[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§ 61. Use of Colloquialisms]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10868-10875]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
 
Sec. 61. -- Use of Colloquialisms

    The use in debate of colloquial expressions, or familiar terms used 
in conversation, is governed by their current meaning and by the 
context in which they are uttered.(7) The Speaker has on 
occa

[[Page 10869]]

sion referred to dictionaries to ascertain the current definitions of 
common expressions used on the floor in reference to 
Members.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Although the statesmanship of a Member may be questioned, a 
        contemptuous remark, such as ``pothouse politician,'' may not 
        be used in debate; see 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2527.
 8. See Sec. 61.13, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

References to Physical Characteristics

Sec. 61.1 References to a Member having a ``hand like a ham'', grasping 
    a microphone until it ``groaned from mad torture'', and stamping up 
    and down on the House floor ``like a wild man'' were held out of 
    order.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(9) Mr. John Taber, of New York, 
demanded that the following words used by Mr. Lee E. Geyer, of 
California, in reference to another Member be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 84 Cong. Rec. 2871, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I have seen him come out [on the House floor] with a hand that 
    only he possesses, a hand like a ham, and grasp this delicate 
    [microphone] until it groaned from mad torture. I have seen him 
    come on the floor and stamp up and down like a wild man.

    Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled as follows:

        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.

Use of Particular Terms

--Cheap, Sneaky, Sly

Sec. 61.2 The Speaker held unparliamentary a reference in debate to 
    another Member's proceeding in a ``cheap, sneaky, sly way.''

    On Aug. 21, 1974,(10) Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, 
demanded that the words below, as used in debate in reference to him by 
Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, be taken down. After 
being read by the Clerk, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled the 
words out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 29652, 29653, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I take this time so I may direct my 
    remarks to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
        Yesterday, 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

[[Page 10870]]

    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 
    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 29362 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.

    The House agreed to a motion to strike the objectionable words from 
the Record.

--Slippery, Snide, and Sharp Practices

Sec. 61.3 A statement in debate ``where I come from the people do not 
    like slippery, snide, and sharp practices,'' was held in order as 
    not reflecting on any Member.

    On July 26, 1951,(11) Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, 
while discussing opposition amendments to a pending bill, stated as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 97 Cong. Rec. 8968, 8969, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

--Alleging ``Coverup''

Sec. 61.4 An allegation in debate in the Senate that a colleague ``did 
    all he could to cover up wrongdoing'' was held to be a breach of 
    order as impugning the integrity or conduct of another Senator.

    On Mar. 20, 1968,(12) Senator Joseph S. Clark, of 
Pennsylvania,

[[Page 10871]]

and Senator Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska, were engaged in a colloquy in 
relation to the investigation of an employee of the Senate. Senator 
Curtis stated to Senator Clark ``you did all you could to cover up 
wrongdoing.'' Senator Clark requested the Chair to admonish Senator 
Curtis for that language and to require him to take his seat under the 
Standing Rules of the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 114 Cong. Rec. 7153, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Presiding Officer Birch E. Bayh, of Indiana, ruled that the 
language used was objectionable un-der Rule 14, prohibiting a Senator 
from impugning the integrity or conduct of a colleague in debate. 
Senator Curtis was then permitted to proceed in order.

--Horning In

Sec. 61.5 In contrast to the usual procedure of taking words down, a 
    Member sought to rise to a question of personal privilege to 
    challenge another Member's reference to him in debate as ``another 
    guy'' who was ``horning in on the act.''

    On Aug. 4, 1970,(13) Mr. Page H. Belcher, of Oklahoma, 
referred to Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, in debate as 
``another guy'' who was ``horning in on the act'' in relation to a 
certain measure before the House. Rather than demand that the words be 
taken down, Mr. Conte sought recognition for a point of personal 
privilege and requested a definition from Mr. Belcher of ``another 
guy'' and ``horning in''. After some discussion, Mr. Thomas G. 
Abernethy, of Mississippi, stated the point of order that the proper 
procedure was to take the words down and have a ruling by the Chair on 
whether they were in order. Speaker Pro Tempore Edward P. Boland, of 
Massachusetts, ruled that the point of order came too late and 
entertained a unanimous-consent request that the words ``another guy'' 
used by Mr. Belcher be stricken from the Record and be substituted by 
``the gentleman from Massachusetts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 27130, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Loose Talk

Sec. 61.6 A statement in debate accusing colleagues who opposed a 
    measure of ``loose talk'' was held merely an expression of opinion 
    mentioning no Member by name and not a breach of order.

    On May 6, 1941,(14) the following words used in debate 
in

[[Page 10872]]

the Committee of the Whole were demanded to be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 87 Cong. Rec. 3670, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

--Mouthpiece for Another

Sec. 61.7 Where a statement that a Member spoke as a ``mouthpiece'' for 
    a professional medical association was objected to in debate, the 
    statement was by unanimous consent changed to ``self-appointed 
    spokesman'' before a ruling on the point of order was made.

