[HOUSE PRACTICE, 104th Congress, 2d Session]
[A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:hp_txt-16]
[Page 353-424]
[[Page 353]]
CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
A. Introductory; Initiating Consideration and Debate
Sec. 1. In General; In the House
Sec. 2. Order of Consideration
Sec. 3. Use of Special Rules
Sec. 4. Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules
Sec. 5. Role of Calendars
Sec. 6. Consideration by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 7. In Committee of the Whole
Sec. 8. In the House as in 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
Sec. 12. Management by Committee
Sec. 13. Designation of Managers
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 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
Sec. 26. Procedure; Calls to Order
Sec. 27. -- Procedure in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 28. -- Taking Down Words
[[Page 354]]
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 or to 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, Twenty-minute, and Forty-minute Debate
Sec. 47. Debate in the House as in Committee of the Whole
Sec. 48. Limiting or Extending Debate Time
Sec. 49. Closing Debate
Sec. 50. One-minute and Special-order Speeches; Morning Hour Debates
G. Duration of Debate in Committee of the Whole
Sec. 51. In General; Effect of Special Rules
Sec. 52. General Debate
Sec. 53. Limiting or Closing General Debate
Sec. 54. Five-minute Debate
Sec. 55. -- Limiting or Extending Five-minute Debate-- By House Action
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
[[Page 355]]
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 Secs. 4978-5299
8 Cannon Secs. 2448-2608
Manual Secs. 359, 364, 369-372, 465, 622, 749, 753-758, 762,
804, 805, 870-874, 907, 922
Deschler-Brown Ch 29
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, on the nature and
precedence of the proposal, and on agreements reached by the
leadership and membership on the method of consideration. And the
House may reject a proposal to consider a matter by voting solely on
the question of consideration. See Question of Consideration.
Measures may be called up for consideration pursuant to special
rules reported from the Committee on Rules, by motions to suspend the
rules, and by unanimous-consent agreements. Certain measures may be
called up for consideration in the House as privileged if reported by
the appropriate committee (Manual Secs. 726-728), but where not so
reported, such a measure must be called up by some other procedure,
such as suspension of the rules or a special rule making the matter
privileged. 95-1, Feb. 17, 1977, pp 4579-81; 87-2, Sept. 27, 1962, p
21048. See also 95-2, May 18, 1978, p 14377.
A measure cannot be considered if there is no mechanism under
rules of the House that permits such consideration. Except by
unanimous consent,
[[Page 356]]
the Speaker has no authority to permit consideration in the House of a
matter which is not in order under the rules. 95-1, Feb. 16, 1977, p
4053. House consideration of commemoration bills and certain private
bills (Rule XXII clause 2) and measures carrying a retroactive federal
income tax rate increase (Rule XXI clause 5) is expressly prohibited.
Generally, questions are not considered on the floor unless
reported or discharged from House committees, although the House rules
permit the immediate consideration of introduced bills under certain
circumstances. Secs. 3, 4, infra. Certain time periods or ``layover''
requirements may be a condition precedent to consideration in the
House after the committee has reported the matter in question. See
Committees. And even though a committee may have reported a bill
favorably, a Member cannot rise and debate it until the Chair has
recognized him to do so. 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 motion has been
made (5 Hinds Secs. 4984, 4985) and stated by the Chair or read by the
Clerk (5 Hinds Secs. 4982, 4983, 5304). One mechanism for initiating
debate on a matter is for a Member to make a motion that is debatable
under a specific rule of the House. (See, for example, Rule XXVII
clause 3, authorizing forty minutes of debate on a motion to suspend
the rules and pass a bill.)
However, debate may be initiated without motion:
<box> When requests to consider a proposition have been granted. 4
Hinds Sec. 3058.
<box> When questions of personal privilege are raised. 3 Hinds
Sec. 2546.
<box> When conference reports are considered (5 Hinds Sec. 6517),
the question on agreeing being regarded as pending (Manual
Sec. 550).
<box> When the Committee of the Whole reports its recommendation to
the House. 4 Hinds Sec. 4896.
<box> When personal explanations are made by unanimous consent. 5
Hinds Sec. 5064.
It should also be noted that debate on a matter may be initiated
without motion if such debate is authorized or directed by special
rule or if the matter is business being considered from a special
calendar that is before the House.
[[Page 357]]
Sec. 2 . Order of Consideration
A general rule for the ``daily order of business'' is set forth in
Rule XXIV, which specifies the sequence in which certain matters are
to be taken up. Manual Sec. 878. The order of consideration may be
varied by unanimous-consent agreements (Sec. 6, infra), and by special
orders reported from the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House.
Generally, see Order of Business. See also Special Rules.
Among the privileged matters which may affect the order of
consideration are: (1) general appropriation bills (Rule XVI clause
9), (2) conference reports (Rule XXVIII clause 1(a)) and (3) special
orders reported by the Committee on Rules (Rule XI clause 4(b)).
Manual Sec. 880. Generally, see 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 and pass
bills. Manual Sec. 902. See also Sec. 5, infra.
Sec. 3 . Use of Special Rules
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. While the general effect of the adoption of a resolution
making in order the consideration of a bill is to give to the bill a
privileged status (Deschler Ch 21 Sec. 16), the adoption of the
resolution making in order the consideration of a bill does not make
the consideration mandatory unless so stated in the resolution. The
resolution may provide that ``the House shall immediately consider''
the bill; it may permit the Speaker to declare the House resolved into
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill (see Rule
XXIII clause 1(b); it may provide for consideration at some specified
time in the order of business. See Sec. 12, infra. If the special rule
places control over the calling up of the bill in a Member, the
consideration of the bill must await the initiative of that Member.
See Deschler Ch 21 Secs. 20.16, 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. See Deschler Ch 21
Secs. 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. Deschler Ch 21
Secs. 20.5-20.15. A special rule may be limited in scope, as where it
applies merely to a specified amendment to a pending bill. 8 Cannon
Sec. 2258.
[[Page 358]]
The resolution may waive one or more House rules which impede the
consideration of the bill or amendment thereto; and 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
Secs. 16.9-16.14. Generally, see Special Rules.
Sec. 4 . Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules
A motion to suspend the rules may be used to bring a matter before
the House and pass it under Rule XXVII clause 1. 5 Hinds Secs. 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. The motion may provide for the passage of a bill even if
the bill has not been reported or referred to any calendar or even
previously introduced. 8 Cannon Sec. 3421. The motion may be used for
example:
<box> To pass a measure submitted from the floor and not considered
by a committee. Deschler Ch 21 Sec. 9.19.
<box> To pass a bill which is pending before a committee but which
has not been reported. Deschler Ch 21 Sec. 9.
<box> To pass a Senate bill similar to a House bill. Deschler Ch 21
Sec. 9.3.
<box> To take a bill from the Speaker's table and agree to Senate
amendments (8 Cannon Sec. 3425) or amend Senate amendments (93-
1, Dec. 20, 1973, p 42883).
<box> To pass a Senate measure as amended, insist on the House
amendment and request a conference. See 103-2, Mar. 24, 1994, p
____.
<box> To waive a rule of the House. 5 Hinds Sec. 6862.
The motion to suspend the rules as authorized by House Rule XXVII
clause 1 is privileged (Manual Sec. 902), but is in order only on the
days specified by the rule 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 to make 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
Generally
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,
[[Page 359]]
(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. 742. In addition the House maintains a Discharge Calendar for
motions to discharge a committee (Manual Sec. 908).
The Corrections Calendar
The transaction of business by a call of the Corrections Calendar
is authorized by Rule XIII clause 4. This rule, adopted in the 104th
Congress, establishes a procedure under which certain bills and
resolutions may be considered on the second and fourth Tuesdays of
each month. The rule permits the Speaker, after consultation with the
Minority Leader, to file a notice with the Clerk requesting that a
bill be placed on the calendar, where the bill has been reported and
is on either the House or Union Calendar. Manual Sec. 745a.
Measures on the Corrections Calendar are called in numerical
order, following the Pledge of Allegiance in the order of business,
after they have been on the calendar for three legislative days and
require a three-fifths vote for passage. Manual Sec. 746. See also
Calendars.
Sec. 6 . Consideration by Unanimous Consent
The House, pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement, sometimes
permits the consideration of a bill that is not otherwise in order
under the rules, for example, one not yet introduced. 97-1, July 17,
1981, p 16315; 97-2, June 23, 1982, p 14989. A request for unanimous
consent to consider a bill is in effect a request to suspend the order
of business temporarily. Any Member may object or demand the ``regular
order.'' 4 Hinds Sec. 3058. The Speaker may in his discretion decline
to recognize a Member who rises to seek the consent of the House to
such an agreement. 97-1, July 17, 1981, p 16315.
The Speaker may decline recognition where the Member making the
request has failed to comply with the Speaker's policy that he and the
party leaders be notified in advance of the intention to submit
unanimous-consent requests for changes in the order of business. 6
Cannon Sec. 708; Deschler Ch 23 Sec. 44.1. In recent years, the
Speaker has consistently declined to recognize Members to seek
consideration of bills by unanimous consent unless assured that the
majority and minority elected floor leaderships and subcommittee and
ranking minority members have no objection. See Manual Secs. 757, 881,
for discussion of various situations in which the Speaker has declined
recognition for unanimous-consent consideration of a measure. The
Speaker's
[[Page 360]]
authority to decline to recognize individual Members to request
unanimous consent for the consideration of bills derives from clause 2
of Rule XIV, which confers the general power of recognition on the
Speaker. 98-2, Jan. 26, 1984, pp 449, 450.
By unanimous-consent agreement, it may be made in order to
consider a bill ``under the general rules of the House.'' 87-1, July
31, 1961, p 14050; see also 91-1, Mar. 27, 1969, p 7895. If on the
Union Calendar the bill will then normally be considered in the
Committee of the Whole; however, the bill may be called up pursuant to
the agreement and then by unanimous consent considered in the House as
in Committee of the Whole. 91-1, Apr. 1, 1969, p 8136.
A unanimous-consent agreement permitting the consideration of a
measure may specify the time at which the measure is to be called up--
either immediately or on a subsequent day--and may also limit the
duration of debate, provide how it is to be divided, waive certain
points of order, and make provision for the number and kinds of
amendments and motions that may be offered. 97-2, June 23, 1982, p
14989; 99-1, Dec. 12, 1985, p 36174.
