§ 65. —Race and Prejudice Is Practiced Here by the District Gov- Ernment May I Say Look at Me, One of It Is Not in Order in Debate to Your Fellow Congressmen

CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE Ch. 29 § 65 bama, ruled that the language any agency, office, or department violated the rules of debate since which segregated citizens on the directed to the personality of an- basis of race, color, creed, or na- other Member. The words were tional origin.(10) In commenting on stricken from the Record. the amendment, Mr. Powell stated: If you do not believe that segregation § 65. —Race and Prejudice is practiced here by the District gov- ernment may I say look at me, one of It is not in order in debate to your fellow Congressmen. I cannot get accuse a Member of bigotry or rac- a card to play tennis, for instance, in ism.(8) However, a Member may any of the parks of the District of Co- express the opinion in debate that lumbia.... another Member is by his actions Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mis- and words doing a disservice to a sissippi, then commented as fol- minority race if terms not objec- lows on the amendment: tionable in themselves are not Mr. Chairman, this amendment to (9) used. deny funds to separate schools here in

Washington is another one of those communistic movements to stir up Remarks Relating to Race Gen- race hatred in the District of Colum- bia.... erally If I were a Negro I would want to be § 65.1 A statement in debate as black as the ace of spades, and I would not be running around here try- expressing the opinion of the ing to play tennis on a white man’s Member that if he were a court. I would go with the other Ne- Negro he would avoid as- groes and have the best time in my sociation with non-Negroes life.... was held not to reflect on Mr. Powell demanded that the any Member of the House last paragraph of Mr. Rankin’s re- and therefore to be in order. marks be taken down. The Com- On Apr. 5, 1946, Mr. Adam C. mittee of the Whole rose and Powell, Jr., of New York, offered Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, to H.R. 5990, the District of Co- ruled as follows: lumbia appropriation bill of 1947, The Chair would think and would be an amendment to deny funds to compelled to hold that there is nothing

8. Compare §§ 65.5–65.7, infra. 10. 92 CONG. REC. 3227, 79th Cong. 2d 9. See § 65.4, infra. Sess.

10891 Ch. 29 § 65 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

in this language that refers to any spe- The Chair holds that the remarks of cific person by name or otherwise as a the gentleman from Mississippi are not Member of the House of Representa- subject to a point of order. He referred tives, does not reflect upon his char- to the Negro race, and they should not acter, his integrity, or attribute to him be ashamed of that designation. any moral turpitude.(11) Similarly, on Feb. 18, 1947,(13) § 65.2 The Speaker held that Mr. Rankin delivered the fol- reference to a class or group lowing remarks in debate: of persons as ‘‘Negroes’’ was Now, let us turn back to this Negro in order, although it was ob- witness. His name is Nowell. He lived jected that a corruption of in Detroit. He said he was born in that term had been used, Georgia. Now, I have lived all my life and practiced law for years in a State thereby insulting some Mem- where we had many, many lawsuits bers of the House. between Negroes and whites and be- On Sept. 21, 1949,(12) Mr. John tween Negroes themselves. I am used E. Rankin, of Mississippi, was de- to cross-examining them. I know some- livering remarks in debate against thing of the way they testify, and have a fairly good way weighting testimony, Paul Robeson, whom he termed and if I am any judge this Negro, a ‘‘Negro Communist’’. Mr. Vito Nowell, was sincere in every word he Marcantonio, of New York, made said. the following point of order: The following point of order and The gentleman from Mississippi ruling by Speaker Joseph W. Mar- used the word ‘‘nigger.’’ I ask that that tin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then word be taken down and stricken from the Record inasmuch as there are two took place: Members in this House of the Negro MR. [ADAM C.] POWELL [of New race, and that word reflects on them. York]: Is it within the rules of this Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Congress to refer to any group of our Texas, stated that he had under- Nation in disparaging terms? stood Mr. Rankin to say ‘‘Negro,’’ MR. RANKIN: It is not disparaging to and Mr. Rankin added that he call them Negroes, as all respectable Negroes know. had used that term ever since he MR. POWELL: I am addressing the had learned to talk. Mr. Marc- Speaker. antonio insisted that Mr. Rankin THE SPEAKER: The Chair is not had said ‘‘nigger,’’ and Speaker aware of the disparaging term used. Rayburn ruled as follows: MR. POWELL: He used the term ‘‘nigger’’ in referring to a group. 11. Id. at pp. 3229, 3230. 12. 95 CONG. REC. 13124, 81st Cong. 1st 13. 93 CONG. REC. 1131, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Sess.

