particular 
    Member.

    On May 31, 1984,(16) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 130 Cong. Rec. 14624, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: I yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The gentleman will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Frank: The parliamentary inquiry is dealing with the 
    question of propriety. Is the term ``crybaby'' an appropriate 
    phrase to be used in a debate in the House?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would hope that the phrase 
    would not be used.

Questions of Personal Privilege Arising Out of Personal Attacks

Sec. 60.26 A Member may not rise to a question of personal privilege 
    under Rule IX merely to complain of words previously spoken of him 
    in debate.

    On Mar. 16, 1988,(18) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding a point of personal privilege, as 
indicated be-low:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 134 Cong. Rec. 4087, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    point of parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I would like to inquire if this Member is able to take a point 
    of personal privilege, that is 1 hour of debate on the House floor 
    at the moment it is granted, if I feel that my honor was impugned 
    when the majority whip, who also spoke way beyond 1 minute . . . if 
    Mr. Coelho tells me that I have sold out the young men and women 
    that I visited with not more than a month ago who are at this 
    moment being strafed and rocketed by Soviet gunships, to tell me to 
    my face--and I am sitting in the front row--that I sold them out 
    impugned my honor.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The gentleman will 
    state a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 10864]]

        Mr. Dornan of California: Do I have a right for a point of 
    personal privilege on that?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is not a remedy that the 
    gentleman has under the circumstances.
        Mr. Dornan of California: May I ask the ruling of the Chair as 
    to why I cannot maintain a point of personal privilege that my 
    honor was impugned.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of personal privilege does 
    not derive from words spoken in debate.

--Press Attacks

Sec. 60.27 Press accounts of a Member's criticisms, both during debate 
    and off the floor, of another Member may give rise to a question of 
    personal privilege; thus, on one occasion, Members including the 
    Majority Leader rose to questions of personal privilege under Rule 
    IX to respond to press accounts of another Member's criticisms of 
    their efforts to communicate with a foreign government concerning 
    that country's human rights policies.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on May 15, 1984: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 12207, 12211, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    point of personal privilege. . . .
        My point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that in the 
    Washington Post on Monday, yesterday, appeared an article which 
    characterizes a communication signed by 10 Members of the Congress, 
    including this Member, as the Democratic foreign policy 
    establishment writing a letter which states explicitly that it 
    opposes the policies of the American Government and that it amounts 
    to a virtual teaching document to bring Third World Soviet colonies 
    into the process of manipulating American politics and politicians.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman has 
    stated a question of personal privilege and is recognized for 1 
    hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    point of personal privilege, citing the same letter referred to by 
    the majority leader.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    privilege.
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of personal privilege 
    because I am a signator of the same letter which was referred to by 
    the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) in the press.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Obey) is recognized for 1 hour.

--Insertions in Record

Sec. 60.28 Clause 1 of Rule XIV, requiring Members to ``avoid 
    personality'' during debate, prohibits references in debate to 
    newspaper accounts used in support of a Member's personal criticism 
    of a

[[Page 10865]]

    sitting Member in a way which would be unparliamentary if uttered 
    on the floor as the Member's own words; and the prohibition against 
    reading in debate of press accounts which are personally critical 
    of a sitting Member does not constitute ``censorship'' of the press 
    by the House, but rather is consistent with House rules which 
    preclude debate or insertions in the Record which engage in 
    ``personality.''

    On Feb. 25, 1985,(2) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 131 Cong. Rec. 3344-46, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) Un-der a previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is 
    recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sam B. Hall, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I am going to 
    insert in the Record today and read into the Record several 
    editorials, one from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution 
    yesterday, Sunday, February 24, and one this morning from the Wall 
    Street Journal, both of them talking about the tragic situation in 
    which the Democratic leadership has blocked Mr. McIntyre of Indiana 
    from being seated. . . .