This unanimous-consent procedure may be applied across a wide
range of House legislative business. It may be used:
<box> To call up for consideration a nonprivileged resolution.
Deschler Ch 23 Sec. 47.4.
<box> To consider a bill under the general rules of the House. 87-1,
July 31, 1961, p 14050; 91-1, Mar. 27, 1969, p 7895.
<box> To call up as privileged a bill not otherwise in order. 92-1,
Sept. 29, 1971, p 33826; 95-1, Feb. 17, 1977, pp 4579-81.
<box> To agree to a special order for the consideration of certain
business. 4 Hinds Secs. 3165, 3166; 7 Cannon Secs. 758-760.
<box> To permit consideration in the House on any subsequent day of
a bill to be introduced by the Chairman of the Appropriations
Committee. 97-2, June 23, 1982, p 14989.
<box> To discharge the Committee on Appropriations from
consideration of a joint resolution continuing appropriations.
99-1, Dec. 12, 1985, p 36174.
<box> To discharge the Committee of the Whole from further
consideration of a bill being read for amendment under a
special order, and agreeing that certain amendments be
considered as agreed to. 98-1, Nov. 18, 1983, p 34160.
[[Page 361]]
<box> To consider a bill reported from the Committee on Ways and
Means extending the public debt limit, and waiving all points
of order against the bill and a committee amendment thereto.
98-2, June 27, 1984, pp 19076, 19077.
<box> To consider a measure in the House under provisions ordering
the previous question on the bill and amendments to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit. 98-2, June 27, 1984, pp 19076, 19077.
Unanimous-consent procedures generally, see Unanimous-consent
Agreements.
Sec. 7 . In Committee of the Whole
The Committee of the Whole considers business on the Union
Calendar--that is, public bills. 4 Hinds Sec. 4705; Deschler Ch 19
Sec. 1. Bills raising revenue, general appropriation bills, and bills
of a public character appropriating money or property, are referred to
this calendar. Manual Sec. 742. Although the jurisdiction of the
Committee is devoted primarily to the consideration of public bills,
other matters may be taken up in the Committee pursuant to House
order. Even measures on the House Calendar may be taken up in the
Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent or pursuant to a special
rule, including propositions to change the rules of the House. 4 Hinds
Sec. 4822; 91-2, July 13, 1970, p 23901; 93-2, Sept. 30, 1974, p
32953.
Legislative measures are referred to the Union Calendar for
subsequent consideration in the Committee of the Whole by the Speaker.
Their consideration therein is governed by special rules reported by
the Committee on Rules or by the standing rules applicable to the
Committee of the Whole. See Rule XXIII.
The House may agree to resolve into the Committee pursuant to a
special rule, by unanimous-consent agreement, or by motion. 4 Hinds
Sec. 3214; 7 Cannon Secs. 783, 794; Deschler Ch 19 Sec. 4. And when no
other business is pending, the Speaker is authorized under a rule
adopted in 1983 to declare the House resolved into the Committee to
consider a measure if the House has previously adopted a special order
providing for its consideration, unless the special order specifies
otherwise. Manual Sec. 862. Since this rule was adopted, it has become
the most frequently used mechanism for resolving into the Committee
for the consideration of nonprivileged bills. For first use, see 98-1,
July 14, 1983, p 19133.
Under some circumstances, the House automatically and without
motion or declaration resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole
to consider a measure. This occurs, for example, when a special rule
from the Commit-
[[Page 362]]
tee on Rules provides for the immediate consideration of the measure
in the Committee of the Whole. 7 Cannon Secs. 783, 794; Deschler Ch 19
Sec. 4.1.
For more comprehensive discussion, see Committees of the Whole.
Sec. 8 . In the House as in Committee of the Whole
Bills and other measures are sometimes taken up by the House when
it sits ``as in'' Committee of the Whole. Manual Sec. 427. This
practice permits consideration of a measure under the five-minute rule
rather than the hour rule, and without general debate. 4 Hinds
Sec. 4924; Manual Sec. 424. The Speaker remains in the Chair, and a
quorum of the House (and not of the Committee of the Whole) is
required. 6 Cannon Sec. 639. The measure is considered to have been
read for amendment, and is open to amendment at any point. 91-2, Aug.
10, 1970, p 28050. See also Committees of the Whole.
A motion to close debate on the pending measure (or an amendment)
is in order. 93-1, June 26, 1973, p 21314. The measure may be brought
to a vote pursuant to the motion for the previous question (4 Hinds
Secs. 4926-4929), and a motion to reconsider will lie (8 Cannon
Sec. 2793).
The normal method for initiating consideration in the House as in
the Committee of the Whole is by unanimous consent. A motion that a
proposition be considered under that procedure is not in order. 4
Hinds Sec. 4923; Manual Sec. 424. On occasion, a special rule from the
Committee on Rules has provided for the consideration of a proposition
in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. 93-2, Dec. 18, 1974, p
40858.
Sec. 9 . Limitations on Debate; Nondebatable Matters
Generally; Time Limitations
Debate is subject to many limitations under the rules of the House
and its precedents. Most of the limitations imposed by House rule are
time limitations--that is, limitations on the duration of time that is
allowed to debate a particular proposition. These include, for
example, the hour rule (Manual Sec. 758), the 40-minute rule (Manual
Secs. 805, 907), the 20-minute rule (Manual Sec. 908), the 10-minute
rule (Manual Sec. 874), the five-minute rule (Manual Sec. 870) 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. 754). For more detailed discussion, see
Secs. 44-50, infra.
Most of these are rules of general applicability that may be
invoked at any time under the conditions specified by the particular
rule. In addition, the House may adopt a special rule from the
Committee on Rules which places limits on the duration of debate on a
particular legislative proposal.
[[Page 363]]
This practice enables the House, by majority vote, to specify a
relative short or relatively long period of time for 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 brought before the House is
debated under the hour rule. Secs. 44, 45, infra. However, the various
motions which may apply to a proposition often carry their own time
limitations for debate and in some instances preclude debate entirely.
The motions for the previous question or to lay on the table, for
example, are not debatable. Manual Sec. 782.
Matters Not Subject to Debate
The relevant standing rule and the precedents on a motion or
question must be consulted in order to determine whether debate
thereon is precluded. The checklist below shows examples of questions
that are not subject to debate.
<box> A motion that the Journal be read in full. Manual Sec. 621.
<box> Motions to go into Committee of the Whole. 4 Hinds Secs. 3062,
3078; 6 Cannon Sec. 716.
<box> Motions that the Committee of the Whole rise and report. 4
Hinds Secs. 4766, 4782; Deschler Ch 19 Sec. 22.4.
<box> Motions for a call of the House (6 Cannon Sec. 683), or
incidental to a call of the House (6 Cannon Sec. 688). See also
Manual Sec. 771a.
<box> Resolutions authorizing the Sergeant at Arms to arrest
absentees. 6 Cannon Sec. 686.
<box> Motions to fix the day to which the House shall adjourn. 5
Hinds Secs. 5379, 5380; 8 Cannon Sec. 2648; Manual Sec. 784.
<box> Resolutions providing for a sine die adjournment or for
adjournment to a day certain. 90-1, Aug. 28, 1967, p 24201; 93-
2, Dec. 20, 1974, p 41815.
<box> Motions to adjourn or to adjourn sine die. 98-2, Oct. 11,
1984, p 32232; Manual Sec. 782.
<box> Motions to lay on the table. 6 Cannon Sec. 415; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2465; 98-2, Oct. 4, 1984, pp 30042, 30043.
<box> Motions to reconsider an undebatable proposition. 5 Hinds
Secs. 5694-5699; 96-1, Sept. 20, 1979, pp 25512, 25513.
<box> Motions to close general debate (5 Hinds Sec. 5203) or to
limit five-minute debate. 95-1, May 18, 1977, p 15418.
<box> Motions to strike unparliamentary language from the Record. 6
Cannon Sec. 617; 96-1, June 12, 1979, p 14461.
<box> Incidental questions of order after a demand for the previous
question. Manual Sec. 811.
<box> Incidental questions of order rising during a division. 5
Hinds Sec. 5926.
[[Page 364]]
<box> Motions that the Committee of the Whole take up a bill out of
calendar order. 8 Cannon Secs. 2331, 2333.
<box> Motions for a change of reference of a bill. Manual Sec. 854.
<box> The question of consideration. 73-2, June 1, 1934, p 10239.
<box> Questions relating to the priority of business. Manual
Sec. 900.
<box> Appeals from a decision of the Chair on the priority of
business. 5 Hinds Sec. 6952; Manual Sec. 900.
<box> Appeals from a decision of the Chair on relevancy. 5 Hinds
Secs. 5056-5063.
<box> Appeals from a decision of the Chair on the dilatoriness of
motions. 5 Hinds Sec. 5731.
<box> Amendments to the title of a bill. 8 Cannon Sec. 2907; Manual
Sec. 822.
<box> Questions as to admissibility of evidence in impeachment
trials. 6 Cannon Sec. 490.
B. Control and Distribution of Time for Debate
Sec. 10 . In General; Role of Manager
Under a practice of long-standing, one or more designated Members
manage a bill during its consideration in the Committee of the Whole
and on the floor of the House. Such managers are normally designated
by the committee reporting the measure. Typically, it will designate
two managers, a senior majority member of the committee (or
subcommittee)--often its chairman--and senior minority member of the
committee (Sec. 14, infra).
The majority manager of a bill 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 is offered by an opponent of the bill.
See Recognition. If the bill is to be taken up in the House, the
manager offers it and he is ordinarily 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 half the debate time to the minority.
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 by a special rule or
unanimous-consent agreement. General debate therein is controlled and
divided by the Members in charge. When the bill is read for amendment
in the Committee, the managers have the prior right to recognition and
may move to close or to limit debate or move that the Committee rise.
Similarly, if the bill is taken up in the House as in the Committee of
the Whole, priority
[[Page 365]]
of recognition is extended during debate to members in charge of the
bill from the reporting committee. See Recognition.
