[House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]
[Chapter 16. Consideration and Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
HOUSE PRACTICE
A. Introductory; Initiating Consideration and Debate
Sec. 1. In General; In the House
Sec. 2. Order of Consideration
Sec. 3. Use of Special Orders of Business
Sec. 4. Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules
Sec. 5. Role of Calendars
Sec. 6. Consideration by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 7. In the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 8. In the House as in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 9. Limitations on Debate; Nondebatable Matters
B. Control and Distribution of Time for Debate
Sec. 10. In General; Role of Manager
Sec. 11. Distribution and Alternation; Closing General Debate
Sec. 12. Management by Committee; Closing Controlled Debate on an
Amendment
Sec. 13. Designation of Member Who May Call Up a Measure
Sec. 14. Effect of Special Orders of Business
Sec. 15. Yielding Time-- For Debate
Sec. 16. -- Yielding for Amendment
Sec. 17. Interruptions; Losing or Surrendering Control
C. Relevancy in Debate
Sec. 18. In General; In the House
Sec. 19. In the Committee of the Whole-- General Debate
Sec. 20. -- Under the Five-Minute Rule
D. Disorder in Debate
Sec. 21. In General
Sec. 22. Disorderly Language
Sec. 23. -- Critical References to the Senate and to Senators
Sec. 24. -- References to the Press, Media, or Gallery
Sec. 25. -- References to Executive Officials
[[Page 382]]
Sec. 26. Procedure; Calls to Order
Sec. 27. -- Procedure in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 28. -- Taking Down Words
Sec. 29. -- Withdrawal or Modification of Words
Sec. 30. -- Permission to Explain
Sec. 31. -- Speaker's Ruling
Sec. 32. -- Discipline; Post-Ruling Motions
E. Critical References to the House, Committees, or
Members
Sec. 33. In General; Criticism of the House
Sec. 34. Criticism of Committees
Sec. 35. Criticism of Speaker
Sec. 36. Criticism of Legislative Actions or Proposals
Sec. 37. Critical References to Members
Sec. 38. -- Use of Colloquialisms; Sarcasm
Sec. 39. -- Impugning Motives
Sec. 40. -- Charging Falsehood or Deception
Sec. 41. -- Lack of Intelligence or Knowledge
Sec. 42. -- References to Race, Creed, or Racial Prejudice
Sec. 43. -- Charges Relating to Loyalty or Patriotism
F. Duration of Debate in House
Sec. 44. In General
Sec. 45. The Hour Rule
Sec. 46. Ten-minute, 20-minute, and 40-minute Debate
Sec. 47. Debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 48. Limiting or Extending Time for Debate
Sec. 49. Terminating Debate
Sec. 50. One-minute and Special-order Speeches; Morning-hour Debate
G. Duration of Debate in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 51. In General; Effect of Special Orders of Business
Sec. 52. General Debate
Sec. 53. Limiting General Debate
Sec. 54. Five-minute Debate
Sec. 55. -- Limiting or Extending Five-minute Debate-- By House Action
[[Page 383]]
Sec. 56. -- By Motion in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 57. -- By Unanimous Consent in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 58. Motions Allocating or Reserving Time
Sec. 59. Timekeeping; Charging Time
H. Reading Papers; Displays and Exhibits
Sec. 60. Reading Papers
Sec. 61. Use of Exhibits
Sec. 62. -- Decorum Requirements
I. Secret Sessions
Sec. 63. In General
Sec. 64. Motions; Debate
Sec. 65. Secrecy Restrictions and Guidelines
Research References
5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 4978-5299
8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2448-2608
Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Manual Sec. Sec. 359, 364, 369-371, 465, 622, 891, 945-969,
978-981, 987, 994-999
A. Introductory; Initiating Consideration and Debate
Sec. 1 . In General; In the House
Generally; Initiating Consideration
Whether and how a matter is to be considered depends on many
factors--the way it is brought to the floor, the nature and precedence
of the proposal, and agreements reached by the leadership and
membership on the method of consideration. The House may reject a
proposal to consider a matter by voting on the question of
consideration. See Question of Consideration.
There are four common procedures under which measures may be
called up for consideration: (1) special orders of business reported
from the Committee on Rules; (2) motions to suspend the rules; (3)
unanimous-consent agreements; and (4) standing rules for certain
measures reported as privileged under clause 5 of rule XIII. Manual
Sec. Sec. 853-868. However, nonprivileged matter contained in a
measure reported under clause 5 of rule
[[Page 384]]
XIII destroys the privilege of the measure; and consideration must
depend on one of the three remaining procedures. Manual Sec. Sec. 854,
855.
House rules expressly preclude introduction or consideration of
certain commemorative measures (clause 5 of rule XII), as well as
consideration of certain private bills (clause 4 of rule XII) and
measures carrying a retroactive Federal income tax rate increase
(clause 5(c) of rule XXI).
Generally, questions are not considered on the floor unless
reported or discharged from House committees, although rule IX and
practices of the House permit the immediate consideration of
introduced bills under certain circumstances. Sec. Sec. 3, 4, 6 infra.
Certain time periods or ``layover'' requirements may be a condition
precedent to consideration in the House after a committee has
reported. See Committees. If a bill or joint resolution is unreported,
clause 11 of rule XXI prevents consideration until the third calendar
day on which such measure has been available to Members. For
recognition by the Chair to call up measures under the various
procedures, see Recognition.
Other factors bearing on consideration include whether the
proposal has been referred to the House or Union Calendar or whether
the proposal is called up from a particular special calendar, such as
the Private Calendar. See Sec. 5, infra.
Initiating Debate
As a general rule, debate is not in order until a debatable motion
has been offered and stated by the Chair or read by the Clerk. 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 4982-4985, 5304. However, debate may be initiated without
motion:
Under a reservation of the right to object to a unanimous-
consent request. 4 Hinds Sec. 3058.
When questions of personal privilege are raised. 3 Hinds
Sec. 2546.
When conference reports are considered, the question on
agreeing being regarded as pending. Manual Sec. 550; 5 Hinds
Sec. 6517.
When the Committee of the Whole reports its recommendation to
the House, unless the previous question is ordered. 4 Hinds
Sec. 4896.
When personal explanations are made by unanimous consent. 5
Hinds Sec. 5064.
When special orders of business providing for consideration of
a measure have been adopted. Manual Sec. Sec. 734, 972.
When a measure on a special calendar or on a special day has
been called up. Rule XV.
[[Page 385]]
Sec. 2 . Order of Consideration
The ``daily order of business'' is set forth in rule XIV, which
specifies the sequence in which certain matters are to be taken up.
Manual Sec. 869. The order of consideration may be varied by
unanimous-consent agreements or by special orders of business reported
from the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House. See Sec. Sec. 3,
6; see also Order of Business; Privileged Business; and Special Orders
of Business. Indeed, the preface to clause 1 of rule XIV establishes a
daily order of business ``unless varied by the application of other
rules and except for the disposition of matters of higher
precedence.''
Among the privileged matters that may affect the order of
consideration are: (1) general appropriation bills under clause 5 of
rule XIII; (2) conference reports under clause 7(a) of rule XXII; (3)
special orders of business reported by the Committee on Rules under
clause 5 of rule XIII; and (4) questions of privilege under rule IX.
Manual Sec. Sec. 698, 871; see also Questions of Privilege.
Some propositions are privileged for consideration on certain days
of the week or month. On any Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday, for
example, the Speaker may recognize Members to move to suspend the
rules. Manual Sec. 885; see also Sec. Sec. 4, 5, infra.
Sec. 3 . Use of Special Orders of Business
A major portion of the legislation taken up in the House is
considered pursuant to resolutions, also called ``special rules'' or
``special orders of business,'' reported by the Committee on Rules and
adopted by the House. Although the general effect of the adoption of a
resolution making in order the consideration of a bill is to give the
bill a privileged status, the adoption of the resolution does not make
the consideration mandatory unless so stated in the resolution.
Deschler Ch 21 Sec. 16. For example, the resolution may: (1) provide
that ``the House shall immediately consider'' the bill; (2) permit the
Speaker to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
for the consideration of the bill (see clause 2 of rule XVIII); or (3)
provide for consideration at some specified time in the order of
business. If the special order of business authorizes a specified
Member to call up a bill (either directly or indirectly, such as ``it
shall be in order to consider''), the consideration of the bill must
await the initiative of that Member. See Deschler Ch 21 Sec. 20.17.
Special orders of business may provide for the consideration of a
bill or resolution in the Committee of the Whole, in the House, or in
the House as in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler Ch 21
Sec. Sec. 20.16, 20.17.
[[Page 386]]
A special order of business may be limited in scope, as where it
provides only for initial consideration of a measure, provides for
general debate, and precludes further consideration absent a further
order of the House. See, e.g., 105-2, H. Res. 435, May 19, 1998, pp
9742, 9743.
The resolution may waive one or more House rules that impede the
consideration of the bill or amendment thereto. Points of order do not
lie against the consideration of such a resolution, as it is for the
House to determine, by a majority vote on the adoption of the
resolution, whether certain rules should be waived. Deschler Ch 21
Sec. Sec. 16.9-16.14. See generally Special Orders of Business.
However, section 426 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
permits a point of order against consideration of a rule or order that
waives points of order against a measure for violating that Act
(subject to a separate vote on the question of consideration). Manual
Sec. 1127. In similar fashion, clause 9 of rule XXI establishes a
point of order against consideration of certain measures for failure
to disclose (or disclaim the presence of) certain earmarks, tax
benefits, and tariff benefits, and permits a vote on the question of
consideration of a rule or order waiving such a point of order. See
Budget Process.
Sec. 4 . Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules
A privileged motion to suspend the rules may be used to bring a
matter before the House under clause 1 of rule XV. Manual
Sec. Sec. 885, 887; 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 6846, 6847. Additionally, the
motion to suspend may provide for a series of procedural steps,
including the reconsideration of a bill already passed, agreement to
an amendment, and repassage as amended. 5 Hinds Sec. 6849. For
examples of proposals for which the motion may be used, see Suspension
of Rules. However, the motion is in order only on Mondays, Tuesdays,
and Wednesdays of each week and on the last six days of a session or
when the House by unanimous consent or rule gives the Speaker
authority to recognize for such motions on other days of the week. In
any case, recognition for the motion is within the discretion of the
Speaker. The motion is debatable for 40 minutes, is not amendable, and
requires a two-thirds vote for adoption. See Suspension of Rules.
Sec. 5 . Role of Calendars
The House maintains various calendars to facilitate the
consideration of different classes of legislative business. The
primary calendars are (1) the Union Calendar, for business to be taken
up in the Committee of the Whole, (2) the House Calendar, for matters
to be considered in the House, and (3) the Private Calendar, to which
all reported private bills are referred. Most
[[Page 387]]
legislative business reported from committee is referred to one of
these calendars. Manual Sec. 828. In addition, the House maintains a
Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees. Manual Sec. Sec. 830,
892. The former Consent Calendar and Corrections Calendar have been
abolished. Manual Sec. Sec. 898, 899. For a discussion of the various
calendars, see Calendars.
Sec. 6 . Consideration by Unanimous Consent
The House, pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement, sometimes
permits the consideration of a measure that is not otherwise in order
under the rules, for example, one not yet introduced. Manual
Sec. Sec. 381, 872, 956; 4 Hinds Sec. 3058. For a discussion of
consideration by unanimous consent (including the Speaker's guidelines
requiring approval by floor and committee leaderships before
recognition), see Unanimous-Consent Agreements.
Sec. 7 . In Committee of the Whole
Certain legislative measures are referred to the Union Calendar by
the Speaker for subsequent consideration in the Committee of the
Whole. Their consideration therein is governed by special orders of
business, orders of the House, or the standing rules applicable to the
Committee. See rule XVIII; 4 Hinds Sec. Sec. 3214, 4705, 4822;
Deschler Ch 19 Sec. Sec. 1, 4.
For comprehensive discussion of consideration of measures in
Committee of the Whole, see Committees of the Whole.
Sec. 8 . In the House as in the Committee of the Whole
Bills and other measures sometimes are taken up by the House when
it sits ``as in'' the Committee of the Whole. Manual Sec. 427. This
practice permits consideration of a measure under the five-minute rule
rather than the hour rule, but without general debate. 4 Hinds
Sec. 4924; Manual Sec. 424. For a discussion of consideration of
measures in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, see Committees
of the Whole.
Sec. 9 . Limitations on Debate; Nondebatable Matters
Generally; Time Limitations
Debate is subject to many limitations under the rules and
precedents of the House. Most of the limitations imposed by House rule
concern the duration of time allowed for the debate of a particular
proposition. These include, for example, the hour rule (Manual
Sec. 957), the 40-minute rule (Manual Sec. Sec. 891, 999), the 20-
minute rule (Manual Sec. 892), the ten-minute rule (Manual Sec. 987),
the five-minute rule (Manual Sec. 978), and the time limits
[[Page 388]]
that are imposed on the one-minute speeches or special-order speeches
that are often permitted when no legislative business is pending
(Manual Sec. 950). For a more detailed discussion of these time
limitations, see Sec. Sec. 44-50, infra.
Most of these are rules of general applicability. In addition, the
House may adopt a special order of business from the Committee on
Rules that places a different limit on the duration of debate on a
particular legislative proposal. This practice enables the House, by
majority vote, to specify time for, and control of, debate depending
on the complexity of the proposed measure.
