[House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]
[Chapter 16. Consideration and Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 375]]
CHAPTER 16 - CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
HOUSE PRACTICE
A. Introductory; Initiating Consideration and Debate
Sec. 1. In General; In the House
Sec. 2. Order of Consideration
Sec. 3. Use of Special Orders of Business
Sec. 4. Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules
Sec. 5. Role of Calendars
Sec. 6. Consideration by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 7. In the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 8. In the House as in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 9. Limitations on Debate; Nondebatable Matters
B. Control and Distribution of Time for Debate
Sec. 10. In General; Role of Manager
Sec. 11. Distribution and Alternation; Closing General Debate
Sec. 12. Management by Committee; Closing Controlled Debate on an
Amendment
Sec. 13. Designation of Member Who May Call Up a Measure
Sec. 14. Effect of Special Rules
Sec. 15. Yielding Time-- For Debate
Sec. 16. -- Yielding for Amendment
Sec. 17. Interruptions; Losing or Surrendering Control
C. Relevancy in Debate
Sec. 18. In General; In the House
Sec. 19. In the Committee of the Whole-- General Debate
Sec. 20. -- Under the Five-Minute Rule
D. Disorder in Debate
Sec. 21. In General
Sec. 22. Disorderly Language
Sec. 23. -- References to Senate
Sec. 24. -- References to the Press, Media, or Gallery
Sec. 25. -- References to Executive Officials
[[Page 376]]
Sec. 26. Procedure; Calls to Order
Sec. 27. -- Procedure in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 28. -- Taking Down Words
Sec. 29. -- Withdrawal or Modification of Words
Sec. 30. -- Permission to Explain
Sec. 31. -- Speaker's Ruling
Sec. 32. -- Discipline; Post-Ruling Motions
E. Critical References to the House, Committees, or
Members
Sec. 33. In General; Criticism of the House
Sec. 34. Criticism of Committees
Sec. 35. Criticism of Speaker
Sec. 36. Criticism of Legislative Actions or Proposals
Sec. 37. Critical References to Members
Sec. 38. -- Use of Colloquialisms; Sarcasm
Sec. 39. -- Impugning Motives
Sec. 40. -- Charging Falsehood or Deception
Sec. 41. -- Lack of Intelligence or Knowledge
Sec. 42. -- References to Race, Creed, or Racial Prejudice
Sec. 43. -- Charges Relating to Loyalty or Patriotism
F. Duration of Debate in House
Sec. 44. In General
Sec. 45. The Hour Rule
Sec. 46. Ten-minute, 20-minute, and 40-minute Debate
Sec. 47. Debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 48. Limiting or Extending Time for Debate
Sec. 49. Terminating Debate
Sec. 50. One-minute and Special-order Speeches; Morning-hour Debates
G. Duration of Debate in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 51. In General; Effect of Special Rules
Sec. 52. General Debate
Sec. 53. Limiting General Debate
Sec. 54. Five-minute Debate
Sec. 55. -- Limiting or Extending Five-minute Debate-- By House Action
[[Page 377]]
Sec. 56. -- By Motion in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 57. -- By Unanimous Consent in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 58. Motions Allocating or Reserving Time
Sec. 59. Timekeeping; Charging Time
H. Reading Papers; Displays and Exhibits
Sec. 60. Reading Papers
Sec. 61. Use of Exhibits
Sec. 62. -- Decorum Requirements
I. Secret Sessions
Sec. 63. In General
Sec. 64. Motions; Debate
Sec. 65. Secrecy Restrictions and Guidelines
Research References
5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 4978-5299
8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2448-2608
Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Manual Sec. Sec. 359, 364, 369-371, 465, 622, 891, 945-969,
978-981, 987, 994-999
A. Introductory; Initiating Consideration and Debate
Sec. 1 . In General; In the House
Generally; Initiating Consideration
Whether and how a matter is to be considered depends on many
factors--the way it is brought to the floor, the nature and precedence
of the proposal, and agreements reached by the leadership and
membership on the method of consideration. The House may reject a
proposal to consider a matter by voting solely on the question of
consideration. See Question of Consideration.
There are four common procedures under which measures may be
called up for consideration: (1) special rules reported from the
Committee on Rules; (2) motions to suspend the rules; (3) unanimous-
consent agreements; and (4) standing rules for certain measures
reported as privileged under rule XIII clause 5. Manual Sec. Sec. 853-
868. However, nonprivileged matter contained in a measure reported
under rule XIII clause 5 destroys the
[[Page 378]]
privilege of the measure; and consideration must depend on one of the
three remaining procedures. Manual Sec. Sec. 854, 855.
House rules expressly preclude introduction or consideration of
certain commemoration bills (rule XII clause 5), as well as
consideration of certain private bills (rule XII clause 4) and
measures carrying a retroactive Federal income tax rate increase (rule
XXI clause 5(c)).
Generally, questions are not considered on the floor unless
reported or discharged from House committees, although rule IX and
practices of the House permit the immediate consideration of
introduced bills under certain circumstances. Sec. Sec. 3, 4, 6 infra.
Certain time periods or ``layover'' requirements may be a condition
precedent to consideration in the House after a committee has
reported. See Committees. For recognition by the Chair to call up
measures under the various procedures, see Recognition.
Other factors bearing on consideration include whether the
proposal has been referred to the House or Union Calendar or whether
the proposal is called up from a particular special calendar, such as
the Corrections Calendar. See Sec. 5, infra.
Initiating Debate
As a general rule, debate is not in order until a debatable motion
has been offered and stated by the Chair or read by the Clerk. 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 4982-4985, 5304. However, debate may be initiated without
motion:
Under a reservation of the right to object to a unanimous-
consent request. 4 Hinds Sec. 3058.
When questions of personal privilege are raised. 3 Hinds
Sec. 2546.
When conference reports are considered, the question on
agreeing being regarded as pending. Manual Sec. 550; 5 Hinds
Sec. 6517.
When the Committee of the Whole reports its recommendation to
the House, unless the previous question is ordered. 4 Hinds
Sec. 4896.
When personal explanations are made by unanimous consent. 5
Hinds Sec. 5064.
When special rules providing for consideration of a measure
have been adopted. Manual Sec. Sec. 734, 972.
When a measure on a special calendar or on a special day has
been called up. Rule XV.
Sec. 2 . Order of Consideration
The ``daily order of business'' is set forth in rule XIV, which
specifies the sequence in which certain matters are to be taken up.
Manual Sec. 869. The order of consideration may be varied by
unanimous-consent agreements or by special orders reported from the
Committee on Rules and adopted by the
[[Page 379]]
House. See Sec. Sec. 3, 6, infra; generally, see also Order of
Business; Privileged Business; and Special Orders of Business. Indeed,
the preface to rule XIV clause 1 establishes a daily order of business
``unless varied by the application of other rules and except for the
disposition of matters of higher precedence.''
Among the privileged matters that may affect the order of
consideration are: (1) general appropriation bills under rule XIII
clause 5; (2) conference reports under rule XXII clause 7(a); (3)
special orders reported by the Committee on Rules under rule XIII
clause 5; and (4) questions of privilege under rule IX. Manual
Sec. Sec. 698, 871; see also Questions of Privilege.
Some propositions are privileged for consideration on certain days
of the week or month. On any Monday or Tuesday, for example, the
Speaker may recognize Members to move to suspend the rules. Manual
Sec. 885; see also Sec. Sec. 4, 5, infra.
Sec. 3 . Use of Special Orders of Business
A major portion of the legislation taken up in the House is
considered pursuant to resolutions, also called ``special rules'' or
``special orders,'' reported by the Committee on Rules and adopted by
the House. Although the general effect of the adoption of a resolution
making in order the consideration of a bill is to give the bill a
privileged status, the adoption of the resolution does not make the
consideration mandatory unless so stated in the resolution. Deschler
Ch 21 Sec. 16. For example, the resolution may: (1) provide that ``the
House shall immediately consider'' the bill; (2) permit the Speaker to
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole for the
consideration of the bill (see rule XVIII clause 2); or (3) provide
for consideration at some specified time in the order of business. If
the special rule authorizes a specified Member to call up a bill
(either directly or indirectly, such as ``it shall be in order to
consider''), the consideration of the bill must await the initiative
of that Member. See Deschler Ch 21 Sec. 20.17.
Special rules may provide for the consideration of a bill or
resolution in the Committee of the Whole, in the House, or in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler Ch 21
Sec. Sec. 20.16, 20.17.
The measure whose consideration is made in order by a special rule
may consist of a House or Senate bill or resolution or a conference
report. Deschler Ch 21 Sec. Sec. 20.5-20.15. A special rule may be
limited in scope, as where it provides only for initial consideration
of a measure, provides for general debate, and precludes further
consideration absent a second special rule. See, e.g., 105-2, H. Res.
435, May 19, 1998, p ____.
[[Page 380]]
The resolution may waive one or more House rules that impede the
consideration of the bill or amendment thereto. Points of order do not
lie against the consideration of such a resolution, as it is for the
House to determine, by a majority vote on the adoption of the
resolution, whether certain rules should be waived. Deschler Ch 21
Sec. Sec. 16.9-16.14. Generally, see Special Orders of Business.
However, section 426 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
permits a point of order against consideration of a rule that waives
points of order against a measure for violating that Act (subject to a
separate vote on the question of consideration). Manual Sec. 1127.
Sec. 4 . Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules
A privileged motion to suspend the rules may be used to bring a
matter before the House under rule XV clause 1. Manual Sec. Sec. 885,
887; 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 6846, 6847. Additionally, the motion to suspend
may provide for a series of procedural steps, including the
reconsideration of a bill already passed, agreement to an amendment,
and repassage as amended. 5 Hinds Sec. 6849. For examples of proposals
for which the motion may be used, see Suspension of Rules. However,
the motion is in order only on Mondays and Tuesdays of each week and
on the last six days of a session or when the House by unanimous
consent or rule gives the Speaker authority to recognize for such
motions on other days of the week. In any case, recognition for the
motion is within the discretion of the Speaker. The motion is
debatable for 40 minutes, is not amendable, and requires a two-thirds
vote for adoption. See Suspension of Rules.
Sec. 5 . Role of Calendars
The House maintains various calendars to facilitate the
consideration of different classes of legislative business. The
primary calendars are (1) the Union Calendar, for business to be taken
up in the Committee of the Whole, (2) the House Calendar, for matters
to be considered in the House, (3) the Private Calendar, to which all
reported private bills are referred, and (4) the Corrections Calendar.
Most legislative business reported from committee is referred to one
of these calendars. Manual Sec. Sec. 828, 829, 898. In addition, the
House maintains a Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees. Manual
Sec. Sec. 830, 892. For a discussion of the various calendars and
consideration of measures under the Corrections Calendar, see
Calendars.
[[Page 381]]
Sec. 6 . Consideration by Unanimous Consent
The House, pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement, sometimes
permits the consideration of a measure that is not otherwise in order
under the rules, for example, one not yet introduced. Manual
Sec. Sec. 381, 872, 956; 4 Hinds Sec. 3058. For a discussion of
consideration by unanimous consent (including the Speaker's guidelines
requiring approval by floor and committee leaderships before
recognition), see Unanimous-Consent Agreements.
Sec. 7 . In Committee of the Whole
Certain legislative measures are referred to the Union Calendar by
the Speaker for subsequent consideration in the Committee of the
Whole. Their consideration therein is governed by special rules,
orders of the House, or the standing rules applicable to the
Committee. See rule XVIII; 4 Hinds Sec. Sec. 3214, 4705, 4822;
Deschler Ch 19 Sec. Sec. 1, 4.
For comprehensive discussion of consideration of measures in
Committee of the Whole, see Committees of the Whole.
Sec. 8 . In the House as in the Committee of the Whole
Bills and other measures sometimes are taken up by the House when
it sits ``as in'' the Committee of the Whole. Manual Sec. 427. This
practice permits consideration of a measure under the five-minute rule
rather than the hour rule, but without general debate. 4 Hinds
Sec. 4924; Manual Sec. 424. For a discussion of consideration of
measures in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, see Committees
of the Whole.
Sec. 9 . Limitations on Debate; Nondebatable Matters
Generally; Time Limitations
Debate is subject to many limitations under the rules and
precedents of the House. Most of the limitations imposed by House rule
concern the duration of time allowed for the debate of a particular
proposition. These include, for example, the hour rule (Manual
Sec. 957), the 40-minute rule (Manual Sec. Sec. 891, 995), the 20-
minute rule (Manual Sec. 892), the ten-minute rule (Manual Sec. 987),
the five-minute rule (Manual Sec. 978), and the time limits that are
imposed on the one-minute speeches or special-order speeches that are
often permitted when no legislative business is pending (Manual
Sec. 950). For a more detailed discussion of these time limitations,
see Sec. Sec. 44-50, infra.
Most of these are rules of general applicability. In addition, the
House may adopt a special rule from the Committee on Rules that places
a different limit on the duration of debate on a particular
legislative proposal.
[[Page 382]]
This practice enables the House, by majority vote, to specify time
for, and control of, debate depending on the complexity of the
proposed measure.
Unless otherwise provided by House rule or by a special rule from
the Committee on Rules, a proposition considered in the House is
debated under the hour rule. Sec. Sec. 44, 45, infra. However, the
various motions that may apply to a proposition often carry their own
time limitations for debate and, in some instances, preclude debate
entirely.
Matters Not Subject to Debate
The relevant standing rule and the precedents must be consulted in
order to determine whether debate on a motion or question is
precluded. Following are examples of questions that are not subject to
debate:
A motion that the Journal be read in full. Manual Sec. 621.
A motion for the previous question. Deschler Ch 23 Sec. 21.
A motion to go into the Committee of the Whole. 4 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 3062, 3078; 6 Cannon Sec. 716.
A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report. 4
Hinds Sec. Sec. 4766, 4782; Deschler Ch 19 Sec. 22.4.
A motion for a call of the House or incidental to a call of
the House. Manual Sec. 1024; 6 Cannon Sec. Sec. 683, 688.
A resolution authorizing the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest
absentees. 6 Cannon Sec. 686.
A motion that the Speaker be authorized to declare a recess or
that when the House adjourns it stand adjourned to a day and
time certain. Rule XVI; Manual Sec. 913.
A resolution providing for a sine die adjournment or for
adjournment to a day certain. Manual Sec. 84.
A motion to adjourn. Manual Sec. 911.
A motion to lay on the table. 6 Cannon Sec. 415; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2465.
A motion to reconsider an undebatable proposition. 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5694-5699.
A motion to close general debate or to limit five-minute
debate. Manual Sec. 979; 5 Hinds Sec. 5203.
A motion to strike unparliamentary language from the
Congressional Record. 6 Cannon Sec. 617.
An incidental question of order after a demand for the
previous question. Manual Sec. 1000.
An incidental question of order arising during a division. 5
Hinds Sec. 5926.
A motion that the Committee of the Whole take up a bill out of
calendar order. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2331, 2333.
A motion for a change of reference of a bill. Manual Sec. 825.
A question of consideration. Manual Sec. 906.
A question relating to the priority of business. Manual
Sec. 884.
An appeal from a decision of the Chair on the priority of
business. 5 Hinds Sec. 6952; Manual Sec. 884.
[[Page 383]]
An appeal from a decision of the Chair on relevancy. 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5056-5063.
An appeal from a decision of the Chair on the dilatoriness of
a motion. 5 Hinds Sec. 5731.
An amendment to the title of a bill. Manual Sec. 922; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2907.
B. Control and Distribution of Time for Debate
Sec. 10 . In General; Role of Manager
Under long-standing practice, and as usually provided by special
rules, one or more designated Members manage a bill during its
consideration. Such managers are normally the chairman and ranking
minority member of a committee reporting the measure. Sec. 14, infra.
The majority manager of a measure has procedural advantages
enabling him to expedite its consideration and passage. He is entitled
to the prior right to recognition unless he surrenders or loses
control or unless a preferential motion to recommit is offered by an
opponent of the bill. See Recognition. If the bill is to be taken up
in the House under the standing rules, the manager calling it up is
entitled to one hour of debate, which he may in his discretion yield
to other Members. See Sec. 15, infra. He may at any time during his
hour move the previous question, thereby bringing the matter to a vote
and terminating further debate, unless he has yielded control of time
to another. See Sec. 45, infra; see also Previous Question.
