WAIS Document Retrieval[106th Congress House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 106-320]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrulest-74]
[Page 702-728]
Rule XVII
decorum and debate
Decorum
1. (a) <> A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who
desires to speak or deliver a matter to the House shall rise and
respectfully address himself to ``Mr. Speaker'' and, on being
recognized, may address the House from any place on the floor. When
invited by the Chair, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may
speak from the Clerk's desk.
(b)(1) Remarks in debate shall be confined to the question under
debate, avoiding personality.
(2)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), debate may not include
characterizations of Senate action or inaction, references to individual
Members of the Senate, or quotations from Senate proceedings.
(B) Debate may include references to actions taken by the Senate or by
committees thereof
[[Page 703]]
that are a matter of public record; references to the pendency or
sponsorship in the Senate of bills, resolutions, and amendments; factual
descriptions relating to Senate action or inaction concerning a measure
then under debate in the House; and quotations from Senate proceedings
on a measure then under debate in the House that are relevant to the
making of legislative history establishing the meaning of that measure.
This clause (former clause 1 of rule XIV) was adopted in 1880, but was
made up, in its main provisions, from older rules, which dated from 1789
and 1811 (V, 4979). Subparagraph (2), relating to references to the
Senate, had its origins in the 100th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987,
p. 6) but was amended in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p.
72) to narrowly expand the range of permissible references. Before the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
found in former clause 1 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
This rule, and rulings of the Chair with respect to references in debate
to the Senate, are discussed in Sec. 371, supra; see also Sec. 361,
supra.
The Speaker, who has a responsibility under rule I to maintain and
enforce decorum in debate, and the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole, who enforces decorum in debate under rule XVIII, have reminded
and advised Members that: (1) clause 1 requires Members seeking
recognition to rise and to address themselves to the question under
debate, avoiding personality; (2) Members should address their remarks
to the Chair only and not to other entities such as the press or the
television audience, and the Chair enforces this rule on its own
initiative (see, e.g., Nov. 8, 1979, p. 31519; Sept. 29, 1983, p. 26501;
Dec. 17, 1987, p. 36139); (3) Members should not refer to or address any
occupant of the galleries; (4) Members should refer to other Members in
debate only in the third person, by state designation (Speaker O'Neill,
June 14, 1978, p. 17615; Oct. 2, 1984, p. 28520; Mar. 7, 1985, p. 5028);
(5) Members should refrain from using profanity or vulgarity in debate
(Mar. 5, 1991, p. 5036; Feb. 18, 1993, p. 2973; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33744;
July 23, 1998, p. ----; Oct. 11, 2000, p. ----); (6) the Chair may
interrupt a Member engaging in personalities with respect to another
Member of the House, as the Chair does with respect to references to the
Senate or the President (Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551); and (7) Members should
refrain from discussing the President's personal character (May 10,
1994, p. 9697). The Speaker has deplored the tendency to address remarks
directly to the President (or others not in the Chamber) in the second
person, and cautions Members on his own initiative (see,
[[Page 704]]
e.g., Oct. 16, 1989, p. 24715; Oct. 17, 1989, p. 24764; Jan. 24, 1990,
p. 426; Oct. 9, 1991, p. 25999). Even when referring in debate to the
Speaker, himself, a Member directs his remarks to the occupant of the
Chair and addresses him as ``Mr. Speaker'' pursuant to this clause (Nov.
1, 1983, p. 30267).
Members should refrain from speaking disrespectfully of the Speaker or
arraigning the personal conduct of the Speaker, and under the precedents
the sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary requirements
for timeliness of challenges (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Jan. 18,
1995, p. 1441; Jan. 19, 1995, p. 1599). Engaging in personalities with
respect to the Speaker's conduct is not in order even though possibly
relevant to a pending resolution granting him certain authority (Sept.
24, 1996, p. 24485).
This clause has also been interpreted to proscribe the wearing of
badges by Members to communicate a message, since Members must rise and
address the Speaker to deliver any matter to the House (Speaker O'Neill,
Apr. 15, 1986, p. 7525; Feb. 22, 1995, p. 5435; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9662;
Oct. 19, 1995, pp. 28522, 28540, 28646; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 5435; Mar. 7,
1996, p. 4083; Sept. 26, 1996, p. 25117; July 24, 1998, p. ----; Sept.
28, 2000, p. ----). A Member's comportment may constitute a breach of
decorum even though the content of that Member's speech is not, itself,
unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Under this standard the Chair
may deny recognition to a Member who has engaged in unparliamentary
debate and ignored repeated admonitions by the Chair to proceed in
order, subject to the will of the House on the question of his
proceeding in order (Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535).
For further discussion of personalities in debate with respect to
references to the official conduct of a Member, see Sec. Sec. 361-363,
supra; with respect to references to the President, see Sec. 370, supra;
and with respect to references to the Senate, see Sec. Sec. 371-374,
supra.
Aside from ``special-order,'' ``morning-hour,'' or ``one-minute''
debate, where no question is pending and recognition is by unanimous
consent or leadership listings, it is a general rule that a motion must
be made before a Member may proceed in debate (V, 4984, 4985), and this
motion may be required to be reduced to writing (V, 4986). A motion must
also be stated by the Speaker or read by the Clerk before debate may
begin (V, 4982, 4983, 5304). The withdrawal of a motion precludes
further debate on it (V, 4989). But sometimes when a communication or a
report has been before the House it has been debated before any specific
motion has been made in relation to it (V, 4987, 4988). In a few cases,
such as conference reports and reports from the Committee of the Whole,
the motion to agree is considered as pending without being offered from
the floor (IV, 4896; V, 6517).
In presenting a question of personal privilege the Member is not
required in the first instance to make a motion or offer a resolution,
but such is not the rule in presenting a case involving the privileges
of the House
[[Page 705]]
(III, 2546, 2547; VI, 565, 566, 580). Personal explanations merely are
made by unanimous consent (V, 5065).
A <> Member
having the floor may not be taken off his feet by an ordinary motion,
even the highly privileged motion to adjourn (V, 5369, 5370; VIII,
2646), or the motion to table (Mar. 18, 1992, p. 6022). He may not be
deprived of the floor by a parliamentary inquiry (VIII, 2455-2458), a
question of privilege (V, 5002; VIII, 2459), a motion that the Committee
rise (VIII, 2325), or a demand for the previous question (VIII, 2609;
Mar. 18, 1992, p. 6022), but he may be interrupted for a conference
report (V, 6451; VIII, 3294). It is a custom also for the Speaker to
request a Member to yield for the reception of a message. A Member may
yield the floor for a motion to adjourn or that the Committee of the
Whole rise without losing his right to continue when the subject is
again continued (V, 5009-5013), but where the House has by resolution
vested control of general debate in the Committee of the Whole in
designated Members, their control of general debate may not be abrogated
by another Member moving to rise, unless they yield for that purpose
(May 25, 1967, p. 14121; June 10, 1999, p. ----). A Member may also
resume his seat while a paper is being read in his time without losing
his right to the floor (V, 5015). A Member who, having the floor, moved
the previous question was permitted to resume the floor on withdrawing
the motion (V, 5474). But a Member may not yield to another Member to
offer an amendment without losing the floor (V, 5021, 5030, 5031; VIII,
2476), and a Member may not offer an amendment in time secured for
debate only (VIII, 2474), or request unanimous consent to offer an
amendment unless yielded to for that purpose by the Member controlling
the floor (Sept. 24, 1986, p. 25589). A Member recognized under the
five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole may not yield to another
Member to offer an amendment, as it is within the power of the Chair to
recognize each Member to offer amendments (Apr. 19, 1973, p. 13240; Dec.
