[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 104-272]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[Pages 164-183]
[DOCID:hrmanual-24]
[[Page 164]]
sec. xvii.--order in debate.
<<NOTE: Sec. 353. Decorum of Members as to sitting in their places.>>
When the Speaker is seated in his chair, every member is to sit in his
place. Scob., 6; Grey, 403.
In the House of Representatives the decorum of Members is regulated by
the various provisions of rule XIV; and this provision of the
parliamentary law is practically obsolete.
When <<NOTE: Sec. 354. Procedure of the Member in seeking
recognition.>> any Member means to speak, he is to stand up in his
place, uncovered, and to address himself, not to the House, or any
particular Member, but to the Speaker, who calls him by his name, that
the House may take notice who it is that speaks. Scob., 6; D'Ewes, 487,
col. 1; 2 Hats., 77; 4 Grey, 66; 8 Grey, 108. But Members who are
indisposed may be indulged to speak sitting. 2 Hats., 75, 77; 1 Grey,
143.
In the House of Representatives the Member, in seeking recognition is
governed by clause 1 of rule XIV, which differs materially from this
provision of the parliamentary law. The Speaker, moreover, calls the
Member, not by name, but as ``the gentleman (or gentlewoman) from ------
,'' naming the State. As long ago as 1832, at least, a Member was not
required to rise from his own seat (V, 4979, footnote).
<<NOTE: Sec. 355. Conditions under which a Member's right to the floor
is subjected to the will of the House.>> When a Member stands up to
speak, no question is to be put, but he is to be heard unless the House
overrule him. 4 Grey, 390; 5 Grey, 6, 143.
In the House of Representatives no question is put as to the right of
a Member to the floor, unless he be called to order and dealt with by
the House under clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV.
[[Page 165]]
If <<NOTE: Sec. 356. The parliamentary law as to recognition by the
Speaker.>> two or more rise to speak nearly together, the Speaker
determines who was first up, and calls him by name, whereupon he
proceeds, unless he voluntarily sits down and gives way to the other.
But sometimes the House does not acquiesce in the Speaker's decision, in
which case the question is put, ``which Member was first up?'' 2 Hats.,
76; Scob., 7; D'Ewes, 434, col. 1, 2.
In the Senate of the United States the President's decision is without
appeal.
In the House of Representatives recognition by the Chair is governed
by clause 2 of rule XIV and the practice thereunder. There has been no
appeal from a decision by the Speaker on a question of recognition since
1881, on which occasion Speaker Randall stated that the power of
recognition is ``just as absolute in the Chair as the judgment of the
Supreme Court of the United States is absolute as to the interpretation
of the law'' (II, 1425-1428), and in the later practice no appeal is
permitted (VIII, 2429, 2646, 2762).
No <<NOTE: Sec. 357. Right of the Member to be heard a second
time.>> man may speak more than once on the same bill on the same day;
or even on another day, if the debate be adjourned. But if it be read
more than once in the same day, he may speak once at every reading. Co.,
12, 115; Hakew., 148; Scob., 58; 2 Hats., 75. Even a change of opinion
does not give a right to be heard a second time. Smyth's Comw. L., 2, c.
3; Arcan, Parl., 17.
But he may be permitted to speak again to clear a matter of fact, 3
Grey, 357, 416; or merely to explain himself, 2 Hats., 73, in some
material part of his speech, Ib., 75; or to the manner or words of the
question, keeping himself to that only, and not traveling into the
merits of it, Memorials in Hakew., 29; or to the orders of the
[[Page 166]]
House, if they be transgressed, keeping within that line, and not falling
into the matter itself. Mem. Hakew., 30, 31.
The House of Representatives has modified the parliamentary law as to
a Member's right to speak a second time by clauses 3 and 6 of rule XIV
and by permitting a Member controlling time in debate to yield to
another more than once. In ordinary practice rule XIV is not rigidly
enforced, and Members find little difficulty in making such explanations
as are contemplated by the parliamentary law.
But <<NOTE: Sec. 358. Participation of the Speaker in debate.>> if the
Speaker rise to speak, the Member standing up ought to sit down, that he
may be first heard. Town., col. 205; Hale Parl., 133; Mem. in Hakew.,
30, 31. Nevertheless, though the Speaker may of right speak to matters
of order, and be first heard, he is restrained from speaking on any
other subject, except where the House have occasion for facts within his
knowledge; then he may, with their leave, state the matter of fact. 3
Grey, 38.
This provision is usually observed in the practice of the House, so
far as the conduct of the Speaker in the chair is concerned. In several
instances the Speaker has been permitted by the House to make a
statement from the chair, as in a case wherein his past conduct had been
criticised (II, 1369), and in a case wherein there had been unusual
occurrences in the joint meeting to count the electoral vote (II, 1372),
and in a matter relating to a contest for the seat of the Speaker as a
Member (II, 1360). In rare instances the Speaker has made brief
explanations from the chair without asking the assent of the House (II,
1373, 1374). Speakers have called others to the chair and participated
in debate, usually without asking consent of the House (II, 1360, 1367,
footnote, 1368, 1371; III, 1950), and in one case a Speaker on the floor
debated a point of order which the Speaker pro tempore was to decide (V,
6097). In rare instances Speakers have left the chair to make motions on
the floor (II, 1367, footnote). Speakers may participate in debate in
Committee of the Whole, although at certain periods in the history of
the House the privilege was rarely exercised (II, 1367, footnote).