Unless otherwise provided by House rule or by a special order of
business from the Committee on Rules, a proposition considered in the
House is debated under the hour rule. Sec. Sec. 44, 45, infra.
However, the various motions that may apply to a proposition often
carry their own time limitations for debate and, in some instances,
preclude debate entirely.
Matters Not Subject to Debate
The relevant standing rule and the precedents must be consulted in
order to determine whether debate on a motion or question is
precluded. The following are examples of questions that are not
subject to debate:
A motion that the Journal be read in full. Manual Sec. 621.
A motion for the previous question. Deschler Ch 23 Sec. 21.
A motion to go into the Committee of the Whole. 4 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 3062, 3078; 6 Cannon Sec. 716.
A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report. 4
Hinds Sec. Sec. 4766, 4782; Deschler Ch 19 Sec. 22.4.
A motion for a call of the House or incidental to a call of
the House. Manual Sec. 1024; 6 Cannon Sec. Sec. 683, 688.
A resolution authorizing the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest
absentees. 6 Cannon Sec. 686.
A motion that the Speaker be authorized to declare a recess or
that when the House adjourns it stand adjourned to a day and
time certain. Rule XVI; Manual Sec. 913.
A concurrent resolution providing for a sine die adjournment
or for adjournment to a day certain. Manual Sec. 84.
A motion to adjourn. Manual Sec. 911; Deschler-Brown-Johnson
Ch 40 Sec. 5.
A motion to lay on the table. 6 Cannon Sec. 415; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2465.
A motion to reconsider an undebatable proposition. 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5694-5699.
A motion to close general debate or to limit five-minute
debate. Manual Sec. 979; 5 Hinds Sec. 5203.
A motion to strike unparliamentary language from the
Congressional Record. 6 Cannon Sec. 617.
An incidental question of order after a demand for the
previous question. Manual Sec. 1000.
[[Page 389]]
An incidental question of order arising during a division. 5
Hinds Sec. 5926.
A motion that the Committee of the Whole take up a bill out of
calendar order. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2331, 2333.
A motion for a change of reference of a bill. Manual Sec. 825.
A question of consideration (with limited exceptions). Manual
Sec. 906.
A question relating to the priority of business. Manual
Sec. 884.
An appeal from a decision of the Chair on the priority of
business. 5 Hinds Sec. 6952; Manual Sec. 884.
An appeal from a decision of the Chair on relevancy of debate.
5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5056-5063.
An amendment to the title of a bill. Clause 6 of rule XVI; 8
Cannon Sec. 2907.
B. Control and Distribution of Time for Debate
Sec. 10 . In General; Role of Manager
Under long-standing practice, and as usually provided by special
orders of business, one or more designated Members manage a bill
during its consideration. Such managers are normally the chair and
ranking minority member of a committee reporting the measure. Sec. 14,
infra.
The majority manager of a measure has procedural advantages
enabling its expeditious consideration and passage. The majority
manager is entitled to the prior right to recognition unless the
control of time is surrendered or otherwise lost or unless a
preferential motion to recommit is offered by an opponent of the bill.
See Recognition. If the bill is to be taken up in the House under the
standing rules, the manager calling it up is entitled to one hour of
debate, which may be yielded to other Members. See Sec. 15, infra. The
manager may at any time during such hour move the previous question,
thereby bringing the matter to a vote and terminating further debate,
unless control of time has been yielded to another. See Sec. 45,
infra; see also Previous Question.
The manager of a bill enjoys a similar advantage in the Committee
of the Whole where the bill is being considered under a special order
of business or unanimous-consent agreement. General debate therein
typically is controlled and divided by the majority and minority
managers. The majority manager has the right to close general debate.
Manual Sec. 959. When the bill is read for amendment in the Committee,
the managers have the prior right to recognition, whether to offer an
amendment or oppose an amendment or to move to close or to limit
debate or to move that the Committee rise. Similarly, if the bill is
taken up in the House as in the Committee of the
[[Page 390]]
Whole, priority in recognition is extended during debate to members in
charge of the bill from the reporting committee. See Recognition.
Once a measure has been approved by a standing committee of the
House, its chair has a duty under the rules to report it promptly and
to take steps to have the matter considered and voted upon. Clause
2(b) of rule XIII. 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 in
recognition at all stages of consideration. See Recognition. When a
chair is opposed to a bill (although rare), the responsibility for
managing the bill may be delegated to the ranking majority member of
the committee. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 26.7. Such delegation of
control is ineffective where challenged unless communicated to the
Chair. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 26.30. The chair also may relinquish
control where the Committee of the Whole has adopted amendments to the
bill to which the chair is opposed. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 26.8.
Where the measure falls within the jurisdiction of two standing
committees, the chair of one of them may yield to the chair of the
other to control part of the available time and to move the previous
question. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 26.10.
For further discussion on control of debate by managers, see also
Sec. 12, infra.
Sec. 11 . Distribution and Alternation; Closing General Debate
The distribution of available time for debate, and the alternation
of time between majority and minority Members, is governed by
principles of comity and by House tradition, as well as by standing
rules of the House and by special orders of business. Manual Sec. 955.
A division of time for debate on certain motions may be required, and
a Member opposed may claim a priority to control a portion of the
time. For example, clause 1(c) of rule XV requires a division of time
for debate on a motion to suspend the rules between those in favor and
those opposed. Manual Sec. 891. Under rule XXII, one-third of the time
may be claimed by a Member opposed to conference reports, motions to
instruct conferees, and amendments reported from conference in
disagreement, where both the majority and minority managers support
the proposition.
The Chair alternates recognition between those favoring and those
opposing the pending proposition where a rule or precedent gives some
control to an opponent or, traditionally, between the parties where
time is limited. Special orders of business commonly divide control of
time for general de
[[Page 391]]
bate equally between the chair and ranking minority member of the
committees reporting the measure. When a special order of business
itself is being considered, the majority floor manager customarily
yields half of the time to the minority. For a discussion of
alternation generally, see Recognition.
A majority manager of the bill who represents the primary
committee of jurisdiction is entitled to close general debate, as
against another manager representing an additional committee of
jurisdiction. Where an order of the House divides debate on an
unreported measure among four Members, the Chair will recognize for
closing speeches in the reverse order of the original allocation.
Similarly, where general debate on an adversely reported measure is
controlled by two Members allocated time under a previous order of the
House and by two other Members deriving subdivisions of that time
under a later order by unanimous consent, the Chair may recognize for
closing speeches in the reverse order of the original allocation,
concluding with the Member who opened the debate. Where a Member
derives time for debate from the manager of a measure by unanimous
consent, that Member also derives the right to close debate thereon.
Where a member of the minority is recognized under a special order of
business to call up a Senate concurrent resolution from the Speaker's
desk, such Member is recognized to open and close debate thereon.
Manual Sec. 959.
Sec. 12 . Management by Committee; Closing Controlled Debate on an
Amendment
Special orders of business providing ``modified rules'' governing
the amendment process commonly limit and divide control of debate
between a proponent and an opponent of the amendment. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 28. Similarly, the Committee of the Whole may by unanimous
consent limit and divide control of debate between a proponent and a
Member in opposition. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 27.3. Under clause
3(c) of rule XVII, the manager of a bill or other representative of
the committee in opposition--and not the proponent of an amendment--
has the right to close debate on an amendment where debate has been so
limited and allocated without regard to the party affiliation of the
proponent. Manual Sec. 959. Clause 3(c) is an exception to the rule
set forth in clause 3(a) of rule XVII, which otherwise provides that
the mover, proposer, or introducer of the pending matter has the right
to open and close debate. The exceptional treatment of the right to
close debate on an amendment elevates the manager's prerogative over
the proponent's burden of persuasion. This is so even when the
majority manager offers an amendment that has not been recommended by
the
[[Page 392]]
committee. In that case, a member of the committee in opposition to
such amendment has the right to close. 107-2, July 25, 2002, p 14723.
Clause 3(c) applies to the manager of an unreported measure, even
where the rule providing for the consideration of the unreported
measure designates managers who do not serve on a committee of
jurisdiction. It also applies to a measure reported by the committee
without recommendation. The minority manager may claim the right to
close debate under clause 3(c), as may a member of a committee of
sequential referral to close debate against an amendment to a
provision recommended by that committee. Manual Sec. 959. However, the
proponent of an amendment has the right to close where a manager does
not oppose the amendment but nevertheless, by unanimous consent,
claims the time reserved for opposition. Manual Sec. 959.
For further discussion on control of debate by managers, see
Sec. 10, supra.
Sec. 13 . Designation of Member Who May Call Up a Measure
The committee reporting a measure occasionally designates the
Member who may call up a measure for consideration, in which case the
Chair may recognize only that Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. Sec. 27.1, 27.2. A special order of business also may designate
the Member. Sec. 14, infra. If a Member has not been specifically
designated, the Chair has the discretion to recognize a committee
member to call up a measure. 91-1, Dec. 23, 1969, p 40982.
Sec. 14 . Effect of Special Orders of Business
Generally
The designation of certain Members to control debate on a measure
is frequently provided by special order of business from the Committee
on Rules. Typically the Committee on Rules will draft a special order
of business providing that debate be equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the reporting committee or
committees. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 28. That control can be
delegated to a designee on the committee.
Dividing Debate Between Multiple Committees
A special order of business from the Committee on Rules may
specify that debate be divided between and controlled by two or more
standing committees. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 28.13. The special
order of business may provide that debate be controlled by the chairs
and ranking minority members of the several committees reporting a
bill, sometimes with the sec
[[Page 393]]
ondary committees controlling a lesser amount of time. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 28.16. Debate also may be divided between the standing
committee reporting a bill and a permanent select committee. 95-1,
Sept. 9, 1977, p 28367.
Where a special order of business divides the control of general
debate on a bill among the chairs and ranking members of two standing
committees, but does not specify the order of recognition, recognition
is within the Chair's discretion. The Chair may allow one committee to
use its time before recognizing the other, or may rotate among the
four managers. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 28.18.
If the rule divides control of debate among a primary reporting
committee and several sequentially reporting committees in a
designated order, the Chair may allocate time between the chair and
ranking minority member of each committee in the order listed, if and
when present on the floor, and permit only the primary committee to
reserve a portion of its time to close general debate. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 28.16. When the Chair has announced the intention to permit
the primary committee to so reserve a portion of its time, the
sequential committees are required to use all of their time before the
closing debate by the primary committee. 99-1, Dec. 5, 1985, pp 34638,
34644. A majority manager of the bill who represents the primary
committee of jurisdiction is entitled to close general debate (as
against another manager representing an additional committee of
jurisdiction). Manual Sec. 959.
Division of Time Between a Member in Favor and a Member Opposed
In the event that a specified amount of time for debate is equally
divided and controlled between the proponent of the amendment and a
Member opposed thereto, only one Member may be recognized to control
the time in favor of the amendment and only one Member may be
recognized to control the time in opposition, though each may in turn
yield blocks of time to other Members. 99-2, Aug. 11, 1986, pp 20678,
20679. Pro forma amendments are not permitted where second degree
amendments are prohibited unless so specified. 99-2, Aug. 14, 1986, p
21655. Time for debate on the amendment having been divided between
the proponent and an opponent, the Chair has the discretion to
recognize the manager of the bill in opposition, there being no
requirement for recognition of the minority party. Indeed, the Chair
ordinarily recognizes the chair of the committee managing the bill if
such individual qualifies as opposed to the amendment. Manual
Sec. 959; Sec. 10, supra.
A special order of business may provide that, after general debate
divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the reporting
com
[[Page 394]]
mittee, 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 order of business providing for
one hour of general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the reporting committee, and two
hours to be divided and controlled by Members to be designated by the
chair. 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 time for debate
without losing the right to reoccupy the floor. A Member could not
yield the floor unless it was yielded unconditionally. 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5023, 5026. That practice began to change with the adoption
of the hour rule for debate in 1841. 5 Hinds Sec. 5021.
Under current practice, a Member controlling the time during
debate may yield blocks of time for debate to others, be seated, and
still retain the right to resume debate or move the previous question.
8 Cannon Sec. 3383. The yielding of time for debate is discretionary
with the Members who have control thereof. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. Sec. 31.1, 31.2. A Member may not yield for purposes of debate
when rising merely to make or reserve a point of order. Deschler-Brown
Ch 31 Sec. 7.5. A Member may not yield to another for debate while
under recognition merely for a parliamentary inquiry. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 20.7.
A Member who seeks yielded time should address the Chair and
request the permission of the Member speaking. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 42. Where a Member interrupts another Member during debate
without being yielded to, the time consumed by such remarks are not
charged against the time for debate of the Member controlling the
floor and the remarks are not carried in the Congressional Record.
Manual Sec. 946.
The time used by yielding is ordinarily charged against the
yielding Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.5. Unused time reverts
to the yielding Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 31.36. A Member may
yield to another for a parliamentary inquiry, but the time consumed by
the inquiry and the response of the Chair comes out of the time of the
Member yielding. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.5.
Clause 3(b) of rule XVII, which prohibits a Member who is not a
manager from speaking more than once on a question, often is
superseded in modern practice by special orders of business that vest
control of debate in
[[Page 395]]
designated Members and permit them to yield more than once to other
Members. Manual Sec. 959.
In the House
The Member in control of debate in the House under the hour rule
has the discretion to yield for debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.
Indeed, although not required to do so by standing rule, majority
members in control under the hour rule frequently yield one-half the
time to the minority. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.15. Of course, the
yielding of time must be consistent with any division of time that is
required by House rule or a special order of business from the
Committee on Rules.