12, 1973, p. 41171). A Member desiring to interrupt another in debate
should address the Chair for permission of the Member speaking (V, 5006;
VI, 193), but the latter may exercise his own discretion as to whether
or not he will yield (V, 5007, 5008; VI, 193; VIII, 2463, 2465). It is
not in order to disrupt a Member's remarks in debate by repeatedly
interrupting to ask whether he will yield after he has declined to do so
(Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040; Nov. 13, 1997, p. ----). Where a Member
interrupts another during debate without being yielded to or otherwise
recognized (as on a point of order), his remarks are not printed in the
Record (Speaker O'Neill, Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2229; July 21, 1993, p. 16545;
July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Members should not engage in disruption while
another is speaking (Dec. 20, 1995, p. 37878; June 27, 1996, p. 15915).
The <> Speaker may of right speak
from the Chair on questions of order and be first heard (II, 1367), but
with this exception he may speak from the Chair only by leave of the
House and on questions of fact (II, 1367-1372). On occasions
[[Page 706]]
comparatively rare Speakers have called Members to the Chair and
participated in debate on questions of order or matters relating their
own conduct or rights, usually without asking consent of the House (II,
1367, 1368, 1371; III, 1950; V, 6097). In more recent years, Speakers
have frequently entered into debate from the floor on substantive
legislative issues before the House for decision, and the right to
participate in debate in the Committee of the Whole is without question
(see, e.g., Apr. 30, 1987, p. 10811).
It <> has
always been held, and generally quite strictly, that in the House the
Member must confine himself to the subject under debate (V, 5043-5048;
VI, 576; VIII, 2481, 2534). The Chair normally waits for the question of
relevancy of debate to be raised and does not take initiative (Sept. 27,
1990, p. 26226; Mar. 23, 1995, p. 8986; Nov. 14, 1995, pp. 32354-57,
32374; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37118; Mar. 12, 1996, p. 4149).
During debate on a bill, a Member under recognition must confine his
remarks to the pending legislation; that is, he must not dwell on
another measure not before the House (Nov. 4, 1999, p. ----), rather he
must maintain a constant nexus between debate and the subject of the
bill (Nov. 14, 1995, p. 32354-57; Mar. 12, 1996, p. 4450). Debate on a
motion to amend must be confined to the amendment, and may neither
include the general merits of the bill (V, 5049-5051), nor range to the
merits of a proposition not included in the underlying resolution (Jan.
31, 1995, p. 3032). Similarly, debate on a motion to recommit with
instructions should be confined to the subject of the motion rather than
dwelling on the general merits of the bill (Mar. 7, 1996, p. 4092).
However, the Chair has accorded Members latitude in debating a series of
amendments in the nature of a substitute to a concurrent resolution on
the budget (Mar. 25, 1999, p. ----). On a motion to suspend the rules,
debate is confined to the object of the motion and may not range to the
merits of a bill not scheduled for such consideration (Nov. 23, 1991, p.
34189). Debate on a special order providing for the consideration of a
bill may range to the merits of the bill to be made in order (Sept. 26,
1989, p. 21532; Oct. 16, 1990, p. 29668; Oct. 1, 1991, p. 24836), since
the question of consideration of the bill is involved, but should not
range to the merits of a measure not to be considered under that special
order (Sept. 27, 1990, p. 26226; July 25, 1995, p. 20323; Sept. 20,
1995, p. 15838; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37118; May 1, 1996, p. 9888; May 8,
1996, p. 10511; May 15, 1996, p. 1131; Mar. 13, 1997, p. ----). Debate
on a resolution providing authorities to expedite the consideration of
end-of-session legislation may neither range to the merits of a measure
that might or might not be considered under such authorities nor engage
in personalities with respect to the official conduct of the Speaker,
even as asserted to relate to the question of granting the authorities
proposed (Sept. 24, 1996, p. ----). If a unanimous-consent request for a
Member to address the House for one hour specifies the subject of the
address, the occupant of the Chair during that speech may enforce the
rule of relevancy in debate by requiring that the remarks be confined to
[[Page 707]]
the subject so specified (Jan. 23, 1984, p. 93). Debate on a question of
personal privilege must be confined to the statements or issue which
gave rise to the question of privilege (V, 5075-5077; VI, 576, 608;
VIII, 2448, 2481; May 31, 1984, p. 14623). Debate on a privileged
resolution recommending disciplinary action against a Member, while it
may include comparisons with other such actions taken by or reported to
the House for purposes of measuring severity of punishment, may not
extend to the conduct of another sitting Member not the subject of a
committee report (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36271). The question whether a
Member should be relieved from committee service is debatable only
within very narrow limits (IV, 4510; June 16, 1975, p. 19056). Debate on
a resolution electing a Member to a committee is confined to the
election of that Member and should not extend to that committee's agenda
(July 10, 1995, p. 18258).
While the Speakers have entertained appeals from their decisions as to
irrelevancy, they have held that such appeals were not debatable (V,
5056-5063).
Under prior practice in Committee of the Whole, a Member did not have
to confine himself to the subject during general debate (V, 5233-5238;
VIII, 2590; June 28, 1974, p. 21743); but under modern practice a
special order providing for consideration of a measure in the Committee
of the Whole typically does require such relevance in debate. All five-
minute debate in Committee of the Whole is confined to the subject (V,
5240-5256), even on a pro forma amendment (VIII, 2591), in which case
debate must relate to an issue in the pending portion of the bill (VIII,
2592, 2593); thus, where a general provisions title is pending debate
may relate to any agency funded by the bill (June 13, 1991, p. 14692).
Recognition
<> 2. When two or more
Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner rise at once, the
Speaker shall name the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who is
first to speak. * * *
This provision was adopted in 1789 (V, 4978). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 2 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
In the early history of the House, when business proceeded on
presentation by individual Members, the Speaker recognized the Member
who arose first; and in case of doubt there was an appeal from his
recognition (II, 1429-1434). But as the membership and business of the
House increased it became necessary to establish and adhere to a fixed
order of business, and recognitions, instead of pertaining to the
individual Member, necessarily came to pertain to the bill or other
business which would be before the House under the rule regulating the
order of business. Hence
[[Page 708]]
the necessity that the Speaker should not be compelled to heed the
claims of Members as individuals was expressed in 1879 in a report from
the Committee on Rules, which declared that ``in the nature of the case
discretion must be lodged with the presiding officer'' (II, 1424). And
in 1881 the Speaker declined to entertain an appeal from his decision on
a question of recognition (II, 1425-1428), establishing thereby a
practice which continues (VI, 292; VIII, 2429, 2646, 2762). It has also
been determined that a Member may not invoke clause 6 of rule XIV
(former rule XXV) (Sec. 884, supra), providing that questions relating
to the priority of business shall be decided by a majority without
debate, to inhibit the Speaker's power of recognition under this clause
(Speaker Albert, July 31, 1975, p. 26249).
-- Recognition <> for one-minute speeches by unanimous consent and the order
of recognition are entirely within the discretion of the Speaker (Nov.
15, 1983, p. 32657; Mar. 7, 2001, p. ----). When the House has a heavy
legislative schedule, the Speaker may refuse to recognize Members for
that purpose until the completion of legislative business (Procedure,
ch. 21, sec. 7.5; July 24, 1980, p. 19386). It is not in order to raise
as a question of the privileges of the House a resolution directing the
Speaker to recognize for such speeches, since a question of privilege
cannot amend or interpret the Rules of the House (July 25, 1980, pp.
19762-64). The modern practice of limiting recognition before
legislative business to one minute began August 2, 1937 (p. 8004) and
was reiterated by Speaker Rayburn on March 6, 1945 (Deschler's
Precedents, vol. 6, ch. 21, sec. 6.1).