The manager of a bill enjoys a similar advantage in the Committee
of the Whole where the bill is being considered under a special rule
or unanimous-consent agreement. General debate therein typically is
controlled and divided by the majority and minority managers. The
majority manager has the right to close general debate. Manual
Sec. 959. When the bill is read for amendment in the Committee, the
managers have the prior right to recognition, whether to offer an
amendment or oppose an amendment or to move to close or to limit
debate or to move that the Committee rise. Similarly, if the bill is
taken up in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, priority in
recognition is extended during debate to members in charge of the bill
from the reporting committee. See Recognition.
Once a measure has been approved by a standing committee of the
House, its chairman has a duty under the rules to report it promptly
and to take steps to have the matter considered and voted upon. Rule
XIII clause 2(b). When the measure is called up, the reporting
committee manages the bill during the various stages of its
consideration. The designated managers from the committee, and then
other members of the committee in order of
[[Page 384]]
seniority, have priority in recognition at all stages of
consideration. See Recognition. When a chairman is opposed to a bill
(although rare), the responsibility for managing the bill may be
delegated to the ranking majority member of the committee. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 26.7. Such delegation of control is ineffective where
challenged unless communicated to the Chair. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 26.30. The chairman also may relinquish control where the
Committee of the Whole has adopted amendments to the bill to which he
is opposed. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 26.8.
Where the measure falls within the jurisdiction of two standing
committees, the chairman of one of them may yield to the chairman of
the other to control part of the available time and to move the
previous question. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 26.10.
For further discussion on control of debate by managers, see also
Sec. 12, infra.
Sec. 11 . Distribution and Alternation; Closing General Debate
The distribution of available time for debate, and the alternation
of time between majority and minority members, is governed by
principles of comity and by House tradition, as well as by standing
rules of the House and by special rules. Manual Sec. 955. A division
of time for debate on certain motions may be required, and a Member
opposed may claim a priority to control a portion of the time. For
example, rule XV clause 1(c) requires a division of time for debate on
a motion to suspend the rules between those in favor and those
opposed. Manual Sec. 891. Under rule XXII, one-third of the time may
be claimed by a Member opposed to conference reports, motions to
instruct conferees, and amendments reported from conference in
disagreement, where both the majority and minority managers support
the proposition.
The Chair alternates recognition between those favoring and those
opposing the pending proposition where a rule or precedent gives some
control to an opponent or, traditionally, between the parties where
time is limited. Special rules commonly divide control of time for
general debate equally between the chairman and ranking minority
member of the committees reporting the measure. When a special rule
itself is being considered, the majority floor manager customarily
yields half of the time to the minority. Alternation generally, see
Recognition.
A majority manager of the bill who represents the primary
committee of jurisdiction is entitled to close general debate, as
against another manager representing an additional committee of
jurisdiction. Where an order of the House divides debate on an
unreported measure among four Members, the
[[Page 385]]
Chair will recognize for closing speeches in the reverse order of the
original allocation. Similarly, where general debate on an adversely
reported measure is controlled by two Members allocated time under a
previous order of the House and by two other Members deriving
subdivisions of that time under a later order by unanimous consent,
the Chair may recognize for closing speeches in the reverse order of
the original allocation, concluding with the Member who opened the
debate. Where a Member derives time for debate from the manager of a
measure by unanimous consent, that Member also derives the right to
close debate thereon. Where a member of the minority is recognized
under a special order to call up a Senate concurrent resolution from
the Speaker's desk, he is recognized to open and close debate thereon.
Manual Sec. 959.
Sec. 12 . Management by Committee; Closing Controlled Debate on an
Amendment
Special orders providing ``modified rules'' governing the
amendment process commonly limit and divide control of debate between
a proponent and an opponent of the amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 28. Similarly, the Committee of the Whole may by unanimous
consent also limit and divide control of debate between a proponent
and a Member in opposition. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 27.3. Under rule
XVII clause 3(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 where debate has been so limited
and allocated without regard to the party affiliation of the
proponent. Manual Sec. 959. Clause 3(c) is an exception to the rule
set forth in rule XVII clause 3(a), which otherwise provides that the
mover, proposer, or introducer of the pending matter has the right to
open and close debate. The exceptional treatment of the right to close
debate on an amendment elevates the manager's prerogative over the
proponent's burden of persuasion. This is so even when the majority
manager offers an amendment that has not been recommended by the
committee. In that case, a member of the committee in opposition to
such amendment has the right to close. 107-2, July 25, 2002, p ____.
Clause (3)(c) applies to the manager of an unreported measure,
even where the rule providing for the consideration of the unreported
measure designates managers who do not serve on a committee of
jurisdiction. It also applies to a measure reported by the committee
without recommendation. The minority manager may claim the right to
close debate under clause 3(c), as may a member of a committee of
sequential referral to close debate against an amendment to a
provision recommended by that committee. Man
[[Page 386]]
ual Sec. 959. However, the proponent of an amendment has the right to
close where a manager does not oppose the amendment but claims the
time in opposition by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 959.
For further discussion on control of debate by managers, see
Sec. 10, supra.
Sec. 13 . Designation of Member Who May Call Up a Measure
The committee reporting a measure occasionally designates the
Member who may call up a measure for consideration, in which case the
Chair may recognize only that Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. Sec. 27.1, 27.2. A special rule also may designate the Member.
Sec. 14, infra. If a Member has not been specifically designated, the
Chair may in his discretion recognize a committee member to call up a
measure. 91-1, Dec. 23, 1969, p 40982.
Sec. 14 . Effect of Special Rules
Generally
The designation of certain Members to control debate on a measure
is frequently provided by special rule from the Committee on Rules.
Typically the Committee on Rules will draft a special rule providing
that debate be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the reporting committee or committees.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 28. That control can be delegated to a
designee.
Dividing Debate Between Multiple Committees
A special rule from the Committee on Rules may specify that debate
be divided between and controlled by two or more standing committees.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 28.13. The special rule may provide that
debate be controlled by the chairmen and ranking minority members of
the several committees reporting a bill, sometimes with the secondary
committees controlling a lesser amount of time. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 28.16. Debate also may be divided between the standing committee
reporting a bill and a permanent select committee. 95-1, Sept. 9,
1977, p 28367.
Where a special rule divides the control of general debate on a
bill among the chairmen and ranking members of two standing
committees, but does not specify the order of recognition, the Chair
may exercise his discretion. He may allow one committee to use its
time before recognizing the other, or may rotate among the four
managers. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 28.18.
If the rule divides control of debate among a primary reporting
committee and several sequentially reporting committees in a
designated order,
[[Page 387]]
the Chair may allocate time between the chairman and ranking minority
member of each committee in the order listed, if and when present on
the floor, and permit only the primary committee to reserve a portion
of its time to close general debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 28.16.
When the Chair has announced his intention to permit the primary
committee to so reserve a portion of its time, the sequential
committees are required to use all of their time before the closing
debate by the primary committee. 99-1, Dec. 5, 1985, pp 34638, 34644.
A majority manager of the bill who represents the primary committee of
jurisdiction is entitled to close general debate (as against another
manager representing an additional committee of jurisdiction). Manual
Sec. 959.
Division of Time Between a Member in Favor and a Member Opposed
In the event that a specified amount of time for debate is equally
divided and controlled between the proponent of the amendment and a
Member opposed thereto, only one Member may be recognized to control
the time in favor of the amendment and only one Member may be
recognized to control the time in opposition, though each may in turn
yield blocks of time to other Members. 99-2, Aug. 11, 1986, pp 20678,
20679. Pro forma amendments are not permitted where second degree
amendments are prohibited unless so specified. 99-2, Aug. 14, 1986, p
21655. Time for debate on the amendment having been divided between
the proponent and an opponent, the Chair may in his discretion
recognize the manager of the bill in opposition, there being no
requirement for recognition of the minority party. Indeed, the Chair
ordinarily recognizes the chairman of the committee managing the bill
if he qualifies as opposed to the amendment. Manual Sec. 959; Sec. 10,
supra.
A special rule may provide that, after general debate divided
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the reporting
committee, a certain amount of time for general debate be divided and
controlled by a Member in favor of and a Member opposed to a certain
section of the bill. 96-1, Sept. 13, 1979, pp 24168, 24192. In one
instance, the House adopted a special rule providing for one hour of
general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the reporting committee, and two hours
to be divided and controlled by Members to be designated by the
chairman. 95-2, July 31, 1978, p 23451.
[[Page 388]]
Sec. 15 . Yielding Time-- For Debate
In General; Who May Yield
In an earlier era, a Member could not yield time for debate
without losing his right to reoccupy the floor. A Member could not
yield the floor unless he yielded it unconditionally. 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5023, 5026. That practice began to change with the adoption
of the hour rule for debate in 1841. 5 Hinds Sec. 5021.
Under current practice, a Member controlling the time during
debate may yield blocks of time for debate to others, take his seat,
and still retain the right to resume debate or move the previous
question. 8 Cannon Sec. 3383. The yielding of time for debate is
discretionary with the Members who have control thereof. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 31.1, 31.2. A Member may not yield for purposes
of debate where he has risen merely to make or reserve a point of
order. Deschler-Brown Ch 31 Sec. 7.5.
A Member who seeks yielded time should address the Chair and
request the permission of the Member speaking. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 42. Where a Member interrupts another Member during debate
without being yielded to, the time consumed by his remarks are not
charged against the time for debate of the Member controlling the
floor and the remarks are not carried in the Congressional Record.
Manual Sec. 946. A Member may yield to another for a parliamentary
inquiry, but the time consumed by the inquiry and the response of the
Chair comes out of the time of the Member yielding. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 29.5.
The time used by yielding is ordinarily charged against the
yielding Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.5. Unused time reverts
to the yielding Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 31.36.
Rule XVIII clause 3(b), which prohibits a Member who is not a
manager from speaking more than once on a question, often is
superseded in modern practice by special orders of business that vest
control of debate in designated Members and permit them to yield more
than once to other Members. Manual Sec. 959.
In the House
The Member in control of debate in the House under the hour rule
may in his discretion yield for debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.
Indeed, although not required to do so by standing rule, majority
members in control under the hour rule frequently yield one-half the
time to the minority in order that full debate may be had. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.15. Of course, the yielding of time must be
consistent with any division of time
[[Page 389]]
that is required by House rule or a special rule from the Committee on
Rules.
In the Committee of the Whole
In the Committee of the Whole, a Member in control of time for
general debate may yield a block of time (up to one hour) to another
Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 31.24.
During five-minute debate Members may yield, as for a question or
comment, but may not yield blocks of time. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5035-
5037. A Member yielding to a colleague during debate under the five-
minute rule should remain standing to protect his right to the floor.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.8. If a Member uses only part of his
time, his five-minute period is treated as exhausted, as it cannot be
reserved, and another Member cannot claim recognition for the unused
time. 8 Cannon Sec. 2571. However, where debate on an amendment is
limited or allocated by a unanimous-consent agreement or motion, or by
a special rule, to a proponent and an opponent, the five-minute rule
is abrogated and the Members controlling the debate may yield and
reserve time. Manual Sec. 980.
Yielding During Debate on Special Rules
The traditional practice with regard to resolutions from the
Committee on Rules providing special rules for the consideration of
measures is for the Member in charge of the resolution to yield one-
half of the time to the minority, who then may yield specified
portions thereof. Although the minority member of the Committee on
Rules to whom one-half of the time for debate is yielded customarily
yields portions of that time to other Members, another Member to whom
a portion of time is yielded may in turn yield blocks of that time
only by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 31.23. However,
where a Member has been recognized under the hour rule following
refusal of the previous question on such a resolution, he has control
of the time and is under no obligation to yield half of that time as
is the customary practice of the Committee on Rules. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 15.20.
Yielding Time During Yielded Time
A Member to whom time has been yielded during debate under the
hour rule in the House may, while remaining on his feet, yield to a
third Member for comments or questions but may not in turn yield
blocks of time, except by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 31.21. A similar rule is followed in the Committee of the Whole.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 31.24.
[[Page 390]]
Where a Member is yielded time in the House for debate only, he
may not yield to a third Member for purposes other than debate.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 31.19.
Sec. 16 . -- Yielding for Amendment
In General
A measure being considered in the House is not subject to
amendment by a Member not in control of the time unless the Member in
control yields for that purpose. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 30.1,
30.4. A Member may not offer an amendment in time secured for debate
only or request unanimous consent to offer an amendment unless yielded
to for that purpose by the Member controlling the floor. Manual
Sec. 946; 8 Cannon Sec. 2474; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 30.6.
A Member to whom time is yielded for the purpose of offering an
amendment in the House is recognized in his own right to discuss the
amendment for one hour and may himself yield time. 8 Cannon
Sec. Sec. 2471, 2478; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 30.11.
Loss of Control by Yielding Member
A Member may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment
without losing the floor. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5021, 5030, 5031; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2476; Manual Sec. 946. Where a Member controlling the time on a
measure in the House yields for the purpose of amendment, another
Member may move the previous question on the measure before the Member
yielded to is recognized to debate his amendment. Manual Sec. 997. The
previous question takes precedence over an amendment. Rule XVI clause
4; Manual Sec. 911. If the Member calling up a measure offers an
amendment and then yields to another Member to offer an amendment to
his amendment, the first Member loses the floor and the Member yielded
to is recognized for one hour and may move the previous question on
the amendments and on the measure itself. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 33.9.
Under the Five-Minute Rule
A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not yield to
another Member to offer an amendment. It is the prerogative of the
Chair to recognize Members offering amendments under the five-minute
rule. Manual Sec. 946. However, a Member recognized under the five-
minute rule may by unanimous consent yield the balance of his time to
another Member, who may thereafter offer an amendment when separately
recognized by the Chair for that purpose. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 19.25.
[[Page 391]]
A Member offering a pro forma amendment under the five-minute rule
may not yield to another Member during that time to offer an
amendment. Manual Sec. 981.
Sec. 17 . Interruptions; Losing or Surrendering Control
In General
With few exceptions, a Member may interrupt another Member in
debate only if yielded to. A Member desiring to interrupt another in
debate should address the Chair to obtain the permission of the Member
speaking. The Member speaking may then exercise his own discretion
about whether or not to yield. The Chair will take the initiative in
preserving order when a Member declining to yield in debate continues
to be interrupted by another Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 42.14;
Manual Sec. 946.
A Member in control of time for debate in the House may
voluntarily surrender the floor by simply so stating or by withdrawing
the measure he is managing. A Member recognized under the hour rule
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. Manual Sec. 957. A Member also may lose the
floor if he is ruled out of order for disorderly language. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 33. Finally, a Member loses the floor if he yields
for other legislative business (8 Cannon Sec. 2468) or for an
amendment (Sec. 16, supra).
A Member may be interrupted by a point of order or by the
presentation of certain privileged matter, such as a conference
report. 5 Hinds Sec. 6451; 8 Cannon Sec. 3294. In addition, it is
customary for the Speaker to request a Member to yield for the
reception of a message. Manual Sec. 946.
Although a motion proposed by the Member in charge may be
displaced by a preferential motion, a Member may not by offering such
motion deprive the Member in charge of the floor. 8 Cannon Sec. 3259.
A Member having the floor may not be deprived of the floor and taken
off his feet:
By a motion to adjourn. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5369, 5370; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2646.
By a demand for the previous question. 8 Cannon Sec. 2609.
By a question of personal privilege. 5 Hinds Sec. 5002; 8
Cannon Sec. 2459; 98-1, Sept. 29, 1983, pp 26508, 26509.
Interruptions for Parliamentary Inquiries
An interruption for a parliamentary inquiry is not in order unless
the Member having the floor yields for that purpose. Manual Sec. 628;
8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2455-2458. If a Member does yield for that purpose,
he will not lose control of the floor because he retains the right to
resume. Thus, a Member
[[Page 392]]
who has been yielded time for a parliamentary inquiry may not during
his inquiry move that the House adjourn, for that would deprive the
Member holding the floor of his right to resume. 88-2, June 3, 1964, p
12522.