In the Committee of the Whole
In the Committee of the Whole, a Member in control of time for
general debate may yield a block of time (up to one hour) to another
Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 31.24.
During five-minute debate Members may yield, as for a question or
comment, but may not yield blocks of time. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5035-
5037. A Member yielding to a colleague during debate under the five-
minute rule should remain standing to protect such Member's right to
the floor. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.8. If a Member uses only part
of the time, such five-minute period is treated as exhausted, as it
cannot be reserved, and another Member cannot claim recognition for
the unused time. 8 Cannon Sec. 2571. However, where debate on an
amendment is limited or allocated by a unanimous-consent agreement or
motion, or by a special order of business, to a proponent and an
opponent, the five-minute rule is abrogated and the Members
controlling the debate may yield blocks of time or reserve time.
Manual Sec. 980.
Yielding During Debate on Special Orders of Business
The traditional practice with regard to resolutions from the
Committee on Rules providing special orders of business for the
consideration of measures is for the Member in charge of the
resolution to yield one-half of the time to the minority, who then may
yield specified portions thereof. Although the minority member of the
Committee on Rules to whom one-half of the time for debate is yielded
customarily yields portions of that time to other Members, another
Member to whom a portion of time is yielded may in turn yield blocks
of that time only by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 31.23. However, where a Member has been recognized under the hour
rule following refusal of the previous question on such a resolution,
such Member has control of the time and is under no obligation
[[Page 396]]
to yield half of that time as is the customary practice of the
Committee on Rules. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 15.20.
Yielding Time During Yielded Time
A Member to whom time has been yielded during debate under the
hour rule in the House may, while remaining standing, yield to a third
Member for comments or questions but may not in turn yield blocks of
time, except by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 31.21. A
similar rule is followed in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 31.24.
Where a Member is yielded time in the House for debate only, time
may not be yielded to a third Member for purposes other than debate.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 31.19.
Sec. 16 . -- Yielding for Amendment
In General
A measure being considered in the House is not subject to
amendment by a Member not in control of the time unless the Member in
control yields for that purpose. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 30.1,
30.4. A Member may not offer an amendment in time secured for debate
only or request unanimous consent to offer an amendment unless yielded
to for that purpose by the Member controlling the floor. Manual
Sec. 946; 8 Cannon Sec. 2474; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 30.6.
Members to whom time is yielded for the purpose of offering an
amendment in the House are recognized in their own right to discuss
the amendment for one hour and may themselves yield time. 8 Cannon
Sec. Sec. 2471, 2478; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 30.11.
Loss of Control by Yielding Member
A Member may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment
without losing the floor. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5021, 5030, 5031; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2476; Manual Sec. 946. Where a Member controlling the time on a
measure in the House yields for the purpose of amendment, another
Member may move the previous question on the measure before the Member
yielded to is recognized to debate the amendment. Manual Sec. 997. The
previous question takes precedence over an amendment. Clause 4 of rule
XVI; Manual Sec. 911. If the Member calling up a measure offers an
amendment and then yields to another Member to offer an amendment to
that amendment, the first Member loses the floor and the Member
yielded to is recognized for one hour and may move the previous
question on the amendments and on the measure itself. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 33.9.
[[Page 397]]
Under the Five-Minute Rule
A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not yield to
another Member to offer an amendment. It is the prerogative of the
Chair to recognize Members offering amendments under the five-minute
rule. Manual Sec. 946. However, a Member recognized under the five-
minute rule may by unanimous consent yield the balance of the time to
another Member, who may thereafter offer an amendment when separately
recognized by the Chair for that purpose. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 19.25.
A Member offering a pro forma amendment under the five-minute rule
may not yield to another Member during that time to offer an
amendment. Manual Sec. 981.
Sec. 17 . Interruptions; Losing or Surrendering Control
In General
With few exceptions, a Member may interrupt another Member in
debate only if yielded to. A Member desiring to interrupt another in
debate should address the Chair to obtain the permission of the Member
speaking. The Member speaking may then decide whether or not to yield.
The Chair will take the initiative in preserving order when a Member
declining to yield in debate continues to be interrupted by another
Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 42.14; Manual Sec. 946.
A Member in control of time for debate in the House may
voluntarily surrender the floor by simply so stating or by withdrawing
the measure. A Member recognized under the hour rule may yield the
floor upon expiration of that hour without moving the previous
question, thereby permitting another Member to be recognized for a
successive hour. Manual Sec. 957. A Member also may lose the floor if
ruled out of order for disorderly language. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 33. Finally, a Member loses the floor if yielding for other
legislative business (8 Cannon Sec. 2468) or for an amendment
(Sec. 16, supra).
A Member may be interrupted by a point of order or by the
presentation of certain privileged matter, such as a conference
report. 5 Hinds Sec. 6451; 8 Cannon Sec. 3294. In addition, it is
customary for the Speaker to request a Member to yield for the
reception of a message. Manual Sec. 946. However, a parliamentary
inquiry may not be used to interrupt a Member. Manual Sec. 628a.
Although a motion proposed by the Member in charge may be
displaced by a preferential motion, a Member may not by offering such
motion
[[Page 398]]
deprive the Member in charge of the floor. 8 Cannon Sec. 3259. A
Member having the floor may not be deprived of the floor:
By a motion to adjourn. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5369, 5370; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2646.
By a demand for the previous question. 8 Cannon Sec. 2609.
By a question of personal privilege. 5 Hinds Sec. 5002; 8
Cannon Sec. 2459; 98-1, Sept. 29, 1983, pp 26508, 26509.
Interruptions for Parliamentary Inquiries
An interruption for a parliamentary inquiry is not in order unless
the Member having the floor yields for that purpose. Manual Sec. 628a;
8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2455-2458. If a Member does yield for that purpose,
control of the floor is not lost because the right to resume is
retained. Thus, a Member who has been yielded time for a parliamentary
inquiry may not during such inquiry move that the House adjourn, for
that would deprive the Member holding the floor of the right to
resume. 88-2, June 3, 1964, p 12522.
Where the Member controlling the time yields to another for
debate, the latter may, during the time so yielded, propound a
parliamentary inquiry. 90-1, July 17, 1967, p 19033. The time consumed
to state and answer the inquiry is deducted from the time for debate.
94-1, Sept. 25, 1975, p 30196. When the Member holding the floor
during general debate yields solely for a parliamentary inquiry, such
Member's time continues to run. Deschler-Brown Ch 31 Sec. 15.6.
However, when the Chair entertains a parliamentary inquiry before the
Member managing the pending measure in the House has been recognized
for debate, or between recognitions, the time consumed by the inquiry
does not come out of the manager's time. Deschler-Brown Ch 31
Sec. 15.8.
C. Relevancy in Debate
Sec. 18 . In General; In the House
Members addressing the House must confine themselves ``to the
question under debate. . . .'' Clause 1 of rule XVII; Manual Sec. 945.
The rule, which was adopted in 1811, enables the House to expedite
proceedings when a specific proposition is before it for action.
Manual Sec. 945; 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 4979, 5043-5048; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2481. The rule is directed against irrelevant discussion, not
mere redundancy. Although Jefferson's Manual enjoins superfluous or
tedious remarks, in practice the House has never suppressed debate of
this character, the hour rule being regarded as sufficiently
restrictive in that regard. Manual Sec. 359.
[[Page 399]]
Debate on a reported resolution pending before the House should be
confined thereto and should not be extended to an unreported bill even
though on the same subject. 5 Hinds Sec. 5053. The rule is also
applicable to debate on private bills. 8 Cannon Sec. 2590. On a motion
to suspend the rules, debate is confined to the object of the motion
and may not range to the merits of a bill not scheduled for such
consideration. Manual Sec. 948.
It was the custom of earlier Speakers to hold the Member speaking
strictly to the question before the House, without waiting for the
point to be made on the floor. See 5 Hinds Sec. 5043 (note). Under
modern practice, however, the Chair waits for a point of order to be
made and rarely calls a Member to order sua sponte for speaking on an
unrelated question. Manual Sec. 948.
Under modern practice Speakers have applied the rule of relevancy
with more tolerance and latitude than under the earlier practice.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 35. A Member is sometimes permitted to
discuss matters other than the pending measure by unanimous consent.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 35. Absent unanimous consent, if a point of
order is made and sustained, the Speaker must direct the Member
speaking to confine remarks to the question (5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5044-
5048) and to maintain an ongoing ``nexus'' between the pending bill
and any broader policy issues (Manual Sec. 948).
The relevancy requirement of rule XVII is applicable to floor
debate on pending propositions. It is not normally applicable to a
Member making a one-minute or special-order speech. See Sec. 50,
infra. However, if a unanimous-consent request for a Member to address
the House for one hour specifies the subject of the address, the Chair
may enforce the rule of relevancy in debate by requiring that the
remarks be confined to the subject so specified. Manual Sec. 948.
When a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules is pending,
debate must be confined to that special order of business and to the
merits of the bill made in order thereby. Debate should not extend to
the merits of a bill that is not to be considered under the special
order of business. Manual Sec. 948. However, debate may extend to the
merits of a germane amendment to the special order of business, which
a proponent is prepared to offer in the case that the previous
question is not ordered on the special order of business.
Debate on a question of personal privilege must be confined to the
statements or issue that gave rise to the question of privilege. 5
Hinds Sec. Sec. 5075-5077; 6 Cannon Sec. Sec. 576, 608; 8 Cannon
Sec. Sec. 2448, 2481; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 36. Debate on a
privileged resolution recommending disciplinary action against a
Member may include comparisons with other such actions taken by or
reported to the House for purposes of measuring the se
[[Page 400]]
verity of punishment but should not extend to the conduct of another
Member who is not the subject of a committee report. Debate on a
resolution electing a Member to committee should not extend to that
committee's agenda. Manual Sec. 948.
Sec. 19 . In the Committee of the Whole-- General Debate
In the Committee of the Whole, during the general debate that
precedes the reading of the bill for amendment under the five-minute
rule, a Member is allowed great freedom and latitude in debate. 5
Hinds Sec. Sec. 5234-5238. ``Anything may be discussed which may by
the liveliest imagination be supposed to relate to the state of the
Union in any particular or in any degree, however remote.'' 8 Cannon
Sec. 2590. However, such license is normally suppressed by the special
order of business or other House order setting the duration and scope
of the debate. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5233-5238; 8 Cannon Sec. 2590;
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 37. If the bill is being considered under
the terms of a special order of business that requires that debate be
confined to the bill, a Member may exceed those bounds only by
unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 37.3.
Sec. 20 . -- Under the Five-Minute Rule
The scope of debate under the five-minute rule is more narrowly
confined than is the scope of general debate. Manual Sec. 948; 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5240-5256; 8 Cannon Sec. 2591. Debate on a pending amendment
must be confined to the subject of the amendment and its relation to
the bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 38.5, 38.11. This is due in
part to the language of clause 5 of rule XVIII, which states that a
Member is to be allowed five minutes ``to explain'' an offered
amendment. Manual Sec. 978. It has been held that remarks on the
general merits of the bill are not in order as ``explaining'' an
amendment, and remarks touching on the demerits of the bill are not in
order as opposing an amendment. 5 Hinds Sec. 5242. Nevertheless, the
Chair may accord Members latitude to put their amendment in context,
such as permitting debate on a series of amendments in the nature of a
substitute to a concurrent resolution on the budget to include
amendments not yet offered. 106-1, Mar. 25, 1999, pp 5725-27, 5733-44.
Relevancy in debate may be enforced even if a Member is attempting
to respond to previous extraneous remarks in debate against which no
point of order was raised. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 38.13; 110-1,
July 31, 2007, p 21963. However, a Member may speak to another subject
by unanimous consent. This is permitted even where the Committee of
the Whole is proceeding pursuant to the provisions of a special order
of business permitting
[[Page 401]]
only designated amendments to be offered. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 38.17. Where a general provisions title is pending, debate may
relate to any subject covered by the bill. Manual Sec. 948.
D. Disorder in Debate
Sec. 21 . In General
Generally
Among the oldest rules of the House are those that authorize the
Speaker to maintain order and decorum in the House (clause 2 of rule
I) and to call a Member who had transgressed the rules of the House
``in speaking or otherwise'' to order (clause 4 of rule XVII). 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 XVII and by related provisions in Jefferson's
Manual. Manual Sec. Sec. 353-379, 945-962.
Time consumed by proceedings incident to a call to order is not
charged against the time of the Member under recognition. 102-2, Oct.
3, 1992, p 31009.
A Member may be called to order by another Member's timely demand
that the words used be taken down and read aloud at the Clerk's desk.
The Speaker then rules whether the words or actions of the Member are
disorderly. Whether an offending Member is to be allowed to proceed in
order or is to be disciplined is determined by the House. Sec. 26,
infra.
Disorderly Acts
Decorum or comportment in the conduct and behavior of Members on
the floor of the House is governed in part by clause 5 of rule XVII.
Manual Sec. 962. Prohibited conduct under the rule includes:
Walking out of or across the hall while the Speaker is
addressing the House.
Passing between the Chair and a Member under recognition.
Wearing a hat.
Using a mobile electronic device that impairs decorum.
Remaining by the Clerk's desk during roll calls.
Smoking.
Wearing a communicative badge while under recognition.
A Member's comportment may constitute a breach of decorum even
though the content of that Member's speech is not, itself,
unparliamentary. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 41.2; 103-2, July 29, 1994,
p 18609.