Since the 98th Congress the Speaker has followed announced policies of
(1) alternating recognition for one-minute speeches and special-order
speeches between majority and minority Members and (2) recognizing for
special-order speeches of five minutes or less before longer speeches
(Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 8, 1984, p. 22963; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551). In the
101st Congress, the Chair continued the practice of alternating
recognition for one-minute speeches but began a practice of recognizing
Members suggested by their party leadership before others in the well
(Apr. 19, 1990, p. 7406). From August 8, 1984, through February 23,
1994, the Speaker also followed an announced policy of recognizing
Members of the same party within a given category in the order in which
their requests for special orders were granted (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 8,
1984, p. 22963; Jan. 5, 1993, p. 106). But since February 24, 1994, the
Speaker's announced policies for recognition for special-order speeches
has been as follows: (1) recognition does not extend beyond midnight;
(2) recognition is granted first for speeches of five minutes or less;
(3) recognition for longer speeches is limited (except on Tuesdays) to
four hours equally divided between the majority and minority; (4) the
first hour for each party is reserved to its respective Leader or his
designees; (5) time within each party is allotted in accord with a list
submitted to the Chair by the respective Leader; (6) the first
recognition within a category alternates between the parties from day to
day, regardless of when requests were granted; (7) Members may
[[Page 709]]
not enter requests for five-minute special orders earlier than one week
in advance; (8) the respective Leaders may establish additional
guidelines for entering requests; and (9) a Member recognized for a
five-minute special order may not be recognized for an hour special
order (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; May 23, 1994, p. 1154; June 10, 1994, p.
12684; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Feb. 16, 1995, p. 5096; May 12, 1995, p.
12765; Jan. 21, 1997, p. ----; Jan. 3, 2001, p. ----).
While the Chair's calculation of time consumed under one-minute
speeches is not subject to challenge, the Chair endeavors to recognize
majority and then minority Members by allocating time in a nonpartisan
manner (Aug. 4, 1982, p. 19319). Prior to legislative business, the
Speaker will traditionally recognize a Member only once by unanimous
consent for a one-minute speech, and will not entertain a second request
(May 1, 1985, p. 9995). The Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent
request to extend a five-minute special order (Mar. 7, 1995, p. 7152) or
to extend a special order beyond midnight (Oct. 7, 1998, p. ----). The
Chair will recognize for subdivisions of the first hour reserved for
special orders only on designations (and reallocations) by the
leadership concerned (Oct. 2, 1998, p. ----). A Member who is recognized
to control time during special orders may yield to colleagues for such
amounts of time as the Member may deem appropriate but may not yield
blocks of time to be enforced by the Chair. Members regulate the
duration of their yielding by reclaiming the time when appropriate (Jan.
31, 2001, p. ----).-
Beginning <> in the second
session of the 103d Congress, the House has by unanimous consent agreed
(without prejudice to the Speaker's ultimate power of recognition under
this rule) to convene 90 minutes early on Mondays and Tuesdays for
morning-hour debate (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; May 23, 1994, p. 11459;
June 8, 1994, p. 12305; June 10, 1994, p. 12684; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551;
Feb. 16, 1995, p. 5096; Jan. 21, 1997, p. ----; Jan. 19, 1999, p. ----).
On May 12, 1995, the House extended and modified the above order to
accommodate earlier convening times after May 14 of each year. The
modified order changes morning-hour debates on Tuesdays after May 14 of
each year as follows: (1) the House convenes one hour early (rather than
90 minutes); (2) time for debate is limited to 25 minutes for each party
(rather than 30 minutes); and (3) in no event is morning-hour debate to
continue beyond 10 minutes before the House is to convene (May 12, 1995,
p. 12765). The above-cited orders of the House also: (1) postpone the
Prayer, approval of the Journal, and the Pledge of Allegiance during
morning-hour debates; and (2) require the Chair to recognize Members for
not more than five minutes each, alternating between the majority and
minority parties in accord with lists supplied by their respective
Leaders. During morning-hour debate it is not in order to request that a
name be removed from a list of cosponsors of a bill (Apr. 26, 1994, p.
8544). Under the customary order of the House establishing morning-hour
debate, the Chair does not
[[Page 710]]
entertain a unanimous-consent request to extend a five-minute period of
recognition (Apr. 28, 1998, p. ----).-
In <> the 103d Congress the
House agreed by unanimous consent to conduct at a time designated by the
Speaker structured debate on a mutually agreeable topic announced by the
Speaker, with four participants from each party in a format announced by
the Speaker (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; Mar. 11, 1994, p. 4772; May 23,
1994, p. 11459; June 8, 1994, p. 12305; June 10, 1994, p. 12648).
Pursuant to that authority the House conducted three ``Oxford''-style
debates (Mar. 16, 1994, p. 5088; May 4, 1994, p. 9300; July 20, 1994, p.
17245). As a precursor to those structured debates, special-order time
was used for a ``Lincoln-Douglas''-style debate involving five Members,
with one Member acting as ``moderator'' by controlling the hour under
this clause (Nov. 3, 1993, p. 27312).
Although <> there is no appeal from the Speaker's recognition, he is
not a free agent in determining who is to have the floor. The practice
of the House establishes rules from which he may not depart. When the
order of business brings before the House a certain bill he must first
recognize, for motions for its disposition, the Member who represents
the committee which has reported it (II, 1447; VI, 306, 514). This is
not necessarily the chairman of the committee, for a chairman who, in
committee, has opposed the bill, must yield the prior recognition to a
member of his committee who has favored the bill (II, 1449). Usually,
however, the chairman has charge of the bill and is entitled at all
stages to prior recognition for allowable motions intended to expedite
it (II, 1452, 1457; VI, 296, 300). Once the proponent of a pending
motion has been recognized for debate thereon, a unanimous-consent
request to modify the motion may be entertained only if the proponent
yields for that purpose (Jan. 5, 1996, p. 348). This principle does not,
however, apply to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole (II, 1453).
The Member who originally introduces the bill which a committee reports
has no claims to recognition as opposed to the claims of the members of
the committee, but in cases where a proposition is brought directly
before the House by a Member the mover is entitled to prior recognition
for motions and debate (II, 1446, 1454; VI, 302-305, 417; VIII, 2454,
3231). And this principle applies to the makers of certain motions.
Thus, the Member on whose motion the enacting clause of a bill is
stricken out in Committee of the Whole is entitled to prior recognition
when the bill is reported to the House (V, 5337; VIII, 2629), and in a
case where a Member raised an objection in the joint session to count
the electoral vote the Speaker recognized him first when the Houses had
separated to consider the objection (III, 1956). But a Member may not,
by offering a debatable motion of higher privilege than the pending
motion, deprive the Member in charge of the bill of possession of the
floor for debate (II, 1460-1463; VI, 290, 297-299; VIII, 2454, 3193,
3197, 3259; House Practice (1996), p. 834). The Member in charge of the
bill and having the floor
[[Page 711]]
may demand the previous question, although another Member may propose to
offer a motion of higher privilege (VIII, 2684); but the motion of
higher privilege must be put before the previous question (V, 5480;
VIII, 2684). The Member who has been recognized to call up a measure in
the House has priority of recognition to move the previous question
thereon, even over the chairman of the committee reporting that measure
(Oct. 1, 1986, p. 27468). The fact that a Member has the floor on one
matter does not necessarily entitle him to prior recognition on a motion
relating to another matter (II, 1464). It is because the Speaker is
governed by these usages that he often asks, when a Member seeks
recognition, ``For what purpose does the gentleman rise?''. By this
question he determines whether the Member proposes business or a motion
which is entitled to precedence and he may deny recognition (VI, 289-
291, 293; Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-78; Speaker Wright, Feb. 17,
1988, p. 1583; Feb. 27, 1992, p. 3656) and from such denial there is no
appeal (II, 1425; VI, 292; VIII, 2429, 2646, 2762; Feb. 27, 1992, p.