Where the Member controlling the time yields to another for
debate, the latter may, during the time so yielded, propound a
parliamentary inquiry. 90-1, July 17, 1967, p 19033. The time consumed
to state and answer the inquiry is deducted from his time for debate.
94-1, Sept. 25, 1975, p 30196. When the Member holding the floor
during general debate yields solely for a parliamentary inquiry, the
time continues to run against him. Deschler-Brown Ch 31 Sec. 15.6.
However, when the Chair entertains a parliamentary inquiry before the
Member managing the pending measure in the House has been recognized
for debate, or between recognitions, the time consumed by the inquiry
does not come out of his time. Deschler-Brown Ch 31 Sec. 15.8.
C. Relevancy in Debate
Sec. 18 . In General; In the House
A Member addressing the House must confine himself ``to the
question under debate. . . .'' Rule XVII clause 1; Manual Sec. 945.
The rule, which was adopted in 1811, enables the House to expedite
proceedings when a specific proposition is before it for action.
Manual Sec. 945; 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 4979, 5043-5048; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2481. The rule is directed against irrelevant discussion, not
mere redundancy. Although Jefferson's Manual enjoins superfluous or
tedious remarks, in practice the House has never suppressed debate of
this character, the hour rule being regarded as sufficiently
restrictive in that regard. Manual Sec. 359.
Debate on a reported resolution pending before the House should be
confined thereto and should not be extended to an unreported bill even
though on the same subject. 5 Hinds Sec. 5053. The rule is applicable
to debate on private bills (8 Cannon Sec. 2590) and to bills on the
Corrections Calendar (104-1, Nov. 14, 1995, p 32354-57; 104-2, Mar.
12, 1996, p 4447-51). 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. Manual Sec. 948.
It was the custom of earlier Speakers to hold the Member speaking
strictly to the question before the House, without waiting for the
point to be made on the floor. See 5 Hinds Sec. 5043 (note). Under
modern practice the Speaker rarely calls to order, on his own
initiative, a Member speaking to an unrelated question, but waits for
a point of order to be made. Manual Sec. 948.
[[Page 393]]
Under modern practice Speakers have applied the rule of relevancy
with more tolerance and latitude than under the earlier practice.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 35. A Member is sometimes permitted to
discuss matters other than the pending measure by unanimous consent.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 35. Absent unanimous consent, if a point of
order is made and sustained, the Speaker must direct the Member
speaking to confine his remarks to the question (5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5044-5048) and to maintain an ongoing ``nexus'' between the
pending bill and any broader policy issues (Manual Sec. 948).
The relevancy requirement of rule XVII is applicable to floor
debate on pending propositions. It is not normally applicable to a
Member making a one-minute or special-order speech. See Sec. 50,
infra. However, if a unanimous-consent request for a Member to address
the House for one hour specifies the subject of the address, the Chair
may enforce the rule of relevancy in debate by requiring that the
remarks be confined to the subject so specified. Manual Sec. 948.
When a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules is pending,
debate must be confined to that special rule and to the merits of the
bill made in order thereby. Debate should not extend to the merits of
a bill that is not to be considered under the special order. Manual
Sec. 948.
Debate on a question of personal privilege must be confined to the
statements or issue that gave rise to the question of privilege (5
Hinds Sec. Sec. 5075-5077; 6 Cannon Sec. Sec. 576, 608; 8 Cannon
Sec. Sec. 2448, 2481; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 36). Debate on a
privileged resolution recommending disciplinary action against a
Member may include comparisons with other such actions taken by or
reported to the House for purposes of measuring the severity of
punishment but should not extend to the conduct of another Member who
is not the subject of a committee report. Debate on a resolution
electing a Member to committee should not extend to that committee's
agenda. Manual Sec. 948.
Sec. 19 . In the Committee of the Whole-- General Debate
In the Committee of the Whole, during the general debate that
precedes the reading of the bill for amendment under the five-minute
rule, a Member is allowed great freedom and latitude in debate. 5
Hinds Sec. Sec. 5234-5238. ``Anything may be discussed which may by
the liveliest imagination be supposed to relate to the state of the
Union in any particular or in any degree, however remote.'' 8 Cannon
Sec. 2590. However, such license is normally suppressed by the special
rule or other House order setting the duration and scope of the
debate. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5233-5238; 8 Cannon Sec. 2590; Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 37. If the bill is being considered under the terms
of a spe
[[Page 394]]
cial rule that requires that debate be confined to the bill, a Member
may exceed those bounds only by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 37.3.
Sec. 20 . -- Under the Five-Minute Rule
The scope of debate under the five-minute rule is more narrowly
confined than is the scope of general debate. Manual Sec. 948; 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5240-5256; 8 Cannon Sec. 2591. Debate on a pending amendment
must be confined to the subject of the amendment and its relation to
the bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 38.5, 38.11. This is due in
part to the language of rule XVIII clause 5, which states that a
Member is to be allowed five minutes ``to explain'' an offered
amendment. Manual Sec. 978. It has been held that remarks on the
general merits of the bill are not in order as ``explaining'' an
amendment, and remarks touching on the demerits of the bill are not in
order as opposing an amendment. 5 Hinds Sec. 5242. Nevertheless, the
Chair may accord Members latitude to put their amendment in context,
such as permitting debate on a series of amendments in the nature of a
substitute to a concurrent resolution on the budget to include
amendments not yet offered. 106-1, Mar. 25, 1999, p ____.
Relevancy in debate may be enforced even if a Member is attempting
to respond to previous extraneous remarks in debate against which no
point of order was raised. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 38.13. However, a
Member may speak to another subject by unanimous consent. This is
permitted even where the Committee of the Whole is proceeding pursuant
to the provisions of a special rule permitting only designated
amendments to be offered. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 38.17. Where a
general provisions title is pending, debate may relate to any subject
covered by the bill. Manual Sec. 948.
D. Disorder in Debate
Sec. 21 . In General
Generally
Among the oldest rules of the House are those that authorize the
Speaker to maintain order and decorum in the House (rule I clause 2)
and to call a Member to order where he has transgressed the rules of
the House ``in speaking or otherwise'' (rule XVII clause 4). This
language makes it clear that Members must not only follow all the
rules and requirements for the conduct of business in the House, but
must also observe the principles of
[[Page 395]]
decorum and courtesy in debate, as set forth in rule XVII and by
related provisions in Jefferson's Manual. Manual Sec. Sec. 353-379,
945-962.
Time consumed by proceedings incident to a call to order is not
charged against the time of the Member under recognition. 102-2, Oct.
3, 1992, p 31009.
A Member may be called to order by another Member's timely demand
that the words used be taken down and read aloud at the Clerk's desk.
The Speaker then rules whether the words or actions of the Member are
disorderly. Whether an offending Member is to be allowed to proceed in
order or is to be disciplined is determined by the House. Sec. 26,
infra.
Disorderly Acts
Decorum or comportment in the conduct and behavior of Members on
the floor of the House is governed in part by rule XVII clause 5.
Manual Sec. 962. Prohibited conduct under the rule includes:
Walking out of or across the hall while the Speaker is
addressing the House.
Passing between the Chair and a speaking Member.
Wearing a hat.
Using a wireless phone or personal computer.
Remaining by the Clerk's desk during roll calls.
Smoking.
A Member's comportment may constitute a breach of decorum even
though the content of that Member's speech is not, itself,
unparliamentary. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 41.2.
Demonstrations of approval or disapproval, such as applause, are
not a part of the proceedings of the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 41.8. While a Member has the floor, he may not request Members to
conduct a straw vote, such as showing hands or rising in support of a
certain measure. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 41.10.
The Chair may entertain a demand to clear the well in the event of
disorder therein. 88-1, Dec. 9, 1963, p 23831. Under rule II clause 3,
the Sergeant-at-Arms attends the sittings of the House and the
Committee of the Whole and maintains order under the direction of the
Speaker or Chairman. Manual Sec. 656; 1 Hinds Sec. 257. On one
occasion the Speaker requested the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist him in
maintaining decorum disrupted by a former Member. Manual Sec. 622.
Former Members may be banned from the floor for indecorous behavior as
a matter of privilege. Manual Sec. 680.
Acts of physical violence by one Member or between two Members
during or after heated debate have occurred. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1642-
1644, 1655,
[[Page 396]]
1656. Assaults or affrays in the Committee of the Whole are dealt with
by the House. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1648-1651.
Attire
The Speaker has announced as proper the customary traditional
attire for Members while in attendance in the House Chamber, including
a coat and tie for male Members and appropriate attire for female
Members. In one instance, the Speaker refused to recognize for debate
a Member in violation of the practice that Members were expected to
follow traditional standards of dress, and requested the Member in
question to remove himself from the floor and don proper attire. The
House subsequently agreed to a resolution, offered as a question of
privilege, requiring Members to wear proper attire as determined by
the Speaker, and denying noncomplying Members the privilege of the
floor. Manual Sec. 622.
Exhibits and Charts; Badges
Under rule XVII clause 6, the Chair, in his discretion, may submit
to the House the question of the use of an exhibit, such as a chart,
during debate. In addition, the Speaker's responsibility to preserve
decorum requires that he disallow the use of an exhibit in debate that
would be demeaning to the House or that would be disruptive of its
proceedings. Manual Sec. Sec. 622, 963; see Sec. 62, infra.
In recent years, Members occasionally have worn badges of various
sorts on the floor to convey political messages to their colleagues
and to the television audience. The Speaker has advised Members that
the wearing of badges on the floor while engaging in debate is
inappropriate and in contravention of rule XVII clause 1. Manual
Sec. 945.
Speaker's Announcements
On the opening day of recent Congresses, the Speaker has stressed
the importance of various rules of decorum in the House. He has
prefaced his customary announcement with a general statement
concerning decorum in the House, including adjurations against
engaging in personalities, addressing remarks to spectators, and
passing in front of the Member addressing the Chair. ``It is
essential,'' the Speaker said, ``that the dignity of the proceedings
of the House be preserved, not only to assure that the House conducts
its business in an orderly fashion but to permit Members to properly
comprehend and participate in the business of the House.'' 107-1, Jan.
3, 2001, p ____.
[[Page 397]]
Sec. 22 . Disorderly Language
Members have been censured or otherwise disciplined for the use of
disorderly words in debate, whether the words were uttered in the
House or the Committee of the Whole. Manual Sec. 960; 2 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 1254, 1259, 1305; 6 Cannon Sec. 236. A Member may likewise
be disciplined for the insertion of disorderly words in the
Congressional Record. 6 Cannon Sec. 236. Members have been cautioned
against the use of vulgarity or profanity in debate. Manual Sec. 945.
The Chair may call to order a Member engaging in or tending toward
personalities in debate or for a verbal outburst following expiration
of his time for debate. Manual Sec. Sec. 361, 622. For a discussion of
critical references to Members, see Sec. 37, infra.
The context of the debate itself must be considered in determining
whether the words objected to constitute disorderly criticism or do in
fact fall within the boundaries of appropriate parliamentary
discourse. The present-day meaning of language, the tone and intent of
the Member speaking, and the subject of his remarks, must all be taken
into account by the Speaker. There have been instances in which the
same or similar word has on one occasion been ruled permissible and on
another ruled unparliamentary. Thus the word ``damn'' has been ruled
out of order, whereas ``damnable'' has been permitted. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 43.
Sec. 23 . -- References to Senate
Generally
A well-established rule of comity prohibits certain references in
debate to the Senate or to individual Senators. Rule XVII clause 1;
Manual Sec. 945. This principle, first enunciated in Jefferson's
Manual, was strictly applied in the House for many years. Manual
Sec. 371; 5 Hinds Sec. 5095; 8 Cannon Sec. 2501. However, the rule was
modified in 1987 and again in 1989 to provide for certain references
to the Senate as follows:
(b)(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 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.
[[Page 398]]
References to the Senate or Its Proceedings
A Member is permitted to refer to the existence of the Senate and
its functions in a general and neutral way. For example, a Member may
oppose a sine die adjournment resolution on the grounds that Congress
should stay in session to complete action on specified legislation
then pending in the Senate. 5 Hinds Sec. 5115. It is appropriate to
state whether or not the Senate has acted on House-passed legislation
as long as criticism is neither stated nor implied. If references to
the Senate are appropriate, the Member delivering them is not required
to use the term ``the other body,'' and the use of the term ``Senate''
is not a per se violation of the rule of comity. Manual Sec. Sec. 371-
374.
On the other hand, it is not in order to criticize Senate actions.
5 Hinds Sec. 5114. Statements in debate questioning the intent of the
Senate with respect to legislation pending in the House remain a
violation of the rule of comity. It is a breach of order in debate to
refer to the motives of the Senate in passing certain legislation.
Manual Sec. 371. Although a Member in debate may refer to the pendency
of a House-passed bill in the Senate, it is a breach of order in
debate to refer to a House bill as ``languishing'' in the Senate.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 44.59. Furthermore, statements urging the
Senate to take action have been ruled out. Manual Sec. 371.
On one occasion, before the amendment of rule XVII (regarding
references to the Senate), the Speaker entertained a unanimous-consent
request that a Member be permitted to refer in debate to certain
Senate proceedings. 96-2, June 4, 1980, p 13212. However, the Chair
will not entertain such a request where the references would
necessarily imply criticism of the Senate, such as to respond to
remarks in the Senate that were critical of Members of the House. 8
Cannon Sec. 2519; Manual Sec. 371.
References to Individual Senators
Under rule XVII clause 1, remarks in debate may not include
references to individual Members of the Senate other than as sponsors
of measures; and the Chair enforces this principle on his own
initiative. Manual Sec. 374. Even complimentary or congratulatory
references to individual Members of the Senate are out of order.
Similarly, references to actions that might be taken by named Members
of the Senate, or Senators designated by position, are out of order.
The prohibition against such references to a Senator includes
references where the Senator is not identified by name or the
reference is to another person's criticism of a Senator. It also is a
violation of the rule to refer in debate to specific votes by
particular Senators, and the Chair also calls Members to order on his
own initiative when this occurs. Manual Sec. 371; Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 44.41. A Senator's comments
[[Page 399]]
in debate may be quoted in the House only when relevant to pending
legislation. Manual Sec. 945. The House has, by unanimous consent,
permitted tributes to a retiring Senator. Manual Sec. 371.
References to former Members of the House who are presently
Senators are permissible only if they merely address prior House
service and do not implicitly characterize Senate service. References
to Members of the Senate in their capacity as nominated candidates for
the Presidency or other office are not prohibited, but references
attacking the character or integrity of a Senator even in that context
are not in order. Manual Sec. 371.
Debate may not include references to a named Senator in his
capacity as a member of a conference committee. However, it is in
order in debate, while discussing a question involving conference
committee procedure, to state what actually occurred in a conference
committee session, without referring to or criticizing a named
Senator. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 44.10.
In 1985, a Member was called to order for referring in debate to
remarks made by a Senator during a Senate committee hearing. 99-1, May
16, 1985, p 12229. In 1986, a Member, upon being cautioned by the
Chair not to refer to a Senator in debate, obtained unanimous consent
to refer to correspondence between the Senator and a Federal official.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 44.36. Remarks during an impeachment
proceeding may not include comparisons to personal conduct of sitting
Members of the Senate. Manual Sec. 370.
Duties of the Chair
It is the duty of the Speaker to call to order a Member who
criticizes the actions of the Senate or its Members or committees.
Indeed, the Chair takes the initiative to prevent any debate in the
House that may tend to reflect improperly upon the Senate or its
Members in violation of the rule of comity and may deny an offending
Member further recognition. Manual Sec. Sec. 374, 945. Although he may
remind all Members not to make such references, he need not respond to
hypothetical questions as to the propriety of possible
characterizations of Senate actions before their use in debate. Manual
Sec. 628
Sec. 24 . -- References to the Press, Media, or Gallery
References to the Media
A Member should address his remarks to the Chair, and only the
Chair; it is not in order for a Member to address his remarks to ``the
press'' or to the ``television audience,'' including those who may be
watching by way
[[Page 400]]
of closed circuit television. The Chair enforces the rule on his own
initiative. Manual Sec. 945.