[[Page 402]]
Demonstrations of approval or disapproval, such as applause, are
not a part of the formal proceedings of the House and are not carried
in the Congressional Record. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 41.8. A Member
having the floor may not request Members to conduct a straw vote, such
as showing hands or rising in support of a certain measure. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 41.10.
The Chair may entertain a demand to clear the well in the event of
disorder therein. 88-1, Dec. 9, 1963, p 23831. Under clause 3 of rule
II, 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 Chair. Manual Sec. 656; 1 Hinds Sec. 257. On one occasion
the Speaker requested the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist him in
maintaining decorum disrupted by a former Member. Manual Sec. 622.
Former Members may be banned from the floor for indecorous behavior as
a matter of privilege. Manual Sec. 680.
Acts of physical violence by one Member or between two Members
during or after heated debate have occurred. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1642-
1644, 1655, 1656. Assaults or affrays in the Committee of the Whole
are dealt with by the House. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1648-1651.
Attire
The Speaker has announced as proper the customary traditional
attire for Members while in attendance in the House Chamber, including
a coat and tie for male Members and appropriate attire for female
Members. In one instance, the Speaker refused to recognize for debate
a Member in violation of the practice that Members were expected to
follow traditional standards of dress, and requested the Member in
question to remove himself from the floor and don proper attire. The
House subsequently agreed to a resolution, offered as a question of
privilege, requiring Members to wear proper attire as determined by
the Speaker, and denying noncomplying Members the privilege of the
floor. Manual Sec. 622.
Exhibits and Charts; Badges
Under clause 6 of rule XVII, the Chair has the discretion to
submit to the House the question of the use of an exhibit, such as a
chart, during debate. In addition, the Speaker's responsibility to
preserve decorum requires that an exhibit in debate that would be
demeaning to the House or that would be disruptive of its proceedings
be disallowed. Manual Sec. Sec. 622, 963; see Sec. 61, infra.
In recent years, Members occasionally have worn badges 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
[[Page 403]]
floor while engaging in debate is inappropriate and in contravention
of clause 1 of rule XVII. Manual Sec. 945.
Speaker's Announcements
On the opening day of recent Congresses, the Speaker has stressed
the importance of various rules of decorum in the House. The Speaker
has prefaced this customary announcement with a general statement
concerning decorum in the House, including adjurations against
engaging in personalities, addressing remarks to spectators, and
passing in front of the Member addressing the Chair. ``It is
essential,'' the Speaker said, ``that the dignity of the proceedings
of the House be preserved, not only to assure that the House conducts
its business in an orderly fashion but to permit Members to properly
comprehend and participate in the business of the House.'' 107-1, Jan.
3, 2001, p 40. See also Sec. Sec. 60-62, infra.
At the beginning of the 112th Congress, the Speaker's announcement
regarding recognition for special-order speeches affirmed that the
Speaker retains the ability to withdraw such recognition should
circumstances (such as disorderly conduct) so warrant. 112-1, Jan. 5,
2011, p __.
Sec. 22 . Disorderly Language
Members have been censured or otherwise disciplined for the use of
disorderly words in debate, whether the words were uttered in the
House or the Committee of the Whole. Manual Sec. 960; 2 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 1254, 1259, 1305; 6 Cannon Sec. 236. A Member may likewise
be disciplined for the insertion of disorderly words in the
Congressional Record. 6 Cannon Sec. 236. Members have been cautioned
against the use of vulgarity or profanity in debate. Manual Sec. 945.
The Chair may call to order a Member engaging in or tending toward
personalities in debate or for a verbal outburst following the
expiration of time for debate. Manual Sec. Sec. 361, 622. For a
discussion of critical references to Members, see Sec. 37, infra.
Remarks in debate have been the subject of a resolution
collaterally raising a question of the privileges of the House, such
resolution alleging that the remarks brought discredit upon the House
and proposing that the Member in question be censured. 110-1, Oct. 23,
2007, p 27966; see also Questions of Privilege.
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 the remarks, must all be taken
into account by the Speaker. There have been instances in which the
same or similar word has
[[Page 404]]
on one occasion been ruled permissible and on another ruled
unparliamentary. Thus the word ``damn'' has been ruled out of order,
whereas ``damnable'' has been permitted. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 43.
Sec. 23 . -- Critical References to the Senate and to Senators
A rule of comity prohibiting most references in debate to the
Senate was first enunciated in Jefferson's Manual and was strictly
enforced in the House through the 108th Congress (albeit with certain
exceptions adopted in the 100th and 101st Congresses). Manual
Sec. 945. The former rule prohibited most references to the Senate
except in a general or neutral way and prohibited any references to
individual Senators (beyond their status as sponsors of legislation).
In the 109th Congress, the rule was changed to permit references
to the Senate generally and to subject individual Senators to the same
standards of debate used for Members of the House. Thus, Members may
not engage in ``personalities'' with regard to individual Senators.
For example, it is not in order to refer to a Senator in a derogatory
fashion, to question a Senator's personal motives, or to accuse a
Senator of falsehood or deception. For further information on the
kinds of personal remarks prohibited as to both House Members and
Senators, see Sec. Sec. 37-43, infra. The Chair will take the
initiative to call Members to order for unparliamentary references
with regard to the Senate. Manual Sec. 371.
Sec. 24 . -- References to the Press, Media, or Gallery
References to the Media
A Member should address all remarks to the Chair, and only the
Chair; it is not in order for a Member to address remarks to ``the
press'' or to the ``television audience,'' including Members watching
in their offices. The rule is enforced on the Chair's own initiative.
Manual Sec. 945.
References to the Gallery
By rule of the House adopted in 1933, no Member may introduce or
refer to any occupant of the galleries of the House. Clause 7 of rule
XVII; Manual Sec. 966. The rule is strictly enforced, and the Speaker
ordinarily intervenes sua sponte to prevent infraction thereof.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 45.4, 45.7. The rule may not be
suspended by permission to proceed out
[[Page 405]]
of order, even by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 966. The rule has
been invoked to prevent a Member from making references to:
An honored guest in the gallery who had exhibited ``great
heroism.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 45.1.
A Member's constituents sitting in the gallery. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 45.2.
A Federal official present in the gallery who had an interest
in the pending bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 45.3.
A ``disinterested, objective observer'' sitting in the
gallery. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 45.5.
Family members present in the gallery. 99-2, July 29, 1986, p
17956.
Sec. 25 . -- References to Executive Officials
Jefferson wrote that in Parliament it was out of order to speak
``irreverently or seditiously'' against the King. Manual Sec. 370. No
analogous constraint exists in the rules of the House. Members in
debate are permitted wide latitude in the use of language that is
critical of the President, other officials of the executive branch,
and the government itself. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5087-5091; 8 Cannon
Sec. Sec. 2499, 2500; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47. Such criticism is
considered as inherent in the exercise of legislative authority. As a
report adopted by the House in 1909 read, ``The right to legislate
involves the right to consider conditions as they are and to contrast
present conditions with those of the past or those desired in the
future. The right to correct abuses by legislation carries the right
to consider and discuss [them].'' 8 Cannon Sec. 2497. Members may
employ strong language in criticizing the government, government
agencies, and governmental policies. For example, it has been held in
order for a Member to:
Refer to the government as ``something hated, something
oppressive.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.6.
Refer to the President as ``using legislative and judicial
pork.'' 8 Cannon Sec. 2499.
Refer to certain unnamed officials as ``our half-baked nitwits
who are handling the foreign affairs. . . .'' Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 47.3.
Refer to a Federal agency as a ``Socialist, Communist''
experiment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.4.
Refer to the government as a ``labor dictatorship.'' Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.5.
On the other hand, the rules do not permit the use of language
that is personally offensive toward the President. Manual Sec. 370; 5
Hinds Sec. 5094. For example, it is out of order to call the President
a ``liar'' or a ``hypocrite'' or to refer to accusations of sexual
misconduct. Manual Sec. 370; 8 Can
[[Page 406]]
non Sec. 2498; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.16. A Member may refer to
political motives of the President in debate. However, personal
criticism, innuendo, ridicule, or terms of opprobrium are not in
order. 8 Cannon Sec. 2497. For example, a Member may not in debate
describe the President's veto of a bill as ``cowardly'' (Manual
Sec. 370), charge that the President has been ``intellectually
dishonest'' (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.15), refer to the President
as ``giving aid and comfort'' to the enemy (Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 47.17), or describe the President's actions as ``arrogant'' (110-
1, Jan. 11, 2007, p 998) or ``mean-spirited'' (110-2, July 15, 2008, p
__).
Members must abstain from personally offensive language even
during impeachment proceedings. It is not in order to refer to
evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by the President contained in
a communication from an Independent Counsel pending before a House
committee but not before the House itself. Manual Sec. 370.
The Speaker has advised that the traditional protections against
unparliamentary references to the President do not necessarily extend
to the President's family. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.18. The
Speaker enunciated a minimal standard of propriety for all debate
concerning nominated candidates for the Presidency, based on the
traditional proscription against personally offensive references to
the President even in the capacity of candidate. Manual Sec. 370.
References in debate to the Vice President are governed by the
standards of reference permitted toward the President or Senators.
Therefore, a Member may criticize in debate the policies or candidacy
of the Vice President but may not engage in personality. Manual
Sec. 371.
Under rule XVII a Member may be called to order for alleged
unparliamentary references to the President by a demand that the words
be taken down. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 49.32.
Sec. 26 . Procedure; Calls to Order
In the House
Procedures are available under rule XVII that enable the House to
deal with disorderly words or actions by Members. A Member
transgressing the rules may be called to order by the Speaker or by
another Member. Manual Sec. 960. The Member calling the offending
Member to order may demand that the words objected to be ``taken
down'' and read to the House by the Clerk. Manual Sec. 960.
Briefly summarized, procedures available to deal with disorder
include:
Point of order raised against alleged unparliamentary
language.
Demand that words be ``taken down.''
[[Page 407]]
The Chair gavels the proceedings to a halt and directs the
offending Member to be seated.
Words taken down reported to the House by the Clerk.
Unanimous-consent request to withdraw words taken down.
Motion to allow Member to explain words taken down.
Speaker rules whether words are out of order.
Member ruled out of order must be seated and discontinue
debate.
Motion to strike (or expunge) words.
Censure or other disciplinary action by the House if (with
certain exceptions) there has been no intervening debate or
business.
Motion that the Member be allowed to proceed in order.
Not all cases involving disorderly words require the taking down
of words and other formal action by the House. In many instances, the
Chair will observe that debate is becoming personal and approaching a
violation of the rules, in which case the Chair may simply request
that Members proceed in order. See, e.g., Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 48.1. The Chair also may caution all Members, on the Chair's own
initiative or in response to a parliamentary inquiry, not to question
the integrity or motivation of other Members in debate. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 49.36. Likewise, where a Member objects to unparliamentary
remarks delivered in debate, but does not demand that the words be
taken down, it is appropriate for the Chair to sustain the point of
order and then direct the Member to proceed in order. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 49.34.
Ordinarily, a question of personal privilege may not be based upon
language uttered in debate, the proper course being the timely demand
that words be taken down under rule XVII. Manual Sec. 708. However,
remarks in debate have been the subject of a resolution collaterally
raising a question of the privileges of the House, such resolution
alleging that the remarks brought discredit upon the House and
proposing that the Member in question be censured. 110-1, Oct. 23,
2007, p 27966; see also Questions of Privilege.
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 chair of the
Committee may respond by sustaining the point of order and admonishing
the offending Member to proceed in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 49.34.
The use of disorderly language in the Committee of the Whole also
is subject to a demand that the words be taken down and reported to
the House for a ruling by the Speaker. 8 Cannon Sec. 2539. The Chair
does not rule on whether the words taken down are out of order. 8
Cannon Sec. Sec. 2533,
[[Page 408]]
2540. There is no debate in the Committee on the propriety of the
words used. 8 Cannon Sec. 2538. The Committee rises automatically to
report the words to the House after the words are reported by the
Clerk. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1257-1259, 1348; 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2533,
2538, 2539. The business of the Committee is suspended until the words
objected to are reported to the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 49.42.
Form
Chair: M_. 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 Chair): The Clerk will read
the words reported from the committee.
All of the words objected to in the Committee of the Whole should
be reported to the House. The Speaker can pass only on the words as
reported; a demand that additional words uttered in Committee be
reported is not in order in the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 50.10.
After the Speaker rules on the words objected to and the House has
disposed of any disciplinary proceedings, the Committee of the Whole
resumes its sitting without motion. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2539, 2541;
Manual Sec. 961.
Sec. 28 . -- Taking Down Words
The taking down of words objected to in debate was a practice of
the House even before the procedure became part of its formal rules in
1837. Clause 4 of rule XVII; Manual Sec. 960. The words taken down may
consist of a single phrase (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.3) or an
entire colloquy between two Members (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 49.13).
The demand should indicate the words excepted to and the identity of
the Member who uttered them. Manual Sec. 960. The objecting Member may
indicate briefly the basis for the demand, such as impugning the
motives of a colleague; but the objecting Member may not at that time
debate the grounds for a finding that the words are disorderly.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 49.18.
Ordinarily, debate on or interpretation of the words objected to
is not in order pending a ruling by the Speaker. Although words
objected to in debate may be withdrawn pursuant to a unanimous-consent
request, no debate is in order pending such a request. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 49.20. However, the offending Member may by unanimous
consent (or on motion by another Member) be permitted to explain the
words. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 52.16; Sec. 30, infra.