During the House's consideration of several measures relating to the
use of military force in the Persian Gulf, the Speaker took the floor
not only to debate the pending question but also to commend the House on
the quality of its recent debates on matters of war and peace and to
explain
[[Page 167]]
his decision to vote on measures relating thereto even though
not required to do so under clause 6 of rule I (Jan. 12, 1991, p. 1085).
No <<NOTE: Sec. 359. Impertinent, superfluous, or tedious
speaking.>> one is to speak impertinently or beside the question,
superfluous, or tediously. Scob., 31, 33; 2 Hats., 166, 168; Hale Parl.,
133.
The House, by clause 1 of rule XIV, provides that the Member shall
address himself to the question under debate, but neither by rule nor
practice has the House ever suppressed superfluous or tedious speaking,
its hour rule (clause 2 of rule XIV) being a sufficient safeguard in
this respect.
No <<NOTE: Sec. 360. Language reflecting on the House.>> person is to
use indecent language against the proceedings of the House; no prior
determination of which is to be reflected on by any Member, unless he
means to conclude with a motion to rescind it. 2 Hats., 169, 170;
Rushw., p. 3, v. 1, fol. 42. But while a proposition under consideration
is still in fieri, though it has even been reported by a committee,
reflections on it are no reflections on the House. 9 Grey, 508.
In the practice of the House of Representatives it has been held out
of order in debate to cast reflections on either the House or its
membership or its decisions, whether present or past (V, 5132-5138). A
Member who had used offensive words against the character of the House,
and who declined to explain, was censured (II, 1247). Words impeaching
the loyalty of a portion of the membership have also been ruled out (V,
5139). Where a Member reiterated on the floor certain published charges
against the House, action was taken, although other business had
intervened, the question being considered one of privilege (III, 2637).
It has been held inappropriate and not in order in debate to refer to
the proceedings of a committee except such as have been formally
reported to the House (V, 5080-5083; VIII, 2269, 2485-2493; June 24,
1958, pp. 12120, 12122), but this rule does not apply to the proceedings
of a committee of a previous Congress (Chairman Hay, Feb. 2, 1914, p.
2782), and the rationale for this limitation on debate is in part
obsolete under the modern practice of the House insofar as the doctrine
is applied to open committee meetings and hearings.
[[Page 168]]
No <<NOTE: Sec. 361. Personalities in debate forbidden.>> person, in
speaking, is to mention a Member then present by his name, but to
describe him by his seat in the House, or who spoke last, or on the
other side of the question, &c., Mem. in Hakew., 3; Smyth's Comw., L. 2,
c. 3; nor to digress from the matter to fall upon the person, Scob., 31;
Hale Parl., 133; 2 Hats., 166, by speaking reviling, nipping, or
unmannerly words against a particular Member. Smyth's Comw., L. 2, c. 3.
* * *
In the practice of the House, a Member is not permitted to refer to
another Member by name (V, 5144; VIII, 2526, 2529, 2536), or to address
him in the second person (V, 5140-5143; VI, 600; VIII, 2529). The proper
reference to another Member is ``the gentleman (or gentlewoman) from --
----,'' naming the Member's State (June 14, 1978, p. 17615; July 21,
1982, pp. 17314-15).
By rule of the House (clause 1 of rule XIV), as well as by
parliamentary law, personalities are forbidden (V, 4979, 5145, 5163,
5169), whether against the Member in the Member's capacity as
Representative or otherwise (V, 5152, 5153), even if the references may
be relevant to the pending question (Sept. 28, 1996, p. ----). The House
has censured a Member for gross personalities (II, 1251). The Chair may
intervene to prevent improper references where it is evident that a
particular Member is being described (Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27077). The Chair
does not rule on the veracity of a statement made by a Member in debate
(Apr. 9, 1997, p. ----).
Clause 1 of rule XIV has been held to proscribe: (1) referring to an
identifiable group of sitting Members as having committed a crime (e.g.,
``stealing'' an election) (Feb. 27, 1985, p. 3898; Speaker Wright, Mar.
21, 1989, p. 5016); (2) referring in a personally critical manner to the
political tactics of the Speaker or other Members (June 25, 1981, p.
14056); (3) referring to a particular Member of the House in a
derogatory fashion (Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27077----); (4) characterizing a
Member as ``the most impolite Member'' (June 27, 1996, p. ----); (5)
questioning the integrity of a Member (July 25, 1996, p. ----); and (6)
denunciating the spirit in which a Member had spoken (V, 6981).
A distinction has been drawn between general language, which
characterizes a measure or the political motivations behind a measure,
and personalities (V, 5153, 5163, 5169). 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 (Jan. 24, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 8, 1995, p. ----; Nov. 17, 1995,
p. ----; June 13, 1996, p. ----). For example, references to ``down-in-
the-dirt gutter politics''
[[Page 169]]
and ``you people are going to pay'' were held
not to be personal references (Nov. 14, 1995, p. ----). Similarly,
characterizing a pending measure as a ``patently petty political
terrorist tactic'' was held in order as a reference to the pending
measure rather than to the motive or character of the measure's
proponent (Nov. 9, 1995, p. ----). The Chair has also held in order a
general reference that ``big donors'' receive ``access to leadership
power and decisions'' because the reference did not identify a specific
Member as engaging in an improper quid pro quo (Apr. 9, 1997, p. ----).