Sec. 11 . Distribution and Alternation
The distribution of available time for debate, and the alternation
of time between majority and minority members, is governed by
principals of comity and by House tradition, as well as by standing
rules of the House and by special rules from the Committee on Rules. A
division of time for debate on certain motions may be required and an
opposition Member may claim a priority to control half the time. See
Rule XXVII clause 2 (requiring a division of time for debate on a
motion to suspend the rules). Manual Sec. 907. Time may be claimed by
a Member opposed on conference reports, motions to instruct conferees
and amendments reported from conference in disagreement. Rule XXVIII.
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 general
debate time equally between the majority and minority parties;
``modified rules'' governing the amendment process commonly divide
such control between a proponent and an opponent of the amendment in
the modern practice. 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.
Sec. 12 . Management by Committee
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
XI clause 2. 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 seniority, have priority of recognition at all
stages of consideration. See Recognition. If the chairman is opposed
to the bill, the responsibility for managing the bill may be delegated
to the ranking majority member of the committee. 90-1, June 14, 1967,
p 15822. The chairman may also relinquish control where the Committee
of the Whole has adopted amendments to the bill to which he is
opposed. 84-2, July 5, 1956, p 11849. Such delegation of control is
ineffective where challenged unless communicated to the Chair. 88-2,
Jan. 31, 1964, p 1538.
[[Page 366]]
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 committee to control part of the available time and to move
the previous question. 91-2, May 13, 1970, pp 15291-97.
A member of the committee in charge of a bill is entitled to close
debate on an amendment. Ordinarily 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. This remains
true where debate has been limited and allocated in Committee of the
Whole. 8 Cannon Sec. 2581; 99-1, July 10, 1985, p 18496; 100-2, May 2,
1988, p 9638; 100-2, May 5, 1988, pp 9961, 9962. Even the minority
manager may claim this right, if he represents the committee. 99-2,
Aug. 14, 1986, p 21660; Manual Sec. 762. This practice when debating
amendments under the five-minute rule is at variance from the
provisions of clause 6, Rule XIV which otherwise provides that the
mover, proposer or introducer of the pending matter has the right to
speak in reply after all others have spoken.
Sec. 13 . Designation of Managers
The committee reporting a measure ordinarily designates the
Members who will control debate on the floor when the measure is
called up for consideration. See for example, 76-3, June 6, 1940, p
7706. However, managers are sometimes designated by special rule from
the Committee on Rules (Sec. 14, infra), or by the Chair if the
proposition is not being considered pursuant to a special rule. 91-1,
July 30, 1969, p 21420. If the special rule does not specifically
designate the Members in control, or if the designated managers are
absent, the Chair may in his discretion recognize a committee member
to control debate. 91-1, Dec. 23, 1969, p 40982. Control may also be
fixed by unanimous consent. 89-2, May 26, 1966, p 11608.
Sec. 14 . Effect of Special Rules
Generally
The designation of certain Members to control debate on a measure
is frequently provided for by special rule from the Committee on
Rules. Typically the Committee on Rules will draft a special rule that
provides that debate be equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the reporting committee. See, for
example, 84-1, Apr. 26, 1955, p 5119. That control can be delegated to
a designee.
[[Page 367]]
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.
See 91-2, Nov. 24, 1970, p 38746; 94-2, May 19, 1976, p 14377. The
special rule may provide that debate be controlled by the chairmen and
ranking minority members of the several committees reporting a bill,
with the sequential committees controlling a lesser amount of time.
94-2, July 30, 1976, p 24777. Debate may also 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, then go to the other or may rotate between the four managers.
If the rule divides control of debate among a primary reporting
committee and several sequentially reporting committees in a
designated order, 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. 97-2, June 17,
1982, p 13991. Under these circumstances, the sequential committees
are required to utilize all of their time prior to the closing debate
by the primary committee. 99-1, Dec. 5, 1985, pp 34638, 34644.
Division of Time Between a Member in Favor and a Member Opposed
In the event that a specified amount of time is equally divided
and controlled on an amendment 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. Pro forma amendments are not
permitted unless so specified. Compare 99-2, Aug. 11, 1986, pp 20678,
20679; 99-2, Aug. 14, 1986, p 21655. Debate time on the amendment
having been divided between the proponent and an opponent, the Chair
may in his discretion recognize the manager of the bill if opposed,
there being no requirement for recognition of the minority party. 99-
2, June 18, 1986, pp 14275, 14276. Indeed, the Chair ordinarily
recognizes the chairman of the committee managing the bill if he
qualifies as opposed to the amendment. 97-2, Aug. 5, 1982, p 19653.
[[Page 368]]
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.
Sec. 15 . Yielding Time-- For Debate
In General; Who May Yield
In an earlier era, a Member could not yield debate time without
losing his right to reoccupy the floor. A Member could not yield the
floor unless he yielded it unconditionally. 5 Hinds Secs. 5023, 5026.
That practice began to change with the adoption of the hour rule for
debate. 5 Hinds Sec. 5021.
Under current practice, a Member controlling the time during
general debate may yield 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 general debate is
discretionary with the Members who have control thereof. 86-1, Aug.
12, 1959, p 15678; 98-2, Aug. 2, 1984, p 22241. A Member may not yield
for purposes of debate where he has risen merely to make or reserve a
point of order. 99-1, Oct. 1, 1985, p 25419.
A Member who seeks yielded time should address the Chair and
request the permission of the Member speaking (84-2, June 29, 1956, p
11455). Where a Member interrupts another Member during debate without
being yielded to the time consumed by his remarks will not be charged
against the debate time of the Member controlling the floor and the
remarks are not carried in the Record. 99-1, Feb. 7, 1985, p 2229. A
Member may yield to another for a parliamentary inquiry, but the time
consumed by the inquiry and the response of the Chair do come out of
the time of the Member yielding. See 88-2, Feb. 5, 1964, p 1998.
The time used during yielded time is ordinarily charged against
the Member with the floor. 92-2, June 1, 1972, p 19476. Unused
remaining time reverts to the yielding Member. 99-1, Mar. 4, 1985, pp
4280-83.
In the House
The Member in control of general debate in the House under the
hour rule may in his discretion yield for debate. See 82-1, May 17,
1951, pp
[[Page 369]]
5435-45; 86-1, Aug. 12, 1959, p 15678; 91-2, Aug. 10, 1970, p 28005.
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. 87-1, Aug.
8, 1961, p 14947; 87-2, Aug. 29, 1962, pp 18029-36. Of course, the
yielding of time must be consistent with any division of time that is
required by House rule or a special rule from the Committee on Rules.
Debate time yielded back by a Member to whom time has been yielded
under the hour rule reverts to the Member in control of the hour. 99-
1, Mar. 4, 1985, pp 4280-83.
In 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. 97-1, May 4, 1981, p 8331.
During five-minute debate Members may yield, as for a question or
comment, but may not yield blocks of time. 5 Hinds Secs. 5035-5037;
100-1, May 8, 1987, p 11832. A Member yielding to a colleague during
debate under the five-minute rule should remain standing to protect
his right to the floor. 88-2, Mar. 12, 1964, p 5100. If a Member uses
only part of his time, his five-minute period is treated as exhausted,
cannot be reserved, and another Member cannot claim recognition for
the unused time. 8 Cannon Sec. 2571. But 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. 873.
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. While the minority member of the Committee on Rules to whom
one-half of the debate time 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. 94-2, Jan. 29, 1976, p 1632. 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. 89-2, Oct. 19, 1966, pp 27713-29.
[[Page 370]]
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. 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. 91-2, Aug. 10, 1970, p 28005; 92-1, Nov. 8, 1971, pp 39889,
39892.
A Member to whom a specific amount of time has been yielded for
debate in the House may not, in turn, yield a portion of that allotted
time to a third Member except by unanimous consent. 99-2, Aug. 6,
1986, p 19349. A similar rule is followed in the Committee of the
Whole. While a Member in control of time for general debate may yield
time to another Member, that Member in turn may yield a block of time
to a third Member only by unanimous consent. 97-1, May 4, 1981, p
8331.
Sec. 16 . -- Yielding for Amendment
In General
A Member controlling debate in the House on a measure may yield to
another to offer an amendment (89-1, Sept. 17, 1965, p 24290), despite
his prior announced intention not to yield for such purpose (92-1,
Apr. 29, 1971, pp 12489, 12504). A Member to whom time is yielded for
the purpose of offering an amendment is recognized in his own right to
discuss the amendment. 8 Cannon Secs. 2471, 2478. The Member offering
the amendment is recognized for an hour and may himself yield time.
89-1, Sept. 17, 1965, p 24290.
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. 89-1, Jan. 4, 1965, p 20. A Member
may not offer an amendment in time secured for debate only (8 Cannon
Sec. 2474), or request unanimous consent to offer an amendment unless
yielded to for that purpose by the Member controlling the floor.
Manual Sec. 750.
Loss of Control by Yielding Member
A Member may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment
without losing the floor. 5 Hinds Secs. 5021, 5030, 5031; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2476; Manual Sec. 750. 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. 92-1, Nov. 8, 1971,
p 39944. The previous question takes precedence over an amendment. See
Rule XVI clause 4.
[[Page 371]]
Manual Sec. 782. If the Member calling up a measure offers an
amendment and then yields to another Member to offer an amendment to
his amendment, he loses the floor and the Member to whom yielded is
recognized for one hour and may move the previous question on the
amendments and on the measure itself. 95-1, Dec. 6, 1977, p 38393.
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. 93-1, Apr. 19, 1973, p 13240; 95-2, May 18, 1978, p 14410; 95-2,
July 13, 1978, p 20653; Manual Sec. 750. 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. 94-1, Oct.
30, 1975, p 34442.
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. 97-2, July 29, 1982, p 18593.
Sec. 17 . Interruptions; Losing or Surrendering Control
In General
A Member may interrupt another Member in debate only if yielded
to. 95-2, Oct. 14, 1978, p 38378. A Member desiring to interrupt
another in debate should address the Chair to obtain the permission of
the Member speaking. 87-1, June 7, 1961, p 9681. The Member speaking
may then exercise his own discretion as to 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. 98-2, July 26, 1984, p 21247.
A Member in control of time during House debate may voluntarily
surrender the floor by simply so stating (90-1, June 14, 1967, p
15822), or by withdrawing the measure he is managing (88-2, Apr. 8,
1964, pp 7302-04).