3656). Recognition for parliamentary inquiry lies in the discretion of
the Chair (VI, 541), who may take a parliamentary inquiry under
advisement (VIII, 2174), especially where not related to the pending
proceedings (Apr. 7, 1992, p. 8273).
The Chair may follow a tradition of the House to allow the highest
ranking party-elected Members (Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority
Leader) additional time to make their remarks in important debate (Dec.
18, 1998, p. ----).
When <> an essential motion made by the Member in charge of a bill is
decided adversely, the right to prior recognition passes to the Member
who the Speaker perceives to be leading the opposition to the motion
(II, 1465-1468; VI, 308). Under this principle control of a measure
passes when the House disagrees to a recommendation of the committee
reporting the measure (II, 1469-1472) or when the Committee of the Whole
reports the measure adversely (IV, 4897; VIII, 2430). Similarly, this
principle applies when a motion for the previous question is rejected
(VI, 308). However, a Member who led the opposition to ordering the
previous question may be preempted by a motion of higher precedence
(Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-78). On the other hand, the mere defeat
of an amendment proposed by the Member in charge does not cause the
right to prior recognition to pass to an opponent (II, 1478, 1479).
Rejection of a conference report after the previous question has been
ordered thereon does not cause recognition to pass to a Member opposed
to the report, and the manager retains control to offer the initial
motion to dispose of amendments in disagreement (Speaker Albert, May 1,
1975, p. 12761). Similarly, the invalidation of a conference report on a
point of order, which is equivalent to its rejection by the House, does
not give the Member raising the question of order the right to the floor
(VIII, 3284) and exerts no effect on the right to recognition (VI, 313).
In most cases, when the House refuses to order the previous question on
a conference
[[Page 712]]
report, it then rejects the report (II, 1473-1477; V, 6396). However,
control of a Senate amendment reported from conference in disagreement
passes to an opponent when the House rejects a motion to dispose thereof
(Aug. 6, 1993, p. 19582).
In <> debate the members of the committee--except the Committee of
the Whole (II, 1453)--are entitled to priority of recognition for debate
(II, 1438, 1448; VI, 306, 307), but a motion to lay a proposition on the
table is in order before the Member entitled to prior recognition for
debate has begun his remarks (V, 5391-5395; VI, 412; VIII, 2649, 2650).
In recognizing for general debate under general House rules the Chair
alternates between those favoring and those opposing the pending matter,
preferring members of the committee reporting the bill (II, 1439-1444).
When a member of a committee has occupied the floor in favor of a
measure the Chair attempts to recognize a Member opposing next, even
though he be not a member of the committee (II, 1445). The principle of
alternation is not insisted on rigidly where a limited time is
controlled by Members, as in the 40 minutes of debate on motions for
suspension of the rules and the previous question (II, 1442).
As <> to motions to suspend the rules, which are in
order on Mondays and Tuesdays of each week, the Speaker exercises a
discretion to decline to recognize (V, 6791-6794, 6845; VIII, 3402-
3404). He also may decline to recognize a Member who desires to ask
unanimous consent to set aside the rules in order to consider a bill not
otherwise in order, this being the way of signifying his objection to
the request. But this authority did not extend to the former Consent
Calendar. Where the previous question was ordered to passage of a bill
without intervening motion except recommittal, the Chair declined to
entertain a unanimous-consent request to further amend the pending bill
as an exercise of his discretionary power of recognition under this
clause (Feb. 10, 2000, p. ----). The Chair has declined to entertain a
unanimous-consent request to print a separate volume of tributes given
in memory of a deceased former Member absent concurrence of the Joint
Committee on Printing (Aug. 1, 1996, p. 21247). The Speaker has
announced and enforced a policy of conferring recognition for unanimous-
consent requests for the consideration of unreported bills and
resolutions only when assured that the majority and minority floor and
committee leaderships have no objection (see, e.g., Dec. 15, 1981, p.
31590; May 4, 1982, p. 8613; Nov. 16, 1983, p. 33138; Jan. 25, 1984, p.
354; Jan. 26, 1984, p. 449; Jan. 31, 1984, p. 1063; Oct. 2, 1984, p.
28516; Feb. 4, 1987, p. 2675; Jan. 3, 1989, p. 89; Jan. 3, 1991, p. 64;
Jan. 5, 1993, p. 106; Apr. 4, 1995, p. 12097). This policy has been
extended to: (1) requests relating to reported bills (July 23, 1993, p.
16820); (2) requests for immediate consideration of matters (separately
unreported) comprising a portion of a measure already passed by the
House (Dec. 19, 1985, p.
[[Page 713]]
38356); (3) requests to consider a motion to suspend the rules and pass
an unreported bill (on a nonsuspension day) (Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21126;
Mar. 30, 1998, p. ----); (4) requests to permit consideration of
(nongermane) amendments to bills (Nov. 14, 1991, p. 32083; Dec. 20,
1995, p. 37877); (5) requests to permit expedited consideration of
measures on subsequent days, as by waiving the requirement that a bill
be referred to committee for 30 legislative days before a motion to
discharge may be presented under clause 2 of rule XV (former clause 3 of
rule XXVII) (June 9, 1992, p. 13900); and (6) requests relating to
Senate-passed bills on the Speaker's table (Oct. 25, 1995, p. 29347;
Jan. 3, 1996, p. 58; Aug. 2, 1999, p. ----), including one identical to
a House-passed bill (Feb. 4, 1998, p. ----) and a Senate concurrent
resolution to correct an enrollment (Oct. 20, 1998, p. ----). The
Speaker's enforcement of this policy is not subject to appeal (Apr. 4,
1995, p. 10298). ``Floor leadership'' in this context has been construed
to apply only to the Minority Leader and not to the entire hierarchy of
minority leadership, where the Chair had been assured that the Minority
Leader had been consulted (Apr. 25, 1985, p. 9415). It is not a proper
parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to indicate which side of the
aisle has failed under the Speaker's guidelines to clear a unanimous-
consent request (Feb. 1, 1996, p. 2260), but the Chair may indicate his
cognizance of a source of objection for the Record (Feb. 4, 1998, p. --
--). In addition, with respect to unanimous-consent requests to dispose
of Senate amendments to House bills on the Speaker's table, the Chair
will entertain such a request only if made by the chairman of the
committee with jurisdiction, or by another committee member authorized
to make the request (Apr. 26, 1984, p. 10194; Feb. 4, 1987, p. 2675;
Jan. 3, 1996, p. 86; Jan. 4, 1996, pp. 200, 210; Deschler's Precedents,
vol. 6, ch. 21, sec. 1.23). For a discussion of recognition for
unanimous-consent requests to vary procedures in the Committee of the
Whole governed by a special order adopted by the House, see Sec. 993,
infra.
2. <> * * * A Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not occupy more than one hour in
debate on a question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union except as otherwise provided in this rule.
This provision (former clause 2 of rule XIV) dates from 1841, when the
increase of membership had made it necessary to prevent the making of
long speeches which sometimes occupied three or four hours each (V,
4978). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. ----).
This provision applies to debate on a question of privilege, as well
as to debate on other questions (V, 4990; VIII, 2448). When the time for
debate
[[Page 714]]
has been placed within the control of those representing the two sides
of a question, it must be assigned to Members in accordance with this
rule (V, 5004, 5005; VIII, 2462). A Member recognized to call up a
privileged resolution may yield the floor upon expiration of his hour
without moving the previous question, thereby permitting another Member
to be recognized for a successive hour (Dec. 18, 1998, p. ----). Under
this clause a Member recognized for one hour for a ``special-order''
speech in the House may not extend that time, even by unanimous consent
(Feb. 9, 1966, p. 2794; July 12, 1971, pp. 24594, 24603; Oct. 23, 1997,
p. ----). In the 104th Congress the Speaker announced his intention to
strictly enforce time limitations on debate (Jan. 4, 1995, pp. 457-552).