A Member should refrain from references in debate to the official
conduct of a Member where such conduct is not the subject then pending
before the House by way of either a report of the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct or another question of the privileges of the House
(see, e.g., July 24, 1990, p. ----; Mar. 19, 1992, p. ----; May 25,
1995, p. ----; Sept. 19, 1995, p. ----). This stricture also precludes a
Member from reciting news articles discussing a Member's conduct (Sept.
24, 1996, p. ----), reciting the content of a previously tabled
resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House (Nov. 17,
1995, p. ----; Sept. 19, 1996, p. ----), or even referring to a Member's
conduct by mere insinuation (Sept. 12, 1996, p. ----). Notice of an
intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX does not render a resolution ``pending'' and thereby
permit references to conduct of a Member proposed to be addressed
therein (Sept. 19, 1996, p. ----).
The stricture against references to a Member's conduct not then
pending before the House applies to the conduct of all sitting Members
(Apr. 1, 1992, p. ----), including conduct that has previously been
resolved by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or the House
(Sept. 20, 1995, p. ----; Sept. 24, 1996, pp. ----, ----; Apr. 17, 1997,
p. ----). This stricture does not apply to the conduct of a former
Member, provided the reference is not made in an attempt to compare the
conduct of a former Member with the conduct of a sitting Member (Sept.
12, 1996, pp. ----, ----).
Debate on a pending privileged resolution recommending disciplinary
action against a Member may necessarily involve personalities. However,
clause 1 of rule XIV still prohibits the use of language that is
personally abusive (see, e.g., July 31, 1979, p. ----; Jan. 7, 1997, p.
----). Furthermore, during the actual pendency of such a resolution, a
Member may discuss a prior case reported to the House by the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct for the purpose of comparing the
severity of the sanction recommended in that case with the severity of
the sanction recommended in the pending case, provided that the Member
does not identify, or discuss the details of the past conduct of, a
sitting Member (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36271).
In addition to the prohibition against addressing a Member's conduct
when it is not actually pending before the House, the Speaker has
advised that Members should refrain from references in debate (1) to the
motivations of a Member who filed a complaint before the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (Speaker pro tempore Foley, June 15, 1988, p.
[[Page 170]]
14623; July 6, 1988, p. 16630; Mar. 22, 1989, p. 5130; May 2, 1989,
p. 7735; Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27077); (2) to personal criticism of a member
of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Apr. 1, 1992, p. ----
; Mar. 3, 1995, p. ----; Sept. 19, 1996, p. ----; Sept. 24, 1996, p. --
--); and (3) to an investigation undertaken by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, including suggestion of a course of
action (Mar. 3, 1995, p. ----; Sept. 24, 1996, p. ----; Sept. 28, 1996,
p. ----) or advocacy of an interim status report by the Committee (Sept.
12, 1996, p. ----; Sept. 28, 1996, p. ----).
A Member may not read in debate extraneous material critical of
another Member, which would be improper if spoken in the Member's own
words (May 25, 1995, p. ----; Sept. 12, 1996, p. ----). Thus, words in a
telegram read in debate which repudiated the ``lies and half-truths'' of
a House committee report were ruled out of order as reflecting on the
integrity of committee members (June 16, 1947, p. 7065), and
unparliamentary references in debate to newspaper accounts used in
support of a Member's personal criticism of another Member were
similarly ruled out of order (Feb. 25, 1985, p. 3346).
Complaint <<NOTE: Sec. 362. Criticism of the Speaker.>> of the conduct
of the Speaker should be presented directly for the action of the House
and not by way of debate on other matters (V, 5188). In a case wherein a
Member used words insulting to the Speaker the House on a subsequent
day, and after other business had intervened, censured the offender (II,
1248). In such a case the Speaker would ordinarily leave the chair while
action should be taken by the House (II, 1366; V, 5188; VI, 565). In the
104th Congress the Chair reaffirmed that it is not in order to speak
disrespectfully of the Speaker, and that under the precedents the
sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary requirements for
timeliness of challenges (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 19,
1995, p. ----). It is not in order to arraign the personal conduct of
the Speaker (Jan. 18, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 19, 1995, p. ----). For
example, it is not in order to charge dishonesty or disregard of the
rules (July 11, 1985, p. 18550), to reflect on his patriotism by
accusing him of ``kowtowing'' to persons who would desecrate the flag
(June 20, 1990, p. 14877), to refer to him as a ``crybaby'' (Nov. 16,
1995, p. ----), or to refer to official conduct of the Speaker that has
previously been resolved by the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct or the House (Apr. 17, 1997, p. ----). The Chair may take the
initiative to admonish Members for references in debate that disparage
the Speaker (June 25, 1981, p. 14056; Mar. 22, 1996, p. ----). Debate on
a resolution authorizing the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the
rules may not engage in personality by discussing the official conduct
of the Speaker, even if possibly relevant to the question of empowerment
of the Speaker (Sept. 24, 1996, p. ----).
[[Page 171]]
* * * <<NOTE: Sec. 363. Motives of Members not to be arraigned.>> The
consequences of a measure may be reprobated in strong terms; but to
arraign the motives of those who propose to advocate it is a
personality, and against order. Qui digreditur a materia ad personam,
Mr. Speaker ought to suppress. Ord. Com., 1604, Apr. 19.