References to the Gallery
By rule of the House adopted in 1933, no Member may introduce or
refer to any occupant of the galleries of the House. Rule XVII clause
7; Manual Sec. 966. The rule is strictly enforced, and the Speaker
ordinarily intervenes on his own initiative to prevent infraction
thereof. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 45.4, 45.7. The rule may not
be suspended by permission to proceed out of order, even by unanimous
consent. Manual Sec. 966. The rule has been invoked to prevent a
Member from making references to:
An honored guest in the gallery who had exhibited ``great
heroism.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 45.1.
A Member's constituents sitting in the gallery. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 45.2.
A Federal official present in the gallery who had an interest
in the pending bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 45.3.
A ``disinterested, objective observer'' sitting in the
gallery. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 45.5.
Family members present in the gallery. 99-2, July 29, 1986, p
17956.
Sec. 25 . -- References to Executive Officials
Jefferson wrote that in Parliament it was out of order to speak
``irreverently or seditiously'' against the King. Manual Sec. 370. No
analogous constraint exists in the rules of the House. Members in
debate are permitted wide latitude in the use of language that is
critical of the President, other officials of the executive branch,
and the government itself. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5087-5091; 8 Cannon
Sec. Sec. 2499, 2500; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47. Such criticism is
considered as inherent in the exercise of legislative authority. As a
report adopted by the House in 1909 read, ``The right to legislate
involves the right to consider conditions as they are and to contrast
present conditions with those of the past or those desired in the
future. The right to correct abuses by legislation carries the right
to consider and discuss [them].'' 8 Cannon Sec. 2497. Members may
employ strong language in criticizing the government, government
agencies, and governmental policies. For example, it has been held in
order for a Member to:
Refer to the government as ``something hated, something
oppressive.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.6.
Refer to the President as ``using legislative and judicial
pork.'' 8 Cannon Sec. 2499.
Refer to a Presidential message as a ``disgrace to the
country.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5091.
[[Page 401]]
Refer to certain unnamed officials as ``our half-baked nitwits
who are handling the foreign affairs. . . .'' Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 47.3.
Refer to a Federal agency as a ``Socialist, Communist''
experiment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.4.
Refer to the government as a ``labor dictatorship.'' Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.5.
On the other hand, the rules do not permit the use of language
that is personally offensive toward the President. Manual Sec. 370; 5
Hinds Sec. 5094. For example, it is out of order to call the President
a ``liar'' or a ``hypocrite'' or to refer to accusations of sexual
misconduct. Manual Sec. 370; 8 Cannon Sec. 2498; Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 47.16. A Member may refer to political motives of the President
in debate. However, personal criticism, innuendo, ridicule, or terms
of opprobrium are not in order. 8 Cannon Sec. 2497. For example, a
Member may not in debate describe the President's veto of a bill as
``cowardly'' (Manual Sec. 370), or charge that he has been
``intellectually dishonest'' (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.15) or
refer to him as ``giving aid and comfort'' to the enemy (Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.17).
Members must abstain from personally offensive language even
during impeachment proceedings. It is not in order to refer to
evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by the President contained in
a communication from an Independent Counsel pending before a House
committee but not before the House itself. Manual Sec. 370.
The Speaker has advised that the traditional protections against
unparliamentary references to the President do not necessarily extend
to the President's family. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.18. The
Speaker enunciated a minimal standard of propriety for all debate
concerning nominated candidates for the Presidency, based on the
traditional proscription against personally offensive references to
the President even in his capacity as a candidate. Manual Sec. 370.
References in debate to the Vice President (as President of the
Senate) are governed by the standards of reference permitted toward
the President, rather than the more stringent prohibitions under rule
XVII clause 1 against references to sitting Senators. Therefore, a
Member may criticize in debate the policies or candidacy of the Vice
President but may not engage in personality. Manual Sec. 371.
Under rule XVII a Member may be called to order for alleged
unparliamentary references to the President by a demand that the words
be taken down for a ruling by the Speaker. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 49.32.
[[Page 402]]
Sec. 26 . Procedure; Calls to Order
In the House
Procedures are available under rule XVII that enable the House to
deal with disorderly words or actions by Members. A Member
transgressing the rules may be called to order by the Speaker or by
another Member. Manual Sec. 960. The Member calling him to order may
demand that the words objected to be ``taken down'' and read to the
House by the Clerk. Manual Sec. 960.
Briefly summarized, procedures available to deal with disorder
include:
Point of order raised against alleged unparliamentary
language.
Demand that words be ``taken down.''
The Chair gavels the proceedings to a halt and directs the
offending Member to take his seat.
Words taken down reported to the House by the Clerk.
Unanimous-consent request to withdraw words taken down.
Motion to allow Member to explain words taken down.
Speaker rules whether words are out of order.
Member ruled out of order must be seated and discontinue
debate.
Motion to strike (or expunge) words.
Censure or other disciplinary action by the House if (with
certain exceptions) there has been no intervening debate or
business.
Motion that the Member be allowed to proceed in order.
Not all cases involving disorderly words require the taking down
of words and other formal action by the House. In many instances, the
Chair will observe that debate is becoming personal and approaching a
violation of the rules, in which case he may simply request that
Members proceed in order. See, e.g., Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 48.1.
The Chair also may caution all Members, on his own initiative or in
response to a parliamentary inquiry, not to question the integrity or
motivation of other Members in debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 49.36. Likewise, where a Member objects to unparliamentary
remarks delivered in debate, but does not demand that the words be
taken down, it is appropriate for the Chair to sustain the point of
order and then direct the Member to proceed in order. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 49.34.
Form
Chair: For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
Member: Mr. Speaker (or Mr. Chairman), I rise to a point of order.
Chair: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Member: Mr. Speaker (or Mr. Chairman), I make the point of order
that the gentleman from __________ is __________.
[[Page 403]]
Chair: The point is well taken and the gentleman will proceed in
order.
Ordinarily, a question of personal privilege may not be based upon
language uttered in debate, the proper course being the timely demand
that words be taken down under rule XVII. Manual Sec. 708.
Sec. 27 . -- Procedure in the Committee of the Whole
A point of order may be raised against the use of disorderly
language during debate in the Committee of the Whole. The Chairman of
the Committee may respond by sustaining the point of order and
admonishing the offending Member to proceed in order. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 49.34.
The use of disorderly language in the Committee of the Whole also
is subject to a demand that the words be taken down and reported to
the House for a ruling by the Speaker. 8 Cannon Sec. 2539. The
Chairman does not rule on whether the words taken down are out of
order. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2533, 2540. There is no debate in the
Committee on the propriety of the words used. 8 Cannon Sec. 2538. The
Committee rises automatically to report the words to the House after
the words are reported by the Clerk. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1257-1259,
1348; 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2533, 2538, 2539. The business of the
Committee is suspended until the words objected to are reported to the
House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 49.42.
Form
Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole House [on the
state of the Union] having under consideration the bill H.R. ____,
certain words used in debate were objected to and on request were
taken down and read at the Clerk's desk, and I herewith report the
same to the House.
Speaker (after announcing report of Chairman): The Clerk will read
the words reported from the committee.
All of the words objected to in the Committee of the Whole should
be reported to the House. The Speaker can pass only on the words as
reported; a demand that additional words uttered in Committee be
reported is not in order in the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 50.10.
After the Speaker rules on the words objected to and the House has
disposed of any disciplinary proceedings, the Committee of the Whole
resumes its sitting without motion. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2539, 2541;
Manual Sec. 961.
Sec. 28 . -- Taking Down Words
The taking down of words objected to in debate was a practice of
the House even before the procedure became part of its formal rules in
1837. Rule XVII clause 4; Manual Sec. 960. The words taken down may
consist of
[[Page 404]]
a single phrase (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.3) or an entire colloquy
between two Members (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 49.13). The demand
should indicate the words excepted to and the identity of the Member
who uttered them. Manual Sec. 960. The objecting Member may indicate
briefly the basis for his demand, such as impugning the motives of a
colleague; but the objecting Member may not at that time debate the
grounds for a finding that the words are disorderly. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 49.18.
Ordinarily, debate on or interpretation of the words objected to
is not in order pending a ruling on them by the Speaker. Although
words objected to in debate may be withdrawn pursuant to a unanimous-
consent request, no debate is in order pending such a request.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 49.20. However, the offending Member may by
unanimous consent (or on motion by another Member) be permitted to
explain his words. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 52.16; Sec. 30, infra.
While a demand that a Member's words be taken down is pending,
that Member should be seated immediately. Manual Sec. 961. It is a
breach of decorum for a Member to ignore the Chair's gavel and his
instruction that the Member be seated. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 41.2.
The business of the House is suspended until the words are
reported to the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 49.32. During that
time the Speaker may refuse to entertain a parliamentary inquiry or a
unanimous-consent request that a Member be allowed to proceed for one
minute. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 49.14, 49.15.
Form
Member: Mr. Speaker (or Mr. Chairman), I rise to a point of order,
and ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.
Chair: The Clerk will transcribe the words.
Chair: The Clerk will report the words.
Timeliness of Demand
A demand that words be taken down is in order only if made in a
timely manner under rule XVII. Manual Sec. 960. The demand should be
made immediately after the words are uttered. Where debate has
intervened, the demand comes too late unless the objecting Member was
on his feet seeking recognition at the proper time. The Chair's
determination whether a Member's point of order constitutes a demand
that those words be ``taken down,'' is not such intervening debate or
business as to render the demand untimely. Manual Sec. 961; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2528. The Chair may not respond to a parliamentary inquiry
regarding the propriety of words pending a demand that words be taken
down or after the words have been uttered and no such demand has been
made. Manual Sec. 628.
[[Page 405]]
Taking Down Words Read From Papers
Papers read during debate are subject to a timely demand that
words be ``taken down'' as an unparliamentary reference to other
sitting Members, but the demand must be made before subsequent reading
intervenes. That certain words may already have been published
elsewhere does not make them admissible in debate, and words not
admissible in debate may not be inserted in the Congressional Record.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 83.6.
Withdrawal of Demand
Before a ruling by the Speaker, a demand in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole that words be taken down may be withdrawn by
the Member making the demand, and unanimous consent is not required.
Manual Sec. 961.
Sec. 29 . -- Withdrawal or Modification of Words
Generally; In the House
Words objected to in debate in the House may be withdrawn or
modified by unanimous consent, even after the words have been taken
down on demand and read by the Clerk. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2543, 2544;
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 51.1, 51.2.
Pending a demand that words spoken in debate be taken down and
ruled unparliamentary, the Chair may inquire whether the Member whose
remarks are challenged wishes to request unanimous consent to modify
his remarks before directing the Clerk to read them. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 51.11. However, the withdrawal of unparliamentary language may
be made even after the Speaker has ruled the language out of order or
even recognized another Member on a motion to strike the words from
the Congressional Record. 8 Cannon Sec. 2539.
The Speaker does not rule retrospectively on the propriety of
words withdrawn by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 628.
In the Committee of the Whole
A Member may withdraw or modify words objected to in the Committee
of the Whole by unanimous consent. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2528, 2538. In
one instance, two Members demanded that each other's words be taken
down and then, by unanimous consent, withdrew their remarks in the
Committee before they were reported to the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 51.5.
Deletions From the Record
Rule XVII clause 8 mandates that the Congressional Record be a
``substantially verbatim'' account of debate and permits the deletion
of unparlia
[[Page 406]]
mentary remarks only by order of the House. This clause establishes a
standard of conduct within the meaning of that provision of the rules
giving rise to the investigative jurisdiction of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.
Sec. 30 . -- Permission to Explain
Ordinarily, a Member whose words are taken down must take his seat
and may not explain his remarks pending a ruling by the Speaker.
Manual Sec. 961. However, the rules specifically provide for a motion
to allow the Member to explain, which motion may be made only by
another Member. Rule XVII clause 4; Manual Sec. 960. Moreover, the
Speaker has the discretion, before ruling on the words, to request the
Member called to order to make a brief explanation of his remarks.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 52.16.
Sec. 31 . -- Speaker's Ruling
The Speaker (or Speaker pro tempore) has the sole power to rule
whether words objected to constitute a breach of order in debate.
Manual Sec. Sec. 960, 961; 2 Hinds Sec. 1249; 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5163-
5169. This determination is made by the Speaker after the words have
been taken down (whether in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole) and have been reported by the Clerk. The question of whether
words taken down violate the rules is for the Speaker to decide and is
not debatable. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 50.7. The Chair judges the
words as read by the Clerk and not as alleged to have been uttered.
Manual Sec. 961. No Member may engage the Chair until the demand has
been disposed of. Manual Sec. 961.
The Speaker's ruling on a question of order has been appealed in
the House in numerous instances, the Speaker generally being
sustained. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5157, 5173, 5178, 5194, 5196, 5198, 5199.
Such an appeal is subject to the motion to table. Manual Sec. 629.
Also, the House may, by voting on a proper motion, dictate the
consequences of that ruling by imposing disciplinary action or by
allowing the Member to proceed in order.
The Speaker, in ruling on the words objected to, weighs the
importance of freedom in debate against the need to maintain the order
and dignity of the House. 5 Hinds Sec. 5163. The Speaker considers the
meaning of the words as well as the context in which they were used.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 50.6. Pending his ruling, the Speaker may
recognize the Member who made the statement to ask unanimous consent
to withdraw or modify the words. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 51.1,
51.2. He also may put questions to the offending Member about the
words and may consult dictionaries to de
[[Page 407]]
termine the meaning of certain words or terms. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. Sec. 50.3, 50.4.
Sec. 32 . -- Discipline; Post-Ruling Motions
Generally
Censure or other disciplinary action is a matter for the House and
not the Chair to decide. Manual Sec. 961. However, no House action is
in order until the Chair has ruled on the words objected to. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.21. If the words used are ruled to be
unparliamentary, and if such words have not been withdrawn, the House
may entertain certain motions enabling it to dispose of the breach of
order.
Striking Words From the Record
Under modern practice, words ruled out of order are normally
stricken from the Congressional Record by unanimous consent initiated
by the Chair. Manual Sec. 961. If there is an objection, a motion to
strike or expunge the words from the Record is in order. 8 Cannon
Sec. Sec. 2538, 2539; Manual Sec. 960. A motion to expunge is in order
even though the House by vote has authorized the Member to proceed.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.23. The motion, which is debatable within
narrow limits under the hour rule, is not in order until the Chair has
decided that the words are out of order. Manual Sec. 961; Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.21. The motion is not in order in the Committee of
the Whole. Manual Sec. 961.
Proceeding In Order
After a Member's words have been ruled out of order, the Member
may be permitted to proceed in order on that same day either by
unanimous consent or by motion. Manual Sec. 961. It is the practice to
test the opinion of the House by a motion ``that the gentleman be
allowed to proceed in order.'' 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5188, 5189; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2534. This motion may be stated on the initiative of the Chair.
It is debatable within narrow limits of relevance under the hour rule,
and is subject to the motion to lay on the table. Manual Sec. 961. The
motion is privileged for consideration in the House. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 51.22. A motion to strike the objectionable words also
generally precedes a proposition to permit a Member to proceed in
order. See, e.g., Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 52.7.
If a Member is not granted permission to proceed on that same day,
the Member cannot speak even on yielded time and may not insert
unspoken remarks in the Congressional Record. Manual Sec. 961; 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5147, 5196-5199. However, the Member may exercise his right
to vote or to demand the yeas and nays. 8 Cannon Sec. 2546. Whether
the Member is to be
[[Page 408]]
allowed to proceed in order or is to be subjected to censure or other
disciplinary measure is for the House to determine. Manual Sec. 960.
E. Critical References to the House, Committees, or Members
Sec. 33 . In General; Criticism of the House
Generally
In early Congresses it was held not in order to ``cast
reflections'' on the House or its membership, present or past. 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5132-5138. Today, in the interests of free and full debate
in conducting legislative deliberations, Members are permitted to
voice critical opinions of Congress, of the House, and of the
political parties. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 53. Statements that are
critical of Congress or a portion of its membership will not be ruled
out of order for that reason alone. Thus, a statement in debate
claiming that the campaign expenses of Members were paid by certain
interest groups has been held to be in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 53.1.