For a discussion of morning-hour debates and ``Oxford''-style debates,
see Sec. Sec. 951-952, supra.
Managing debate
3. (a) <> The
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who calls up a measure may
open and close debate thereon. When general debate extends beyond one
day, that Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall be entitled
to one hour to close without regard to the time used in opening.
(b) <> Except as provided in paragraph (a),
a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not speak more than
once to the same question without leave of the House.
(c) A manager of a measure who opposes an amendment thereto is
entitled to close controlled debate thereon.
Paragraphs (a) and (c) (former clause 3 of rule XIV) were adopted in
1847 and perfected in 1880 (V, 4996). Paragraph (b) (former clause 6 of
rule XIV) was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1840 (V, 4991). Before the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraphs (a) and (c)
were found in former clause 3 of rule XIV and paragraph (b) was found in
former clause 6 of rule XIV. The recodification also added paragraph (c)
to codify modern practice (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
[[Page 715]]
In the later practice this right to close may not be exercised after
the previous question is ordered (V, 4997-5000). This clause applies to
general debate in Committee of the Whole (Mar. 26, 1985, p. 6283). A
majority manager of the bill who represents the primary committee of
jurisdiction is entitled to close general debate (in this case, as
against another manager representing an additional committee of
jurisdiction) (May 13, 1998, p. ----). Where an order of the House
divides debate on an unreported measure among four Members, the Chair
will recognize for closing speeches in the reverse order of the original
allocation (Mar. 24, 1999, p. ----). Where a special order of the House
allocates time for debate, which is further fractionalized under a later
order by unanimous consent, the Chair recognizes for closing speeches in
the reverse order of their original recognitions, concluding with the
Member who opened the debate. This is true even when the manager who
opened debate is opposed, as in the case of a measure reported adversely
(July 22, 1998, p. ----; July 27, 1999, p. ----; June 21, 2000, p. ----;
July 26, 2000, p. ----).
A Member who has spoken once to the main question may speak again to
an amendment (V, 4993, 4994). It is too late to make the point of order
that a Member has spoken already if no one claims the floor until he has
made some progress in his speech (V, 4992). Paragraph (b) is often
circumscribed by modern practice and by special orders of business that
vest control of debate in designated Members and permit them to yield
more than once to other Members (Apr. 5, 2000, p. ----). For a
discussion of the right of a Member to speak more than once under the
five-minute rule, see Sec. 981, infra. The right to close may not be
exercised after the previous question has been ordered (V, 4997-5000).
The right to close does not belong to a Member who has merely moved to
reconsider the vote on a bill which he did not report (V, 4995). The
right of a contestant in an election case to close when he is permitted
to speak in the contest has been a matter of discussion (V, 5001).
As codified in paragraph (c), the manager of a bill or other
representative of the committee position and not the proponent of an
amendment has the right to close debate on an amendment on which debate
has been limited and allocated under the five-minute rule in Committee
of the Whole (VIII, 2581; July 16, 1981, p. 16043; Apr. 4, 1984, p.
7841; June 5, 1985, p. 14302; July 10, 1985, p. 18496; Oct. 24, 1985, p.
28824; May 2, 1988, p. 9638; May 5, 1988, p. 9961), including the
minority manager (June 29, 1984, p. 20253; Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21660; July
26, 1989, p. 16403; Oct. 27, 1997, p. ----). The Chair will assume that
the manager of a measure is representing the committee of jurisdiction
even where the measure called up is unreported (Apr. 15, 1996, p. 7421;
July 24, 1998, p. ----), where an unreported compromise text is made in
order as original text in lieu of committee amendments (Oct. 19, 1995,
p. 28650), or where the committee reported the measure without
recommendation (Feb. 12, 1997, p. ----). Where the pending text includes
a provision recommended by a committee of sequential referral, a member
of that committee is entitled to close de
[[Page 716]]
bate against an amendment thereto (June 15, 1989, pp. 12084-87). By
recommending an amendment in the nature of a substitute, a reporting
committee implicitly opposes a further amendment that could have been
included therein, such that a committee representative who controls time
in opposition may close debate thereon (June 4, 1992, p. 13572; June 13,
1995, p. 15836). Where the rule providing for the consideration of an
unreported measure designates managers who do not serve on a committee
of jurisdiction, those managers are entitled to close controlled debate
against an amendment thereto (Sept. 18, 1997, p. ----). The majority
manager of the bill will be recognized to control time in opposition to
an amendment thereto, without regard to the party affiliation of the
proponent, where the special order allocated control to ``a Member
opposed'' (May 13, 1998, p. ----). The right to close debate in
opposition to an amendment devolves to a member of the committee of
jurisdiction who derived debate time by unanimous consent from a manager
who originally had the right to close debate (Sept. 10, 1998, p. ----;
July 29, 1999, p. ----). The proponent of a first-degree amendment who
controls time in opposition to a second-degree amendment that favors the
original bill over the first-degree amendment does not qualify as a
``manager'' within the meaning of clause 3(c) of rule XVII in opposing
(June 15, 2000, p. ----).
Under certain circumstances, however, the proponent of the amendment
may close debate where he represents the position of the reporting
committee (Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21660); for example, the proponent of a
``manager's amendment'' may close controlled debate thereon (May 13,
1998, p. ----). Similarly, the proponent may close debate where neither
a committee representative nor a Member assigned a managerial role by
the governing special order oppose the amendment (Aug. 15, 1986, p.
22057; May 6, 1998, p. ----; July 14, 1998, p. ----). Where a committee
representative is allocated control of time in opposition to an
amendment not by recognition from the Chair but by unanimous-consent
request of a third Member who was allocated the time by the Chair, then
the committee representative is not entitled to close debate as against
the proponent (July 24, 1997, p. ----). Similarly, the proponent of the
amendment may close debate where no representative from the reporting
committee opposes an amendment to a multijurisdictional bill (Mar. 9,
1995, p. 7467); where the measure is unreported and has no ``manager''
under the terms of a special rule (Apr. 24, 1985, p. 9206); or where a
measure is being managed by a single reporting committee and the Member
controlling time in opposition, though a member of the committee having
jurisdiction over the amendment, does not represent the reporting
committee (Nov. 9, 1995, p. 31964).
[[Page 717]]
Call to order
4. (a) <> If a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, in speaking
or otherwise, transgresses the Rules of the House, the Speaker shall, or
a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may, call to order the
offending Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, who shall
immediately sit down unless permitted on motion of another Member,
Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner to explain. If a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner is called to order, the Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner making the call to order shall
indicate the words excepted to, which shall be taken down in writing at
the Clerk's desk and read aloud to the House.
(b) The Speaker shall decide the validity of a call to order. The
House, if appealed to, shall decide the question without debate. If the
decision is in favor of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
called to order, the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall be
at liberty to proceed, but not otherwise. If the case requires it, an
offending Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall be liable to
censure or such other punishment as the House may consider proper. A
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not be held to answer a
call to order, and may not be subject to the censure of the House
therefor, if further debate or other business has intervened.
[[Page 718]]
The first sentence of paragraph (a) and all but the last sentence of
paragraph (b) (former clause 4 of rule XIV) was adopted in 1789 and
amended in 1822 and 1880 (V, 5175). The last sentence of paragraph (a)
and the last sentence of paragraph (b) (former clause 5 of rule XIV) was
adopted in 1837 and amended in 1880, although the practice of writing
down objectionable words had been established in 1808. When the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, it consolidated former
clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV into a single clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. ----).