The arraignment of the motives of Members is not permitted (V, 5147-
51; Dec. 13, 1973, p. 41270), and the Speakers have intervened to
prevent it, in the earlier practice preventing even mildest imputations
(V, 5161, 5162). However, remarks in debate may address political, but
not personal, motivations for legislative positions (Jan. 24, 1995, p.
----; Mar. 8, 1995, p. ----; Nov. 17, 1995, p. ----; June 13, 1996, p.
----) or for committee membership (July 10, 1995, p. ----). Accusing
another Member of hypocrisy has been held not in order (July 24, 1979,
p. 20380; Mar. 29, 1995, p. ----), and characterizing the motivation of
a Member in offering an amendment as deceptive and hypocritical was
ruled out of order (June 12, 1979, p. 11461). A statement in debate that
an amendment could only be demagogic or racist because only demagoguery
or racism impelled such an amendment was ruled out of order as impugning
the motives of the Member offering the amendment (Dec. 3, 1973, pp.
41270, 41271). However, debate characterizing a pending measure as a
``patently petty political terrorist tactic'' was held in order as
directed at the pending measure rather than the motive or the character
of its proponent (Nov. 9, 1995, p. ----). While in debate the assertion
of one Member may be declared untrue by another, yet in so doing an
intentional misrepresentation must not be implied (V, 5157-5160), and if
stated or implied is censurable (II, 1305) and presents a question of
privilege (III, 2717; VI, 607). A Member in debate having declared the
words of another ``a base lie,'' censure was inflicted by the House on
the offender (II, 1249).
No <<NOTE: Sec. 364. Disorder and interruptions during debate.>> one
is to disturb another in his speech by hissing, coughing, spitting, 6
Grey, 322; Scob., 8; D'Ewes, 332, col. 1, 640, col. 2, speaking or
whispering to another, Scob., 6; D'Ewes, 487, col. 1; nor stand up to
interrupt him, Town, col. 205; Mem. in Hakew., 31; nor to pass between
the Speaker and the speaking Member, nor to go across the House, Scob.,
6, or to walk up and down it, or
[[Page 172]]
to take books or papers from the table,
or write there, 2 Hats., 171, p. 170.
The House of Representatives has by clause 7 of rule XIV prescribed
certain rules of decorum differing somewhat from this provision of the
parliamentary law, but supplemental to it rather than antagonistic. In
one respect, however, the practice of the House differs from the
apparent intent of the parliamentary law. In the House a Member may
interrupt by addressing the Chair for permission of the Member speaking
(V, 5006; VIII, 2465); but it is entirely within the discretion of the
Member occupying the floor to determine when and by whom he shall be
interrupted (V, 5007, 5008; VIII, 2463, 2465). There is no rule of the
House requiring a Member having the floor to yield to another Member to
whom he has referred during debate (Aug. 2, 1984, p. 22241). The Chair
may take the initiative in preserving order when a Member declining to
yield in debate continues to be interrupted by another Member, may order
that the interrupting Member's remarks not appear in the Record (July
26, 1984, p. 21247), and may admonish Members not to converse with a
Member attempting to address the House (Feb. 21, 1984, p. 2758), as it
is not in order to engage in disruption while another is delivering
remarks in debate (June 27, 1996, p. ----). On the opening day of the
103d Congress, during the customary announcement of policies with
respect to particular aspects of the legislative process, the Chair
elaborated on the rules of order in debate with a general statement
concerning decorum in the House of Representatives (Jan. 5, 1993, p. --
--). For further discussion of interruptions in debate, see Sec. 750,
infra.
Nevertheless, <<NOTE: Sec. 365. Parliamentary method of silencing a
tedious Member.>> if a Member finds that it is not the inclination of
the House to hear him, and that by conversation or any other noise they
endeavor to drown his voice, it is his most prudent way to submit to the
pleasure of the House, and sit down; for it scarcely ever happens that
they are guilty of this piece of ill manners without sufficient reason,
or inattention to a Member who says anything worth their hearing. 2
Hats., 77, 78.
In the House of Representatives, where the previous question and hour
rule of debate have been used for many years, the parliamentary method
of suppressing a tedious Member has never been imported into the
practice (V, 5445).
[[Page 173]]
If <<NOTE: Sec. 366. The parliamentary law as to naming a disorderly
Member.>> repeated calls do not produce order, the Speaker may call by
his name any Member obstinately persisting in irregularity; whereupon
the House may require the Member to withdraw. He is then to be heard in
exculpation, and to withdraw. Then the Speaker states the offense
committed; and the House considers the degree of punishment they will
inflict. 2 Hats., 167, 7, 8, 172.
This provision of parliamentary law should be in conjunction with
clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV, Sec. Sec. 760-761, infra, particularly as
this provision relates to the ultimate authority of the House to
determine whether a Member ignoring repeated calls to order should be
permitted to proceed in order.
For <<NOTE: Sec. 367. Proceedings in cases of assaults and
affrays.>> instances of assaults and affrays in the House of Commons,
and the proceedings thereon, see 1 Pet. Misc., 82; 3 Grey, 128; 4 Grey,
328; 5 Grey, 382; 6 Grey, 254; 10 Grey, 8. Whenever warm words or an
assault have passed between Members, the House, for the protection of
their Members, requires them to declare in their places not to prosecute
any quarrel, 3 Grey, 128, 293; 5 Grey, 280; or orders them to attend the
Speaker, who is to accommodate their differences, and report to the
House, 3 Grey, 419; and they are put under restraint if they refuse, or
until they do. 9 Grey, 234, 312.