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 also lose the floor if he is ruled out of order for
disorderly language. 88-1, Oct. 31, 1963, p 20742.
A Member may be interrupted by a point of order or by the
presentation of privileged matter, such as a conference report. 5
Hinds Sec. 6451; 8
[[Page 372]]
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. 750.
While 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:
<box> By a motion to adjourn. 5 Hinds Secs. 5369, 5370; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2646.
<box> By a demand for the previous question. 8 Cannon Sec. 2609.
<box> 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
A Member may not be interrupted by another for a parliamentary
inquiry without his consent. 8 Cannon Secs. 2455-2458; 90-1, July 17,
1967, p 19033. An interruption for a parliamentary inquiry is not in
order unless the Member having the floor yields for that purpose. 99-
1, Feb. 25, 1985, pp 3345-47. Nor will he lose control of the floor if
he does yield for that purpose, since he retains the right to resume.
Thus, a Member 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) and the time
consumed to state and answer the inquiry is deducted from his time for
debate. 94-1, Sept. 25, 1975, p 30196. And when the Member holding the
floor during general debate yields solely for a parliamentary inquiry,
the time continues to run against him. 90-1, Mar. 1, 1967, p 4997; 90-
1, July 17, 1967, p 19033. However, when the Chair entertains a
parliamentary inquiry before the Member managing the pending measure
in the House has been recognized for debate, the time consumed by the
inquiry does not come out of his time. 99-2, Oct. 8, 1986, pp 29714,
29715.
C. Relevancy in Debate
Sec. 18 . In General; In the House
Under the House rules, a Member addressing the House must
``confine himself to the question under debate. . . .'' Rule XIV
clause 1. Manual Sec. 749. This rule, which was adopted in 1811 (5
Hinds Sec. 4979), enables the House to expedite proceedings when a
specific proposition is before it for
[[Page 373]]
action. 5 Hinds Secs. 5043-5048; 8 Cannon Sec. 2481; Manual Sec. 752.
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.
Rule XIV clause 1 requires that debate be related to the pending
measure. Thus, 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.
Likewise, where an amendment is before the House, debate should be
confined to that amendment, and should not include discussion of the
general merits of the bill. 5 Hinds Secs. 5049-5051. 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 ____; 104-
2, Mar. 12, 1996, p ____)..
It was the custom of the 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. 101-2, Sept. 27, 1990, p ____.
Some Speakers have applied the rule of relevancy with more
tolerance and latitude than other Speakers. Compare 88-1, Dec. 10,
1963, p 23968 (Speaker McCormack), and 5 Hinds Sec. 5048 (Speaker
Reed). And a Member is sometimes permitted to discuss matters other
than the pending measure by unanimous consent. 95-2, Sept. 25, 1978, p
31197. 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 Secs. 5044-5048) and to maintain an
ongoing ``nexus'' between the pending bill and broader policy issues
(104-1, Nov. 14, 1995, p ____; 104-2, Mar. 12, 1996, p ____).
The relevancy requirement of Rule XIV is applicable to floor
debate on pending propositions. It is not applicable to a Member
making a one-minute or special-order speech. See Sec. 51, infra.
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. 94-2, Aug. 5, 1976, p 25778; 102-1, Oct.
1, 1991, p ____. But debate should not extend to the merits of a bill
that is not to be considered under the special order. 101-2, Sept. 27,
1990, p ____.
Debate on a question of personal privilege must be confined to the
statements or issue which gave rise to the question of privilege (5
Hinds Secs. 5075-5077; 6 Cannon Secs. 576, 608; 8 Cannon Secs. 2448,
2481; 98-2, May
[[Page 374]]
31, 1984, p 14623). 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 not the subject of a committee report. 100-
1, Dec. 18, 1987, p 36271.
Sec. 19 . In Committee of the Whole-- General Debate
In the Committee of the Whole, during the general debate which
precedes the reading of the bill for amendment under the five-minute
rule, a Member is allowed great freedom and latitude in debate.
``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
Secs. 5233-5238; 8 Cannon Sec. 2590; 93-2, June 28, 1974, pp 21743,
21744.
Sec. 20 . -- Under the Five-minute Rule
Debate under the five-minute rule in Committee of the Whole must
be confined to the pending amendment when that point of order is
raised; this is so even if a Member is attempting to respond to
previous extraneous remarks in debate against which no point of order
was raised. 97-2, Sept. 23, 1982, p 24968. A Member must confine
himself to the subject of the amendment and its relation to the bill.
5 Hinds Secs. 5240-5256. 88-2, Jan. 21, 1964, p 755. Debate is
confined to the subject then pending (91-1, Sept. 4, 1969, p 24372),
even on pro forma amendments (8 Cannon Sec. 2591). However, a Member
may speak to another subject by unanimous consent. This is permitted
even where the Committee is proceeding pursuant to the provisions of a
special rule permitting only designated amendments to be offered. 95-
1, Aug. 3, 1977, p 26483.
D. Disorder in Debate
Sec. 21 . In General
Generally
Among the oldest rules of the House are those which authorize the
Speaker to maintain order and decorum in the House (Rule 1 clause 2,
Manual Sec. 622) and to call a Member to order where he has
transgressed the rules of the House ``in speaking or otherwise'' (Rule
XIV clause 4, Manual
[[Page 375]]
Sec. 760). 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 decorum and
courtesy in debate, as set forth in Rule XIV (Manual Secs. 749 et
seq.), and by related provisions in Jefferson's Manual (see Secs. 353
et seq.).
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 ____.
A Member may be called to order during debate in the House, and
another Member may make timely demand that the words used be taken
down and read aloud at the Clerk's desk. The Chair then rules as to
whether the words or actions of the Member are disorderly. Whether the
offending Member is to be allowed to proceed in order or is to be
disciplined is determined by vote of the House. (Secs. 26 et seq.,
infra.)
Disorderly Acts
Decorum in the conduct and behavior of Members on the floor of the
House is governed in part by Rule XIV clause 7. Manual Sec. 763.
Prohibited conduct under the rule includes:
<box> Walking out of or across the hall while the Speaker is
addressing the House.
<box> Passing between the Chair and a speaking Member.
<box> Wearing a hat.
<box> Using personal electronic office equipment, including cellular
phones and equipment.
<box> Remaining by the Clerk's desk during roll calls.
<box> Smoking.
A Member's comportment may constitute a breach of decorum even
though the content of that Member's speech is not, itself,
unparliamentary. 103-2, July 29, 1994, p ____.
Demonstrations of approval or disapproval, such as applause, are
not a part of the proceedings of the House. 79-1, Mar. 6, 1945, pp
1789 et seq. While a Member has the floor, he may not request Members
to act contrary to the rules, such as showing hands or rising in
support of a certain measure. 84-1, May 5, 1955, p 5778.
The Chair may entertain a demand to clear the well in the event of
disorder therein. 88-1, Dec. 9, 1963, p 23831. 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. Rule
IV clause 1. Manual Sec. 648. See also 1 Hinds Sec. 257.
[[Page 376]]
Acts of physical violence by one Member or between two Members
during or after heated debate have occurred. 2 Hinds Secs. 1642, 1643.
For other instances involving altercations between Members, see 2
Hinds Secs. 1644, 1655, 1656; 88-1, Oct. 29, 1963, p 20413. Assaults
or affrays in the Committee of the Whole are dealt with by the House.
2 Hinds Secs. 1648-1651.
Attire
The Speaker has announced as proper the customary traditional
attire for Members, including a coat and tie for male Members and
appropriate attire for female Members, when in attendance in the House
Chamber. 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 of the House, requiring Members to wear proper attire as
determined by the Speaker, and denying noncomplying Members the
privilege of the floor. 96-1, July 17, 1979, p 19008.
Exhibits and Charts; Badges
While Members are permitted to use exhibits such as charts during
debate (subject to the permission of the House under Rule XXX), the
Speaker's responsibility to preserve decorum requires that he disallow
the use of exhibits in debate which would be demeaning to the House or
which would be disruptive of its proceedings, in which case no vote of
the House is required. 101-2, Oct. 16, 1990, p ____.
The display of any object in debate by way of illustration is
always subject to the will of the House. 8 Cannon Sec. 2452. Where
objection is made the question is put to the House without debate.
Manual Sec. 915. Exhibits generally, see Sec. 61, 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 clause 1, Rule XIV. 99-2, Apr.
15, 1986, p 7525; 104-1, Mar. 29, 1995, p ____.
Speaker's Announcements
In recent Congresses, on opening day, the Speaker has stressed the
importance of various rules of decorum in the House. He prefaced his
cus-
[[Page 377]]
tomary 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.'' 101-1, Jan. 3, 1989, p 88; 102-1, Jan. 3,
1991, p ____. See also 103-1, Jan. 5, 1993, p ____.
Sec. 22 . Disorderly Language
Members have been censured or otherwise disciplined for the use of
disorderly words in debate (2 Hinds Secs. 1254, 1259, 1305; 6 Cannon
Sec. 236), whether the words were uttered in the House or the
Committee of the Whole (2 Hinds Sec. 1259). Manual Sec. 760. A Member
may likewise be disciplined for the insertion of disorderly words in
the Congressional Record without the consent of the House. 6 Cannon
Sec. 236. Members have been cautioned against the use of vulgarity or
profanity in debate. 82-1, July 18, 1951, p 8415; 102-1, Mar. 5, 1991,
p ____; 103-1, Feb. 18, 1993, p ____; Manual Sec. 749. The Chair may
call to order a Member engaging in or tending toward personalities in
debate (100-1, June 29, 1987, p 18072), or for a verbal outburst
following expiration of his time for debate (100-2, Mar. 16, 1988, p
4081). Critical references to Members, see Secs. 37 et seq., infra.
However, 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 (82-1, July 18, 1951, p 8415),
whereas ``damnable'' has been permitted (80-2, Jan. 15, 1948, p 205).
Sec. 23 . -- References to Senate
Generally
A well-established rule of comity prohibits certain references in
debate to the Senate or to individual Senators. Indeed, at one time
there could be no reference to any debate or votes in the Senate on
the same subject. This principal, first enunciated in Jefferson's
Manual (see Manual Sec. 371), was
[[Page 378]]
strictly applied in the House for many years. See 5 Hinds Secs. 5095
et seq.; 8 Cannon Secs. 2501 et seq.