Members <> transgressing the rules of debate and
decorum may be called to order by the Speaker (VIII, 2481, 2521, 3479),
a Member (II, 1344; V, 5154, 5161-5163, 5175, 5192), or a Delegate (II,
1295). A Member may initiate a call to order either by making a point of
order that a Member is transgressing the rules or by formally demanding
that words be taken down under this clause (Sept. 12, 1996, pp. 22897,
22899; Sept. 17, 1996, p. 23426; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; Sept. 25,
1996, p. 24759). A Member's comportment in debate may constitute a
breach of decorum even though the content of the Member's speech is not,
itself, unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Except for naming the
offending Member, the Speaker may not otherwise censure or punish him
(II, 1345; VI, 237; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; see also Sec. 366, supra).
The House may by proper motions under this clause dictate the
consequences of a ruling by the Chair that a Member was out of order
(May 26, 1983, p. 14048).
As discussed in Sec. 374, supra, it is customary for the Chair to
initiate the call to order a Member who criticizes the actions of the
Senate, its Members, or its committees, whether in debate or through an
insertion in the Record (Speaker Albert, Apr. 17, 1975, p. 10458; Oct.
7, 1975, p. 32055; Feb. 27, 1997, p. ----). On the other hand, the Chair
customarily awaits an initiative from the floor to call to order a
Member engaging in personalities in debate with respect to another
Member of the House (June 29, 1987, p. 18072; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Feb.
27, 1997, p. ----). The Chair may take initiative to call to order a
Member engaging in verbal outburst following expiration of his
recognition for debate (Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081). The Chair may deny
further recognition to an offending Member, subject to the will of the
House on the question of his proceeding in order (Speaker O'Neill, June
16, 1982, p. 13843; July 29, 1994, p. 18609; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535).
The Chair may admonish a Member for words spoken in debate and request
that they be removed from the Record even prior to a demand that the
words be taken down (Sept. 24, 1992, p. 27345).
This clause (former clause 5) prohibits the taking down of words after
intervening business (V, 5177; VIII, 2536; Sept. 16, 1991, p. 23032;
Mar. 28, 1996, p. 6934). However, a Member on his feet and seeking
recognition at the appropriate time may yet be recognized to demand that
words be taken down even though brief debate may have intervened, and a
request that a Member uttering objectionable words yield does not
forfeit the right to demand that the words be taken down (VIII, 2528).
Action taken by
[[Page 719]]
the Chair to determine whether a point of order from the floor is
intended as a demand that words be taken down is not such intervening
debate or business as would render the demand untimely (Oct. 2, 1984, p.
28522). Unanimous consent is not required for a Member to withdraw his
demand that words be taken down prior to a ruling by the Chair (June 18,
1986, p. 14232; June 7, 2000, p. ----).
While a demand that a Member's words be taken down is pending, that
Member should be seated immediately (July 29, 1994, p. 18609; Jan. 25,
1995, p. 2352), and no Member may engage the Chair until the demand has
been disposed of (Nov. 9, 1995, p. 31913; Nov. 14, 1995, p. 32472).
Where two Members consecutively demand that each others' words be taken
down as unparliamentary, the Chair advises both Members to be seated and
then directs the Clerk to report the first words objected to (June 19,
1996, p. 14655). An offending Member may be directed by the Chair to be
seated even if a formal demand that the Member's words be taken down is
not pending; for example, where a Member declines to proceed in order at
the directive of the Chair after points of order have been sustained
against unparliamentary references in debate, the Chair may, under rule
I and this rule, deny the Member further recognition as a disposition of
the question of order, subject to the will of the House on the question
of proceeding in order (Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22900; Sept. 17, 1996, p.
23427; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; see also Sec. 366, supra).
The words having been read from the desk, the Chair decides whether
they are in order (II, 1249; V, 5163, 5169, 5187), as read by the Clerk
and not as otherwise alleged to have been uttered (June 9, 1992, p.
13902). When a Member denies that the words taken down are the exact
words used by himself, the question as to the words is put to the House
for decision (V, 5179, 5180). Where demands are made to take down words
both as spoken in a one-minute speech and as reiterated when the
offending Member is permitted by unanimous consent to explain, the Chair
may rule simultaneously on both (July 25, 1996, p. 19170). A decision of
the Chair on a point of order that a Member is engaging in personalities
is subject to appeal (Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25780).
The rule permits a motion that an offending Member be permitted to
explain before the Chair rules on the words taken down, and the Chair
has discretion to ask for explanation before ruling on the words (Feb.
1, 1940, p. 954). The Chair also may recognize an offending Member,
permitted by unanimous consent, to explain words ruled out of order
(Nov. 10, 1971, p. 40442).
If words taken down are ruled out of order, the Member loses the floor
(V, 5196-5199; Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352) and may not proceed on the same
day without the permission of the House (Jan. 29, 1946, p. 533; Aug. 21,
1974, p. 29652; Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352; Apr. 17, 1997, p. ----), even on
yielded time (V, 5147), and may not insert unspoken remarks in the
Record (Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352), but still may exercise his right to
vote or to demand the yeas and nays (VIII, 2546). The ruling does not
take the issue off the
[[Page 720]]
floor, and other Members may proceed to debate the same subject (July
25, 1996, p. 19170). The offending Member will not lose the floor if the
House permits the Member to proceed in order (see, e.g., May 10, 1990,
p. 9992), which motion may be stated on the initiative of the Chair
(Oct. 8, 1991, p. 25757; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9676; July 25, 1996, p. 1970)
or offered by any Member (July 25, 1996, p. 1970). The motion is not
inconsistent with the immediate consequence of the call to order because
this clause (former clause 4) also permits the House to determine the
extent of the sanction for a given breach (Oct. 10, 1991, p. 26102). The
motion is debatable within narrow limits of relevance under the hour
rule, and consequently also is subject to the motion to lay on the table
(Speaker Foley, Oct. 8, 1991, p. 25757).
Where a Member has been called to order not in response to a formal
demand that words be taken down but in response to a point of order, the
former practice was to test the opinion of the House by a motion ``that
the gentleman be allowed to proceed in order'' (V, 5188, 5189; VIII,
2534). Under the modern practice the Chair either may invite the
offending Member to proceed in order (see, e.g., Sept. 12, 1996, p.
22898) or, particularly where admonitions have been ignored, may deny
the Member recognition for the balance of the time for which he was
recognized, subject to the will of the House, as by a vote on the
question whether the Member should be permitted to proceed in order
(Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22899; Sept. 17, 1996, p. 23426; Sept. 18, 1996, p.
23535; Sept. 25, 1996, p. 24759).
Words taken down and ruled out of order by the Chair are subject to a
motion that they be stricken or expunged from the Record. This motion
has precedence (VIII, 2538-2541; Aug. 21, 1974, p. 29652), is often
stated on the initiative of the Chair (May 10, 1990, p. 9992), and is
debatable within narrow limits (VIII, 2539; Speaker Martin, June 12,
1947, p. 6896). However, the motion may not be entertained in the
Committee of the Whole (Feb. 18, 1941, p. 1126) or offered by the Member
called to order (Feb. 11, 1941, pp. 894, 899), although that Member may
ask unanimous consent to withdraw his words (VIII, 2528, 2538, 2540,
2543, 2544; July 16, 1998, p. ----; June 28, 2000, p. ----).
When disorderly words are spoken in the Committee of the Whole, they
are taken down and read at the Clerk's desk, and the Committee rises
automatically (VIII, 2533, 2538, 2539) and reports them to the House
(II, 1257-1259, 1348). Action in the House on words reported from the
Committee of the Whole is limited to the words reported (VIII, 2528),
and it is not in order as a question of privilege in the House to
propose censure of a Member for disorderly words spoken in Committee of
the Whole but not reported therefrom (V, 5202). After words reported to
the House from Committee of the Whole have been disposed of (by decision
of the Chair and any associated action by the House), the Committee
resumes its sitting without motion (VIII, 2539, 2541).