In several instances assaults and affrays have occurred on the floor
of the House of Representatives. Sometimes the House has allowed these
affairs to pass without notice, the Members concerned making apologies
either personally or through other Members (II, 1658-1662). In other
cases the House has exacted apologies (II, 1646-1651, 1657), or required
the offending Members to pledge themselves before the House to keep the
peace
[[Page 174]]
(II, 1643). In case of an aggravated assault by one Member on
another on the portico of the Capitol for words spoken in debate, the
House censured the assailant and three other Members who had been
present, armed, to prevent interference (II, 1655, 1656). Assaults or
affrays in the Committee of the Whole are dealt with by the House (II,
1648-1651).
Disorderly <<NOTE: Sec. 368. Parliamentary law as to taking down
disorderly words.>> words are not to be noticed till the Member has
finished his speech. 5 Grey, 356; 6 Grey, 60. Then the person objecting
to them, and desiring them to be taken down by the Clerk at the table,
must repeat them. The Speaker then may direct the Clerk to take them
down in his minutes; but if he thinks them not disorderly, he delays the
direction. If the call becomes pretty general, he orders the Clerk to
take them down, as stated by the objecting Member. They are then a part
of his minutes, and when read to the offending Member, he may deny they
were his words, and the House must then decide by a question whether
they are his words or not. Then the Member may justify them, or explain
the sense in which he used them, or apologize. If the House is
satisfied, no further proceeding is necessary. But if two Members still
insist to take the sense of the House, the Member must withdraw before
that question is stated, and then the sense of the House is to be taken.
2 Hats., 199; 4 Grey, 170; 6 Grey, 59. When any Member has spoken, or
other business intervened, after offensive words spoken, they can not be
taken notice of for censure. And this is for the common security of all,
and to prevent mistakes which must happen if words are not taken down
immediately. Formerly they might be taken down at
[[Page 175]]
any time the same day. 2 Hats., 196; Mem. in Hakew., 71; 3 Grey, 48;
9 Grey, 514.
The House of Representatives has, by clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV,
provided a method of procedure in cases of disorderly words. The House
permits and requires them to be noticed as soon as uttered, and has not
insisted that the offending Member withdraw while the House is deciding
as to its course of action.
Disorderly <<NOTE: Sec. 369. Disorderly words taken down and reported
from Committee of the Whole.>> words spoken in a committee must be
written down as in the House; but the committee can only report them to
the House for animadversion. 6 Grey, 46.
This provision of the parliamentary law has been applied to the
Committee of the Whole rather than to select or standing committees. The
House has censured a Member for disorderly words spoken in Committee of
the Whole and reported therefrom (II, 1259).
In <<NOTE: Sec. 370. References in debate to the
Executive.>> Parliament, to speak irreverently or seditiously against
the King is against order. Smyth's Comw., L. 2, c. 3; 2 Hats., 170.
This provision of the parliamentary law is manifestly inapplicable to
the House of Representatives (V, 5086); and it has been held in order in
debate to refer to the President of the United States or his opinions,
either with approval or criticism, provided that such reference be
relevant to the subject under discussion and otherwise conformable to
the rules of the House (V, 5087-5091; VIII, 2500). Under this standard
the following references are in order: (1) a reference to the probable
action of the President (V, 5092); (2) an adjuration to the President to
keep his word (although an improper form of address) (Dec. 19, 1995, p.
----); and (3) an accusation that the President ``frivolously vetoed'' a
bill (Nov. 8, 1995, p. ----). Although wide latitude is permitted in
debate on a proposition to impeach the President (V, 5093), Members must
abstain from language personally offensive (V, 5094). Personal abuse,
innuendo, or ridicule of the President is not permitted (VIII, 2497;
Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21078; Oct. 21, 1987, p. 8857; Sept. 21, 1994, p. ----
). Under this standard the following references are not in order: (1)
calling the President a ``liar'' or accusing him of ``lying'' (June 26,
1985, p. 17394; Sept. 24, 1992, p. ----; Nov. 15, 1995, p. ----; June 6,
1996, p. ----); (2) attributing to him ``hypocrisy'' (Sept. 25, 1992, p.
----); (3) accusing him of giving aid and comfort to the enemy (Jan. 25,
1995, p. ----); (4) accusing him of ``demagoguery'' (Jan. 23, 1996, p.
[[Page 176]]
----; Jan. 24, 1996, p. ----; May 30, 1996, p. ----); (5) calling him a
``draft-dodger'' or accusing him of ``raping the truth'' (Apr. 24, 1996,
p. ----; Sept. 30, 1996, p. ----); (6) describing his action as
``cowardly'' (Oct. 25, 1989, p. 25817); (7) charging him with intent to
be intellectually dishonest (May 9, 1990, p. 9828); (8) referring to him
as ``a little bugger'' (Nov. 18, 1995, p. ----); (9) alluding to alleged
sexual misconduct on his part (May 10, 1994, p. ----); and (10) alluding
to a propensity for unethical behavior on his part (June 20, 1996, p. --
--). The Chair may admonish Members transgressing this stricture even
after other debate has intervened (Jan. 23, 1996, p. ----).