This principal was modified in 1987, and again in 1989, by
amendments to Rule XIV. Under this rule:
Debate [in the House] 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. Manual Sec. 749.
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. 98-2, Oct. 4, 1984,
pp 30046, 30047; Manual Sec. 371.
On the other hand, it is not in order to criticize Senate actions.
5 Hinds Sec. 5114; 96-2, Dec. 10, 1980, p 33205; 103-1, Apr. 27, 1993,
p ____. Statements in debate speculating as to the intent of the
Senate with respect to legislation pending in the House remain a
violation of the rule of comity. 98-2, Oct. 11, 1984, pp 32221-23. It
is a breach of order in debate to refer to the motives of the Senate
in passing certain legislation. 99-1, Oct. 17, 1985, p 27772. While 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. 99-2, July 31, 1986, p 18253. Even
statements urging the Senate to take action have been ruled out. 102-
1, Oct. 8, 1991, p ____.
On one occasion, prior to the amendment of Rule XIV, 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. 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
[[Page 379]]
Senate which were critical of Members of the House (8 Cannon
Sec. 2519). Manual Sec. 371.
References to Individual Senators
With certain exceptions, under clause 1 of Rule XIV remarks in
debate may not include references to individual Members of the Senate,
and the Chair enforces this principle on his own initiative. 102-2,
Oct. 2, 1992, p ____. References to individual Members of the Senate
(98-2, Oct. 2, 1984, pp 28504, 28505), even in a complimentary or
congratulatory way (99-2, Aug. 5, 1986, pp 19040, 19044; 103-1, Apr.
21, 1993, p ____) or to actions which named Members of the Senate, or
Senators designated by position, might take, are out of order (98-2,
Oct. 11, 1984, pp 32152, 32153). See also 99-2, Mar. 13, 1986, p 4625.
It is not in order to refer critically to a Member of the Senate or to
the actions of individual Senators. 98-2, May 8, 1984, pp 11421,
11425, 11428. In 1985, the Chair admonished a Member during debate not
to refer to a Senator in a critical manner although not identified by
name. 99-1, Dec. 18, 1985, pp 37813, 37814. Even a reference to
another person's criticism of a Senator is a violation of the rule.
98-1, Aug. 4, 1983, pp 23136, 23145, 23147. It is also a violation of
the rule of comity to refer in debate to specific votes by particular
Members of the Senate, and the Chair calls Members to order on his own
initiative when this occurs. 97-1, July 29, 1981, p 18249; 98-2, Apr.
12, 1984, pp 9474, 9477, 9478; 98-2, July 31, 1984, p 21670; and 99-2,
Mar. 13, 1986, p 4636. Under the current rule a Senator's comments in
debate may be quoted in the House when relevant to pending
legislation. Manual Sec. 749.
In one case, the personal views of a Senator, not uttered in the
Senate, were allowed to be quoted in the House (5 Hinds Sec. 5112),
but the weight of recent precedent prohibits references to speeches or
statements of Senators occurring outside the Senate Chamber. 8 Cannon
Sec. 2515; Manual Sec. 371.
References to former Members of the House who are presently
Senators are only permissible if they merely address prior House
service and are not implicitly critical of Senatorial service. 98-2,
May 8, 1984, p 11431.
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. 96-1, Oct. 30, 1979, p 30150; Manual
Sec. 371.
Debate may not include critical references to a named Senator in
his capacity as a member of a House-Senate conference committee. But
it is in order in debate, while discussing a question involving
conference committee procedure, to state what actually occurred in a
conference committee
[[Page 380]]
session, without referring to or criticizing a named member of the
Senate. 74-1, July 29, 1935, p 12011.
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.
99-2, June 25, 1986, pp 15492, 15499, 15505.
Duties of the Chair
As noted in Jefferson's Manual (Sec. 374), it is the duty of the
Speaker to call to order a Member who criticizes the actions of the
Senate, its Members or committees. See also Manual Sec. 760. Indeed,
the Chair takes the initiative to prevent any debate in the House
which may tend to reflect improperly upon the Senate or its Members in
violation of the rule of comity. 97-1, Oct. 28, 1981, p 25681; 99-2,
Sept. 30, 1986, pp 27393, 27394. He enforces the rule on his own
initiative and may deny an offending Member further recognition. 97-2,
June 16, 1982, p 13843. He may remind all Members not to make such
references (98-2, Oct. 5, 1984, pp 30326, 30327), but he need not
respond to hypothetical questions as to the propriety of possible
characterizations of Senate actions prior to their use in debate. 99-
1, Oct. 24, 1985, p 28819.
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.'' 88-1, Apr. 24, 1963, p 6892; 95-2, June 14, 1978, p 17615.
Similarly, it is not in order in debate to address remarks to the
``television'' (96-1, Nov. 8, 1979, p 31519) or to television viewers
(98-1, Sept. 29, 1983, pp 26499, 26501; 99-2, June 5, 1986, pp 12568,
12569), including those who may be watching by way of closed circuit
television. 99-1, Oct. 9, 1985, p 26961; 103-1, Mar. 3, 1993, p ____.
The Chair enforces the rule on his or her own initiative. 99-2, Feb.
25, 1986, pp 2676, 2677. Members in debate may not address remarks to
``our viewing audience.'' 98-2, Aug. 2, 1984, p 22271.
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 XIV clause
8. Manual Sec. 764. The rule is strictly enforced, and the Speaker
ordinarily intervenes on his own initiative to prevent infraction
thereof. 88-2, Feb. 6, 1964,
[[Page 381]]
p 2267; 95-1, Oct. 19, 1977, p 34220; 95-2, June 14, 1978, p 17615.
The rule may not be suspended by permission to proceed out of order,
even by unanimous consent. 83-2, July 27, 1954, p 12253. The rule has
been invoked to prevent a Member from making references to:
<box> An honored guest in the gallery who had exhibited ``great
heroism.'' 83-2, July 27, 1954, p 12253.
<box> A Member's constituents sitting in the gallery. 79-1, Mar. 16,
1945, p 2371.
<box> A federal official present in the gallery who had an interest
in the pending bill. 88-2, Feb. 6, 1964, p 2264.
<box> A ``disinterested, objective observer'' sitting in the
gallery. 88-1, June 4, 1963, pp 10151-66.
<box> 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 Secs. 5087-5091; 8 Cannon
Secs. 2499, 2500; 77-2, Feb. 25, 1942, p 1714. Such criticism is
considered as inherent in the exercise of legislative authority. ``The
right to legislate,'' said a report adopted by the House in 1909,
``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. It has been held in order for a
Member to:
<box> Refer to the government as ``something hated, something
oppressive.'' 71-1, June 14, 1929, p 2924.
<box> Refer to the President as ``using legislative and judicial
pork.'' 8 Cannon Sec. 2499.
<box> Refer to a presidential message as a ``disgrace to the
country.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5091.
<box> Refer to certain unnamed officials as ``our half-baked nitwits
handling the foreign affairs. . . .'' 76-3, Oct. 1, 1940, p
12985.
<box> Refer to a federal agency as a ``socialist, communist''
experiment. 83-2, Mar. 31, 1954, p 4221.
<box> Refer to the government as a ``Labor dictatorship.'' 77-2,
Feb. 26, 1942, p 1714.
[[Page 382]]
On the other hand, the rules do not permit the use of language
that is personally offensive toward the President (5 Hinds Sec. 5094;
102-2, Oct. 2, 1992, p ____), such as calling the President a ``liar''
(99-1, June 26, 1985, p 17394) or ``hypocrite'' (102-2, Sept. 25,
1992, p ____). See also 8 Cannon Sec. 2498. Members should refrain
from discussing the President's personal character. 103-2, Mar. 10,
1994, p ____. A Member may not in debate describe the President's veto
of a bill as ``cowardly'' (101-1, Oct. 25, 1989, p ____), or charge
that he has been ``intellectually dishonest'' (101-2, May 9, 1990, p
____) or refer to him as ``giving aid and comfort'' to the enemy (104-
1, Jan. 25, 1995, p ____).
Debate in the House may refer to the motives of the President but
personal criticism, innuendo, ridicule, or terms of opprobrium are not
in order. 8 Cannon Sec. 2497. And they may not be inserted by reading
from extraneous material. 103-1, Mar. 3, 1993, p ____. In one instance
the Speaker advised that the traditional protections against
unparliamentary references to the President did not necessarily extend
to the President's family. 101-2, July 12, 1990, p ____. But such
protection has been extended to all nominated candidates for the
President. 102-2, Sept. 24, 1992, p ____. In 1995, the Chair advised
that references to the personal conduct of the Vice President were not
in order. 104-1, Jan. 18, 1995, p ____. Under Rule XIV, 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. 99-2, Aug. 12, 1986, pp 21078, 21079.
Sec. 26 . Procedure; Calls to Order
In the House
Procedures are available under Rule XIV 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. 760. The Member calling him to order may
then demand that the words objected to be ``taken down'' and read to
the House by the Clerk. Manual Sec. 761. The business of the House is
suspended until the words are reported to the House. 93-2, Aug. 21,
1974, pp 29652, 29653.
Briefly summarized, procedures available to deal with disorder
include:
<box> Point of order raised against alleged unparliamentary language
<box> Demand that words be ``taken down''
<box> The Chair gavels the proceedings to a halt and directs the
offending Member to take his seat
<box> Words taken down reported to the House by the Clerk
<box> Unanimous-consent request to withdraw words taken down
[[Page 383]]
<box> Motion to allow Member to explain words taken down
<box> Speaker rules whether words are out of order
<box> Member ruled out of order must be seated and discontinue
debate
<box> Motion to strike (or expunge) words
<box> Censure or other disciplinary action by the House
<box> Motion that the Member be allowed to proceed in order
The Speaker rules on the question of whether the words or actions
objected to are out of order. 96-1, July 24, 1979, p 20380. The words
having been read from the desk, the Chair decides whether they are in
order (5 Hinds Secs. 5163, 5169), as read by the Clerk and not as
alleged to have been uttered (102-2, June 9, 1992, p ____). Pending
his ruling, the Speaker may recognize the Member who made the
statement to ask unanimous consent to withdraw or modify the words.