The House has censured a Member for disorderly words (II, 1253, 1254,
1259, 1305; VI, 236). The House may proceed to censure or other action
[[Page 721]]
although business may have intervened in certain exceptional cases, such
as when disorderly words are part of an occurrence constituting a breach
of privilege (II, 1657), when a Member's language has been investigated
by a committee (II, 1655), when a Member has reiterated on the floor
certain published charges (III, 2637), when a Member has uttered words
alleged to be treasonable (II, 1252), or when a Member has uttered an
attack on the Speaker (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Jan. 19, 1995, p.
1599).
For a discussion of resolving the use of objectional exhibits that are
a breach of decorum, see Sec. 622, supra; and for a discussion of
resolving the use of objectional exhibits that are not necessarily a
breach of decorum, see clause 6, Sec. 963, infra.
Comportment
5. <> When the Speaker is
putting a question or addressing the House, a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner may not walk out of or across the Hall. When a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner is speaking, a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not pass between the person
speaking and the Chair. During the session of the House, a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not wear a hat or remain by the
Clerk's desk during the call of the roll or the counting of ballots. A
person may not smoke or use any personal, electronic office equipment,
including cellular phones and computers, on the floor of the House. The
Sergeant-at-Arms is charged with the strict enforcement of this clause.
Until the 104th Congress this clause (former clause 7 of rule XIV) was
made up of provisions adopted in 1789, 1837, 1871, and 1896. In the
104th Congress a reference to the former Doorkeeper was deleted and the
prohibition against using personal electronic office equipment was added
(secs. 201 and 223, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, pp. 463, 469). Before the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
found in former clause 7 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
Originally Members wore their hats during sessions, as in Parliament,
and the custom was not abolished until 1837 (II, 1136). In the 103d Con
[[Page 722]]
gress the Speaker announced that the prohibition against Members wearing
hats included doffing the hat in tribute to a group (Speaker Foley, June
22, 1993, p. 13569; June 10, 1996, p. 13560). In the 96th Congress the
Speaker announced that he considered as proper the customary and
traditional attire for Members, including a coat and tie for male
Members and appropriate attire for female Members (where thermostat
controls had been raised in the summer to conserve energy); the House
then adopted a resolution, offered as a question of the privileges of
the House, requiring Members to wear proper attire as determined by the
Speaker, and denying noncomplying Members the privilege of the floor
(July 17, 1979, pp. 19008, 19073). In the 106th Congress Members were
reminded of the need to be in proper attire in the Chamber (June 28,
2000, p. ----). In the 97th Congress, the Speaker announced during a
vote by electronic device that Members were not permitted under the
traditions of the House to wear overcoats on the House floor (Dec. 16,
1981, p. 31847).
The prohibition against using personal electronic office equipment was
affirmed by response to a parliamentary inquiry (Feb. 23, 1995, p.
5639). The Chair announced that the use of cellular telephones was not
permitted on the floor of the House or in the gallery (July 13, 1999, p.
----; Oct. 7, 1999, p. ----; Jan. 27, 2000, p. ----) and that Members
should disable wireless telephones on entering the Chamber (June 12,
2000, p. ----; July 19, 2000, p. ----; Oct. 10, 2000, p. ----; Oct. 19,
2000, p. ----).
Smoking is not permitted in the Hall during sessions of the House
(Oct. 15, 1990, p. 29248), nor during sittings of the Committee of the
Whole (Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21707); and the prohibition extends to smoking
behind the rail (Feb. 23, 1995, p. 5640).
On the opening day of the 101st Congress, the Speaker prefaced his
customary announcement of policies concerning such aspects of the
legislative process as recognition for unanimous-consent requests and
privileges of the floor with a general statement concerning decorum in
the House, including particular adjurations against engaging in
personalities, addressing remarks to spectators, and passing in front of
the Member addressing the Chair (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 88; see also Jan. 5,
1993, p. 105; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551). In the 104th Congress the Speaker
announced: (1) that Members should not traffic, or linger in, the well
of the House while another Member is speaking (Feb. 3, 1995, p. 3541;
Mar. 3, 1995, p. 6721; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37111); and (2) that Members
should not engage in disruption while another Member is speaking (Dec.
20, 1995, p. 37878). Under this provision the Chair may require a line
of Members waiting to sign a discharge petition to proceed to the
rostrum from the far right-hand aisle and require the line not to stand
between the Chair and Members engaging in debate (Oct. 24, 1997, p. ----
).
Hissing and jeering is not proper decorum in the House (May 21, 1998,
p. ----).
A former Member must observe proper decorum under this clause, and the
Chair may direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist the Chair in maintain
[[Page 723]]
ing such decorum (Sept. 17, 1997, p. ----). In the 105th Congress the
House adopted a resolution offered as a question of the privileges of
the House alleging indecorous behavior of a former Member and
instructing the Sergeant-at-Arms to ban the former Member from the
floor, and rooms leading thereto, until the resolution of a contested
election to which he was party (H. Res. 233, Sept. 18, 1997, p. ----).
Exhibits
6. <> When the use of an
exhibit in debate is objected to by a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner, the Chair, in his discretion, may submit the question of
its use to the House without debate.
This provision was rewritten in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
1993, p. 49) to address the use of exhibits in debate rather than the
reading from papers. As rewritten in the 103d Congress, an objection to
the use of an exhibit automatically triggered a vote by the House on its
use. The clause was amended in the 107th Congress to permit the Chair in
his discretion to submit the question of its use to the House (sec.
2(o), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. ----). Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former rule XXX
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
When the use of an exhibit in debate was objected to before the clause
was rewritten in the 107th Congress, the Chair immediately put the
question on whether use of the exhibit would be permitted (the Chair was
not determining a breach of decorum under clause 2 of rule I) (Nov. 1,
1995, p. 31154; Nov. 10, 1995, p. 20689; July 31, 1996, p. 20689). The
Chair put the question without debate, and without requiring the
objecting Member to state the basis for the objection (Nov. 10, 1995, p.
20689). As such, an objection under this rule was not a point of order:
it could have been resolved by withdrawal of the exhibit; that failing,
it amounted to a demand that the Chair put to the House the question
whether the exhibit may be used (July 31, 1996, p. 20700).
It is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to judge the
accuracy of the content of an exhibit (Nov. 10, 1995, p. 32142). The
Chair has held that a second virtually consecutive invocation of this
provision, resulting in a second pair of votes on use of a chart and on
reconsideration thereof, was not dilatory under former clause 10 of rule
XVI (current clause 1 of rule XVI) or former clause 4(b) of rule XI
(current clause 6(b) of rule XIII) (July 31, 1996, p. 20700). It is not
in order to request that the voting display be turned on during debate
as an exhibit to accompany a Member's debate (Oct. 12, 1998, p. ----).
[[Page 724]]
The earlier <> form of the rule (former rule XXX), originally adopted in 1794
and amended in 1802 and 1880 (V, 5257), addressed reading from papers.
It recognized the right of a Member under the general parliamentary law
to have read the paper on which the House is to vote (V, 5258), but when
that paper had been read once, the reading could not be repeated unless
by order of the House (V, 5260). The right could be abrogated by
suspension of the rules (V, 5278-5284; VIII, 3400); but was not
abrogated simply by the fact that the current procedure was taking place
under the rule for suspension (V, 5273-5277). On a motion to refer a
report, the reading of it could be demanded as a matter of right, but
the latest ruling left to the House to determine whether or not an
accompanying record of testimony should be read (V, 5261, 5262). In
general the reading of a report was held to be in the nature of debate
(V, 5292); but where a report presented facts and conclusions but no
legislative proposition, it was read if submitted for action (IV, 4663).