[[Page 409]]
While a demand that a Member's words be taken down is pending,
that Member should be seated immediately. Manual Sec. 961. It is a
breach of decorum for a Member to ignore the Chair's gavel and the
instruction to be seated. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 41.2.
The business of the House is suspended until the words are
reported to the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 49.32. During that
time the Speaker may refuse to entertain a parliamentary inquiry or a
unanimous-consent request that a Member be allowed to proceed for one
minute. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 49.14, 49.15.
Form
Member: M_. Speaker (or M_. Chair), I ask that the gentle___'s
words be taken down.
Chair: The gentle___ will be seated. The Clerk will report the
words.
Timeliness of Demand
A demand that words be taken down is in order only if made in a
timely manner under rule XVII. Manual Sec. 960; 110-1, Jan. 22, 2007,
p 1899. The demand should be made immediately after the words are
uttered. Where debate has intervened, the demand comes too late unless
the objecting Member was standing and seeking recognition at the
proper time. The Chair's determination whether a Member's point of
order constitutes a demand that those words be ``taken down,'' is not
such intervening debate or business as to render the demand untimely.
Manual Sec. 961; 8 Cannon Sec. 2528. The Chair may not respond to a
parliamentary inquiry regarding the propriety of words pending a
demand that words be taken down or after the words have been uttered
and no such demand has been made. Manual Sec. 628.
Taking Down Words Read From Papers
Papers read during debate are subject to a timely demand that
words be ``taken down'' as an unparliamentary reference to other
sitting Members, but the demand must be made before subsequent reading
intervenes. That certain words may already have been published
elsewhere does not make them admissible in debate, and words not
admissible in debate may not be inserted in the Congressional Record.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 83.6.
Withdrawal of Demand
Before a ruling by the Speaker, a demand in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole that words be taken down may be withdrawn by
the Member making the demand, and unanimous consent is not required.
Manual Sec. 961.
[[Page 410]]
Sec. 29 . -- Withdrawal or Modification of Words
Generally; In the House
Words objected to in debate in the House may be withdrawn or
modified by unanimous consent, even after the words have been taken
down on demand and read by the Clerk. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2543, 2544;
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 51.1, 51.2.
Pending a demand that words spoken in debate be taken down and
ruled unparliamentary, the Chair may inquire whether the Member whose
remarks are challenged wishes to request unanimous consent to modify
the remarks before directing the Clerk to read them. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 51.11. However, the withdrawal of unparliamentary language may
be made even after the Speaker has ruled the language out of order or
even recognized another Member on a motion to strike the words from
the Congressional Record. 8 Cannon Sec. 2539.
The Speaker does not rule retrospectively on the propriety of
words withdrawn by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 628.
In the Committee of the Whole
A Member may withdraw or modify words objected to in the Committee
of the Whole by unanimous consent. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2528, 2538. In
one instance, two Members demanded that each other's words be taken
down and then, by unanimous consent, withdrew their remarks in the
Committee before they were reported to the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 51.5.
Deletions From the Record
Clause 8 of rule XVII mandates that the Congressional Record be a
``substantially verbatim'' account of debate and permits the deletion
of unparliamentary remarks only by order of the House. This clause
establishes a standard of conduct within the meaning of that provision
of the rules giving rise to the investigative jurisdiction of the
Committee on Ethics.
Sec. 30 . -- Permission to Explain
Ordinarily, a Member whose words are taken down must sit down and
may not explain the remarks pending a ruling by the Speaker. Manual
Sec. 961. However, the rules specifically provide for a motion to
allow the Member to explain, which motion may be made only by another
Member. Clause 4 of rule XVII; Manual Sec. 960. Moreover, the Speaker
has the discretion, before ruling on the words, to request the Member
called to order to make a brief explanation of the remarks. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 52.16.
[[Page 411]]
Sec. 31 . -- Speaker's Ruling
The Speaker (or Speaker pro tempore) has the sole power to rule
whether words objected to constitute a breach of order in debate.
Manual Sec. Sec. 960, 961; 2 Hinds Sec. 1249; 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5163-
5169. This determination is made by the Speaker after the words have
been taken down (whether in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole) and have been reported by the Clerk. The question of whether
words taken down violate the rules is for the Speaker to decide and is
not debatable. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 50.7. The Chair judges the
words as read by the Clerk and not as alleged to have been uttered.
Manual Sec. 961. No Member may engage the Chair until the demand has
been disposed of. Manual Sec. 961.
The Speaker's ruling on a question of order has been appealed in
the House in numerous instances, the Speaker generally being
sustained. See, e.g., 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5157, 5173, 5178, 5194, 5196,
5198, 5199. Such an appeal is subject to the motion to table. Manual
Sec. 629. Also, the House may, by voting on a proper motion, dictate
the consequences of that ruling by imposing disciplinary action or by
allowing the Member to proceed in order.
The Speaker, in ruling on the words objected to, weighs the
importance of freedom in debate against the need to maintain the order
and dignity of the House. 5 Hinds Sec. 5163. The Speaker considers the
meaning of the words as well as the context in which they were used.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 50.6. Pending the ruling, the Speaker may
recognize the Member who made the statement to ask unanimous consent
to withdraw or modify the words. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 51.1,
51.2. The Speaker also may put questions to the offending Member about
the words and may consult dictionaries to determine the meaning of
certain words or terms. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 50.3, 50.4.
Sec. 32 . -- Discipline; Post-Ruling Motions
Generally
Censure or other disciplinary action is a matter for the House and
not the Chair to decide. Manual Sec. 961. However, no House action is
in order until the Chair has ruled on the words objected to. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.21. If the words used are ruled to be
unparliamentary, and if such words have not been withdrawn, the House
may entertain certain motions enabling it to dispose of the breach of
order.
Striking Words From the Record
Under modern practice, words ruled out of order are normally
stricken from the Congressional Record by unanimous consent initiated
by the Chair.
[[Page 412]]
Manual Sec. 961. If there is an objection, a motion to strike or
expunge the words from the Record is in order. 8 Cannon
Sec. Sec. 2538, 2539; Manual Sec. 960. A motion to expunge is in order
even though the House by vote has authorized the Member to proceed.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.23. The motion, which is debatable within
narrow limits under the hour rule, is not in order until the Chair has
decided that the words are out of order. Manual Sec. 961; Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.21. The motion is not in order in the Committee of
the Whole. Manual Sec. 961.
Proceeding In Order
After a Member's words have been ruled out of order, the Member
may be permitted to proceed in order on that same day either by
unanimous consent or by motion. Manual Sec. 961. It is the practice to
test the opinion of the House by a motion ``that the gentle___ be
allowed to proceed in order.'' 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5188, 5189; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2534. This motion may be stated on the initiative of the Chair.
It is debatable within narrow limits of relevance under the hour rule,
and is subject to the motion to lay on the table. Manual Sec. 961. The
motion is privileged for consideration in the House. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 51.22. A motion to strike the objectionable words also
generally precedes a proposition to permit a Member to proceed in
order. See, e.g., Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 52.7.
If a Member is not granted permission to proceed on that same day,
the Member cannot speak even on yielded time and may not insert
unspoken remarks in the Congressional Record. Manual Sec. 961; 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5147, 5196-5199. However, the Member may exercise the right
to vote or to demand the yeas and nays. 8 Cannon Sec. 2546. 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. 960.
E. Critical References to the House, Committees, or Members
Sec. 33 . In General; Criticism of the House
Generally
In early Congresses it was held not in order to ``cast
reflections'' on the House or its membership, present or past. 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5132-5138. Today, in the interests of free and full debate
in conducting legislative deliberations, Members are permitted to
voice critical opinions of Congress, of the House, and of the
political parties. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 53. Statements that are
critical of Congress or a portion of its membership will not be ruled
out
[[Page 413]]
of order for that reason alone. Thus, a statement in debate claiming
that the campaign expenses of Members were paid by certain interest
groups has been held to be in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 53.1.
However, such criticism is subject to the rules and settled
practices of the House that require courtesy and decorum in debate.
Jefferson's Manual states that no one is permitted to use ``indecent
language'' in referring to the proceedings of the House. Manual
Sec. 360. The language used must not be offensive in itself. 5 Hinds
Sec. 5135. The words must be stated in such a way as to avoid personal
criticism of individual Members. Sec. 37, infra.
Ruled In Order
Following are precedents in which criticism in debate was held
parliamentary or in order as not referring to any particular Member:
A question whether it was a parliamentary inquiry to ask that
a bill be printed in ``words of one syllable so that [Members
of the opposing party] can understand it.'' Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 53.4.
A statement that a Member was leading his party in a policy of
opportunism. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 53.5.
A statement referring to ``irresponsible actions by members of
the President's own party.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 53.2.
``[Y]ou have your definition of consistency. My definition is
that consistency is a virtue of small minds.'' Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 62.2.
A reference to Members as having praised a foreign dictator in
prior debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 60.10.
Words characterizing unnamed Members as taking ``potshots''
and as lacking judgment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.16.
A reference to the consideration of a bill under procedures
representing ``a classic example of duplicity.'' 100-2, Apr.
19, 1988, pp 7330, 7335-39.
Ruled Out of Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
unparliamentary:
``Talk not to me of vindicating your insulted dignity. . . .
You have no dignity to vindicate.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5132.
``[T]he proceedings of the House had been such as not only to
degrade it as a body, but also to degrade the country.'' 5
Hinds Sec. 5133.
A statement declaring the opinions and decisions of the House
``damnable heresies.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5135.
A reference to ``[T]he right of the minority to stay
indefinitely the right of the majority to legislate is as
disgraceful, as dishonorable. . . .'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5136.
``Drunken Members have reeled about the aisles--a disgrace to
the Republic. Drunken speakers have debated grave issues on the
floor. . . .'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5186.
[[Page 414]]
A statement alleging that the Republican Conference believed
that lynching was a ``proper means of justice.'' Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 53.3.
A statement alleging that a Member lacks ``decency.'' 110-1,
Mar. 21, 2007, p 7074.
To show the distinction between words that are permissible and
language that may be ruled out, illustrations in this chapter are
drawn from debates from earlier as well as recent Congresses. However,
precedents from earlier eras must be evaluated in their historical and
cultural context; whether a word or expression is to be ruled out of
order depends on its current meaning and usage. See Sec. 38, infra.
Sec. 34 . Criticism of Committees
A Member in debate may express general criticism of the actions of
a committee, as by alleging an abuse of its powers. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 54.1. Criticisms of committee procedure are also permitted.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.6. However, a Member may not in debate
impugn the personal motives of a committee or its members or make
unparliamentary claims of unlawful activity. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. Sec. 54.2, 54.3. Debate may not include critical
characterizations of members of the Committee on Ethics who have
investigated a Member's conduct. Manual Sec. 361.
Ruled In Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
parliamentary:
A reference to the action of a committee as ``more or less
pusillanimous.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.7.
An editorial read by a Member charging a committee with
``pigeon-holing'' certain legislation. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 54.6.
``Did the gentleman's committee also find paid agents of
Hitler on the congressional payroll?'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 54.12.
A reference to a committee investigation of ``the recent wave
of policy lynch murder in Mississippi.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 54.9.
A statement that a Member ``has been the victim of the
abusive, vicious, and irresponsible use of the power of a
congressional committee.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.1.
[[Page 415]]
Ruled Out of Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
unparliamentary:
A statement that certain fascist organizations exercised
extensive influence on a special House committee. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.3.
Language referring to ``lies and half-truths'' of a House
committee report. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.4.
``I cannot respect the actions or even the sincerity of some
of the committee members.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.5.
A reference to the Committee on Un-American Activities as
``the Un-American Committee.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.11.
Sec. 35 . Criticism of Speaker
The prescription of clause 1 of rule XVII that Members confine
themselves to the question under debate, ``avoiding personality,'' has
been applied to critical references to the Speaker's personal conduct.
Manual Sec. 362. It is not in order in debate to refer invidiously to
the Speaker. 8 Cannon Sec. 2531. It also is not in order to speak
disrespectfully of the Speaker. 2 Hinds Sec. 1248. For example, it has
been held out of order to assert that the Speaker was ``kowtowing'' to
persons who would desecrate the U.S. flag or to refer to the Speaker
as a ``crybaby.'' Manual Sec. 362. It is not in order in debate to
refer in a personally critical manner to the Speaker's political
tactics or to arraign the Speaker's personal conduct. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 57. Any complaint as to the conduct of the Speaker should
be presented directly for the action of the House and not by way of
debate on other matters, such as the approval of the Journal. Manual
Sec. 362; 5 Hinds Sec. 5188. Personal criticisms of the Speaker can be
challenged even after debate has intervened. 2 Hinds Sec. 1248;
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 57.7.
It is not in order in debate for a Member to charge that the
Speaker, while presiding, committed a dishonest act or that the
Speaker repudiated and ignored the rules of the House. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 57.2. In one instance, however, an assertion of a personal
belief that a sufficient number had been standing to demand a recorded
vote was held parliamentary as not necessarily charging the Chair with
disregard of the rules, in the context of those words alone. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 57.4. It is not in order to refer to official conduct
of the Speaker that is either under investigation or has been resolved
by the Committee on Ethics or by the House. Manual Sec. 362.
If words impugning the Speaker are uttered, the Speaker may choose
not to rule on the words personally but to appoint a Member to occupy
the Chair and deliver a decision. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 57.1.