87-2, June 5, 1962, p 9739; 95-1, Mar. 2, 1977, p 5937. Withdrawal of
words objected to, see Sec. 29, infra. Whether the Member is to be
allowed to proceed in order or is to be subjected to censure or other
disciplinary measure is for the House to determine. Manual Sec. 760.
A Member called to order for words spoken in debate is required to
take his seat (5 Hinds Sec. 5147), unless permitted to proceed in
order by the House. 90-1, Aug. 14, 1967, p 22443. It is a breach of
decorum for a Member to ignore the Chair's gavel and his instruction
that the Member be seated. 103-2, July 29, 1994, p ____. Once required
to take his seat because of unparliamentary language, the Member may
proceed in order only with the consent of the House. 88-1, Oct. 31,
1963, pp 20742, 20744; 93-2, Aug. 21, 1974, pp 29652, 29653. He loses
the floor (5 Hinds Sec. 5199) and may not continue to participate in
debate on the same day even on time yielded to him by another Member.
5 Hinds Sec. 5147; 99-1, Mar. 19, 1985, p 5533.
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; the Members respond appropriately, and the
House proceeds with its business. See, for example, 88-2, June 23,
1964, p 14717. Or the Chair may merely 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. 99-1, Apr. 22,
1985, p 8693. 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 direct that Members
proceed in order. 95-2, May 8, 1978, p 13215.
[[Page 384]]
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 __________.
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 XIV. 81-1, Mar. 16, 1949, pp 2651,
2652; 80-1, Mar. 20, 1947, p 2314.
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 of the Whole may himself respond to the point of order
by admonishing the offending Member to proceed in order. 99-2, Aug.
12, 1986, pp 21078, 21079.
The use of disorderly language in the Committee is also 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 Secs. 2533,
2540. Nor is there any debate in the Committee of the Whole as to the
propriety of the words used. 8 Cannon Sec. 2538. The Committee rises
automatically (8 Cannon Secs. 2533, 2538, 2539) and reports the words
to the House (2 Hinds Secs. 1257-1259, 1348). The business of the
Committee is suspended until the words objected to are reported to the
House. 93-1, Dec. 13, 1973, pp 41270, 41271; 95-2, Feb. 8, 1978, p
2832; 96-1, June 12, 1979, p 14461.
Forms
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 Committee 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. 89-1, July 27, 1965, p 18444.
[[Page 385]]
After the Speaker rules on the words objected to and the House has
disposed of any disciplinary proceedings, the Committee resumes its
sitting without motion. 8 Cannon Secs. 2539, 2541; Manual Sec. 761.
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 XIV clause 5. Manual Sec. 761. The words taken down may
consist of a single phrase (82-1, July 26, 1951, p 8968) or an entire
colloquy between two Members (79-2, Feb. 12, 1946, p 1241). The demand
should indicate the words excepted to and the identity of the Member
who uttered them. Manual Sec. 761. The objecting Member may indicate
briefly the basis for his demand, such as impugning the motives of a
colleague; but the Member making the demand may not at that time
debate the grounds for a finding that the words are disorderly. 82-1,
July 26, 1951, p 8968.
Ordinarily, debate on or interpretation of the words objected to
is not in order pending a ruling on them by the Speaker. 87-2, Mar.
19, 1962, p 4458. Although words objected to in debate may be
withdrawn pursuant to a unanimous-consent request (Sec. 30, infra), no
debate is in order pending such a request. 95-2, Aug. 2, 1978, p
23945. However, the offending Member may by unanimous consent (or on
motion by another Member) be permitted to explain his words. 92-1,
Nov. 10, 1971, p 40442.
While a demand that words be taken down is pending, the Speaker
may refuse to entertain a parliamentary inquiry (88-1, Oct. 31, 1963,
p 20742) or a unanimous-consent request that a Member be allowed to
proceed for one minute (88-2, Jan. 21, 1964, p 756).
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 gentleman will indicate the words objected to.
Member: I demand that the words ______________, uttered by the
gentleman from __________, be taken down.
Chair: The Clerk will report the words indicated by the gentleman.
Timeliness of Demand
A demand that words be taken down is in order only if made in a
timely manner under Rule XIV (Manual Sec. 761). The demand should be
made immediately after the words are uttered. 88-1, Oct. 31, 1963, p
20742. Where debate has intervened, the demand comes too late (91-1,
Sept. 4, 1969, p 24372; 94-2, Apr. 29, 1976, p 11981) unless the
objecting Member was on his feet seeking recognition at the proper
time. 8 Cannon Sec. 2528.
[[Page 386]]
See also 97-1, May 5, 1981, p 8496; 98-2, May 23, 1984, p 13941. The
Chair's determination as to 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. 98-2,
Oct. 2, 1984, p 28522. If a point of order or demand that words be
taken down is not made immediately after the use of the offending
words, the Chair need not subsequently respond to a parliamentary
inquiry as to whether the particular words used were a breach of
order. 99-2, Mar. 13, 1986, p 4633.
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. 99-1, Feb. 25, 1985, pp 3345-47. 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 for the
Record. 102-2, Oct. 2, 1992, p ____.
Withdrawal of Demand
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. 88-2, Feb. 10, 1964, p 2780; 92-1,
Nov. 10, 1971, p 40470; 95-2, Aug. 3, 1978, p 24238.
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. 8 Cannon Secs. 2543, 2544; 88-2, May
11, 1964, p 10448. Such withdrawal by consent is in order pending the
demand that the words be taken down. 102-2, Oct. 3, 1992, p ____. In
1990, a reference to ``the best Congress money can buy'' and to the
Members as ``political prostitutes'' was withdrawn by unanimous
consent. 101-2, Oct. 12, 1990, p ____. Even after a Member's words
have been taken down on demand and read to the House, the Speaker may
recognize the Member who made the statement to ask unanimous consent
to withdraw or modify the words. 87-2, June 5, 1962, p 9739; 95-1,
Mar. 2, 1977, p 5937; 95-2, July 13, 1978, p 20715.
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. 97-2, Dec. 8,
1982, p
[[Page 387]]
29466. 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
Record. 8 Cannon Sec. 2539.
The Speaker does not rule retrospectively on the propriety of
words withdrawn by unanimous consent. 102-2, Oct. 3, 1992, p ____.
In the Committee of the Whole
A Member may withdraw or modify words objected to in Committee of
the Whole by unanimous consent. 8 Cannon Secs. 2528, 2538. 88-1, Aug.
1, 1963, p 13865; 88-2, June 10, 1964, pp 13254, 13275. 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 of the Whole before they were reported to the House. 94-2,
Apr. 29, 1976, p 11882.
Deletions From the Record
Adopted in 1995, clause 9 of Rule XIV mandates that the
Congressional Record be a ``substantially verbatim'' account of
debate, and permits the deletion of unparliamentary remarks only by
House order. 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. Clause 9(a)-(c).
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. 87-1,
Mar. 24, 1961, p 4780. However, the rules specifically provide for a
motion to allow the Member to explain, which motion must be made by
another Member. Rule XIV clause 4 (Manual Sec. 760). Moreover, the
Speaker has the discretion to request the Member called to order,
before ruling on the words, to make a brief explanation of his
remarks. 76-3, Oct. 9, 1940, p 13477.
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. 2
Hinds Sec. 1249; 5 Hinds Secs. 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
[[Page 388]]
of whether words taken down violate the rules is for the Speaker to
decide and is not debatable. 80-2, Jan. 15, 1948, p 205.
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 Secs. 5157, 5173, 5178, 5194, 5196, 5198, 5199.
Such an appeal is subject to the motion to table. 104-1, Jan. 18,
1995, p ____. 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 debate.
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.
74-1, July 23, 1935, p 11699. The Speaker may put questions to the
offending Member about the words (90-1, Apr. 5, 1967, p 8411) and may
consult dictionaries to determine the meaning of certain words or
terms (74-1, July 16, 1935, p 11256).
Sec. 32 . -- Discipline; Post-ruling Motions
Generally
Censure or other disciplinary action is a matter for the House and
not the Chair to decide. 79-1, Feb. 22, 1945, p 1371. However, no
House action is in order until the Chair has ruled on the words
objected to. 72-1, May 13, 1932, p 10135. 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 Record
Under modern practice, words ruled out of order are normally
stricken from the Record by unanimous consent initiated by the Chair.
101-2, May 10, 1990, p 9992. If there is an objection, a motion to
strike or expunge the words from the Record is in order. 8 Cannon
Secs. 2538, 2539; Manual Sec. 760. A motion to expunge is in order
even though the House by vote has authorized the Member to proceed.
73-1, June 7, 1933, pp 5203-05. The motion, which is debatable within
narrow limits under the hour rule (80-1, June 12, 1947, p 6895), is
not in order until the Chair has decided that the words are out of
order. 71-1, June 14, 1929, p 2924. The motion is not in order in the
Committee of the Whole. 77-1, Feb. 18, 1941, p 1126.
Proceeding in Order
After a Member's words have been ruled out of order, the Member
may be permitted to proceed in order either by unanimous consent (87-
1, Mar.
[[Page 389]]
24, 1961, p 4780) or by motion. 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 Secs. 5188, 5189; 8 Cannon Sec. 2534; 101-2, May 10,
1990, p ____. 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. 102-1,
Oct. 8, 1991, p ____; 104-1, Mar. 29, 1995, p ____.
The motion is privileged for consideration in the House. 73-1,
June 7, 1933, pp 5203-05. A motion to strike the objectionable words
also generally precedes a proposition to permit a Member to proceed in
order. 87-1, Mar. 24, 1961, p 4780.
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
Secs. 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. 82-1, July 26, 1951, p 8969. 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. 76-1, Mar. 16, 1939, p 2883.
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. And the words must be stated in such a way as to avoid
personal criticism of an individual Member. (Sec. 37, infra.) Words
impeaching the loyalty of a portion of the membership have also been
ruled out. 5 Hinds Sec. 5139.
[[Page 390]]
Ruled In Order
Set out below are precedents in which criticism in debate was held
parliamentary or in order as not referring to any particular Member:
<box> 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.'' 75-3, Mar. 31,
1938, p 4484.