Where a paper is offered as involving a matter of privilege it may be
read to the House (III, 2597; VI, 606; VIII, 2599), rather than by the
Speaker privately (III, 2546), but a Member may not, as a matter of
right, require the reading of a book or paper on suggestion that it
contains matter infringing on the privileges of the House (V, 5258).
The former rule XXX prohibiting the reading of papers in debate was
held to apply to the exhibition of articles as evidence or in
exemplification in debate (VIII, 2452, 2453; June 2, 1937, p. 6104; Aug.
5, 1949, p. 10859), and the new form of the rule adopted in the 103d
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49) marks the modern relevance of
that application. While Members may use exhibits such as charts during
debate subject to this rule, the Speaker may, pursuant to his authority
to preserve order and decorum under rule I (see Sec. 622, supra), direct
the removal of a chart from the well of the House which is not being
utilized during debate (Apr. 1, 1982, p. 6304), or which is otherwise
disruptive of decorum.
The reading <> of papers other than
the one on which the vote was about to be taken was usually permitted
without question (V, 5258), and the Member in debate usually read such
papers as he pleased. However, this privilege was subject to the
authority of the House if another Member objected (V, 5285-5291; VIII,
2597, 2602; Dec. 19, 1974, p. 41425; Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34669). This
principle applied even to the Member's own written speech (V, 5258;
VIII, 2598), to a report which he proposed to have read in his own time
or to read in his place (V, 5293), and to excerpts from the
Congressional Record (VIII, 2597). After the previous question was
ordered, a Member could not ask the decision of the House on a request
for the reading of a paper not before the House for action (V, 5296),
even though it be the report of the committee (V, 5294, 5295). For
further discussion, see Sec. Sec. 432-436, supra. Pursuant to the former
form of this rule, the consent of the House for a Member to read a paper
in debate only permitted the Member seeking such permission
[[Page 725]]
to read as much of the paper as possible in the time yielded or allotted
to that Member, and did not necessarily grant permission to read or to
insert the entire document (Mar. 1, 1979, p. 3748). Where a Member
objected to another's reading from a paper, the Chair put the question
without debate. It was not in order under the guise of parliamentary
inquiry to debate that question by indicating that the objection was a
dilatory tactic (Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34672).
Galleries
7. <> During a
session of the House, it shall not be in order for a Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner to introduce to or to bring to the attention of
the House an occupant in the galleries of the House. The Speaker may not
entertain a request for the suspension of this rule by unanimous consent
or otherwise.
This clause was adopted April 10, 1933 (VI, 197). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 8 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
Congressional Record
8. (a) <> The
Congressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of
remarks made during the proceedings of the House, subject only to
technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner making the remarks.
(b) Unparliamentary remarks may be deleted only by permission or order
of the House.
(c) <> This clause establishes a
standard of conduct within the meaning of clause 3(a)(2) of rule XI.
This clause was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 213, H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Before the House recodified its rules in the
106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 9 of rule XIV
(H. Res.
[[Page 726]]
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). Under paragraph (a) a unanimous-consent
request to revise and extend remarks permits a Member (1) to make
technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections to remarks uttered
and (2) to include in the Record additional remarks not uttered to
appear in a distinctive typeface; however, such a unanimous-consent
request does not permit a Member to remove remarks actually uttered
(Jan. 4, 1995, p. 541). Paragraph (a) also applies to statements and
rulings of the Chair (Jan. 20, 1995, p. 1866).
Secret sessions
9. <> When confidential
communications are received from the President, or when the Speaker or a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner informs the House that he has
communications that he believes ought to be kept secret for the present,
the House shall be cleared of all persons except the Members, Delegates,
Resident Commissioner, and officers of the House for the reading of such
communications, and debates and proceedings thereon, unless otherwise
ordered by the House.
This provision (former rule XXIX), in a somewhat different form, was
adopted in 1792, although secret sessions had been held by the House
before that date. They continued to be held at times with considerable
frequency until 1830. In 1880, at the time of the general revision of
the rules, the House concluded to retain the rule, although it had been
long in disuse (V, 7247; VI, 434). Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former rule XXIX (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
The two Houses have legislated in secret session, transmitting their
messages also in secrecy (V, 7250); but the House has declined to be
bound to secrecy by act of the Senate (V, 7249). Motions to remove the
injunction of secrecy should be made with closed doors (V, 7254). In
1843 a confidential message from the President was referred without
reading; but no motion was made for a secret session (V, 7255).
The House and not the Committee of the Whole determines whether the
Committee may sit in executive session, and an inquiry relative to
whether the Committee of the Whole should sit in secret session is
properly addressed to the Speaker and not to the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole (May 9, 1950, p. 6746; June 6, 1978, p. 16376;
June 20, 1979, p. 15710). A Member seeking to offer the motion that the
House resolve
[[Page 727]]
itself into secret session must qualify, as provided by the rule, by
asserting that the Member has a secret communication to make to the
House (June 6, 1978, p. 16376).
On June 20, 1979, the House adopted by voice vote a motion that the
House resolve itself into secret session pursuant to this rule (the
first such occasion since 1830), where the Member offering the motion
had ensured the Speaker that he had confidential communications to make
to the House as required by the rule (pp. 15711-13). The Speaker pro
tempore announced on that occasion before the commencement of the secret
session that the galleries would be cleared of all persons, that the
Chamber would be cleared of all persons except Members and those
officers and employees specified by the Speaker whose attendance was
essential to the functioning of the secret session, who would be
required to sign an oath of secrecy, and that all proceedings in the
secret session must be kept secret until otherwise ordered by the House
(June 20, 1979, pp. 15711-13). Where the House has concluded a secret
session and has not voted to release the transcripts of that session,
the injunction of secrecy remains and the Speaker may informally refer
the transcripts to appropriate committees for their evaluation and
report to the House as to ultimate disposition to be made (June 20,
1979, pp. 15711-13).
The following procedures apply during a secret session. The motion for
a secret session is not debatable (June 20, 1979, p. 15711; Mar. 31,
1998, p. ----). The Member who offers the motion may be recognized for
one hour of debate after the House resolves into secret session, and the
normal rules of debate, including the principle that no motions would be
in order unless he yields for that purpose, apply. The Speaker having
found that a Member has qualified to make the motion for a secret
session, having confidential communications to make, no point of order
lies that the material in question must be submitted to the Members to
make that determination (the motion for a secret session having been
adopted by the House). No point of order lies in secret session that
employees designated by the Speaker as essential to the proceedings, who
have signed an oath of secrecy, may not be present. A motion in secret
session to make public the proceedings therein is debatable for one
hour, within narrow limits of relevancy. At the conclusion of debate in
secret session, a Member may be recognized to offer a motion that the
session be dissolved (July 17, 1979, pp. 19057-59).
The House conducted another secret session in the 96th Congress to
receive confidential communications consisting of classified information
in the possession of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, which those committees had authorized
to be used in a secret session of the House if ordered; on that occasion
the Speaker overruled a point of order against the motion for a secret
session since the Speaker must rely on the assurance of a Member that he
has confidential communications to make to the House, and since the
Speaker was aware that the committee with possession of the materials
[[Page 728]]
had authorized those materials to be used in a secret session (Feb. 25,
1980, p. 3618). Another secret session was held in the 98th Congress
pending consideration of a bill amending the Intelligence Authorization
Act to prohibit United States support for military or paramilitary
operations in Nicaragua (July 19, 1983, p. 19776).
The House may subsequently by unanimous consent order printed in the
Congressional Record proceedings in secret session, with appropriate
deletions and revisions agreeable to the committees to which the secret
transcript has been referred for review (July 17, 1979, p. 19049).
Under his authority in clause 3 of rule I, the Speaker convened a
classified briefing for Members on the House floor when the House was
not in session (Mar. 18, 1999, p. ----).