However, such criticism is subject to the rules and settled
practices of the House that require courtesy and decorum in debate.
Jefferson's Manual states that no one is permitted to use ``indecent
language'' in referring to the proceedings of the House. Manual
Sec. 360. The language used must not be offensive in itself. 5 Hinds
Sec. 5135. The words must be stated in such a way as to avoid personal
criticism of an individual Member. Sec. 37, infra.
Ruled In Order
Following are precedents in which criticism in debate was held
parliamentary or in order as not referring to any particular Member:
A question whether it was a parliamentary inquiry to ask that
a bill be printed in ``words of one syllable so that [Members
of the opposing party] can understand it.'' Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 53.4.
A statement that a Member was leading his party in a policy of
opportunism. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 53.5.
A statement referring to ``irresponsible actions by members of
the President's own party.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 53.2.
``[Y]ou have your definition of consistency. My definition is
that consistency is a virtue of small minds.'' Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 62.2.
A reference to Members as having praised a foreign dictator in
prior debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 60.10.
Words characterizing unnamed Members as taking ``potshots''
and as lacking judgment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.16.
[[Page 409]]
A reference to the consideration of a bill under procedures
representing ``a classic example of duplicity.'' 100-2, Apr.
19, 1988, pp 7330, 7335-39.
Ruled Out of Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
unparliamentary:
``Talk not to me of vindicating your insulted dignity. . . .
You have no dignity to vindicate.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5132.
``[T]he proceedings of the House had been such as not only to
degrade it as a body, but also to degrade the country.'' 5
Hinds Sec. 5133.
A statement declaring the opinions and decisions of the House
``damnable heresies.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5135.
A reference to ``[T]he right of the minority to stay
indefinitely the right of majority to legislate is as
disgraceful, as dishonorable. . . .'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5136.
``Drunken Members have reeled about the aisles--a disgrace to
the Republic. Drunken speakers have debated grave issues on the
floor. . . .'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5186.
A statement alleging that the Republican Conference believed
that lynching was a ``proper means of justice.'' Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 53.3.
To show the distinction between words that are permissible and
language that may be ruled out, illustrations in this chapter are
drawn from debates from earlier as well as recent Congresses. However,
precedents from earlier eras must be evaluated in their historical and
cultural context; whether a word or expression is to be ruled out of
order depends on its current meaning and usage. See Sec. 38, infra.
Sec. 34 . Criticism of Committees
A Member in debate may express general criticism of the actions of
a committee, as by alleging an abuse of its powers. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 54.1. Criticisms of committee procedure are also permitted.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.6. However, a Member may not in debate
impugn the personal motives of a committee or its members or make
unparliamentary claims of unlawful activity. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. Sec. 54.2, 54.3. Debate may not include critical
characterizations of members of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct who have investigated a Member's conduct. Manual Sec. 361.
[[Page 410]]
Ruled In Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
parliamentary:
A reference to the action of a committee as ``more or less
pusillanimous.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.7.
An editorial read by a Member charging a committee with
``pigeon-holing'' certain legislation. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 54.6.
``Did the gentleman's committee also find paid agents of
Hitler on the congressional payroll?'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 54.12.
A reference to a committee investigation of ``the recent wave
of policy lynch murder in Mississippi.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 54.9.
A statement that a Member ``has been the victim of the
abusive, vicious, and irresponsible use of the power of a
congressional committee.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.1.
Ruled Out of Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
unparliamentary:
A statement that certain fascist organizations exercised
extensive influence on a special House committee. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.3.
Language referring to ``lies and half-truths'' of a House
committee report. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.4.
``I cannot respect the actions or even the sincerity of some
of the committee members.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.5.
A reference to the Committee on Un-American Activities as
``the Un-American Committee.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.11.
Sec. 35 . Criticism of Speaker
The prescription of rule XVII clause 1 that Members confine
themselves to the question under debate, ``avoiding personality,'' has
been applied to critical references to the Speaker's personal conduct.
Manual Sec. 362. It is not in order in debate to refer invidiously to
the Speaker. 8 Cannon Sec. 2531. It also is not in order to speak
disrespectfully of him. 2 Hinds Sec. 1248. For example, it has been
held out of order to assert that he is ``kowtowing'' to persons who
would desecrate the U.S. flag or to refer to him as a ``crybaby.''
Manual Sec. 362. It is not in order in debate to refer in a personally
critical manner to his political tactics or to arraign his personal
conduct. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 57. Any complaint as to the conduct
of the Speaker should be presented directly for the action of the
House and not by way of debate on other matters, such as the approval
of the Journal. Manual Sec. 362; 5 Hinds Sec. 5188. Personal
criticisms of the Speaker can be
[[Page 411]]
challenged even after debate has intervened. 2 Hinds Sec. 1248;
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 57.7.
It is not in order in debate for a Member to charge that the
Speaker, while presiding, committed a dishonest act or that the
Speaker repudiated and ignored the rules of the House. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 57.2. In one instance, however, an assertion of a personal
belief that a sufficient number had been standing to demand a recorded
vote was held parliamentary as not necessarily charging the Chair with
disregard of the rules, in the context of those words alone. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 57.4. It is not in order to refer to official conduct
of the Speaker that is either under investigation or has been resolved
by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or by the House.
Manual Sec. 362.
If words impugning the Speaker are uttered, the Speaker may choose
not to rule on the words himself but to appoint a Member to occupy the
Chair and deliver a decision. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 57.1.
Sec. 36 . Criticism of Legislative Actions or Proposals
Generally
Although remarks in debate may not include personal attacks
against a Member or an identifiable group of Members, they may address
political motivations for legislative positions. Manual Sec. 363.
Statements in debate, although critical of House action or of the
legislation at issue, may be ruled in order if they do not improperly
reflect on the House or a particular Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 58.4. Harsh words may be used to criticize a bill unless they
fail to ``avoid personality'' as mandated by rule XVII. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 58.1. For example, although it may be appropriate in debate
to characterize the effect of an amendment as deceptive or
hypocritical, to characterize the motivation of a Member in offering
an amendment with those terms is not in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 58.12. A statement in debate that ``it is only demagoguery or
racism which impel such an amendment'' was held by the Speaker to be
unparliamentary as impugning the motives of the Member offering the
amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.6.
[[Page 412]]
Ruled In Order
Criticisms of legislative actions or proposals or political
motivations that have been held in order in debate include:
A statement that ``sinister influences'' were working in the
interest of certain unnamed Members opposing a bill. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.9.
A statement accusing unnamed colleagues who opposed a measure
of talking ``loosely and recklessly with the truth.'' Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.8.
A statement accusing unnamed Members of attempting to ``cut
off debate'' on important legislation in order to attend an
engagement at a hotel. 78-2, Feb. 3, 1944, p 1216.
A statement that all lawyers know ``that the adoption of this
language neither adds to nor takes from a single item of the
substance of this bill.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.3.
A reference accusing unnamed opponents of a proposal of
``blind,'' ``slavish,'' and ``shameful'' opposition. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.7.
A reference to an amendment ``where I come from . . . the
people . . . do not like slippery, snide, and sharp
practices.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.5.
A statement referring to a tactic of ``withholding'' votes
until it could be determined whether they would be necessary on
the pending question. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.10.
A statement that a Member ``has already admitted his amendment
does not make sense, and he will take any alternative that is
offered.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.4.
Sec. 37 . Critical References to Members
Jefferson stressed the importance of preserving ``order, decency
and regularity . . . in a dignified public body.'' Manual Sec. 285.
The House rules provide that a Member must confine himself to the
question under debate, ``avoiding personality.'' Rule XVII. The Chair
may interrupt a Member engaging in ``personalities'' with respect to a
fellow Member just as he would with respect to improper references to
the Senate or the President. However, under modern practice the Chair
normally awaits a point of order from the floor with respect to
references to other Members. Manual Sec. 961. The Chair may announce
his intention to take the initiative in calling Members to order
during debate on disciplinary resolutions. Manual Sec. 361.
The Speaker will hold language unparliamentary where it improperly
reflects on another Member under rule XVII. Manual Sec. 361. A Member
may not in debate impugn the personal motives of another Member
(Sec. 39, infra), charge him with falsehood or deception (Sec. 40,
infra), or denigrate his intelligence (Sec. 41, infra). It also is not
in order in debate to refer in a personally
[[Page 413]]
critical manner to the political tactics of a Member. Manual Sec. 361.
The truth of allegations involving unethical behavior of a Member is
not a defense to a point of order that the remarks are unparliamentary
as engaging in personalities explicitly or by innuendo. 104-1, Jan.
18, 1995, p 1444. On the other hand, it is recognized that free and
full debate is necessary in conducting legislative business, and a
Member is allowed considerable latitude in criticizing the position,
arguments, or contentions of another Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 59.2; Sec. 36, supra.
It is not in order during debate to refer to a particular Member
of the House in a derogatory fashion, even though that Member is not
named, and the Chair may intervene to prevent improper reference where
it is evident that a particular Member is being described. Manual
Sec. 361. In one instance, after a Member had expressed an absence of
``good faith on the other side,'' he was granted unanimous consent to
withdraw any reference to any individual Member. 100-1, June 18, 1987,
pp 16761-63.
Members should refrain from references in debate to the official
conduct of other Members where such conduct is not under consideration
in the House by way of a report of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct or as a question of the privileges of the House.
Manual Sec. 361.
The rule requiring Members to avoid ``personality'' during debate
prohibits reference to newspaper accounts whose criticism of a sitting
Member would be unparliamentary if uttered on the floor as the
Member's own words. Manual Sec. 361.
It is not unparliamentary to describe in debate the effect that a
Member's remarks may have, especially where that description includes
a disclaimer disavowing any intention to impugn a Member's motives.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.8.
Ruled In Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
parliamentary:
A statement that if a certain Member were to sponsor a measure
it would receive only one or two votes. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 58.2.
A reference to another Member's remarks as ``yapping.''
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.13.
A statement accusing a Member of trying ``to becloud'' an
issue. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.1.
A reference in debate to another Member as not representing a
certain class of people in his State. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 60.7.
A reference to another Member's statement as ``intemperate.''
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.5.
[[Page 414]]
A description of a Member's statement that ``this is an
example of the spurious reasoning that [an interest group] has
with regard to their opposition to this bill.'' Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 43.2.
A Member's statement that another Member's demand that words
be taken down during a special-order speech was ``an unfair
stealing of time.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.10.
A Member's assertion that ``even though that may not be the
intention, I think [certain statements] have the tendency to
try to assassinate the character of the person making the
statement rather than to effectively assassinate the
argument.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.8.
A Member's general reference that ``big donors'' receive
``access to leadership power and decisions'' because it does
not identify a specific Member as receiving a contribution
specifically in exchange for votes or other legislative action.
Manual Sec. 361.
Ruled Out of Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
unparliamentary:
A reference to the remarks of another Member as ``malignant
shafts'' or as a ``base insinuation.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5162.
A reference to another Member as a ``snooper.'' Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 61.11.
``The gentleman took the floor in his self-appointed role as
spokesman for the committee [and] referred to me in my absence
in a disgraceful and unparliamentary manner.'' Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 59.3.
Referring to another Member as a demagogue or as a ``president
of the Demagogue Club.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 60.3,
60.4.
``[D]on't you start comparing anybody's record, because I have
got yours . . . with . . . the FBI.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 60.24.
A reference to another Member as a ``pinko.'' Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 61.9.
A reference to an identifiable group of sitting Members as the
perpetrators of a crime, such as ``stealing an election.''
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 60.22.
A reference suggesting that another Member ``did not have the
nerve'' to make a statement on the floor. 104-2, July 25, 1996,
p 19170.
Sec. 38 . -- Use of Colloquialisms; Sarcasm
The Members are allowed considerable latitude in the use of
colloquialisms, euphemisms, figures of speech, and even sarcastic
comments in debate. A statement in debate that ``you are going to skin
us'' was held merely a colloquialism that did not reflect on any
Member and was held in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.10. In
another instance, a Member used the word ``crime'' in referring to
another Member, but the Chair ruled the term
[[Page 415]]
in order, finding that in the context of the debate, the term was
being used as a synonym for, or figure of, speech meaning ``wrong.''
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.2. A statement in debate ``[h]ere is the
answer, if the gentleman can understand English'' also was held in
order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 64.1.
The use in debate of colloquial expressions, figures of speech, or
sarcasm is governed by their current meaning and by the context in
which they are uttered. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5165, 5167. An
unparliamentary reference to another Member in debate is subject to a
point of order, even if it is veiled as a satiric compliment. 5 Hinds
Sec. 5168. The tone and mannerisms of a Member may be taken into
account by the Chair in determining whether the criticism voiced is
personally offensive to another Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 60.21.
Ruled Out of Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
unparliamentary:
A reference to another Member ``whose name is synonomous [sic]
with falsehood . . . who is the apologist of thieves; who is
such a prodigy of vice and meannesses that to describe him
would sicken imagination and exhaust invective.'' 2 Hinds
Sec. 1251.
``[N]obody but a gambler or cutthroat would have thought of
tacking such a thing as that to such a bill as this.'' 2 Hinds
Sec. 1258.
``The devotion of the gentleman . . . to the truth is so
notorious that I shall not reply.'' 8 Cannon Sec. 2545.
A reference to another Member as a ``stool pigeon.'' Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.12.
References to a Member as having a ``hand like a ham,''
grasping a microphone until it ``groaned from mad torture,''
and striding the House floor ``like a wild man.'' Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.1.
A reference to another Member's proceeding in a ``cheap,
sneaky, sly way.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.2.
Sec. 39 . -- Impugning Motives
In the early practice of the House, the Speaker intervened in
debate to prevent even the mildest imputation on the motives of a
Member. 5 Hinds Sec. 5161. It is still the rule that Members may not
in debate impugn the personal motives of other named Members in the
performance of their legislative duties. Manual Sec. 363. An opinion
on the general motives of the House or a political party in adopting
or rejecting a proposition may be expressed. Sec. 36, supra.
References to political motivation for legislative actions may be in
order. Manual Sec. 363. However, an assertion that a Member's use of
the
[[Page 416]]
legislative process is motivated by personal gain (5 Hinds Sec. 5149)
or by ``the prospect of a junketing trip'' (8 Cannon Sec. 2546) is not
in order. Merely to question the sincerity of a Member has been held
to impugn his motives. 5 Hinds Sec. 5148.
Members should refrain from references in debate to the
motivations of Members who file complaints before the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct. Manual Sec. 363.
Ruled Out of Order
Charging another Member, in his capacity as custodian of
certain public money, with ``[m]aking a parade of his charity,
he has been gorging himself and speculating with this money.''
5 Hinds Sec. 5152.
Characterizing the motivation of a Member in offering an
amendment as deceptive and hypocritical. Manual Sec. 363.
An observation that a Member stood in the well before an empty
House and challenged the Americanism of other Members, ``and it
is the lowest thing that I have ever seen in my 32 years in
Congress.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.9.
An observation that a Member was ``one of the most impolite I
have ever seen.'' Manual Sec. 361.
Characterizing another Member as ``speaking out of both sides
of his mouth.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.36.
A reference to an identifiable group of sitting Members as the
perpetrators of a crime, such as ``stealing an election.''
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 60.22.
Sec. 40 . -- Charging Falsehood or Deception
During debate on the floor, an assertion by one Member may be
declared untrue by another. However, in so doing, an accusation of
intentional misrepresentation must not be implied. Manual Sec. 363; 5
Hinds Sec. Sec. 5157, 5159, 5189; 8 Cannon Sec. 2542. Any term or
language implying a deliberate misstatement of the truth, for whatever
motive, is unparliamentary, including allegations of lying, slander,
or hypocrisy. A Member's expression of disbelief may be construed as
meaning that the Member referred to was merely mistaken in his
conclusions. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.3. In one instance, a
Member's statement in referring to another Member that ``That is not
true, and he knows it,'' was held in order, the Speaker observing that
the words were not uttered in an offensive tone. 5 Hinds Sec. 5158.