<box> A statement that a Member was leading his party in a policy of
opportunism. 77-1, Feb. 8, 1941, p 796.
<box> A statement referring to ``irresponsible actions by members of
the President's own party.'' 85-1, Mar. 27, 1957, p 4557.
<box> ``[Y]ou have your definition of consistency. My definition is
that consistency is a virtue of small minds.'' 87-2, Apr. 11,
1962, p 6374.
<box> A reference to Members as having praised a foreign dictator in
prior debate. 98-2, Apr. 12, 1984, p 9480.
<box> Words characterizing unnamed Members as taking ``potshots''
and as lacking judgment. 99-2, Mar. 18, 1986, p 5201.
<box> 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 or Stricken
Set out below are precedents in which words in debate referring to
the House or to the membership in general terms were ruled out of
order or stricken from the Record.
<box> ``Talk not to me of vindicating your insulted dignity. . . .
You have no dignity to vindicate.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5132.
<box> ``[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.
<box> A statement declaring the opinions and decisions of the House
``damnable heresies.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5135.
<box> 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.
<box> ``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.
<box> A statement referring to members of the Republican Conference
as avoiding an issue and describing lynching as a ``proper
means of justice.'' 82-1, July 26, 1951, p 8969.
To show the distinction between words that are permissible and
language that may be ruled out, illustrations in this article 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; wheth-
[[Page 391]]
er 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. 81-1, Jan. 17,
1949, p 428. Criticisms of committee procedure are also permitted. 76-
3, May 6, 1940, p 5628. But a Member may not in debate impugn the
personal motives of a committee or its members (77-1, Feb. 11, 1941, p
894), nor may he make unparliamentary claims of unlawful activity (79-
2, Apr. 16, 1946, p 3761). Debate may not include critical
characterizations of members of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct who have investigated a Member's conduct. 102-2, Apr. 1, 1992,
p ____.
Ruled In Order
<box> A reference to the action of a committee as ``more or less
pusillanimous.'' 76-1, May 31, 1939, p 6445.
<box> An editorial read by a Member charging a committee with
``pigeon-holing'' certain legislation. 76-3, May 6, 1940, p
5628.
<box> ``Did the gentleman's committee also find paid agents of
Hitler on the congressional payroll?'' 78-1, Mar. 31, 1943, p
2787.
<box> A reference to a committee investigation of ``the recent wave
of policy lynch murder in Mississippi.'' 80-2, Mar. 9, 1948, p
2408.
<box> A statement that a Member ``has been the victim of the
abusive, vicious, and irresponsible use of the power of a
congressional committee.'' 81-1, Jan. 17, 1949, p 428.
Ruled Out of Order
<box> A statement that certain fascist organizations exercised
extensive influence on a special House committee. 77-1, Feb.
11, 1941, p 894.
<box> Language referring to ``lies and half-truths'' of a House
committee report. 80-1, June 16, 1947, p 7065.
<box> ``I cannot respect the actions or even the sincerity of some
of the committee members.'' 79-2, June 26, 1946, p 7596.
<box> A reference to the Committee on Un-American Activities as
``the Un-American Committee.'' 80-1, Jan. 12, 1947, p 6895.
Sec. 35 . Criticism of Speaker
The proscription of Rule XIV 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.
104-1, Jan. 19, 1995, p ____. It is not in order in debate to refer
invidiously to the Speaker (8 Cannon Sec. 2531); nor is it in order to
speak disrespectfully of him
[[Page 392]]
(2 Hinds Sec. 1248; 104-1, Jan. 19, 1995, p ____), as by asserting
that he is ``kowtowing'' to persons who would desecrate the U.S. flag.
101-2, June 20, 1990, p ____. It is not in order in debate to refer in
a personally critical manner to his political tactics. 97-1, June 25,
1981, p 14056. Nor is it in order to arraign his personal conduct.
104-1, Jan. 19, 1995, p ____. 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. 5 Hinds Sec. 5188. 104-1, Jan. 19, 1995, p ____. Personal
criticisms of the Speaker can be challenged after debate has
intervened. 2 Hinds Sec. 1248.
It is against 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. 73-2, May 31,
1934, p 10167. 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. 99-1,
July 11, 1985, pp 18545, 18550.
If words impugning the Speaker are uttered, the Speaker may choose
not to rule on the words himself but may appoint a Member to occupy
the Chair and to deliver a decision. 74-1, Feb. 7, 1935, pp 1680-82.
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. 104-1, Jan. 24, 1995,
p ____; 104-1, Mar. 8, 1995, p ____. 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. 88-2, Jan. 21, 1964, p 756. Harsh words may be used
to criticize a bill unless they fail to ``avoid personality'' as
mandated by Rule XIV (Manual Sec. 749). 79-2, Jan. 31, 1946, p 675.
While 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.
96-1, June 12, 1979, p 14461. In one instance, the 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. 93-1, Dec. 13, 1973,
pp 41270, 41271.
[[Page 393]]
Held in Order
Criticisms of legislative actions or proposals that have been held
in order in debate include:
<box> A statement that ``sinister influences'' were working in the
interest of certain unnamed Members opposing a bill. 74-2, Mar.
23, 1936, p 4235.
<box> A statement accusing unnamed colleagues who opposed a measure
of talking ``loosely and recklessly with the truth.'' 77-1, May
6, 1941, p 3670.
<box> 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, pp 1216 et seq.
<box> 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.'' 79-2, Feb. 20, 1946, p 1500.
<box> A reference accusing unnamed opponents of a proposal of
``blind,'' ``slavish,'' and ``shameful'' opposition. 81-2, Feb.
6, 1950, p 1513.
<box> A statement referring to an amendment that: ``where I come
from . . . the people . . . do not like slippery, snide, and
sharp practices.'' 82-1, July 26, 1951, p 8968.
<box> A statement referring to a tactic of ``withholding'' votes
until it could be determined whether they would be necessary on
the pending question. 89-1, July 26, 1965, p 18441.
<box> A statement that a Member ``has already admitted his amendment
does not make sense, and he will take any alternative that is
offered.'' 88-2, Jan. 21, 1964, p 756.
Sec. 37 . Critical References to Members
Jefferson stressed the importance of preserving ``order, decency
and regularity . . . in a dignified public body.'' Manual Sec. 285.
And the House rules provide that a Member must confine himself to the
question under debate, ``avoiding personality.'' Rule XIV (Manual
Sec. 749). See 102-2, Oct. 3, 1992, p ____. 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. 104-1, Jan. 4, 1995, p ____. However, under modern
practice the Chair normally awaits a point of order from the floor
with respect to references to other Members.
The Speaker will hold language unparliamentary where it improperly
reflects on another Member under Rule XIV. 93-2, Aug. 21, 1974, pp
29652, 29653. 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). Nor is it in order in debate to refer in a personally critical
manner to the political tactics of a Member. 97-1, June 25, 1981, p
14056. The truth of allegations involving unethical
[[Page 394]]
behavior of a Member is not a defense to a point of order that the
remarks are unparliamentary as explicitly or by innuendo engaging in
personalities. 104-1, Jan. 18, 1995, p ____. On the other hand, it is
recognized that free and full debate is necessary in conducting
legislative business, and the Members are allowed considerable
latitude in criticizing the position, arguments, or contentions of
another Member. 74-1, July 23, 1935, p 11699.
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 will intervene to prevent improper reference
where it is evident that a particular Member is being described. 99-1,
Feb. 25, 1985, pp 3345-47. 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 privilege of the House. 101-
2, July 24, 1990, p ____; 102-2, Mar. 19, 1992, p ____.
The rule requiring Members to avoid ``personality'' during debate
prohibits references in debate to newspaper accounts used in support
of a Member's personal criticism of a sitting Member in a way which
would be unparliamentary if uttered on the floor as the Member's own
words. 99-1, Feb. 25, 1985, pp 3345-47.
It is not unparliamentary to describe in debate the effect which a
Member's remarks may have, especially where that description includes
a disclaimer disavowing any intention to impugn a Member's motives.
98-1, July 28, 1983, p 21462.
Ruled In Order During Debate
<box> A statement that if a certain Member sponsors a measure it
would receive only one or two votes. 73-2, June 12, 1934, p
11177.
<box> A reference to another Member's remarks as ``yapping.'' 73-2,
June 16, 1934, p 12114.
<box> A statement accusing a Member of trying ``to becloud'' an
issue. 82-1, Sept. 25, 1951, p 12074.
<box> A reference in debate to another Member as not representing a
certain class of people in his state. 83-1, Apr. 28, 1953, p
4126.
<box> A reference to another Member's statement as ``intemperate.''
88-1, Aug. 1, 1963, p 13865.
<box> 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.'' 87-2, Mar. 19,
1962, p 4458.
[[Page 395]]
<box> 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.'' 99-1, Feb. 27, 1985, pp 3899, 3900.
<box> 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.'' 98-1, July 28, 1983, p 21461.
Ruled Out of Order
<box> A reference to the remarks of another Member as ``malignant
shafts'' or as a ``base insinuation.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5162.
<box> A reference to another Member as a ``snooper.'' 74-1, July 16,
1935, p 11256.
<box> ``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.'' 79-2, May 16,
1946, p 5106.
<box> Referring to another Member as a demagogue (78-1, May 4, 1943,
p 3915) or as a ``president of the Demogog Club'' (76-3, Feb.
15, 1940, p 1529).
<box> ``[D]on't you start comparing anybody's record, because I have
got yours . . . with . . . the FBI.'' 79-1, Apr. 30, 1945, p
3992.
<box> A reference to another Member as a ``pinko.'' 88-1, Oct. 31,
1988, p 20742.
Sec. 38 . -- Use of Colloquialisms; Sarcasm
The Members are allowed considerable latitude in the use of
colloquialisms, euphemisms, figures of speech, and even sarcastic
comment in debate. In one instance, for example, the statement in
debate ``you are going to skin us'' was held merely a colloquialism
which did not reflect on any Member and was in order. 77-1, Feb. 18,
1941, p 1126. In another instance, a Member used the word ``crime'' in
referring to another Member, but the Chair ruled the term in order,
finding that in the context of the debate, the term was being used as
a synonym or figure of speech meaning ``wrong.'' 74-1, July 23, 1935,
p 11699. A statement in debate ``[h]ere is the answer, if the
gentleman can understand English'' has been held in order. 74-2, Mar.