            Yet twice the House has voted to deny McIntyre the seat 
        while it investigates. . . .
            The technicalities aside, the case is interesting for what 
        it says about the Congress. . . . In the second vote only five 
        Democrats dared abandon O'Neill and the leadership.
            Georgia's Democrats went right along with the herd, in 
        defiance of basic decency. . . . A few Republicans near each 
        election try to remind voters that the Democrats' first vote 
        will be for O'Neill and that vote signals bondage. This year it 
        meant the abandonment of fairness. . . .

        Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman has not asked me to 
    yield, and I was in fact making an inquiry myself to the Chair. I 
    was asking the Chair to rule in this sort of setting if one is 
    reporting to the House on the written opinion of a columnist in 
    which the columnist has said very strong things, is it appropriate 
    for the House to be informed of this and, if so, what is the 
    correct procedure?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The ruling of the Chair is that the 
    gentleman should not read into the Record things which would 
    clearly be outside the rules of this House. . . .
        Mr. Gingrich: Let me continue to ask the Chair, because I am a 
    little confused, in other words, if a columnist writing in the 
    largest newspaper in the State of Georgia says very strong things 
    about his concern about the House's behavior, would the House in 
    effect censor a report of that concern?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: No; the House does not censor any 
    report of that kind. The gentleman does take the responsibility, 
    however, for words uttered on the floor, and he is certainly 
    capable of leaving out those items

[[Page 10866]]

    which he knows would be outside the rules of this House. . . .
        Mr. Gingrich: If I may continue a moment to ask the gentleman, 
    if we are in a situation where in the view of some people, such as 
    Mr. Williams of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, very strong 
    things are legitimately being said, and this is obviously his 
    viewpoint, what is the appropriate manner in which to report his 
    language to the House?
        That is not me saying these things; he is saying these things.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman knows the rules of the 
    House, I am certain, and he can take out or delete any things that 
    he knows would violate the rules of this House if spoken from the 
    floor.
        Mr. Gingrich: Under the Rules of the House . . . if one were to 
    only utter the words on the floor that were appropriate, but were 
    to then insert the item in the Record, is the Record then edited by 
    the House? That is, if it was put in as an extension of remarks or 
    put in under general leave?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: As the gentleman knows, there are 
    precedents where a question of privilege can be raised about 
    certain things inserted in the Record, and those could be raised if 
    the gentleman attempts to insert them into the Record, or not. . . 
    .
        As the gentleman knows, words spoken on the floor of the House 
    can be objected to.

    The following exchange took place on Feb. 27, 1985: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 131 Cong. Rec. 3902, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: . . . I came to the 
    floor [to] suggest that it is important that we have a balanced 
    opportunity to discuss these issues. . . . I simply think it is 
    important that we observe the rules of the House in the course of 
    debate, and I think the two gentlemen, Mr. Walker and Mr. Gingrich, 
    know that it is not permissible under long-standing rules of the 
    House and interpretations of the Parliamentarians . . . to read 
    into the Record statements that would be inappropriate if made by a 
    Member directly. . . .
        I just wanted to make the point that these gentlemen in the 
    well and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) know the 
    rules very well. They are very skilled at them and they know that 
    it is inappropriate to use 
    a newspaper article, however widely published, to violate the rules 
    of the House.

--Remarks by Other Colleagues

Sec. 60.29 It is not in order in debate to refer to the official 
    conduct of other Members where such conduct is not the subject then 
    pending before the House by way of a report of the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct or as a question of the privilege of 
    the House; nor is it in order in debate to refer to a 
    ``hypothetical'' Member of the House in a derogatory fashion where 
    it is evident that a particular Member is being described.