A Member may refer to falsehoods in the media without violating
the rules of the House, even though his remarks are made during debate
with another Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.2.
[[Page 417]]
Ruled In Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
parliamentary:
A Member's statement that he did ``not believe a word that
[another Member] said.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.3.
A statement referring to another Member ``when he comes here
to defend some slime-monger who goes on the radio and lies
about me. . . .'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.2.
``Let us be sincere and honest about this thing.'' 78-2, Jan.
21, 1944, p 560.
Ruled Out of Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
unparliamentary:
A Member's declaration that the words of another Member were
``a base lie.'' 2 Hinds Sec. 1249.
The use of the words ``grossly false,'' as applied to
statements made by another Member in a pamphlet published by
him during a recess of Congress. 5 Hinds Sec. 5157.
``I cannot believe that the gentleman . . . is sincere in what
he has just said.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.7.
A statement that the remarks of a Member were ``false and
slanderous.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.4.
A statement in referring to another Member that ``pretexts are
never wanting when hypocrisy wishes to add malice to falsehood
or cowardice. . . .'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.6.
``I cannot respect the actions or even the sincerity of some
of the committee members.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.5.
Language read in the House that repudiated ``lies and half-
truths'' in a House committee report. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 63.5.
Use of the word ``canard''--meaning falsehood--in referring to
the statement of another Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 63.1.
Words accusing another Member of hypocrisy. Manual Sec. 363.
Sec. 41 . -- Lack of Intelligence or Knowledge
A Member in debate may be critical of the understanding or
knowledge of other Members or groups of Members in relation to pending
bills or amendments. However, such remarks should not denigrate the
intelligence of another Member because this would be personally
critical and offensive. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 64. The Speaker has
ruled that questioning a Member's ability to ``understand English''
was not unparliamentary. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 64.1.
[[Page 418]]
Sec. 42 . -- References to Race, Creed, or Racial Prejudice
Gratuitous references in debate to the race or religion of another
Member are not in order. A reference to ``the Jewish gentleman from
New York,'' for example, has been ruled out by the Speaker. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 65.4.
It is not in order in debate to accuse a Member of bigotry or
racism. Remarks characterizing the motives behind certain legislation
as ``demagogic and racist'' have been ruled out of order, as has a
reference to another Member as having reached ``bigoted'' conclusions.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 65.5, 65.6.
Sec. 43 . -- Charges Relating to Loyalty or Patriotism
Unless the subject is relevant to disciplinary proceedings then
pending as the question before the House against a Member, remarks in
debate impugning the patriotism or loyalty of a Member are not in
order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66. Words impeaching the loyalty of a
portion of the membership also have been ruled out. 5 Hinds Sec. 5139.
However, if such language is directed at the House or at its
membership in general, the remarks may not be improper. See Sec. 33,
supra.
Ruled In Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
parliamentary:
A statement referring to all opponents of the Committee on Un-
American Activities as communist enemies. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 66.2.
A statement that another Member had been published in a
newspaper ``dedicated to the destruction of this Government.''
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.10.
A statement referring to (unnamed) Members who give ``aid and
comfort'' to enemies and traitors. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 66.3.
A statement referring to ``people'' who would rip down the
American flag and replace it with the Soviet flag. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.5.
A statement characterizing the Committee of the Whole as an
agency of the Soviet Union. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.11.
A statement accusing another Member of past opposition to
``every bill necessary for the defense of our country.''
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 62.5.
[[Page 419]]
Ruled Out of Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
unparliamentary:
A statement that insertions in the Congressional Record by
another Member were taken from ``Nazi elements.'' Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.6.
A statement by a Member that internal fascist organizations
exercised extensive influence over a special House committee.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.7.
A statement, in response to critical comments by another
Member, that ``I am not going to sit here and listen to these
communistic attacks made on me.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 66.1.
``There is nothing more subversive than the kind of red
baiting tactics [of] the gentleman from __________.'' Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.8.
A statement referring to another Member as attempting to
undermine the government. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.9.
A reference to the Committee on Un-American Activities as
``the Un-American Committee.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.12.
A reference to certain Members as ``apostles of doom'' whose
utterances would give ``great aid and comfort'' to the Soviet
Union. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.4.
A reference to another Member as ``kowtowing'' to persons who
would desecrate the flag. Manual Sec. 362.
F. Duration of Debate in House
Sec. 44 . In General
Limitations on Time for Debate
Before 1841, there was no limit on the time that a Member might
occupy once in possession of the floor. 5 Hinds Sec. 5221. Under the
modern practice, the duration of debate in the House is invariably
limited. Such limitations are imposed pursuant to the standing rules
of the House, special rules from the Committee on Rules, and
unanimous-consent agreements adopted by the House. Certain types of
legislative propositions, such as concurrent resolutions on the
budget, are subject to statutory time limitations. Sec. 48, infra.
On major bills, a special rule typically specifies the length of
time for general debate--usually a number of hours--and identifies the
Members who are to control that time. Sec. 48, infra. Such time limits
also may be imposed pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 67. If a bill or resolution comes to the
House floor without such a time limit, rule XVII clause 2 applies to
limit the time for debate to one hour.
[[Page 420]]
Manual Sec. 957. A Member calling up a measure in the House pursuant
to a unanimous-consent request or special rule that does not specify
time for debate controls one hour of debate thereon. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 68.
Other limitations on the duration of debate are found in those
standing rules of the House that authorize specific motions, such as
the motion to suspend the rules for which debate is limited to 40
minutes under rule XV clause 1(c). Manual Sec. 891. For a discussion
of 40-minute debate, see Sec. 46, infra.
Discretion of Chair as Affecting Time for Debate
On certain incidental questions of order, the duration of debate
is within the discretion of the Chair. This practice is followed with
respect to:
Debate on points of order. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 6919, 6920; 8
Cannon Sec. Sec. 3446-3448; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 67.3.
Debate under the five-minute rule on an appeal in the
Committee of the Whole. 8 Cannon Sec. 2347.
Timekeeping
The Chair monitors the time of Members who take the floor in
debate. The Chair announces when their time has expired under the
rules, and that announcement is not subject to challenge. See, e.g.,
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 67.1. For a discussion of extensions of
time, see Sec. 48, infra.
Sec. 45 . The Hour Rule
Rule XVII clause 2 limits to one hour the amount of time that a
Member may occupy in debate on a pending question. Manual Sec. 957.
However, no Member may address the House for more than one hour, even
by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 68.3, 68.73;
Sec. 48, infra.
The practice under the hour rule often serves to limit the total
time for debate on the measure itself to one hour. This is because, at
the conclusion of the controlling Member's hour, ordering the previous
question cuts off further debate. Manual Sec. 994. If the Member
controlling the hour successfully moves the previous question, all
debate is terminated and the measure is voted on by the House.
If the House rejects the previous question, the measure is then
open to further debate. Recognition passes to an opponent of the
measure, who may offer an amendment and be recognized for one hour.
See Previous Question. A Member recognized under the hour rule 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. Manual Sec. 957.
[[Page 421]]
The hour rule is one of general applicability; it is often
overtaken by an order of the House or a special rule from the
Committee on Rules, nor is it applicable where another rule of the
House specifies otherwise. The hour rule applies to the following:
A resolution presenting a question of the privileges of the
House, subject to the division of time specified in rule IX.
Manual Sec. 698.
A resolution reported as a question of the privileges of the
House, such as a resolution presenting impeachment charges.
Manual Sec. 699.
A question of personal privilege. Manual Sec. 713.
A privileged resolution reported from committee, such as a
rule, joint rule, or order of business reported from the
Committee on Rules or a committee funding resolution reported
from the Committee on House Administration. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. Sec. 68.32, 68.37.
A resolution of inquiry. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.33.
A District of Columbia bill on the House Calendar called up on
District Day under rule XV clause 4. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 68.5.
A private bill called up in the House by unanimous consent.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.9.
A measure not requiring consideration in the Committee of the
Whole before the House pursuant to a motion to discharge.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.34.
A motion to refer, or the direct consideration of, a vetoed
bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 68.55, 68.56.
A motion to reconsider (if debatable). Manual Sec. 1010.
A motion to discharge a committee from further consideration
of a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.64.
A motion to expunge from the Congressional Record certain
remarks used in debate and ruled out of order. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 68.61.
A motion to send a bill to conference under rule XXII clause
1. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.26.
A motion to instruct House managers at a conference, subject
to the division of time specified in rule XXII clause 7(b).
Manual Sec. 1078.
A conference report or a motion to dispose of a Senate
amendment reported in disagreement by a conference committee,
subject to the division of time specified in rule XXII clause
8(d). Manual Sec. 1086.
A preferential motion to insist on disagreement to a Senate
amendment reported in disagreement by a conference committee,
subject to the division of time specified in rule XXII clause
8(b)(3). Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.12.
A Senate amendment considered in the House. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 68.12.
A bill called up from the Corrections Calendar. Manual
Sec. 898.
The hour rule applies even before the adoption of the rules at the
inception of a Congress. Manual Sec. 60. Thus, a Member offering a
resolution on
[[Page 422]]
the seating of a Member-elect is entitled to one hour of debate.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.1
Sec. 46 . Ten-minute, 20-minute, and 40-minute Debate
The House rules specify fixed periods of time for debate, equally
divided between the proponents and opponents, on certain motions and
questions.
Ten-minute Debate
The House rules permit the proponent and an opponent each five
minutes of time for debate on an amendment offered after closing of
general debate in the Committee of the Whole, subject to additional
pro forma or second-degree amendments. Similarly, 10 minutes for
debate is permitted on an amendment offered after the closing of five-
minute debate by the Committee under rule XVIII clause 8 if printed as
required in the Congressional Record and if not dilatory. Manual
Sec. Sec. 978, 981, 987.
In addition, the House rules permit five minutes in support and
five minutes in opposition to the following motions:
A motion to recommit with instructions a bill or joint
resolution under rule XIX clause 2, with the time subject to
extension under some circumstances. Manual Sec. 1001.
A motion to dispense with the call of the Private Calendar
under rule XV clause 5(c). Manual Sec. 895.
A motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business under
rule XV clause 7. Manual Sec. 900.
Twenty-minute Debate
The House rules permit 20 minutes of time for debate on motions to
discharge a committee, the time to be equally divided under rule XV
clause 2. Manual Sec. 892. The right to close such debate is reserved
to the proponents of the motion. 7 Cannon Sec. 1010a. The chairman of
the committee being discharged, if opposed to the motion, is
recognized to control the 10 minutes in opposition. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 69.3. If the motion to discharge is successful, and the
measure is properly before the House rather than the Committee of the
Whole, the Member moving its consideration is recognized in the House
under the hour rule. Manual Sec. 892.
Twenty minutes of debate also is permitted where a point of order
is raised against an unfunded Federal intergovernmental mandate under
section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act. Manual Sec. 1127. Points
of order under the Act are disposed of by putting the question of
consideration, debatable
[[Page 423]]
for 20 minutes--10 by the Member making the point of order, 10 by a
Member in opposition. Sec. 426(b)(4) of the Congressional Budget Act.
Forty-minute Debate
The House rules permit 40 minutes of time for debate, to be
divided between proponents and opponents, on the following:
A motion to suspend the rules under rule XV clause 1. Manual
Sec. 891.
A debatable proposition on which there has been no debate
before the ordering of the previous question under rule XIX
clause 1. Manual Sec. 994; 5 Hinds Sec. 6821.
A motion to reject certain portions of a conference report or
Senate amendment objected to as nongermane under rule XXII
clause 10. Manual Sec. 1089.
Other chapters in this work dealing with specific motions and
questions should be consulted. See, e.g., Previous Question;
Conferences Between the Houses; and Suspension of Rules.
Sec. 47 . Debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole
Debate on a bill being considered in the House as in the Committee
of the Whole is under the five-minute rule, with no general debate.
Manual Sec. Sec. 424-427. Five minutes in favor of and five in
opposition to an amendment are permitted. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 70.7. Members also may gain five minutes of debate by offering
pro forma amendments and motions to strike the enacting clause.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 70.11, 70.12.
Normally, five-minute debate on a bill considered in the House as
in the Committee of the Whole may be extended by unanimous consent.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 70.6. However, the Chair does not recognize
for such extensions of time during consideration of a private bill in
the House as in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 70.10.
Sec. 48 . Limiting or Extending Time for Debate
Generally
The House may by unanimous consent or by special rule limit or
extend the time for debate on propositions considered in the House.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71. However, a motion to extend the time for
debate in the House is not in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 73.17.
By Special Rule
A special rule from the Committee on Rules may extend the time for
debate that may be devoted to a proposition to be considered in the
House.
[[Page 424]]
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.1. It may specify, for example, that
debate shall not exceed a certain number of hours. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 25.17. Similarly, though conference reports are ordinarily
considered under the hour rule, a special rule may provide for more
extended debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.18.
By Unanimous Consent
Time for debate in the House under the hour rule may be modified
by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71. For example, by
unanimous consent, debate has been extended on a resolution presenting
articles of impeachment (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.13) and on a
disciplinary resolution (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.6; 107-2, July
24, 2002, p ____).
Debate on a privileged resolution in the House is ordinarily under
the hour rule, but such debate may be extended beyond one hour by
unanimous consent or by rejecting the motion for the previous
question. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 68.41, 68.42; Sec. 49, infra.
Thus, the House may agree to a unanimous-consent request to extend the
time for the debate in the House on a special rule reported from the
Committee on Rules. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.4.
Unanimous-consent agreements extending time may further provide
for a division of time between various Members. However, a Member may
not extend a special-order speech (or debate on a question of personal
privilege) for more than one hour, even by unanimous consent. Manual
Sec. 957; Deschler Ch 11 Sec. 22.1; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.20.
Effect of Statutory Time Limitations
Time for debate on certain kinds of legislative propositions is
limited by statute. Manual Sec. 1130. Examples include:
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (limits debate on concurrent
resolutions on the budget to 10 hours; specifies up to four
hours for debate on economic goals and policies; amendments
considered under five-minute rule). Sec. 305(a); 2 USC
Sec. 636.
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (limits debate on rescission
bill or impoundment resolution to not more than two hours).
Sec. 1017(c); 2 USC Sec. 688.
Trade Act of 1974 (limits debate on implementing bills and
certain resolutions to 20 hours). 19 USC Sec. 2191.
Pension Reform Act (limits debate on joint resolutions
approving certain schedules to not more than 10 hours).
Sec. 4006(b)(6); 29 USC Sec. 1306(b).
Marine Fisheries Conservation Act (limits debate on fishery
agreement resolutions to not more than 10 hours).
Sec. 203(d)(4); 16 USC Sec. 1823(d).
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (limits debate on certain
resolutions of approval to not more than two hours).
Sec. 115(e)(4); 42 USC Sec. 10135(e).
[[Page 425]]
Such statutory provisions (compiled in Manual Sec. 1130) are
enacted as an exercise of the rule-making power of both Houses, with
full recognition of the ability of either House to change them at any
time. In one instance, the Committee of the Whole was considering a
resolution disapproving a reorganization plan pursuant to the
Reorganization Act of 1949, which limited time for debate to 10 hours.
The House agreed by unanimous consent to limit debate in the Committee
to five hours and subsequently consented to limit further debate to 30
minutes. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.7.
Sec. 49 . Terminating Debate
The usual motion for closing debate in the House (as distinguished
from the Committee of the Whole) is the motion for the previous
question under rule XIX. Manual Sec. 994; 5 Hinds Sec. 5456; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2662. This motion also is used to close debate in the House as in
the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 72.7. The Member
controlling debate on a proposition in the House may move the previous
question and (if ordered by the House) thereby terminate further
debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 72.2. However, the House may by
unanimous consent vacate the ordering of the previous question in
order to extend debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 72.4. If the
previous question is ordered on a debatable proposition, and that
proposition has not in fact been debated, then, under rule XIX clause
1, 40 minutes of debate is permitted. Manual Sec. 994; 5 Hinds
Sec. 6821; 8 Cannon Sec. 2689.