    On June 5, 1962,(15) Mr. John D. Dingell, Jr., of 
Michigan, referred to another Member as a ``mouthpiece for the AMA 
[American Medical Association].'' Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, 
demanded that the words be taken down, but before a ruling was made, 
Mr. Dingell asked unanimous consent to change the word ``mouthpiece'' 
to ``self-appointed spokesman.'' There was no objection to the request 
and the point of order was withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 9739, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Crybaby

Sec. 61.8 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.).

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

[[Page 10873]]

        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.

--Pinko

Sec. 61.9 It is not in order in 
    debate to refer to another Member of the House as ``pinko.''

    On Oct. 31, 1963,(18) Mr. Edgar Franklin Foreman, of 
Texas, was recognized under previous order to address the House for 60 
minutes. Mr. Foreman discussed a newspaper story which quoted him as 
calling 20 of his colleagues in the House ``pinkos.'' When Mr. Foreman 
commenced to describe the one occasion on which he called a Member a 
pinko, Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, demanded that his words be 
taken down and then stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 20742, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is my understanding of 
    the rules that no Member of the House may be labeled a ``pinko'' by 
    anyone who would put himself above everybody else in the House, 
    regardless which side of the aisle he is on, this becomes so 
    interesting that I withdraw my demand to have the words taken down 
    at this point so that I may hear what further the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Foreman] has to say that is of interest.

    Mr. Foreman continued:

        The fact of the matter is, as I was saying, to set the record 
    straight, I have only referred to one Member of this body as a 
    ``pinko.'' On Friday, October 18, 1963, during a speech in San 
    Jose, Calif., I referred to the gentleman from California, Mr. Don 
    Edwards, as Don ``Pinko'' Edwards.

    Mr. Rooney then demanded that those words be taken down and Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that to characterize any 
Member of the House as a ``pinko'' is in violation of the rules.
    The House then rejected a unanimous-consent request for Mr. Foreman 
to continue with the balance of his statement.

--You Are Going To ``Skin Us''

Sec. 61.10 A statement in debate ``you are going to skin us'' was held 
    merely a colloquialism which did not reflect upon any Member and 
    was in order.

    On Feb. 18, 1941,(19) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
used the following language in relation to his opposition on a certain 
measure: ``You are going to skin us, are

[[Page 10874]]

you not?'' Mr. Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania, demanded that the words 
be taken down, the committee rose, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
ruled that the expression contained in those words was merely a 
colloquialism which did not reflect in an unparliamentary manner upon 
any Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 87 Cong. Rec. 1126, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Snoop

Sec. 61.11 It is a breach of order in debate to refer to another Member 
    as a ``snooper.''

    On July 16, 1935,(20) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New 
York, referred to Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, in debate as a 
``snooper.'' The words were taken down. After consulting Webster's 
Dictionary and reading the definition of the term as ``to look or pry 
about or into others' affairs in a sneaking way,'' or as ``one who 
snoops, a prying sneak,'' Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, held 
that the use of the term violated the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 79 Cong. Rec. 11256, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Stool Pigeon

Sec. 61.12 It is a breach of order in debate to refer to another Member 
    as a ``stool pigeon.''

    On July 16, 1935,(1) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, ruled that the use of the term ``stool pigeon'' by a Member 
in debate referring to another Member was clearly a breach of order. 
The Speaker stated that it was not necessary for the Chair or for any 
Member to consult the dictionary in order to ascertain the meaning of 
the language objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Yapping

Sec. 61.13 The word ``yapping'' used in debate to refer to another 
    Member's remarks is not unparliamentary.

    On June 16, 1934,(2) Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, ruled that the word ``yapping,'' used by Mr. George E. 
Foulkes, of Michigan, in debate to refer to addresses on the floor by 
Mr. John Taber, of New York, was not unparliamentary. The Speaker had 
consulted the dictionary and stated that the term meant ``to talk 
loudly; chatter; scold'' and was not objectionable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 78 Cong. Rec. 12114, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Lacking Guts

Sec. 61.14 The Chair on one occasion intervened to admonish Members not 
    to characterize the motivations of other Members, without a 
    challenge from the floor and

[[Page 10875]]

    without any specific Member being mentioned.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 9, 
1992,(3) during consideration of House Resolution 513 (the 
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5518, Department of 
Transportation appropriations for fiscal year 1993):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 137 Cong. Rec. p.  ____, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . The problem is 
    that the Democratic leadership and the Committee on Rules that they 
    control are so weak and pathetic that they cannot stand up for 
    honor and they cannot stand up for law. . . .
        Why can you not at least have the guts to stand up for real 
    deficit reduction and for the budget process? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) Members are reminded to 
    refrain from characterizing the actions or motivations of other 
    Members of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------