Are There Words You Can’t Say on the House Floor?

There are some guidelines, but they’re not always clear.

Those were the days: Members fought with anything they could grab in a 1798 fight on the House floor.
National Journal
Billy House
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Billy House
Feb. 11, 2014, 4:26 p.m.

When Rep. Jim McGov­ern was quoted last week sug­gest­ing that House Re­pub­lic­ans were en­gaged in a bit of “ass-cov­er­ing” on the debt ceil­ing, his off-the-cuff re­mark in a hall­way raised eye­brows.

“People were teas­ing him,” one seni­or House aide said. “They were say­ing he couldn’t have got­ten away with that lan­guage on the House floor.”

But is that true? Would McGov­ern be court­ing trouble if he said “ass-cov­er­ing” on the House floor, in full C-SPAN glory? Who is it who de­cides what law­makers can’t say?

As it turns out, of­fi­cials say there is no list of “ta­boo words” carved in gran­ite to gov­ern floor pro­ceed­ings, no mod­ern par­al­lel to the 1970s’ “Sev­en Words You Can Nev­er Say on Tele­vi­sion” mono­logue by comedi­an George Carlin.

But there is a tome called House Prac­tice: A Guide to the Rules, Pre­ced­ents and Pro­ced­ures of the House, which lends at least a fuzzy level of dir­ec­tion to what is for­bid­den.

Lis­ted among be­ha­vi­or that could lead to dis­cip­lin­ary ac­tion is “vul­gar­ity or pro­fan­ity in de­bate,” along with “out­bursts fol­low­ing the ex­pir­a­tion of time for de­bate” and crit­ic­al ref­er­ences to fel­low House mem­bers.

Yet that same sec­tion also cau­tions that the con­text of a de­bate must be con­sidered, as well as the present-day mean­ing of lan­guage. “Thus the word “˜damn’ has been ruled out of or­der,” ad­vises the guide, “where­as “˜dam­nable’ has been per­mit­ted.”

In prac­tice, the Of­fice of the Par­lia­ment­ari­an, cur­rently headed by Thomas Wick­ham Jr., ad­vises the speak­er or who­ever is presid­ing over the cham­ber when lan­guage has gone too far. But Wick­ham, in keep­ing with tra­di­tion, de­clined to dis­cuss how his of­fice rules on lan­guage. Law­makers who take things too far can be cen­sured or oth­er­wise dis­cip­lined, or simply asked to apo­lo­gize, through what’s called a “tak­ing down” pro­cess.

Of course, vul­gar­it­ies — and their re­per­cus­sions — have been stud­ied on oc­ca­sion, spe­cific­ally by the Annen­berg Pub­lic Policy Cen­ter of the Uni­versity of Pennsylvania, in re­ports on con­gres­sion­al ci­vil­ity that date from the 1990s. One such study in 1999 at­temp­ted to chart in­stances of “in­ci­vil­ity,” from 1935 to 1998. Among the find­ings:

  • 92 “name-call­ing” nouns, “such as weirdo, trait­or, crack­pot, and bitch.”
  • 71 “as­per­sion” words that in­sult but do not call names, “such as ir­ra­tion­al, reck­less, and un-Amer­ic­an.”
  • 58 syn­onyms for ly­ing, or a per­son who lies, “such as hoax, farce, and pre­var­ic­ate.”
  • 19 pe­jor­at­ive words used to den­ig­rate someone else’s speech, “such as bel­ly­ache, dou­blespeak, and gib­ber­ish.”
  • 11 “ta­boo words” con­sidered vul­gar, “such as damn, shit, and hell.”

A 2011 ver­sion of the re­port didn’t go in­to sim­il­ar de­tail, but did of­fer some oth­er in­ter­est­ing find­ings. For in­stance, it found that at­tacks — in­clud­ing mis­char­ac­ter­iz­ing the ideo­logy and motives of oth­ers — were more strident and vit­ri­ol­ic in earli­er ses­sions of Con­gress than those in the most re­cent dec­ade. It also found that some lines of at­tack have largely fallen out of fash­ion, such as in­sult­ing the in­tel­li­gence of an op­pon­ent or the op­pos­ing party.