Other methods of terminating or precluding debate in the House
include the use of the motion to lay on the table and the raising of
the question of consideration. For a discussion of such methods, see
Previous Question, Lay on the Table, and Question of Consideration.
Sec. 50 . One-minute and Special-order Speeches; Morning-hour Debates
Generally
The ability of Members to address matters not on the daily
legislative agenda is facilitated by allowing ``one-minute speeches''
and ``special-order speeches.'' Neither procedure is specifically
provided for in the standing rules. Their use is permitted by a long-
standing custom regarded as beneficial to the democratic processes of
the House and is based on the Speaker's discretionary power of
recognition under rule XVII clause 2. Manual Sec. 950.
[[Page 426]]
One-minute Speeches
The practice of limiting recognition before legislative business
to one minute began on August 2, 1937 and was reiterated by Speaker
Rayburn on March 6, 1945. 75-1, Aug. 2, 1937, p 8004; Deschler Ch 21
Sec. 6.1. One-minute speeches are normally entertained at the
beginning of the legislative day, although the Speaker has discretion
to recognize Members to proceed for one minute after legislative
business has been completed or at some other time or place in the
legislative day (for example, to follow a scheduled recess). Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 73.6. Indeed, when the House has a heavy legislative
schedule, the Speaker may refuse all requests to recognize Members for
one-minute speeches. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 73.5. More commonly,
the Speaker limits one-minute speeches to a certain number for each
side of the aisle, entertaining any remaining requests at the end of
legislative business before special-order speeches.
The evaluation of the time consumed on a one-minute speech is a
matter for the Chair and is not subject to challenge on a point of
order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 73.3. He has refused to put to the
House unanimous-consent requests for extensions of that time.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 73.10. Moreover, under the Speaker's power
of recognition as traditionally exercised before legislative business,
a Member can be recognized for a one-minute speech only once, and a
second unanimous-consent request on that day will not be entertained.
Manual Sec. 950.
The order of recognition for one-minute speeches before
legislative business is within the discretion of the Chair and is not
subject to challenge on a point of order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 10.55. However, the Chair endeavors to recognize majority and
then minority members by allocating time in a nonpartisan manner.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 10.50. In 1984, the Speaker instituted the
policy of requiring alternate recognition of majority and minority
members in the order in which they seek recognition. Manual Sec. 950.
Morning-hour Debates
Morning-hour debates were first initiated in the second session of
the 103d Congress. The House by unanimous consent agreed that on
Mondays and Tuesdays the House would convene 90 minutes earlier than
the time otherwise established by order of the House, solely for the
purpose of conducting morning-hour debates, to be followed by a recess
declared by the Speaker. In the 104th Congress, the House extended and
modified that order to accommodate earlier convening times after May
14 of each year. Debate was limited and allocated to each party, with
initial and subsequent recognition alternating daily between parties
pursuant to lists submitted by the lead
[[Page 427]]
ership. Under the customary order of the House establishing morning-
hour debate, a Member may not be recognized for more than five
minutes. The Chair does not entertain a unanimous-consent request to
extend this five-minute period. Manual Sec. 951.
Special-order Speeches
The Chair normally recognizes Members for special orders to
address the House at the conclusion of business of the day. The
Speaker may reserve the right to return to business. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 10.69. Under rule XVII clause 2, no Member may be recognized
beyond one hour, even by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 957.
Furthermore, a Member may not be recognized for two special-order
speeches on the same legislative day, even though special orders have
been interrupted by legislative business. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 73.15.
The Speaker has announced the following policies for recognition
of special-order speeches:
Recognition alternates between majority and minority members.
Recognition for special-order speeches of five minutes or
less, which are obtained by unanimous consent no earlier than
one week in advance, before longer speeches.
Recognition for longer speeches only pursuant to lists
submitted by the leadership rather than by separate permission
of the House.
Recognition does not extend beyond midnight.
Recognition for speeches longer than five minutes is limited
(except on Tuesday) to four hours equally divided between the
majority and minority.
The first hour for each party is reserved to its respective
Leader or his designees.
The first recognition within a category alternates between the
parties from day to day, regardless of when requests were
granted.
The respective Leaders may establish additional guidelines for
entering requests.
Manual Sec. 950.
The Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent request to extend
a special order beyond midnight. The Chair will recognize for
subdivisions of the first hour reserved for special orders only on
designations (and reallocations) by the leadership concerned. 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. Manual Sec. 950.
[[Page 428]]
G. Duration of Debate in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 51 . In General; Effect of Special Rules
At one time, there was no limit on the time that a Member might
occupy in debate in the Committee of the Whole when once in possession
of the floor. A Member might speak an unlimited time, whether in
general debate or on an amendment. 5 Hinds Sec. 5221. Today time
limitations on general debate are imposed on measures by unanimous
consent or special rule. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 74. In the unlikely
event a measure is considered in the Committee of the Whole without
fixing the time for general debate, each Member may be recognized for
one hour. Sec. 52, infra.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole monitors the time used
by each Member for debate and announces the expiration thereof.
Sec. 52 . General Debate
The duration and allocation of time for general debate in the
Committee of the Whole is controlled by the House; and the Committee
may not, even by unanimous consent, extend the time for general debate
fixed by the House. Manual Sec. 993; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 75.7.
The House establishes such time for general debate through the
adoption of a unanimous-consent agreement or the adoption of a special
rule from the Committee on Rules. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 74.
If the House does not limit the time for general debate in the
Committee of the Whole, such debate is under the hour rule. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 75.1. A Member having control of such time may not
consume more than one hour. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 75.5.
Normally, the House order limiting time for general debate in the
Committee of the Whole also will divide the control of the time
between certain Members, such as the chairman of the reporting
committee and its ranking minority member. Although under the special
rule a Member may have control of more than one hour of general debate
on a bill in the Committee, he may not, under the general rules of the
House, yield himself more than one hour for debate. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 74.4. It also is not in order for a Member to whom time has
been yielded to ask unanimous consent for additional time, for time is
controlled by those to whom it is allotted by the House and is not
subject to extension by the Committee. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 75.8.
The Committee of the Whole may not, even by unanimous consent,
change the control of general debate to Members other than those
specified by the House. However, unanimous consent has been permitted
in the Com
[[Page 429]]
mittee to permit one of two committees controlling time under a
special order to yield control of its time to the other. Manual
Sec. 993.
Effect of Absence of Members in Control
Where no member of the reporting committee is present at the
appropriate time during general debate in the Committee of the Whole,
the Chair may presume the time to have been yielded back. Manual
Sec. 979.
Sec. 53 . Limiting General Debate
By Unanimous Consent in the House
Pending a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole, the
House may by unanimous consent limit general debate to a time certain.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 76.8. If objection is raised to the
unanimous-consent request, the Speaker puts the question on the
initial motion to go into the Committee. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 3.5.
By Motion in the House
After unlimited general debate has begun in the Committee of the
Whole and the Committee rises, a motion in the House to close or limit
further general debate is in order. Manual Sec. 979; 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5204-5206. The motion is not in order until after debate in
the Committee has begun and is made in the House pending the motion
that the House resolve itself into Committee for further consideration
of the bill, and not after the House has voted to go into Committee. 5
Hinds Sec. Sec. 5204, 5208. The motion may not apply to a series of
bills, and the motion must apply to the whole and not to a part of a
bill. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5207, 5209. The motion may not be made in the
Committee. 5 Hinds Sec. 5217; 8 Cannon Sec. 2548.
By Unanimous Consent in the Committee
Although the motion to close general debate is not in order in the
Committee of the Whole, the Committee may, in the absence of an order
of the House, close debate by unanimous consent. 8 Cannon
Sec. Sec. 2553, 2554.
Although a bill is being considered in the Committee of the Whole
under a special rule specifying the time for general debate, the
managers of the bill need not use all of the prescribed time. The
Members in control of the time are permitted to yield it back and
thereby shorten general debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 76.1.
[[Page 430]]
Sec. 54 . Five-minute Debate
Generally
When general debate is closed in the Committee of the Whole,
debate on amendments proceeds under the five-minute rule. Rule XVIII
clause 5, which provides:
When general debate is concluded or closed by order of the House,
the measure under consideration shall be read for amendment. A
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who offers an amendment
shall be allowed five minutes to explain it, after which the Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who shall first obtain the floor
shall be allowed five minutes to speak in opposition to it. There
shall be no further debate thereon, but the same privilege of debate
shall be allowed in favor of and against any amendment that may be
offered to an amendment.
Under this rule the proponent of an amendment is entitled to five
minutes of debate in favor of the amendment before a perfecting
amendment may be offered thereto. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 30.20. If,
after a speech in favor of an amendment, no one claims the floor in
opposition, the Chairman may recognize another Member favoring the
amendment. 8 Cannon Sec. 2557.
Speaking More Than Once
Generally, a Member may speak only once for five minutes on a
pending amendment, although a point of order under this rule comes too
late after that Member has been recognized and has begun to speak. 92-
1, June 9, 1971, p 18988. Even when the Committee of the Whole resumes
consideration of an amendment that has been debated by its proponent
on a prior day, the proponent may speak again for five minutes on his
amendment only by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 980. A Member
recognized for five minutes on an amendment may not extend his time by
offering another amendment. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2560, 2562. However, a
Member who has offered an amendment and spoken thereon is not
precluded from seeking recognition to speak to a proposed amendment to
his amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 21.16. Where there is pending
an amendment and a substitute therefor, the Member offering the
substitute may debate it for five minutes and subsequently be
recognized to speak for or against the original amendment. Moreover,
if debate on the pending amendment is limited, the five-minute rule is
abrogated and Members who have already spoken on an amendment may be
recognized again under the limitation. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 22.9.
[[Page 431]]
Precluding Amendments; Effect of Special Rules
The House, and not the Committee of the Whole, controls the extent
to which the offering of amendments may be precluded under the five-
minute rule. The Committee cannot, even by unanimous consent, prohibit
the offering of amendments otherwise in order under the rule. Manual
Sec. 993.
A special rule or order of the House providing for the
consideration of a bill may preclude the offering of amendments under
the five-minute rule. For example, if a special rule permits only
designated amendments and prohibits amendments to amendments, then
only two five-minute speeches are in order on each designated
amendment, one speech in support and one in opposition. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 77.19. A Member may obtain additional time for debate only
by unanimous consent. Because only the two five-minute speeches are in
order, pro forma amendments are not permitted, and a third Member may
be recognized only by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 993. A third
Member is not entitled to recognition, notwithstanding the fact that
the second Member, recognized in opposition, actually spoke in favor
of the amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 21.23.
Yielding Time
A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not reserve
time or yield his time to another Member. Manual Sec. 980; 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5035-5037. He may yield a portion of his time while
remaining on his feet, but he may not yield to another to offer an
amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 21.5. If a Member resumes his
seat before expiration of the five minutes, another may not be
recognized for the remainder of that time. 8 Cannon Sec. 2571.
A Member may yield during debate under the five-minute rule while
remaining standing to permit another Member to question him, to make a
comment, or to make a unanimous-consent request. However, the time
consumed thereby comes out of that of the Member holding the floor.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.6. Time consumed in yielding for a
parliamentary inquiry also is charged against the five minutes.
Deschler-Brown Ch 31 Sec. 15.6.
Extending Time
A motion to require a certain amount of debate under the five-
minute rule is not in order in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.101. A Member recognized under the five-minute
rule may extend his time for debate only by unanimous consent, and a
motion to that effect is not in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 21.13; Sec. 57, infra.
Where debate on an amendment is limited and allocated to a
proponent and an opponent, the Members controlling the debate may
yield and reserve
[[Page 432]]
time, whereas time for debate on amendments cannot be reserved under
the five-minute rule. Manual Sec. 980.
Pro Forma Amendments
The pro forma amendment--to ``strike the last word''--is used
under the five-minute rule only for purposes of debate or explanation,
the proponent having no intent to offer a substantive amendment. A
Member who has been recognized for five minutes on a pro forma
amendment cannot thereafter extend his time by offering a second pro
forma amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 77.8. A Member who has
consumed five minutes in support of an amendment that he has offered
cannot, except by unanimous consent, obtain additional time by
offering a pro forma amendment to his own amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 77.9. A pro forma amendment may be offered after a substitute
has been adopted and before the vote on the amendment, as amended, by
unanimous consent only, because the amendment has been amended in its
entirety and no further amendments, including pro forma amendments,
are in order. A Member recognized on a pro forma amendment may not
allocate or reserve time, though he may in yielding indicate to the
Chair when he intends to reclaim his time. The Chair endeavors to
alternate recognition to offer pro forma amendments between majority
and minority Members (giving priority to committee members) rather
than between sides of the question. Manual Sec. 981.
Motions to Strike the Enacting Clause
The preferential motion to rise and report back to the House with
the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken is sometimes
used to gain an additional five minutes for debate in the Committee of
the Whole. Rule XVIII clause 9; Manual Sec. Sec. 988, 989. Debate on
the preferential motion is limited to two five-minute speeches, and
the Chair declines to recognize for requests for extensions of that
time. Deschler Ch 19 Sec. 13.2. Only two five-minute speeches are
permitted, notwithstanding the fact that the second Member, recognized
in opposition to the motion, spoke in favor thereof. Deschler Ch 19
Sec. 13.3. Time for debate may not be reserved. Manual Sec. 989.
Debate may go to the merits of the underlying bill. 5 Hinds Sec. 5336.
Members of the committee managing the bill have priority in
recognition for debate in opposition to the motion. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 23.43. However, the Chair will not announce in advance who
will be recognized in opposition. Manual Sec. 989.
If the House acts to strike the enacting clause as recommended by
the Committee of the Whole, the bill is considered rejected. Manual
Sec. 989; 5
[[Page 433]]
Hinds Sec. 5326. For a general discussion of this motion, see
Committees of the Whole.
Sec. 55 . -- Limiting or Extending Five-minute Debate-- By House
Action
By Unanimous Consent
The House, by unanimous consent, may agree to limit or extend
debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole,
whether or not that debate has commenced. The House may by unanimous
consent agree to an extension of time for such debate even after the
Committee has previously agreed to terminate debate at an earlier
time. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.41.
By Motion
A timely motion to limit debate on a matter pending in the
Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule has been held to lie
in the House as well as in the Committee once that debate has begun.
In an early decision Speaker Crisp held that the Committee did not
have the exclusive right to limit debate on matters pending before it,
and that a motion to limit debate on a section of a bill pending in
Committee would lie in the House. 5 Hinds Sec. 5229. However, in
modern practice the motion is made in the Committee under rule XVIII
clause 8. Sec. 56, infra.
Sec. 56 . -- By Motion in the Committee of the Whole
Generally; When in Order
A motion in the Committee of the Whole to limit or close five-
minute debate is permitted by rule XVIII clause 8. Manual Sec. 987.
The motion may propose to close debate at once or at the expiration of
a designated time. 8 Cannon Sec. 2572. As noted above, a motion to
extend debate is not in order in the Committee. Sec. 54, supra.
Until a bill has been read for amendment in full or its reading
dispensed with by unanimous consent or special rule, a motion to close
or limit debate on the entire bill is not in order. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 78.27. Likewise, a motion to close debate on a portion of a
bill not yet reached in the reading of the bill for amendment is not
in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.29. A motion to close debate on
a portion of a bill that has been read and on which there has been
debate is in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.34. For a discussion
of unanimous-consent requests to close or limit debate, see Sec. 57,
infra.
[[Page 434]]
A motion to limit or close debate under the five-minute rule is
not in order until debate has begun. 5 Hinds Sec. 5225. Thus, a motion
to close debate on a section of a bill or on an amendment is not in
order until there has been some debate thereon. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 78.22. However, the motion to close debate has been held in order
after only one speech, even though brief (5 Hinds Sec. 5226), and
although the Member making the speech, after gaining recognition to
strike the last word, obtained consent to speak out of order
(Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.25).
Under rule XVIII clause 8, a motion in the Committee of the Whole
to close debate under the five-minute rule is privileged. However, the
motion cannot deprive another Member of the floor. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 78.14. Once pending, the motion must be disposed of before
further recognition by the Chair. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 22.1.