A Member may not read in debate extraneous material personally abusive
of the President, which would be improper if spoken in the Member's own
words (July 12, 1996, p. ----; July 26, 1996, p. ----), such as calling
the President a liar (Mar. 3, 1993, p. ----; Nov. 15, 1995, p. ----; May
2, 1996, p. ----). The Chair has advised that the protections afforded
by Jefferson's Manual and the precedents against unparliamentary
references to the President, himself, do not necessarily obtain for
members of his family (July 12, 1990, p. 17206). In the 102d Congress,
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 (Speaker Foley, Sept. 24,
1992, p. ----).
For discussion of the stricture against addressing remarks in debate
to the President, as in the second person, see Sec. 749, infra.
On January 27, 1909 (VIII, 2497), the House adopted a report of a
committee appointed to investigate the question, which report in part
stated:
``The freedom of speech in debate in the House of Representatives
should never be denied or abridged, but freedom of speech in debate does
not mean license to indulge in personal abuses or ridicule. The right of
Members of the two Houses of Congress to criticise the official acts of
the President and other executive officers is beyond question, but this
right is subject to proper rules requiring decorum in debate. Such right
of criticism in inherent upon legislative authority. 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 abuses which exist or which are feared.
``It is, however, the duty of the House to require its Members in
speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the
House to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without
unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among its Members or
antagonism from those other branches of the Government with which the
House is correlated.''
[[Page 177]]
It <<NOTE: Sec. 371. Debate and proceedings in the other House not to
be noticed in debate.>> is a breach of order in debate to notice what
has been said on the same subject in the other House, or the particular
votes or majorities on it there; because the opinion of each House
should be left to its own independency, not to be influenced by the
proceedings of the other; and the quoting them might beget reflections
leading to a misunderstanding between the two Houses. 8 Grey, 22.
Until clause 1 of rule XIV, was amended by adoption of the rules in
the 100th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6) and again in the
101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72), this principle of
comity and the parliamentary law as described by Jefferson governed
debate in the House of Representatives to the full extent of its
provisions (see generally, V, 5095-5130; VIII, 2501-21; July 31, 1984,
p. 21670; Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14). Clause 1 of rule XIV, now
provides that ``debate may include references to actions taken by the
Senate or by committees thereof which 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 and which are relevant to the making of legislative history
establishing the meaning of that measure, but may not include
characterizations of Senate action or inaction, other references to
individual Members of the Senate, or other quotations from Senate
proceedings.'' The prohibition against such references to Senators
includes a reference not explicitly naming the Senator (VIII, 2512; Feb.
23, 1994, p. ----; June 30, 1995, p. ----; Feb. 27, 1997, p. ----). A
Member may not read or quote from the record of speeches or proceedings
in the Senate, or insert such material in the Record (V, 5107-5111;
VIII, 2501-2506; June 25, 1986, p. 15576; Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14.3)
except to make legislative history on a measure then under debate, and
the prohibition extends to quoting accounts of Senate debates printed
elsewhere, such as in reprints or in the press (VIII, 2053). It has even
been held out of order to criticize words spoken in the Senate by one
not a Member of that body in the course of an impeachment trial (V,
5106). It is not in order in debate to mention the name of a Senator
(except as the sponsor of a measure or in quotations from Senate
proceedings for the purpose of making legislative history), to refer to
a Senator or his vote on a proposition (Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14.2;
Sept. 29, 1983, pp. 26515-16), or to publish the telephone number
[[Page 178]]
of a Senator in an attempt to influence his future vote (Oct. 25, 1990,
p. 34083).
Except as permitted in clause 1 of rule XIV, it is equally out of
order to characterize the position of the Senate, or of Senators
designated by name or position, on legislative issues (Oct. 5, 1984, pp.
30326-27; Oct. 11, 1984, p. 32153; Nov. 2, 1989, p. 26918; July 12,
1990, p. ----), or to speculate as to the intent of Senators or of the
Senate on legislation (Oct. 11, 1984, pp. 32221-23), or to characterize
Senate action or inaction (see, e.g., Apr. 29, 1986, p. 8856; July 31,
1986, p. 18253; Aug. 4, 1987, p. 22288; Oct. 28, 1993, p. ----; Jan. 3,
1996, p. ----); or to question the courage or resolve of its Members
(Aug. 4, 1989, p. 19315). Nor is it in order in debate to specifically
urge that the Senate take certain action; thus a Member may not refer to
confirmation proceedings in the Senate by advocating that it take a
certain action with respect to a Presidential nominee (Feb. 7, 1984, p.
1979; Oct. 8, 1991, p. 25754; May 24, 1995, p. ----), or by
characterizing the action of a Senate committee on a judicial nominee
(July 9, 1992, p. ----), or suggest that the President urge Senate
conferees to meet with House conferees on specific legislation (Aug. 2,
1984, p. 22270).
On one occasion before the rule was changed in the 101st Congress to
permit certain quotations from Senate proceedings for the purpose of
making legislative history, the Speaker entertained a unanimous-consent
request that a Member be permitted to refer in debate to Senate
proceedings (to quote a statement by the Senate Majority Leader as to
probable Senate action on the measure then pending in the House), but
the Speaker first ascertained in what manner the reference would be
made, in order to assure that remarks critical of the Senate, its
Members or proceedings would not be made (Speaker O'Neill, June 4, 1980,
p. 13212). But 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 which were critical of Members of the
House (VIII, 2519).