10892 CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE Ch. 29 § 65

THE SPEAKER: The Chair understood ish gentleman from New the gentleman to say ‘‘Negro.’’ York.’’ MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, I said ( ) what I always say and what I am al- On Oct. 24, 1945, 16 Mr. John ways going to say when referring to E. Rankin, of Mississippi, in de- these people. bate referred to Mr. Emanuel THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will Celler, of New York, as the ‘‘Jew- proceed in order. ish gentleman from New York.’’ MR. POWELL: Mr. Speaker, a point of The words were demanded to be order. taken down by Mr. Celler, and THE SPEAKER: The Chair overrules the point of order. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled them out of order. § 65.3 It is not in order to im- Mr. Rankin then continued with pugn the motives of other his remarks and criticized Mr. Members as being racially Celler for protesting reference to prejudiced. him as a ‘‘gentleman of his race’’. On Aug. 14, 1967,(14) Speaker Mr. Celler demanded that those John W. McCormack, of Massa- words be taken down on the chusetts, ruled that the use of the grounds that Mr. Rankin was word ‘‘bigoted’’ in reference to an- again referring to him by innu- other Member was not consistent endo as the Jewish gentleman with the rules of the House. from New York. Speaker Rayburn Similarly, on Dec. 13, 1973,(15) ruled that there was no breach Speaker Carl Albert, of Okla- of order in referring to another homa, ruled that the use of the Member merely as a member of a words ‘‘demagogic and racist’’ in minority race. Mr. Rankin then relation to the motivation for an asked the Speaker: amendment was a breach of the . . . I wish to proceed in order. Does rules of the House. the Member from New York [Mr. Celler] object to being called a Jew or § 65.4 In referring to another does he object to being called a gen- Member in debate the proper tleman? What is he kicking about? MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of New reference is ‘‘the gentleman York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. from ‘the state from which THE SPEAKER: The Chair desires to he comes’ ’’ and not ‘‘the Jew- make a little statement. The Chair trusts that points of order 14. 113 CONG. REC. 22443, 22444, 90th may be properly points of order here- Cong. 1st Sess. 15. 119 CONG. REC. 41271, 93d Cong. 1st 16. 91 CONG. REC. 10032, 10033, 79th Sess. Cong. 1st Sess.

10893 Ch. 29 § 65 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

after, and that a Member before he already been reached. They are makes a point of order secures the rec- prejudicial and bigoted.’’ Speaker ognition of the Chair. John W. McCormack, of Massa- The gentleman from Mississippi will proceed in order, and the Chair trusts chusetts, ruled that the use of the that the gentleman from Mississippi word ‘‘bigoted’’ was not consistent understands what the Chair means. with the rules of the House. The On May 22, 1947,(17) Mr. words were stricken from the Rankin delivered the following Record and Mr. He´bert was recog- words in debate. nized for the remainder of his time. Mr. Speaker, I might say in the be- ginning that I know of no man who in § 65.6 The Speaker ruled out my opinion has done the Jews of this of order in debate remarks country more harm than the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler]. characterizing the motivation for an amendment as The words were demanded to be ‘‘demagogic’’ and ‘‘racist.’’ taken down by Mr. Celler and ( ) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of On Dec. 13, 1973, 19 the Com- Massachusetts, ruled that the mittee of the Whole was consid- words used were merely an ex- ering H.R. 11450, the Energy pression of an individual opinion Emergency Act. Mr. John D. Din- and that they did not reflect in an gell, of Michigan, offered an unparliamentary manner upon amendment to prohibit the use of Mr. Celler. petroleum for the busing of school- children beyond the nearest public § 65.5 It is not in order in de- school. In debate on the amend- bate to refer to a Member ment, Ms. Bella S. Abzug, of New as having reached ‘‘bigoted’’ York, stated as follows: conclusions. An amendment like this can only be On Aug. 14, 1967,(18) the fol- demagogic or racist because it is only lowing words used in debate by demagoguery or racism which impels Mr. F. Edward He´bert, of Lou- such an amendment like this. isiana, in relation to another Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Member were demanded to be Maryland, demanded that the taken down: ‘‘His conclusions have words be taken down and Ms. Abzug responded that her lan- 17. 93 CONG. REC. 5663, 5664, 80th guage had not in any way im- Cong. 1st Sess. 18. 113 CONG. REC. 22443, 22444, 90th 19. 119 CONG. REC. 41271, 93d Cong. 1st Cong. 1st Sess. Sess.

10894 CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE Ch. 29 § 66 pugned the motives of Mr. Din- race prejudice that ought to be sub- gell. dued rather than stirred up. The Committee rose and Speak- Mr. Rankin demanded that the er Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled words be taken down and Speaker as follows: Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massa- chusetts, ruled that Mr. Keefe had On May 4, 1943 . . . Speaker [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas] held: merely stated his opinion and did Statement by Newsome of Minnesota not reflect upon the character or that, ‘‘I do not yield to any more dema- integrity of Mr. Rankin. The gogues,’’ held not in order. Speaker ruled that the statement It is the opinion of the Chair that was not unparliamentary since it the statements reported to the House only expressed a difference of are within the framework of this rul- opinion. ing, and without objection the words are therefore stricken from the Record.

Exciting To Prejudice § 66. — Disloyalty § 65.7 A statement in debate Remarks in debate impugning accusing a Member of re- the loyalty of a Member are not in ( ) marks on the floor calculated order. 1 However, if such lan- to stir up race prejudice was guage is directed at the House or ruled in order as a statement at its membership in general, the (2) of opinion and not reflecting remarks may not be improper. upon the character or integ- Allegations of disloyalty or lack of rity of the Member men- patriotism may assume various forms, including such labels as tioned. On Feb. 25, 1948,(20) Mr. Frank 1. Accusations of active disloyalty are B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, used the in order when the subject is relevant following words in debate in rela- to disciplinary proceedings brought by the House against a Member, or tion to Mr. John E. Rankin, of to the consideration of resolutions of Mississippi: censure, expulsion, or exclusion. See [T]hat statement of the gentleman Ch. 7, supra (disloyalty as disquali- from Mississippi is just as wrong as fication for membership) and Ch. 12, many of the other inflammatory state- supra (conduct; punishment, cen- ments which he makes on the floor of sure, or expulsion). this House in an attempt to stir up 2. See, for example, § 53.1, supra. Com- pare 5 Hinds’ Precedents § 5139 20. 94 CONG. REC. 1707, 80th Cong. 2d (‘‘rebel elements’’ in House held un- Sess. parliamentary).

10895