In­deed, con­gres­sion­al floor be­ha­vi­or has not al­ways been so struc­tured. Early on, Sen­ate and House rules guar­an­teed al­most total free­dom from re­straint, and phys­ic­al vi­ol­ence was not un­com­mon.

For in­stance, after pray­ers one morn­ing in 1798, Fed­er­al­ist Ro­ger Gris­wold of Con­necti­c­ut walked up to the desk of Re­pub­lic­an Mat­thew Ly­on of Ver­mont and struck him with “a large yel­low hick­ory cane.” The two men pro­ceeded to wrestle and as­sault each oth­er “to the de­light of their col­leagues,” ac­cord­ing to a 2006 his­tory by Robert V. Re­mini, the late House his­tor­i­an and au­thor.

Through the dec­ades of bat­tling over slavery and na­tion­al dis­union, sav­age per­son­al in­sults and despic­able ges­tures of­ten ad­ded to the fla­vor of House floor ac­tion. But things had calmed down by the 1970s, ac­cord­ing to a writ­ten ac­count by former House Par­lia­ment­ari­an Wil­li­am Holmes Brown in 1996, and rules were changed to make de­bate more struc­tured.

Even so, a mod­ern com­par­is­on by Annen­berg of the level of vul­gar­ity in the U.S. House and the Brit­ish House of Com­mons from 1986 to 1996 sug­ges­ted that the U.S. le­gis­lature was still more vul­gar.

Not that it is al­ways easy to tell. Track­ing how Con­gress uses lan­guage can be dif­fi­cult, be­cause law­makers can ask to with­draw or modi­fy what they say. In­deed, be­fore the 104th Con­gress, the Con­gres­sion­al Re­cord did not faith­fully re­flect what had happened on the House floor.

For ex­ample, two law­makers got in­to a shout­ing match dur­ing the de­bate over the Fam­ily Plan­ning Amend­ments Act in 1993. As Annen­berg notes, one yelled at the oth­er, who was try­ing to in­ter­rupt him, “You had bet­ter not do that, ma’am. You will re­gret that as long as you live. Who do you think you are?”

But what ap­peared in the re­cord was, “I will say to the gentle­lady, for whom I have the greatest re­spect, I would hope that she or any oth­er Mem­ber not try to cut off an­oth­er Mem­ber when a ser­i­ous mat­ter like this is to be re­solved here in the prop­er House.”

What We're Following See More »
$618 BILLION IN FUNDING
By a Big Margin, House Passes Defense Bill
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

The National Defense Authorization Act passed the House this morning by a 375-34 vote. The bill, which heads to the Senate next week for final consideration, would fund the military to the tune of $618.7 billion, "about $3.2 billion more than the president requested for fiscal 2017. ... The White House has issued a veto threat on both the House and Senate-passed versions of the bill, but has not yet said if it will sign the compromise bill released by the conference committee this week."

Source:
SUCCEEDS UPTON
Walden to Chair Energy and Commerce Committee
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

"Republicans have elected Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) the next chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. Walden defeated Reps. John Shimkus (R-IL) and Joe Barton (R-TX), the former committee chairman, in the race for the gavel" to succeed Michgan's Fred Upton.

Source:
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
Senators Looking to Limit Deportations Under Trump
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

"Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are working on legislation that would limit deportations" under President-elect Donald Trump. Leading the effort are Judiciary Committee members Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) is also expected to sign on.

Source:
REQUIRES CHANGE IN LAW
Trump Taps Mattis for Defense Secretary
3 days ago
BREAKING

Donald Trump has selected retired Marine Gen. James 'Mad Dog' Mattis as his secretary of defense, according to The Washington Post. Mattis retired from active duty just four years ago, so Congress will have "to pass new legislation to bypass a federal law that states secretaries of defense must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years." The official announcement is likely to come next week.

Source:
MEASURE HEADED TO OBAMA
Senate OKs 10-Year Extension of Iran Sanctions
3 days ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login