Although it is customary for the Chair to recognize the manager of
the pending bill to offer motions to limit debate, any Member may,
pursuant to rule XVIII clause 8, move to limit debate at an
appropriate time in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 23.28. However, the Member managing the bill is entitled to prior
recognition to move to close debate on a pending amendment (after the
proponent has had his time) over other Members seeking to debate or
amend the amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 24.16.
It is in order in the Committee of the Whole to move to limit or
close debate under the five-minute rule with respect to:
The portion of the text that is pending and all amendments
thereto. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.7.
An amendment and all amendments thereto. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 78.65.
All amendments to the bill (after the bill has been read) and
all amendments thereto. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.30.
A proposition to control or divide the time is not in order as a
part of a motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule. 8 Cannon
Sec. 2570.
Where there is a time limitation on debate on a pending amendment
in the nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto, but not on
the underlying original text, debate on perfecting amendments to the
original text proceeds under the five-minute rule, absent another time
limitation. Where the time for debate on a pending amendment in the
form of a motion to strike and all amendments thereto has been
limited, a subsequently offered perfecting amendment considered as
preferential to (rather than as an amendment to) the motion to strike
remains separately debatable outside the limitation. Manual Sec. 987.
[[Page 435]]
A limitation on debate on a section of a bill and amendments
thereto does not affect debate on an amendment adding a new section to
the bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.31. The Chair may decline to
recognize a Member to offer such an amendment until perfecting
amendments to the pending section have been disposed of under the
limitation. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.137.
Consideration of Motion; Debate and Amendments
A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule must be
reduced to writing if demanded by any Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 78.52. The motion is not debatable (Manual Sec. 987), although it
is subject to amendment (5 Hinds Sec. 5227; 8 Cannon Sec. 2578).
The motion in the Committee of the Whole to limit debate is not
subject to a motion to reconsider because the motion to reconsider
does not lie in the Committee. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.79.
However, the Committee may by unanimous consent rescind or modify such
an agreement. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.84.
Sec. 57 . -- By Unanimous Consent in the Committee of the Whole
Generally
Debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole
may be closed or limited by the Committee by unanimous consent, even
on portions of the bill not yet read. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.29.
However, such request should include the condition that the portion of
the bill sought to be limited be considered as read and open to
amendment at any point. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.93. Similarly,
the Committee may limit and allocate control of time for debate on
amendments not yet offered by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 987.
In limiting debate by unanimous consent under the five-minute
rule, the Committee of the Whole may include provisions to control and
allocate the time. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.37. For example, the
Committee may, by unanimous consent, limit debate to a certain number
of hours, or to a time certain, to be equally divided and controlled
by the managers of the bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.62.
Rescission or Modification of Limitation
A time limitation on debate imposed by the Committee of the Whole
may be rescinded or modified by the Committee by unanimous consent
(but not by motion). Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 78.42, 78.43. The
Committee may by unanimous consent permit additional debate on an
amendment before it is offered, notwithstanding a previous limitation
imposed by the
[[Page 436]]
Committee on all amendments to the bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 79.63. The Committee can effect minor changes in procedures set
by a special order of the House only by unanimous consent and only
where congruent with the terms of the special order. Manual Sec. 993.
Sec. 58 . Motions Allocating or Reserving Time
A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule on a pending
amendment in the Committee of the Whole is not in order if it includes
a provision for allocation or division of time. Time for debate can be
allocated between Members only by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. Sec. 78.37, 78.61. Thus, the Committee may, during the reading
of a bill under the five-minute rule, limit debate by unanimous
consent and include in the request a reservation of the last portion
of time to the committee handling the bill or to specific Members.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.69.
A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule in the
Committee of the Whole is not in order if it includes a reservation of
time for any special purpose, including a reservation of time for a
particular Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 78.67, 78.72.
However, the Committee may limit debate and include a reservation of
time by unanimous consent. For example, part of the time under a
limitation may be reserved for the reporting committee by unanimous
consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.69.
Sec. 59 . Timekeeping; Charging Time
Generally
A limitation on debate under the five-minute rule may take the
form of a restriction on time for debate (for example, ``for 60
minutes'') or as a limitation on debate to a time certain (for
example, ``until 5 p.m.''). The form of the limitation is particularly
significant in determining how the time is to be accounted for under
the limitation.
When time for debate on a proposition is limited to a fixed
period, such as 60 minutes, the time consumed for purposes other than
debate is not counted or charged against the allowable time for debate
(such as votes, quorum calls, maintaining order, points of order,
reading amendments, or offering and debating preferential motions to
strike the enacting clause). Manual Sec. 987; Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. Sec. 79.10, 79.13. However, if time is limited to a fixed period
on the entire bill and all amendments thereto, the time for the
preferential motion does consume time under the limitation. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.17.
On the other hand, where the time for debate has been fixed to a
time certain, such as 5 p.m., the time consumed by matters other than
debate
[[Page 437]]
(such as parliamentary inquiries, points of order, rereading of
amendments, maintaining order, votes, quorum calls, or offering and
debating preferential motions to strike the enacting clause) is
charged against the time remaining. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. Sec. 79.5, 79.9. Such a limitation terminates all debate at the
time specified, notwithstanding any allotted time remaining. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.8. In such cases, no point of order lies against
the inability of the Chair to recognize each Member desiring
recognition. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 22.31. The time specified can
be rescinded or modified only by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 987. A
unanimous consent-request or motion to close debate at a time certain
should specify that the debate cease at a certain time, and not that
the Committee of the Whole vote at a certain time, because the Chair
cannot control time consumed by quorum calls or votes on other
intervening motions. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.75. If the Committee
rises before the expiration of such a limitation, and does not resume
consideration before the time certain arrives, no further time for
debate remains. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.128.
If debate is closed instantly on the entire bill and all
amendments thereto, no further debate is in order for any purpose
(including the preferential motion that the enacting clause be
stricken); and further amendments may be offered but not debated
unless they have been printed in the Congressional Record. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 79.1, 79.23.
Role of Chairman in Allocating Time
Where debate on an amendment has been limited, the Chair has
several options in allocating the remaining time. He may (1) continue
to recognize under the five-minute rule; (2) divide the time between
Members indicating a desire to speak; or (3) as is increasingly the
case under the modern practice, divide time between the proponent of
the amendment and an opponent (giving priority in recognition among
opponents to committee members) and allow them in turn to yield time
to other Members. Manual Sec. 987.
The Chair also may, in his discretion, give priority in
recognition under a limitation to those Members seeking to offer
amendments, over other Members standing at the time the limitation was
agreed to. Where time for debate on a bill and all amendments thereto
has been limited to a time certain several hours away, the Chair may,
in his discretion, continue to proceed under the five-minute rule
until he desires to allocate remaining time on possible amendments.
The Chair may then divide that time among proponents of anticipated
amendments and committee members opposing those amendments. The Chair
also has discretion to reallocate time to conform to the limit set by
unanimous consent of the Committee of the Whole. Manual Sec. 987.
[[Page 438]]
Time Remaining After Committee Rises
The adoption of a motion to rise during debate on an amendment in
the Committee of the Whole does not affect the time remaining on the
amendment when the bill is resumed as unfinished business in the
Committee of the Whole, where debate is limited to a number of minutes
and not to a time certain. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.131. However,
where a measure has been limited to a time certain, and the Committee
rises before that time without having completed action on the pending
measure, no time is considered to be remaining when the Committee, on
a later day, resumes consideration of the measure. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 79.127. The Committee may extend debate on the subsequent day
only by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.84.
Where after limiting debate under the five-minute rule the
Committee of the Whole is about to rise on motion, the Chair may, in
his discretion, defer his allocation of that time until the Committee
resumes consideration of the bill on a subsequent day. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 79.52.
H. Reading Papers; Displays and Exhibits
Sec. 60 . Reading Papers
In the early practice of the House, the reading of papers,
including a Member's own written speech, was usually permitted without
question; and a Member usually read such papers as he pleased. Manual
Sec. 964; 5 Hinds Sec. 5258. However, that privilege was subject to
the authority of the House if another Member objected under a former
version of rule XVII clause 6. Manual Sec. 964. If objection was made
to such a reading under the former rule, the question was determined
by the House without debate. The rule was amended in 1993 to apply
only to exhibits and not to readings and the question no longer must
be submitted to the House. Manual Sec. 963.
Sec. 61 . Use of Exhibits
Generally
Members often use relevant exhibits in debate for the information
of other Members. The display of exhibits in debate was automatically
subject to House consent under rule XVII clause 6 if objection is
made. However, 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. Manual Sec. 963.
For procedures under the former rule, see Manual Sec. 963.
[[Page 439]]
It is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to judge
the accuracy of the content of an exhibit. It is not in order to
request that the electronic voting display be turned on during debate
as an exhibit to accompany a Member's debate. Manual Sec. 963.
Exhibits that have been permitted by the House or the Committee of
the Whole, either by vote or because no objection was raised, include:
A pair of oversized dice. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.2.
Models prepared by the Committee on Science and Astronautics.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.4.
Electronic voting equipment to be installed in the House
Chamber. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.
A bottle of liquor alleged to be ``government rum.'' Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.1.
A chart showing complex funding formulas. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 84.5.
Photographs of missing children. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 84.14.
A display of dismantled weapons. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 84.17.
A chart showing stockpiled weaponry. 99-1, June 19, 1985, p
16359.
The Speaker or Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may under
rule I direct the removal of an exhibit from the well if the exhibit
is not being used in debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 84.9,
84.10.
The Speaker has denied a request that a Member be permitted to use
a video recorder on the floor of the House during a special-order
speech, as an audio-visual display of comments by non-Members would be
contrary to precedents limiting the privilege of debate to Members.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 80.8. The Speaker has disallowed the use of
a person on the floor as a guest of the House as an ``exhibit.''
Manual Sec. 622.
Sec. 62 . -- Decorum Requirements
The Speaker's responsibility under rule I clause 2 to preserve
decorum requires that he disallow the use of exhibits in debate that
would be demeaning to the House or that would be disruptive of the
decorum thereof. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.16. Thus he may inquire
of a Member's intentions as to the use of exhibits before conferring
recognition to address the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.11. In
one instance, the Chair declined to permit a bumper sticker to be
attached to the lectern in the House Chamber. 101-1, Sept. 13, 1989, p
20362. In 1995, a caricature of the Speaker presented during debate
was ruled out of order. 104-1, Nov. 16, 1995, p 33393-95. In another
instance, where a Member during debate on a bill funding the arts
indicated his intention to show as exhibits certain photographs--some
innocuous and some alleged to be pornographic--the Chair announced
that he would prevent the display of all such exhibits on the
[[Page 440]]
pending bill. The Chair observed that although the first amendment to
the Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law abridging
the freedom of speech, the Constitution also provides in article I
that the House may determine the rules of its proceedings, and in rule
I clause 2 the House has assigned to the Chair the responsibility of
preserving order and decorum. Manual Sec. 622.
At the request of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
the Speaker announced that (1) all handouts distributed on or adjacent
to the floor must bear the name of a Member authorizing the
distribution; (2) the content of such handouts must comport with the
standards applicable to words used in debate; (3) failure to comply
with these standards may constitute a breach of decorum and thus give
rise to a question of privilege; (4) staff are prohibited in the
Chamber or rooms leading thereto from distributing handouts and from
attempting to influence Members with regard to legislation; and (5)
Members should minimize the use of handouts to enhance the quality of
debate. Manual Sec. 622.
I. Secret Sessions
Sec. 63 . In General
Generally; Historical Background
In the early days of the Congress, secret sessions of the House
were frequent. The sessions of the Continental Congress were secret.
Up to and during the War of 1812, secret sessions of the House were
held often. Normally, the House sat with galleries open. When the
occasion required, as on receipt of a confidential communication from
the President, the galleries were cleared by House order. 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 7247, 7251 (note). Following that period, the practice fell
into disuse, remaining dormant for almost a century, and there have
been but few secret sessions in the modern era. 6 Cannon Sec. 434.
It has been held that each House has a right to hold secret
sessions whenever in its judgment the proceedings should require
secrecy. In 1848, the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia upheld
a Senate contempt proceeding conducted in a secret session arising out
of the publication of a treaty pending before the Senate in executive
session. Nugent v. Beale, 18 F. Cas. 141 (C.C.D.C., 1848) (No. 10375);
2 Hinds Sec. 1640.
Procedure
The oath of office taken by elected House officers obligates them
to ``keep the secrets of the House'' under rule II clause 1. Manual
Sec. 640. Rule
[[Page 441]]
XVII clause 9, dating from 1792, mandates the holding of a secret
session (1) whenever confidential communications are received from the
President, or (2) whenever the Speaker or any Member informs the House
that he has communications that he believes ought to be kept secret.
Manual Sec. 969.
The House, and not the Committee of the Whole, determines whether
to conduct a secret session under rule XVII clause 9. Manual Sec. 969;
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.6. Provision for the session is generally
made pursuant to a motion considered in the House. See Sec. 64, infra.
The material to be presented in the secret session is not required to
be relevant to any particular legislation. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 85.9. No point of order lies in the secret session that the
material in question must be produced for the Members in advance to
determine whether secret or confidential communications are involved.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.14.
For procedures governing a secret session of the House called to
resolve a conflict between the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the President with respect to disclosure of
classified information, see rule X clause 11(g). Manual Sec. 785.
Use of Special Orders of Business
In 1983, for the first time, a secret session was held pursuant to
a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules and adopted by the
House. The special rule provided for preliminary general debate on a
bill in secret session of the Committee of the Whole and for further
consideration of the bill in open session of the Committee of the
Whole. 98-1, H. Res. 261, July 14, 1983, p 19133. Following the secret
session, the Speaker stated that Members were bound not to release or
revise or make public any of the transcript thereof until further
order of the House, and that pursuant to the special rule the
transcript would be referred to the two committees reporting the bill.
98-1, July 19, 1983, pp 19776, 19777. Six months later, the Speaker
laid before the House communications transmitting the recommendations
of those committees that the transcript of the secret session not be
publicly released. 98-2, Jan. 23, 1984, p 84.
Sec. 64 . Motions; Debate
A motion to go into a secret session is in order when any Member
informs the House that he has communications that he believes should
be considered in confidence. The motion takes precedence over a motion
to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of
nonprivileged legislative business, such as a special appropriation
bill. 8 Cannon Sec. 3630.
The motion to resolve into secret session may be made only in the
House and not in the Committee of the Whole. Manual Sec. 969;
Deschler-
[[Page 442]]
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.6. The Member offering the motion must qualify by
asserting that he himself has a secret communication to make to the
House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.5. The motion is not debatable,
although the Chair may explain the operation of the rule and respond
to parliamentary inquiries after the motion has been agreed to and
before the secret session commences. Manual Sec. 969; Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 85.7, 85.9.
After a motion to resolve into a secret session has been adopted,
the Member who offered the motion may be recognized for one hour of
debate. The normal rules of debate, including the principle that
motions are in order only when the Member in control yields for that
purpose, apply. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.13.
A motion in secret session to make the proceedings public 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. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 85.18.
Sec. 65 . Secrecy Restrictions and Guidelines
The Speaker may announce before a secret session commences that
the galleries will be cleared. The Speaker also may announce that the
Chamber will be cleared of all persons except Members and those
officers and employees whose attendance is essential to the
functioning of the secret session and so specified by the Speaker, and
that all proceedings in the secret session must be kept secret until
otherwise ordered by the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 85.8,
85.9. In one instance, the Speaker directed all officers and employees
designated by him as essential to the proceedings to come to the desk
and sign an oath of secrecy. The Speaker announced that violation of
the oath was punishable by the House and that Members and employees
were subject to standards of conduct and disciplinary proceedings
under House rules. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.9. Where the House has
concluded a secret session and has not voted to release the
transcripts of that session to the public, 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 their ultimate disposition. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.10. Under
rule XXIII clause 13 (which was added to the Code of Official Conduct
in the 104th Congress), all Members, officers, and employees are
required to execute an oath before they are given access to classified
information. The list of Members signing this oath is published weekly
in the Congressional Record. For a discussion of committee meetings in
executive session, see Committees.