[[Page 10867]]

    On Nov. 3, 1989,(5) it was demonstrated that where a 
Member transgresses clause 1 of Rule XIV, by engaging in personalities 
in debate, the Chair takes the initiative to call him to order pursuant 
to clause 4 of Rule XIV. The proceedings in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 135 Cong. Rec. 27077, 27080-82, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) Un-der a previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer] is 
    recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jolene Unsoeld (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: . . . What is a 
    person to think after breaking the law because of an obsession with 
    homosexual sodomy and having his party leader state publicly that 
    he is a fine man and a credit to public service? . . .
        One party, the Democrats, openly courts homosexual votes and 
    defends the behavior as if homosexual sodomy is a fundamental civil 
    right. The other party, the Republicans, while some of its members 
    are kowtowing to homosexuals, still refuses to legitimize 
    homosexual sodomy in the public arena.
        The ramifications of this juxtaposition are stark. For 
    instance, take one Democrat and one Republican both discovered in 
    the course of homosexual misdeeds. The former, we will say, is 
    apologetic, but not contrite. The latter is both apologetic and 
    contrite. Isn't it fair to say that the member whose party 
    leadership condones homosexual behavior is more apt to come under 
    less condemnation than the member whose party leadership has 
    consistently renounced homosexual behavior?
        In this hypothetical situation, the sword of Damocles hangs 
    precariously over the head of the Republican. His political career 
    is in deep jeopardy. Ironically, the Democrat, with similar 
    circumstances, is allowed by party leaders to use the same sword of 
    Damocles to carve out a lure for the Cretan Bull! . . .
        Article I, section 5, clause 2 of the United States 
    Constitution provides that:

            Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, 
        punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the 
        concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

        We should all be clear that at issue when the House takes 
    disciplinary action of this latter sort is not whether a Member is 
    guilty of any criminal wrongdoing. At issue is whether or not a 
    Member is unfit for participation in House proceedings. Wrongdoing 
    can be the basis for considering a punishment, but punishment does 
    not depend on indictments or convictions. . . .
        Let me make it easy for Members. Let's say, hypothetically, 
    that a Member has admitted to violating several laws, both felonies 
    and misdemeanors, involving moral turpitude. And that the 
    punishments accompanying these illegal violations combine to total 
    nearly 15 years in prison. . . .
        I want to make clear to my colleagues that at the appropriate 
    time in the near future, I will offer a resolution, in one form or 
    another, to expel [two Members specified]. . . .
        No Member can legitimately take issue that I have interfered in 
    the ju

[[Page 10868]]

    risdiction of the Ethics Committee by my comments here today. My 
    indirect or direct comments made about [the two Members] have only 
    concerned activities the former has admitted to and the latter has 
    been convicted on. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will pause. The 
    gentleman is discussing a matter pending before the Ethics 
    Committee. I would remind the gentleman from California that clause 
    1 of rule XIV prevents Members in debate from engaging in 
    personalities. Clause 4 of that rule provides that if any member 
    transgresses the rules of the House, the Speaker shall, or any 
    Member may, call him to order.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . George Washington Law Professor John 
    Banzhaf has done extensive research on a case of Member ``X.'' He 
    concludes that Member ``X'' has publicly admitted to committing 
    crimes, and a refusal to take any action would undermine the 
    public's confidence in the mechanism set up to ensure that Members 
    of Congress abide by ethical and moral standards at least as high 
    as those to which we currently hold attorneys, cadets at the 
    Nation's military academies, high military officials, and even 
    school principals. . . .
        The Boston Globe wrote, Were Member X's transgressions serious 
    enough to warrant his departure from Congress? Yes. For his own 
    good and for the good of his constituents, his causes and 
    Congress''----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will cease. The Chair 
    would remind the gentleman, and will repeat again, and will read 
    the Speaker's full statement, clause 1 of rule XIV prevents Members 
    in debate from engaging in personalities. Clause 4 of that rule 
    provides that if any Member transgresses 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 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 on the motivations of a Member who may have filed 
    a complaint before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
    against another Member.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Madam Speaker, I have no longer made reference 
    to a specific Member. I have merely made reference to ``Member X.''
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is referring to 
    newspaper stories which specifically names Members.
        The gentleman may proceed within the rules of the House.