9, 1936, p 3465.
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 Secs. 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. Even
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. 98-1, May 26, 1983, p 14048.
[[Page 396]]
Ruled Out
<box> 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.
<box> ``. . . [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.
<box> A reference to another Member as possessing ``a characteristic
skill and cunning,'' for which he was ``unrivaled and
preeminent in the highly civilized, polished, and refined State
which honored the House with his presence here.'' 5 Hinds
Sec. 5167.
<box> ``The devotion of the gentleman . . . to the truth is so
notorious that I shall not reply.'' 8 Cannon Sec. 2545.
<box> A reference to another Member as a ``stool pigeon.'' 74-1,
July 16, 1935, p 11256.
<box> 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.'' 76-1, Mar.
16, 1939, p 2871.
<box> A reference to another Member's proceeding in a ``cheap,
sneaky, sly way.'' 93-2, Aug. 21, 1974, p 29652.
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. 99-1, Mar. 19, 1985, pp 5532-
37. 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. 104-1, Jan. 24, 1995, p ____; 104-1, Mar. 8,
1995, p ____. But an assertion that a Member's use of the 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. 101-1, Mar. 22, 1989, p 5130; 101-1,
May 2, 1989, p 7735; 101-1, Nov. 3, 1989, p ____.
[[Page 397]]
Ruled Out of Order
In the precedents below language was objected to in debate as
impugning a Member's motives and was ruled out of order.
<box> 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.
<box> To characterize the motivation of a Member in offering an
amendment as deceptive and hypocritical. 96-1, June 12, 1979, p
14461.
<box> 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.'' 98-2, May 15, 1984, pp 12201, 12202.
<box> To characterize another Member as ``speaking out of both sides
of his mouth.'' 99-1, Mar. 19, 1985, p 5532.
Sec. 40 . -- Charging Falsehood or Deception
During debate on the floor, an assertion by one Member may be
declared untrue by another (5 Hinds Sec. 5159); yet in so doing an
accusation of intentional misrepresentation must not be implied. 5
Hinds Secs. 5157, 5189; 8 Cannon Sec. 2542; Manual Sec. 363. Any term
or language implying a deliberate misstatement of the truth, for
whatever motive, is unparliamentary, including allegations of lying,
slander, or hypocrisy. Of course, a Member may question the
truthfulness of a Member's assertion without implying a deliberate
misstatement. A Member's expression of disbelief may be construed as
meaning that the Member referred to was merely mistaken in his
conclusions. 74-1, July 2, 1935, p 10670. 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. 79-2, Feb. 12, 1946, p 1240.
Held In Order in Debate
<box> A Member's statement that he did ``not believe a word that
[another Member] has said.'' 74-1, July 2, 1935, p 10670.
<box> A statement referring to another Member ``when he comes here
to defend some slime-monger who goes on the radio and lies
about me. . . .'' 79-2, Feb. 12, 1946, p 1240.
<box> ``Let us be sincere and honest about this thing.'' 78-2, Jan.
21, 1944, p 560.
[[Page 398]]
Held Out of Order
<box> A Member's declaration that the words of another Member were
``a base lie.'' 2 Hinds Sec. 1249.
<box> 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.
<box> A statement by a Member ``I cannot believe that the gentleman
. . . is sincere in what he has just said.'' 77-2, Nov. 2,
1942, p 8702.
<box> A statement that the remarks of a Member were ``false and
slanderous.'' 78-1, Dec. 20, 1943, p 10922.
<box> A statement in referring to another Member that ``pretexts are
never wanting when hypocrisy wishes to add malice to falsehood
or cowardice. . . .'' 79-1, Oct. 25, 1945, p 10044.
<box> ``I cannot respect the actions or even the sincerity of some
of the committee members.'' 79-2, June 26, 1946, p 7596.
<box> Language read in the House which repudiated ``lies and half-
truths'' in a House committee report. 80-1, June 16, 1947, p
7065.
<box> Use of the word ``canard''--meaning falsehood--in referring to
the statement of another Member. 81-1, May 11, 1949, p 6042.
<box> Words accusing another Member of hypocrisy. 96-1, July 24,
1979, p 20380.
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. 88-2, June 10, 1964, p 13254; 96-2, July 2,
1980, p 18361.
Sec. 42 . -- References to Race or to Racial Prejudice
Gratuitous references in debate to the race 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. 79-1, Oct. 24, 1945, p
10032.
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'' (93-1, Dec. 13, 1973, p 41271) have been
ruled out of order, as has a reference to another Member as having
reached ``bigoted'' conclusions (90-1, Aug. 14, 1967, p 22443).
Sec. 43 . -- Charges Relating to Loyalty or Patriotism
Unless the subject is relevant to disciplinary proceedings brought
by the House against a Member, remarks in debate impugning the
patriotism or
[[Page 399]]
loyalty of a Member are not in order. 101-2, June 20, 1990, p ____.
Words impeaching the loyalty of a portion of the membership have also
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 also Sec. 33, supra).
Ruled In Order in Debate
<box> A statement referring to all opponents of the Committee on Un-
American Activities as communist enemies. 79-2, Feb. 27, 1946,
p 1724.
<box> A statement that another Member had been published in a
newspaper ``dedicated to the destruction of this Government.''
79-2, Mar. 28, 1946, p 2751.
<box> A statement referring to (unnamed) Members who give ``aid and
comfort'' to enemies and traitors. 80-1, Nov. 24, 1947, p
10791.
<box> A statement referring to ``people'' who would rip down the
American flag and replace it with the Soviet flag. 80-2, Mar.
25, 1948, p 3533.
<box> A statement characterizing the Committee of the Whole as an
agency of the Soviet Union. 80-2, June 4, 1948, p 7171.
<box> A statement accusing another Member of past opposition to
``every bill necessary for the defense of our country.'' 81-1,
Mar. 16, 1949, p 2651.
Ruled Out of Order
<box> A statement that insertions in the Record by another Member
were taken from ``Nazi elements.'' 76-3, June 14, 1940, p 8269.
<box> A statement by a Member that internal fascist organizations
exercised extensive influence over a special House committee.
77-1, Feb. 11, 1941, p 894.
<box> 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.'' 79-2, Feb. 12, 1946, p 1241.
<box> ``There is nothing more subversive than the kind of red
baiting tactics [of] the gentleman from __________.'' 79-2,
Apr. 2, 1946, p 2957.
<box> A statement referring to another Member as attempting to
undermine the government. 79-2, May 14, 1946, p 5028.
<box> A reference to the Committee on Un-American Activities as
``the Un-American Committee.'' 80-1, June 12, 1947, p 6895.
<box> A reference to certain Members as ``apostles of doom'' whose
utterances would give ``great aid and comfort'' to the Soviet
Union. 82-1, Aug. 17, 1951, p 10250.
<box> A reference to another Member as ``kowtowing'' to persons who
would desecrate the flag. 101-2, June 20, 1990, p ____.
[[Page 400]]
F. Duration of Debate in House
Sec. 44 . In General
Limitations on Debate Time
Prior to 1841, there was no limit on the time which a Member might
occupy when 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
may also be imposed pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement. 99-1,
Apr. 30, 1985, p 9801. If a bill or resolution comes to the House
floor without such a time limit, the ``hour rule'' (Rule XIV clause 2)
applies to limit the time for general debate. 91-1, Feb. 5, 1969, p
2835. A Member calling up a measure in the House pursuant to a
unanimous-consent request or special rule which does not specify
debate time controls one hour of debate thereon. 95-1, Nov. 3, 1977,
pp 36970, 36971.
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. Debate on suspension motions is
limited to 40 minutes. Rule XXVII clause 2. Manual Sec. 907. (Forty-
minute debate, see Sec. 46, infra.)
Discretion of Chair as Affecting Debate Time
On certain incidental questions of order, the duration of debate
is within the discretion of the Chair. This practice is followed with
respect to:
<box> Debate on points of order. 5 Hinds Secs. 6919, 6920; 8 Cannon
Secs. 3446-3448; 82-1, Apr. 13, 1951, p 3909.
<box> Debate following recognition for a reservation of objection to
a unanimous-consent request. See Points of Order; Parliamentary
Inquiries.
<box> 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 and announces when a Member's time has expired under the rules.
See, for example, 88-1, June 11, 1963, p 10633. Extensions of time,
see Sec. 48, infra.
[[Page 401]]
Sec. 45 . The Hour Rule
The ``hour rule'' of the House (Rule XIV clause 2) limits the
amount of time that a Member may occupy in debate on a pending
question to 60 minutes. Manual Sec. 758. A Member may not be
recognized for more than one hour. Although the House may by special
rule or unanimous consent extend the time for debate on a bill beyond
one hour, and divide that time between two or more Members, no Member
may address the House for more than one hour, even by unanimous
consent. 91-1, June 11, 1969, p 15440. See also Sec. 48, infra.
The practice under the hour rule often serves to limit the total
debate time 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. 804.
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.
The hour rule is one of general applicability; it does not govern
total debate time when the House has agreed to a different time frame
pursuant to the adoption of a unanimous-consent agreement 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:
<box> Where a Member rises to a question of the privileges of the
House and presents a resolution. 90-2, June 20, 1968, pp 17970-
72, 17977.
<box> To a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules. 88-1,
May 14, 1963, pp 8512, 8518-20; 92-2, June 21, 1972, p 21694.
<box> To a privileged resolution reported from committee. 88-1, Feb.
27, 1963, p 3051.
<box> To a Member recognized to call up a resolution of inquiry. 82-
2, Feb. 20, 1952, pp 1205-07, 1215, 1216; 89-1, Sept. 16, 1965,
pp 24030, 24033, 24034.
<box> To a Member recognized to present impeachment charges. 74-2,
Jan. 14, 1936, pp 404, 406.
<box> When a District of Columbia bill on the House Calendar is
called up on District Day under clause 8 Rule XXIV. 87-1, June
12, 1961, p 10068.
<box> When a private bill is called up in the House by unanimous
consent. 88-1, Mar. 12, 1963, p 3993.
<box> Where a measure not requiring consideration in Committee of
the Whole is bef