[[Page 416]]
Sec. 36 . Criticism of Legislative Actions or Proposals
Generally
Although remarks in debate may not include personal attacks
against a Member or an identifiable group of Members, they may address
political motivations for legislative positions. Manual Sec. 363.
Statements in debate, although critical of House action or of the
legislation at issue, may be ruled in order if they do not improperly
reflect on the House or a particular Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 58.4. Harsh words may be used to criticize a bill unless they
fail to ``avoid personality'' as mandated by rule XVII. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 58.1. For example, although it may be appropriate in debate
to characterize the effect of an amendment as deceptive or
hypocritical, to characterize the motivation of a Member in offering
an amendment with those terms is not in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 58.12. A statement in debate that ``it is only demagoguery or
racism which impel such an amendment'' was held by the Speaker to be
unparliamentary as impugning the motives of the Member offering the
amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.6.
Ruled In Order
Criticisms of legislative actions or proposals or political
motivations that have been held in order in debate include:
A statement that ``sinister influences'' were working in the
interest of certain unnamed Members opposing a bill. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.9.
A statement accusing unnamed colleagues who opposed a measure
of talking ``loosely and recklessly with the truth.'' Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.8.
A statement accusing unnamed Members of attempting to ``cut
off debate'' on important legislation in order to attend an
engagement at a hotel. 78-2, Feb. 3, 1944, p 1216.
A statement that all lawyers know ``that the adoption of this
language neither adds to nor takes from a single item of the
substance of this bill.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.3.
A reference accusing unnamed opponents of a proposal of
``blind,'' ``slavish,'' and ``shameful'' opposition. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.7.
In reference to an amendment: ``. . . where I come from . . .
the people . . . do not like slippery, snide, and sharp
practices.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.5.
A statement referring to a tactic of ``withholding'' votes
until it could be determined whether they would be necessary on
the pending question. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.10.
A statement that a Member ``has already admitted his amendment
does not make sense, and he will take any alternative that is
offered.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.4.
[[Page 417]]
Sec. 37 . Critical References to Members
Jefferson stressed the importance of preserving ``order, decency
and regularity . . . in a dignified public body.'' Manual Sec. 285.
The House rules provide that Members must confine themselves to the
question under debate, ``avoiding personality.'' Rule XVII. The Chair
may interrupt a Member engaging in ``personalities'' with respect to a
fellow Member as is the case with respect to improper references to
Senators or the President. However, under modern practice the Chair
normally awaits a point of order from the floor with respect to
references to other Members. Manual Sec. 961. The Chair may announce
an intention to take the initiative in calling Members to order during
debate on disciplinary resolutions. Manual Sec. 361.
The Speaker will hold language unparliamentary where it improperly
reflects on another Member under rule XVII. Manual Sec. 361. A Member
may not in debate impugn the personal motives of another Member
(Sec. 39, infra), charge another Member with falsehood or deception
(Sec. 40, infra), or denigrate a Member's intelligence (Sec. 41,
infra). It also is not in order in debate to refer in a personally
critical manner to the political tactics of a Member. Manual Sec. 361.
The truth of allegations involving unethical behavior of a Member is
not a defense to a point of order that the remarks are unparliamentary
as engaging in personalities explicitly or by innuendo. 104-1, Jan.
18, 1995, p 1444. On the other hand, it is recognized that free and
full debate is necessary in conducting legislative business, and a
Member is allowed considerable latitude in criticizing the position,
arguments, or contentions of another Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 59.2; Sec. 36, supra.
It is not in order during debate to refer to a particular Member
of the House in a derogatory fashion, even though that Member is not
named, and the Chair may intervene to prevent improper reference where
it is evident that a particular Member is being described. Manual
Sec. 361. In one instance, after a Member had expressed an absence of
``good faith on the other side,'' he was granted unanimous consent to
withdraw any reference to any individual Member. 100-1, June 18, 1987,
pp 16761-63.
Members should refrain from references in debate to the official
conduct of other Members where such conduct is not under consideration
in the House by way of a report of the Committee on Ethics or as a
question of the privileges of the House. Manual Sec. 361.
The rule requiring Members to avoid ``personality'' during debate
prohibits reference to outside accounts whose criticism of a sitting
Member would be unparliamentary if uttered on the floor as the
Member's own words. Manual Sec. 361.
[[Page 418]]
It is not unparliamentary to describe in debate the effect that a
Member's remarks may have, especially where that description includes
a disclaimer disavowing any intention to impugn a Member's motives.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.8.
Ruled In Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
parliamentary:
A statement that if a certain Member were to sponsor a measure
it would receive only one or two votes. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 58.2.
A reference to another Member's remarks as ``yapping.''
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.13.
A statement accusing a Member of trying ``to becloud'' an
issue. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.1.
A reference in debate to another Member as not representing a
certain class of people in his State. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 60.7.
A reference to another Member's statement as ``intemperate.''
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.5.
A description of a Member's statement that ``this is an
example of the spurious reasoning that [an interest group] has
with regard to their opposition to this bill.'' Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 43.2.
A Member's statement that another Member's demand that words
be taken down during a special-order speech was ``an unfair
stealing of time.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.10.
A Member's assertion that ``even though that may not be the
intention, I think [certain statements] have the tendency to
try to assassinate the character of the person making the
statement rather than to effectively assassinate the
argument.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.8.
A Member's general reference that ``big donors'' receive
``access to leadership power and decisions'' because it does
not identify a specific Member as receiving a contribution
specifically in exchange for votes or other legislative action.
Manual Sec. 361.
Ruled Out of Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
unparliamentary:
A reference to the remarks of another Member as ``malignant
shafts'' or as a ``base insinuation.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5162.
A reference to another Member as a ``snooper.'' Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 61.11.
``The gentleman took the floor in his self-appointed role as
spokesman for the committee [and] referred to me in my absence
in a disgraceful and unparliamentary manner.'' Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 59.3.
Referring to another Member as a demagogue or as a ``president
of the Demagogue Club.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 60.3,
60.4.
[[Page 419]]
``[D]on't you start comparing anybody's record, because I have
got yours . . . with . . . the FBI.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 60.24.
A reference to another Member as a ``pinko.'' Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 61.9.
A reference to an identifiable group of sitting Members as the
perpetrators of a crime, such as ``stealing an election.''
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 60.22.
A reference suggesting that another Member ``did not have the
nerve'' to make a statement on the floor. 104-2, July 25, 1996,
p 19170.
A statement alleging that a Member lacks ``decency.'' 110-1,
Mar. 21, 2007, p 7074.
Sec. 38 . -- Use of Colloquialisms; Sarcasm
The Members are allowed considerable latitude in the use of
colloquialisms, euphemisms, figures of speech, and even sarcastic
comments in debate. A statement in debate that ``you are going to skin
us'' was held merely a colloquialism that did not reflect on any
Member and was held in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.10. In
another instance, a Member used the word ``crime'' in referring to
another Member, but the Chair ruled the term in order, finding that in
the context of the debate, the term was being used as a synonym for,
or figure of, speech meaning ``wrong.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 59.2.
The use in debate of colloquial expressions, figures of speech, or
sarcasm is governed by their current meaning and by the context in
which they are uttered. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5165, 5167. Unparliamentary
references in debate, even when phrased as satiric compliments, are
not in order. 112-1, July 22, 2011, p __. The tone and mannerisms of a
Member may be taken into account by the Chair in determining whether
the criticism voiced is personally offensive to another Member.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 60.21.
Ruled Out of Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
unparliamentary:
A reference to another Member ``whose name is synonomous [sic]
with falsehood . . . who is the apologist of thieves; who is
such a prodigy of vice and meannesses that to describe him
would sicken imagination and exhaust invective.'' 2 Hinds
Sec. 1251.
``[N]obody but a gambler or cutthroat would have thought of
tacking such a thing as that to such a bill as this.'' 2 Hinds
Sec. 1258.
``The devotion of the gentleman . . . to the truth is so
notorious that I shall not reply.'' 8 Cannon Sec. 2545.
A reference to another Member as a ``stool pigeon.'' Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.12.
[[Page 420]]
References to a Member as having a ``hand like a ham,''
grasping a microphone until it ``groaned from mad torture,''
and striding the House floor ``like a wild man.'' Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.1.
A reference to another Member's proceeding in a ``cheap,
sneaky, sly way.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.2.
Sec. 39 . -- Impugning Motives
In the early practice of the House, the Speaker intervened in
debate to prevent even the mildest imputation on the motives of a
Member. 5 Hinds Sec. 5161. It is still the rule that Members may not
in debate impugn the personal motives of other named Members in the
performance of their legislative duties. Manual Sec. 363. An opinion
on the general motives of the House or a political party in adopting
or rejecting a proposition may be expressed. Sec. 36, supra.
References to political motivation for legislative actions may be in
order. Manual Sec. 363. However, an assertion that a Member's use of
the 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 the motives of such Member. 5 Hinds
Sec. 5148.
Members should refrain from references in debate to the
motivations of Members who file complaints before the Committee on
Ethics. Manual Sec. 361.
Ruled Out of Order
Charging another Member, in his capacity as custodian of
certain public money, with ``[m]aking a parade of his charity,
he has been gorging himself and speculating with this money.''
5 Hinds Sec. 5152.
Characterizing the motivation of a Member in offering an
amendment as deceptive and hypocritical. Manual Sec. 363.
An observation that a Member stood in the well before an empty
House and challenged the Americanism of other Members, ``and it
is the lowest thing that I have ever seen in my 32 years in
Congress.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.9.
An observation that a Member was ``one of the most impolite I
have ever seen.'' Manual Sec. 361.
Characterizing another Member as ``speaking out of both sides
of his mouth.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.36.
A reference to an identifiable group of sitting Members as the
perpetrators of a crime, such as ``stealing an election.''
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 60.22.
[[Page 421]]
Sec. 40 . -- Charging Falsehood or Deception
During debate on the floor, an assertion by one Member may be
declared untrue by another. However, in so doing, an accusation of
intentional misrepresentation must not be implied. Manual Sec. 363; 5
Hinds Sec. Sec. 5157, 5159, 5189; 8 Cannon Sec. 2542. Any term or
language implying a deliberate misstatement of the truth, for whatever
motive, is unparliamentary, including allegations of lying, slander,
or hypocrisy. A Member's expression of disbelief may be construed as
meaning that the Member referred to was merely mistaken. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.3. In one instance, a Member's statement in
referring to another Member that ``That is not true, and he knows
it,'' was held in order, the Speaker observing that the words were not
uttered in an offensive tone. 5 Hinds Sec. 5158.
A Member may refer to falsehoods in the media without violating
the rules of the House, even if such remarks are made during debate
with another Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.2.
Ruled In Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
parliamentary:
A Member's statement that he did ``not believe a word that
[another Member] said.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.3.
A statement referring to another Member ``when he comes here
to defend some slime-monger who goes on the radio and lies
about me. . . .'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.2.
``Let us be sincere and honest about this thing.'' 78-2, Jan.
21, 1944, p 560.
Ruled Out of Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
unparliamentary:
A Member's declaration that the words of another Member were
``a base lie.'' 2 Hinds Sec. 1249.
The use of the words ``grossly false,'' as applied to
statements made by another Member in a pamphlet published by
him during a recess of Congress. 5 Hinds Sec. 5157.
``I cannot believe that the gentleman . . . is sincere in what
he has just said.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.7.
A statement that the remarks of a Member were ``false and
slanderous.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.4.
A statement in referring to another Member that ``pretexts are
never wanting when hypocrisy wishes to add malice to falsehood
or cowardice. . . .'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.6.
[[Page 422]]
``I cannot respect the actions or even the sincerity of some
of the committee members.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.5.
Language read in the House that repudiated ``lies and half-
truths'' in a House committee report. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 63.5.
Use of the word ``canard''--meaning falsehood--in referring to
the statement of another Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 63.1.
Words accusing another Member of hypocrisy. Manual Sec. 363.
Sec. 41 . -- Lack of Intelligence or Knowledge
A Member in debate may be critical of the understanding or
knowledge of other Members or groups of Members in relation to pending
bills or amendments. However, such remarks should not denigrate the
intelligence of another Member because this would be personally
critical and offensive. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 64.
Sec. 42 . -- References to Race, Creed, or Racial Prejudice
Gratuitous references in debate to the race or religion of another
Member are not in order. A reference to ``the Jewish gentleman from
New York,'' for example, has been ruled out by the Speaker. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 65.4.
It is not in order in debate to accuse a Member of bigotry or
racism. Remarks characterizing the motives behind certain legislation
as ``demagogic and racist'' have been ruled out of order, as has a
reference to another Member as having reached ``bigoted'' conclusions.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 65.5, 65.6.
Sec. 43 . -- Charges Relating to Loyalty or Patriotism
Unless the subject is relevant to disciplinary proceedings then
pending as the question before the House against a Member, remarks in
debate impugning the patriotism or loyalty of a Member are not in
order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66. Words impeaching the loyalty of a
portion of the membership also have been ruled out. 5 Hinds Sec. 5139.
However, if such language is directed at the House or at its
membership in general, the remarks may not be improper. See Sec. 33,
supra.
[[Page 423]]
Ruled In Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
parliamentary:
A statement referring to all opponents of the Committee on Un-
American Activities as communist enemies. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 66.2.
A statement that another Member had been published in a
newspaper ``dedicated to the destruction of this Government.''
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.10.
A statement referring to (unnamed) Members who give ``aid and
comfort'' to enemies and traitors. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 66.3.
A statement referring to ``people'' who would rip down the
American flag and replace it with the Soviet flag. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.5.