In one case, the personal views of a Senator, not uttered in the
Senate, were allowed to be quoted in the House (V, 5112), but the weight
of recent precedent and the purposes of the rule prohibit references to
speeches or statements of Senators occurring outside the Senate Chamber
(VIII, 2515; June 26, 1935, pp. 10189-90; May 2, 1941, pp. 3566-67;
Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14.3; May 21, 1984, p. 13024). With respect to
references to members of the Senate acting in another capacity,
references to former Members of the House who are presently Senators are
only permissible if they merely address prior House service and are
<plus-minus>not implicitly critical of Senate service (May 8, 1984, p.
11428). A Member of the House has been permitted to refer to a speech
made in the Senate by one no longer a Member of that body (V, 5112),
although references to Senate proceedings on legislation in the current
Congress other than those expressly permitted to establish legislative
history should be avoided. In the 104th Congress the Chair held that the
precise standard in clause 1 of rule XIV for references to ``individual
Members of the Senate'' does not apply to references to former Senators
[[Page 179]]
or to the Vice President in his former capacity as a Senator (Dec. 14,
1995, p. ----). 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
clause 1 of rule XIV against references to sitting Senators (Dec. 14,
1995, p. ----). References to Members of the Senate in their capacities
as candidates for the Presidency or other office are not prohibited;
where a Senator is a candidate for President or Vice President his
official policies, actions, and opinions as a candidate may be
criticized in terms not personally offensive (Speaker Wright, Sept. 29,
1988, p. 26683), but references attacking the character or integrity of
a Senator even in that context are not in order (Oct. 30, 1979, p.
30150).
Even prior to the 100th Congress (as indicated in Procedure, ch. 29,
sec. 14.1) it was permissible to refer to proceedings in the other
House, provided the reference does not contravene the principles stated
by Jefferson. A Member must be 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 (V, 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 (Oct. 4, 1984, p.
30047). 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 (Oct. 4, 1984, p. 30047). 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 member of the Senate (July 29, 1935,
p. 12011).
While <<NOTE: Sec. 372. The other House and its Members not to be
criticized in debate.>> the Senate may be referred to properly in
debate, it is not in order to criticize its acts (V, 5114-5120; Dec. 10,
1980, p. 33205; Apr. 27, 1993, p. ----); refer to a Senator in terms of
personal criticism (V, 5121, 5122; VIII, 2518, 2521; July 10, 1990, p.
17205); even anonymously (VIII, 2512; Feb. 23, 1994, p. ----; June 30,
1995, p. ----; Feb. 27, 1997, p. ---- ); for purpose of complimenting
(VIII, 2509; Apr. 21, 1993, p. ----), or read a paper making such
criticism (V, 5127); and the inhibition extends to references to the
remarks or actions of a Senator outside the Senate (VIII, 2515; Speaker
Albert, Oct. 7, 1975, p. 32055). The prohibition extends to references
to another person's criticism of a Member of the Senate (Aug. 4, 1983,
p. 23145). After examination by a committee a speech reflecting on the
character of the Senate was ordered to be stricken from the Record, on
the ground that it tended to create ``unfriendly conditions between the
two bodies * * * obstructive of wise legislation and little short of a
public calamity'' (V, 5129). But where a Member has been assailed in the
Senate, he has been permitted to explain
[[Page 180]]
his own conduct and motives, without bringing the whole controversy into
discussion or assailing the Senator (V, 5123-5126). Propositions relating
to breaches of these principles have been entertained as of privilege (V,
5129, 6980).
Neither <<NOTE: Sec. 373. Complaint by one House of conduct of a
Member of the other.>> House can exercise any authority over a Member or
officer of the other, but should complain to the House of which he is,
and leave the punishment to them.
In a notable instance, wherein a Member of the House had assaulted a
Senator in the Senate Chamber for words spoken in debate, the Senate
examined the breach of privilege and transmitted its report to the
House, which punished the Member (II, 1622). A Senator having assailed a
House Member in debate, the House messaged to the Senate a resolution
declaring the language a breach of privilege and requested the Senate to
take appropriate action (Sept. 27, 1951, p. 12270). The Senator
subsequently asked unanimous consent to correct his remarks in the
permanent Congressional Record, but objection was raised (Sept. 28,
1951, p. 12383). But where certain Members of the House, in a published
letter, sought to influence the vote of a Senator in an impeachment
trial, the House declined to consider the matter as a breach of
privilege (III, 2657). While on one occasion it was held that a
resolution offered in the House requesting the Senate to expunge from
the Record statements in criticism of a Member of the House did not
constitute a question of privilege, being in violation of the rule
prohibiting references to the Senate in debate (VIII, 2519), a properly
drafted resolution referring to language published in the record on a
designated page of Senate proceedings as constituting a breach of
privilege and requesting the Senate to take appropriate action
concerning the subject has been held to present a question of the
privileges of the House (VIII, 2516).
* * * <<NOTE: Sec. 374. Duty of the Speaker to prevent expressions
offensive to the other House.>> Where the complaint is of words
disrespectfully spoken by a Member of another House, it is difficult to
obtain punishment, because of the rules supposed necessary to be
observed (as to the immediate noting down of words) for the security of
Members. Therefore it is the duty of the House, and more particularly of
the Speaker, to interfere immediately, and not to permit ex-
[[Page 181]]
pressions to go unnoticed which may give a ground of complaint to the
other House, and introduce proceedings and mutual accusations between
the two Houses, which can hardly be terminated without difficulty and
disorder. 3 Hats., 51.
In the House of Representatives this rule of the parliamentary law is
considered as binding on the Chair (V, 5130; VIII, 2465), and it is the
duty of the Speaker to call to order a Member who criticizes the actions
of the Senate, its Members or committees in debate or through an
insertion in the Record (Speaker Albert, Apr. 17, 1975, p. 10458; Oct.
7, 1975, pp. 32055-56). The Chair has distinguished between engaging in
personality toward another Member of the House, as to which the Chair
normally awaits a point of order from the floor, and improper references
to Members of the Senate, which violate comity between the Houses
whether or not engaging in personality, as to which the Chair normally
takes initiative (Feb. 27, 1997, p. ----). Pending consideration of a
measure relating to the Senate, the Speaker announced his intention to
strictly enforce this provision of Jefferson's Manual prohibiting
improper references to the Senate, and to deny recognition to Members
violating the prohibition, subject to permission of the House to proceed
in order (Speaker O'Neill, June 16, 1982, p. 13843). While the Chair
should take the initiative to prevent improper references to the Senate
in debate, the Chair will not respond to hypothetical questions as to
the propriety of possible characterizations of Senate actions prior to
their use in debate (Oct. 24, 1985, p. 28819). For a further discussion
of the Speaker's duties regarding unparliamentary debate, see
Sec. Sec. 760-61, infra.
No <<NOTE: Sec. 375. Course of the Member when business concerning
himself is debating.>> Member may be present when a bill or any business
concerning himself is debating; nor is any Member to speak to the merits
of it till he withdraws. 2 Hats., 219. The rule is that if a charge
against a Member arise out of a report of a committee, or examination of
witnesses in the House, as the Member knows from that to what points he
is to direct his exculpation, he may be heard to those points before any
question is moved or stated against him. He is then to be heard, and
with-
[[Page 182]]
draw before any question is moved. But if the question itself is the
charge, as for breach of order or matter arising in the debate, then the
charge must be stated (that is, the question must be moved), himself
heard, and then to withdraw. 2 Hats., 121, 122.
In 1832, during proceedings for the censure of a Member, the Speaker
informed the Member that he should retire (II, 1366); but this seems to
be an exceptional instance of the enforcement of the law of Parliament.
In other cases, after the proposition for censure or expulsion has been
proposed, Members have been heard in debate, either as a matter of right
(II, 1286), as a matter of course (II, 1246, 1253), by express provision
(II, 1273), and in writing (II, 1273), or by unanimous consent (II,
1275). A Member against whom a resolution of censure was pending was
asked by the Speaker if he desired to be heard (VI, 236). But a Member
was not permitted to depute another Member to speak in his behalf (II,
1273). In modern practice the Member has been permitted to speak in his
own behalf, both in censure (June 10, 1980, pp. 13802-11) and expulsion
proceedings (Oct. 2, 1980, pp. 28953-78). A Member-elect has been
permitted to participate in debate on a resolution relating to his right
to take the oath (Jan. 10, 1967, p. 23).
Where <<NOTE: Sec. 376. Disqualifying personal interest of a
Member.>> the private interests of a Member are concerned in a bill or
question he is to withdraw. And where such an interest has appeared, his
voice has been disallowed, even after a division. In a case so contrary,
not only to the laws of decency, but to the fundamental principle of the
social compact, which denies to any man to be a judge in his own cause,
it is for the honor of the House that this rule of immemorial observance
should be strictly adhered to. 2 Hats., 119, 121; 6 Grey, 368.
In the House of Representatives it has not been usual for the Member
to withdraw when his private interests are concerned in a pending
measure, but the House has provided by clause 1 of rule VIII that the
Member shall not vote in such a contingency. In one instance the Senate
disallowed
[[Page 183]]
a vote given by a Senator on a question relating to his own
right to a seat; but the House has never had occasion to proceed so far
(V, 5959).
No <<NOTE: Sec. 377. Wearing of hats by Members.>> Member is to come
into the House with his head covered, nor to remove from one place to
another with his hat on, nor is to put on his hat in coming in or
removing, until he be set down in his place. Scob., 6.
Until 1837 the parliamentary practice of wearing hats during the
session continued in the House; but in that year it was abolished by
clause 7 of rule XIV.
<<NOTE: Sec. 378. Adjournment of questions of order.>> A question of
order may be adjourned to give time to look into precedents. 2 Hats.,
118.
The Speaker has declined, on a difficult question of order, to rule
until he had taken time for examination (III, 2725; VI, 432; VII, 2106;
VIII, 2174, 2396, 3475), and may take a parliamentary inquiry under
advisement, especially where not related to the pending proceedings
(VIII, 2174; Apr. 7, 1992, p. ----), but it is conceivable that a case
might arise wherein this privilege of the Chair would require approval
of the majority of the House, to prevent arbitrary obstruction of the
pending business by the Chair. On occasion, the Chair has reversed as
erroneous a decision previously made (VI, 639; VII, 849; VIII, 2794,
3435). The law of Parliament evidently contemplates that the adjournment
of a question of order shall be controlled by the House.
<<NOTE: Sec. 379. House's control over question of the Speaker.>> In
Parliament, all decisions of the Speaker may be controlled by the House.
3 Grey, 319.
The Speaker's decision on a decision of order is subject to appeal by
any Member (clause 4 of rule I).