A statement characterizing the Committee of the Whole as an
agency of the Soviet Union. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.11.
A statement accusing another Member of past opposition to
``every bill necessary for the defense of our country.''
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 62.5.
Ruled Out of Order
Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held
unparliamentary:
A statement that insertions in the Congressional Record by
another Member were taken from ``Nazi elements.'' Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.6.
A statement by a Member that internal fascist organizations
exercised extensive influence over a special House committee.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.7.
A statement, in response to critical comments by another
Member, that ``I am not going to sit here and listen to these
communistic attacks made on me.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 66.1.
``There is nothing more subversive than the kind of red
baiting tactics [of] the gentleman from _____.'' Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 66.8.
A statement referring to another Member as attempting to
undermine the government. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.9.
A reference to the Committee on Un-American Activities as
``the Un-American Committee.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.12.
A reference to certain Members as ``apostles of doom'' whose
utterances would give ``great aid and comfort'' to the Soviet
Union. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.4.
A reference to another Member as ``kowtowing'' to persons who
would desecrate the flag. Manual Sec. 362.
[[Page 424]]
F. Duration of Debate in House
Sec. 44 . In General
Limitations on Time for Debate
Before 1841, there was no limit on the time that a Member might
occupy once in possession of the floor. 5 Hinds Sec. 5221. Under the
modern practice, the duration of debate in the House is invariably
limited. Such limitations are imposed pursuant to the standing rules
of the House, special orders of business 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 order of business typically specifies
the length of time for general debate--usually a number of hours--and
identifies the Members who are to control that time. Sec. 48, infra.
Such time limits also may be imposed pursuant to a unanimous-consent
agreement. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 67. If a bill or resolution comes
to the House floor without such a time limit, clause 2 of rule XVII
applies to limit the time for debate to one hour. Manual Sec. 957. A
Member calling up a measure in the House pursuant to a unanimous-
consent request or special order of business that does not specify
time for debate controls one hour of debate thereon. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 68.
Other limitations on the duration of debate are found in those
standing rules of the House that authorize specific motions, such as
the motion to suspend the rules for which debate is limited to 40
minutes under clause 1(c) of rule XV. Manual Sec. 891. For a
discussion of 40-minute debate, see Sec. 46, infra.
Discretion of Chair as Affecting Time for Debate
On certain incidental questions of order, the duration of debate
is within the discretion of the Chair. This practice is followed with
respect to:
Debate on points of order. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 6919, 6920; 8
Cannon Sec. Sec. 3446-3448; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 67.3.
Debate under the five-minute rule on an appeal in the
Committee of the Whole. 8 Cannon Sec. 2347.
Timekeeping
The Chair monitors the time of Members who take the floor in
debate. The Chair announces when their time has expired under the
rules, and that announcement is not subject to challenge. See, e.g.,
Deschler-Brown Ch 29
[[Page 425]]
Sec. 67.1. For a discussion of extensions of time, see Sec. 48, infra.
Traditionally, the time of the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the
Minority Leader is not monitored if they have been yielded a nominal
amount of time (typically one minute) to allow such individuals the
courtesy of extended and unfettered debate. Manual Sec. 953.
Sec. 45 . The Hour Rule
Clause 2 of rule XVII limits to one hour the amount of time that a
Member may occupy in debate on a pending question, and no Member may
address the House for more than one hour, even by unanimous consent.
Manual Sec. 957; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 68, 68.3; Sec. 48,
infra.
The practice under the hour rule often serves to limit the total
time for debate on the measure itself to one hour. This is because, at
the conclusion of the controlling Member's hour, ordering the previous
question cuts off further debate. Manual Sec. 994. If the Member
controlling the hour successfully moves the previous question, all
debate is terminated and the measure is voted on by the House.
If the House rejects the previous question, the measure is then
open to further debate. Recognition passes to an opponent of the
measure, who may offer an amendment and be recognized for one hour.
See Previous Question. A Member recognized under the hour rule may
yield the floor upon expiration of that hour without moving the
previous question, thereby permitting another Member to be recognized
for a successive hour. Manual Sec. 957.
The hour rule is one of general applicability; it is often
overtaken by an order of the House or a special order of business from
the Committee on Rules, and it is not applicable where another rule of
the House specifies otherwise. The hour rule applies to the following:
A resolution presenting a question of the privileges of the
House, subject to the division of time specified in rule IX.
Manual Sec. 698.
A resolution reported as a question of the privileges of the
House, such as a resolution presenting impeachment charges.
Manual Sec. 699.
A question of personal privilege. Manual Sec. 713.
A privileged resolution reported from committee, such as a
rule, joint rule, or order of business reported from the
Committee on Rules or a committee funding resolution reported
from the Committee on House Administration. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. Sec. 68.32, 68.37.
A resolution of inquiry. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.33.
A District of Columbia bill on the House Calendar called up on
District Day under clause 4 of rule XV. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 68.5.
A private bill called up in the House by unanimous consent.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.9.
[[Page 426]]
A measure not requiring consideration in the Committee of the
Whole before the House pursuant to a motion to discharge.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.34.
A motion to refer, or the direct consideration of, a vetoed
bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 68.55, 68.56.
A motion to reconsider (if debatable). Manual Sec. 1010.
A motion to discharge a committee from further consideration
of a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.64.
A motion to expunge from the Congressional Record certain
remarks used in debate and ruled out of order. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 68.61.
A motion to send a bill to conference under clause 1 of rule
XXII. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.26.
A motion to instruct House managers at a conference, subject
to the division of time specified in clause 7(b) of rule XXII.
Manual Sec. 1078.
A conference report or a motion to dispose of a Senate
amendment reported in disagreement by a conference committee,
subject to the division of time specified in clause 8(d) of
rule XXII. Manual Sec. 1086.
A preferential motion to insist on disagreement to a Senate
amendment reported in disagreement by a conference committee,
subject to the division of time specified in clause 8(b)(3) of
rule XXII. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.12.
A Senate amendment considered in the House. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 68.12.
The hour rule applies even before the adoption of the rules at the
inception of a Congress. Manual Sec. 60. Thus, a Member offering a
resolution on the seating of a Member-elect is entitled to one hour of
debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.1
Sec. 46 . Ten-minute, 20-minute, and 40-minute Debate
The House rules specify fixed periods of time for debate, equally
divided between the proponents and opponents, on certain motions and
questions.
Ten-minute Debate
The House rules permit the proponent and an opponent each five
minutes of time for debate on an amendment offered after closing of
general debate in the Committee of the Whole, subject to additional
pro forma or second-degree amendments. Similarly, 10 minutes for
debate is permitted on an amendment offered after the closing of five-
minute debate by the Committee under clause 8 of rule XVIII if printed
as required in the Congressional Record and if not dilatory. Manual
Sec. Sec. 978, 981, 987.
[[Page 427]]
In addition, the House rules permit five minutes in support and
five minutes in opposition to the following motions:
A motion to recommit with instructions a bill or joint
resolution under clause 2 of rule XIX, with the time subject to
extension under some circumstances. Manual Sec. 1001.
A motion to dispense with the call of the Private Calendar
under clause 5(c) of rule XV. Manual Sec. 895.
Twenty-minute Debate
The House rules permit 20 minutes of time for debate on motions to
discharge a committee, the time to be equally divided under clause 2
of rule XV. Manual Sec. 892. The right to close such debate is
reserved to the proponents of the motion. 7 Cannon Sec. 1010a. The
chair of the committee being discharged, if opposed to the motion, is
recognized to control the 10 minutes in opposition. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 69.3. If the motion to discharge is successful, and the
measure is properly before the House rather than the Committee of the
Whole, the Member moving its consideration is recognized in the House
under the hour rule. Manual Sec. 892.
Twenty minutes of debate also is permitted where a point of order
is raised against an unfunded Federal intergovernmental mandate under
section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act. Manual Sec. 1127. Points
of order under the Act are disposed of by putting the question of
consideration, debatable for 20 minutes--10 by the Member making the
point of order, 10 by a Member in opposition. Sec. 426(b)(4) of the
Congressional Budget Act. Similarly, clause 9 of rule XXI establishes
a point of order against consideration of certain measures for failure
to disclose (or disclaim the presence of) certain earmarks, tax
benefits, and tariff benefits, and permits a vote on the question of
consideration of a rule waiving such a point of order. Such question
of consideration is debatable for 20 minutes--10 by the Member making
the point of order, 10 by a Member in opposition. See Budget Process.
Forty-minute Debate
The House rules permit 40 minutes of time for debate, to be
divided between proponents and opponents, on the following:
A motion to suspend the rules under clause 1 of rule XV.
Manual Sec. 891.
A debatable proposition on which there has been no debate
before the ordering of the previous question under clause 1 of
rule XIX. Manual Sec. 994; 5 Hinds Sec. 6821.
A motion to reject certain portions of a conference report or
Senate amendment objected to as nongermane under clause 10 of
rule XXII. Manual Sec. 1089.
[[Page 428]]
Other chapters in this work dealing with specific motions and
questions should be consulted. See, e.g., Previous Question;
Conferences Between the Houses; and Suspension of Rules.
Sec. 47 . Debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole
Debate on a bill being considered in the House as in the Committee
of the Whole is under the five-minute rule, with no general debate.
Manual Sec. Sec. 424-427. Five minutes in favor of and five in
opposition to an amendment are permitted. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 70.7. Members also may gain five minutes of debate by offering
pro forma amendments and motions to strike the enacting clause.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 70.11, 70.12.
Normally, five-minute debate on a bill considered in the House as
in the Committee of the Whole may be extended by unanimous consent.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 70.6. However, the Chair does not recognize
for such extensions of time during consideration of a private bill in
the House as in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 70.10.
Sec. 48 . Limiting or Extending Time for Debate
Generally
The House may by unanimous consent or by special order of business
limit or extend the time for debate on propositions considered in the
House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71. However, a motion to extend the
time for debate in the House is not in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 73.17.
By Special Order of Business
A special order of business from the Committee on Rules may extend
the time for debate that may be devoted to a proposition to be
considered in the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.1. It may
specify, for example, that debate shall not exceed a certain number of
hours. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 25.17. Similarly, though conference
reports are ordinarily considered under the hour rule, a special order
of business may provide for more extended debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 71.18.
By Unanimous Consent
Time for debate in the House under the hour rule may be modified
by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71. For example, by
unanimous consent, debate has been extended on a resolution presenting
articles of impeachment (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.13) and on a
disciplinary resolution (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.6; 107-2, July
24, 2002, p 14310).
[[Page 429]]
Debate on a privileged resolution in the House is ordinarily under
the hour rule, but such debate may be extended beyond one hour by
unanimous consent or by rejecting the motion for the previous
question. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 68.41, 68.42; Sec. 49, infra.
Thus, the House may agree to a unanimous-consent request to extend the
time for debate in the House on a special order of business reported
from the Committee on Rules. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.4.
Unanimous-consent agreements extending time may further provide
for a division of time between various Members. However, a Member may
not extend a special-order speech (or debate on a question of personal
privilege) for more than one hour, even by unanimous consent. Manual
Sec. 957; Deschler Ch 11 Sec. 22.1; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.20.
Effect of Statutory Time Limitations
Time for debate on certain kinds of legislative propositions is
limited by statute. Manual Sec. 1130. Examples include:
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (limits debate on concurrent
resolutions on the budget to 10 hours; specifies up to four
hours for debate on economic goals and policies; amendments
considered under five-minute rule). Sec. 305(a); 2 USC
Sec. 636.
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (limits debate on rescission
bill or impoundment resolution to not more than two hours).
Sec. 1017(c); 2 USC Sec. 688.
Trade Act of 1974 (limits debate on implementing bills and
certain resolutions to 20 hours). 19 USC Sec. 2191.
Pension Reform Act (limits debate on joint resolutions
approving certain schedules to not more than 10 hours).
Sec. 4006(b)(6); 29 USC Sec. 1306(b).
Marine Fisheries Conservation Act (limits debate on fishery
agreement resolutions to not more than 10 hours).
Sec. 203(d)(4); 16 USC Sec. 1823(d).
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (limits debate on certain
resolutions of approval to not more than two hours).
Sec. 115(e)(4); 42 USC Sec. 10135(e).
Such statutory provisions (compiled in Manual Sec. 1130) are
enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of both Houses, with
full recognition of the ability of either House to change them at any
time. In one instance, the Committee of the Whole was considering a
resolution disapproving a reorganization plan pursuant to the
Reorganization Act of 1949, which limited time for debate to 10 hours.
The House agreed by unanimous consent to limit debate in the Committee
to five hours and subsequently consented to limit further debate to 30
minutes. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.7.
[[Page 430]]
Sec. 49 . Terminating Debate
The usual motion for closing debate in the House (as distinguished
from the Committee of the Whole) is the motion for the previous
question under rule XIX. Manual Sec. 994; 5 Hinds Sec. 5456; 8 Cannon
Sec. 2662. This motion also is used to close debate in the House as in
the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 72.7. The Member
controlling debate on a proposition in the House may move the previous
question and (if ordered by the House) thereby terminate further
debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 72.2. However, the House may by
unanimous consent vacate the ordering of the previous question in
order to extend debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 72.4. If the
previous question is ordered on a debatable proposition, and that
proposition has not in fact been debated, then, under clause 1 of rule
XIX, 40 minutes of debate is permitted. Manual Sec. 994; 5 Hinds
Sec. 6821; 8 Cannon Sec. 2689.
Other methods of terminating or precluding debate in the House
include the use of the motion to lay on the table and the raising of
the question of consideration. For a discussion of such methods, see
Previous Question, Lay on the Table, and Question of Consideration.
Sec. 50 . One-minute and Special-order Speeches; Morning-hour Debates
Generally
The ability of Members to address matters not on the daily
legislative agenda is facilitated by allowing ``one-minute speeches''
and ``special-order speeches.'' Neither procedure is specifically
provided for in the standing rules. Their use is permitted by a long-
standing custom and is based on the Speaker's discretionary power of
recognition under clause 2 of rule XVII. Manual Sec. 950.
One-minute Speeches
The practice of limiting recognition before legislative business
to one minute began on August 2, 1937, and was reiterated by Speaker
Rayburn on March 6, 1945. 75-1, Aug. 2, 1937, p 8004; Deschler Ch 21
Sec. 6.1. One-minute speeches are normally entertained at the
beginning of the legislative day, although the Speaker has discretion
to recognize Members to proceed for one minute after legislative
business has been completed or at some other time or place in the
legislative day (for example, to follow a scheduled recess). Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 73.6. Indeed, when the House has a heavy legislative
schedule, the Speaker may refuse all requests to recognize Members for
one-minute speeches. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 73.5. More com
[[Page 431]]
monly, the Speaker limits one-minute speeches to a certain number for
each side of the aisle, entertaining any remaining requests at the end
of legislative business before special-order speeches.
Where a guest chaplain leads the House in prayer at the beginning
of the legislative day, it is typical for the Member representing the
guest chaplain's district to give the first one-minute speech of the
day in order to introduce the guest chaplain to the House. See, e.g.,
110-2, July 24, 2008, p 16367.
The evaluation of the time consumed on a one-minute speech is a
matter for the Chair and is not subject to challenge on a point of
order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 73.3. The Chair has refused to put to
the House unanimous-consent requests for extensions of that time.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 73.10. Moreover, under the Speaker's power
of recognition as traditionally exercised before legislative business,
a Member can be recognized for a one-minute speech only once, and a
second unanimous-consent request on that day will not be entertained.
Manual Sec. 950.
The order of recognition for one-minute speeches before
legislative business is within the discretion of the Chair and is not
subject to challenge on a point of order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 10.55. However, the Chair endeavors to recognize majority and
then minority Members by allocating time in a nonpartisan manner.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 10.50. In 1984, the Speaker instituted the
policy of requiring alternate recognition of majority and minority
Members in the order in which they seek recognition. Manual Sec. 950.
Morning-hour Debate
Morning-hour debate was first initiated in the second session of
the 103d Congress. The House by unanimous consent agreed that on
Mondays and Tuesdays the House would convene 90 minutes earlier than
the time otherwise established by order of the House, solely for the
purpose of conducting morning-hour debate, to be followed by a recess
declared by the Speaker. In the 104th Congress, the House extended and
modified that order to accommodate earlier convening times after May
14 of each year. In the 112th Congress, the House expanded that order
to include morning-hour debate on Wednesdays and Thursdays as well.
Debate is limited and allocated to each party, with initial and
subsequent recognition alternating daily between parties pursuant to
lists submitted by the leadership. Under the customary order of the
House establishing morning-hour debate, a Member may not be recognized
for more than five minutes (with certain leadership exceptions). The
Chair does not entertain a unanimous-consent request to extend this
five-minute period. Manual Sec. 951. When the House convenes solely
for
[[Page 432]]
morning-hour debate, the Chair does not entertain unanimous-consent
requests to remove cosponsors from bills. 103-2, Apr. 26, 1994, p
8544. The Chair may receive messages during morning-hour debate (103-
2, May 10, 1994, p 9697) and, beginning in the 112th Congress,
privileged reports may also be filed (112-1, Jan. 5, 2011, p __).
Special-order Speeches
The Chair normally recognizes Members for special orders to
address the House at the conclusion of business of the day. The
Speaker may reserve the right to return to business. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 10.69. Under clause 2 of rule XVII, no Member may be
recognized beyond one hour, even by unanimous consent. Manual
Sec. 957. Furthermore, a Member may not be recognized for two special-
order speeches on the same legislative day, even though special orders
have been interrupted by legislative business. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 73.15.
The Speaker has announced the following policies for recognition
of special-order speeches:
Recognition alternates between majority and minority Members.
Recognition shall be only pursuant to lists submitted by the
leadership.
Recognition does not extend beyond ten o'clock in the evening.
Recognition for special-order speeches is limited to four
hours equally divided between the majority and minority.
The first hour for each party is reserved to its respective
Leader or designees. The second hour is divided into 30-minute
periods.
The first recognition within a category alternates between the
parties from day to day.
The respective Leaders may establish additional guidelines for
entering requests.
Manual Sec. 950.
The Chair will recognize for subdivisions of the first hour
reserved for special orders only on designations (and reallocations)
by the leadership concerned. A Member who is recognized to control
time during special orders may yield to colleagues for such amounts of
time as the Member may deem appropriate but may not yield blocks of
time to be enforced by the Chair. Members regulate the duration of
their yielding by reclaiming the time when appropriate. Manual
Sec. 950.
At the beginning of the 112th Congress, the Speaker's announcement
regarding recognition for special-order speeches affirmed that the
Speaker retains the ability to withdraw such recognition should
circumstances (such as disorderly conduct) so warrant. 112-1, Jan. 5,
2011, p __.
[[Page 433]]
G. Duration of Debate in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 51 . In General; Effect of Special Orders of Business
At one time, there was no limit on the time that a Member might
occupy in debate in the Committee of the Whole when once in possession
of the floor. A Member might speak an unlimited time, whether in
general debate or on an amendment. 5 Hinds Sec. 5221. Today time
limitations on general debate are imposed on measures by unanimous
consent or special order of business. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 74. In
the unlikely event a measure is considered in the Committee of the
Whole without fixing the time for general debate, each Member may be
recognized for one hour. Sec. 52, infra.
The chair of the Committee of the Whole monitors the time used by
each Member for debate and announces the expiration thereof.
Sec. 52 . General Debate
The duration and allocation of time for general debate in the
Committee of the Whole is controlled by the House; and the Committee
may not, even by unanimous consent, extend the time for general debate
fixed by the House. Manual Sec. 993; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 75.7.
The House establishes such time for general debate through a
unanimous-consent agreement or the adoption of a special order of
business from the Committee on Rules. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 74.
If the House does not limit the time for general debate in the
Committee of the Whole, such debate is under the hour rule. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 75.1. A Member having control of such time may not
consume more than one hour. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 75.5.
Normally, the House order limiting time for general debate in the
Committee of the Whole also will divide the control of the time
between certain Members, such as the chair of the reporting committee
and its ranking minority member. Although under the special order of
business a Member may have control of more than one hour of general
debate on a bill in the Committee, Members may not, under the general
rules of the House, yield themselves more than one hour for debate.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 74.4. It also is not in order for a Member
to whom time has been yielded to ask unanimous consent for additional
time, for time is controlled by those to whom it is allotted by the
House and is not subject to extension by the Committee. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 75.8.
The Committee of the Whole may not, even by unanimous consent,
change the control of general debate to Members other than those
specified by the House. However, unanimous consent has been permitted
in the Com
[[Page 434]]
mittee to permit one of two committees controlling time under a
special order of business to yield control of its time to the other.
Manual Sec. 993.
Effect of Absence of Members in Control
Where no member of the reporting committee is present at the
appropriate time during general debate in the Committee of the Whole,
the Chair may presume the time to have been yielded back. Manual
Sec. 978.
Sec. 53 . Limiting General Debate
By Unanimous Consent in the House
Pending a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole, the
House may by unanimous consent limit general debate to a time certain.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 76.8. If objection is raised to such
unanimous-consent request, the Speaker puts the question on the
initial motion to go into the Committee. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 3.5.
By Motion in the House
After unlimited general debate has begun in the Committee of the
Whole and the Committee rises, a motion in the House to close or limit
further general debate is in order. Manual Sec. 979; 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 5204-5206. The motion is not in order until after debate in
the Committee has begun and is made in the House pending the motion
that the House resolve itself into Committee for further consideration
of the bill, and not after the House has voted to go into Committee. 5
Hinds Sec. Sec. 5204, 5208. The motion may not apply to a series of
bills, and the motion must apply to the whole and not to a part of a
bill. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5207, 5209. The motion may not be made in the
Committee. 5 Hinds Sec. 5217; 8 Cannon Sec. 2548.
By Unanimous Consent in the Committee
Although the motion to close general debate is not in order in the
Committee of the Whole, the Committee may, in the absence of an order
of the House, close debate by unanimous consent. 8 Cannon
Sec. Sec. 2553, 2554.
Although a bill is being considered in the Committee of the Whole
under a special order of business specifying the time for general
debate, the managers of the bill need not use all of the prescribed
time. The Members in control of the time are permitted to yield it
back and thereby shorten general debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 76.1.
[[Page 435]]
Sec. 54 . Five-minute Debate
Generally
When general debate is closed in the Committee of the Whole,
debate on amendments proceeds under the five-minute rule. Clause 5 of
rule XVIII, which provides:
When general debate is concluded or closed by order of the House,
the measure under consideration shall be read for amendment. A
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who offers an amendment
shall be allowed five minutes to explain it, after which the Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who shall first obtain the floor
shall be allowed five minutes to speak in opposition to it. There
shall be no further debate thereon, but the same privilege of debate
shall be allowed in favor of and against any amendment that may be
offered to an amendment.
Under this rule the proponent of an amendment is entitled to five
minutes of debate in favor of the amendment before a perfecting
amendment may be offered thereto. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 30.20. If,
after a speech in favor of an amendment, no one claims the floor in
opposition, the Chair may recognize another Member favoring the
amendment. 8 Cannon Sec. 2557.
Speaking More Than Once
Generally, a Member may speak only once for five minutes on a
pending amendment, although a point of order under this rule comes too
late after that Member has been recognized and has begun to speak. 92-
1, June 9, 1971, p 18988. Even when the Committee of the Whole resumes
consideration of an amendment that has been debated by its proponent
on a prior day, the proponent may speak again for five minutes on such
amendment only by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 981. A Member
recognized for five minutes on an amendment may not extend the time by
offering another amendment. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2560, 2562. However, a
Member who has offered an amendment and spoken thereon is not
precluded from seeking recognition to speak to a proposed amendment to
that amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 21.16. Where there is
pending an amendment and a substitute therefor, the Member offering
the substitute may debate it for five minutes and subsequently be
recognized to speak for or against the original amendment. Moreover,
if debate on the pending amendment is limited, the five-minute rule is
abrogated and Members who have already spoken on an amendment may be
recognized again under the limitation. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 22.9.
Precluding Amendments; Effect of Special Orders of Business
The House, and not the Committee of the Whole, controls the extent
to which the offering of amendments may be precluded under the five-
[[Page 436]]
minute rule. The Committee cannot, even by unanimous consent, prohibit
the offering of amendments otherwise in order under the rule. Manual
Sec. 993.
A special order of business or other order of the House providing
for the consideration of a bill may preclude the offering of
amendments under the five-minute rule. For example, if a special order
of business permits only designated amendments and prohibits
amendments to amendments, then only two five-minute speeches are in
order on each designated amendment, one speech in support and one in
opposition. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 77.19. A Member may obtain
additional time for debate only by unanimous consent. Because only the
two five-minute speeches are in order, pro forma amendments are not
permitted, and a third Member may be recognized only by unanimous
consent. Manual Sec. 993. A third Member is not entitled to
recognition, notwithstanding the fact that the second Member,
recognized in opposition, actually spoke in favor of the amendment.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 21.23.
Yielding Time
A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not reserve
time or yield a specific amount of time to another Member. Manual
Sec. 980; 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5035-5037. Members so recognized may yield
a portion of their time while remaining on their feet, but may not
yield to another to offer an amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 21.5. If a Member yields back or sits down before expiration of
the five minutes, another may not be recognized for the remainder of
that time. 8 Cannon Sec. 2571.
A Member may yield during debate under the five-minute rule while
remaining standing to permit another Member to pose questions, to make
a comment, or to make a unanimous-consent request. However, the time
consumed thereby comes out of that of the Member holding the floor.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.6. Time consumed in yielding for a
parliamentary inquiry also is charged against the five minutes.
Deschler-Brown Ch 31 Sec. 15.6.
Extending Time
A motion to require a certain amount of debate under the five-
minute rule is not in order in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.101. A Member recognized under the five-minute
rule may extend the time for debate (by not more than five minutes)
only by unanimous consent, and a motion to that effect is not in
order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 21.13; Sec. 57, infra.
Where debate on an amendment is limited and allocated to a
proponent and an opponent, the Members controlling the debate may
yield and reserve
[[Page 437]]
time, whereas time for debate on amendments cannot be reserved under
the five-minute rule. Manual Sec. 980.
Pro Forma Amendments
The pro forma amendment--to ``strike the last word''--is used
under the five-minute rule only for purposes of debate or explanation,
the proponent having no intent to offer a substantive amendment. A
Member who has been recognized for five minutes on a pro forma
amendment cannot thereafter extend the time by offering a second pro
forma amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 77.8. Members who have
consumed five minutes in support of an amendment that they have
offered cannot obtain additional time by offering a pro forma
amendment to their own amendment. However, they may extend their time
or speak again on the amendment by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 77.9. A Member who has occupied the five minutes in
opposition to an amendment may subsequently offer a pro forma
amendment to the amendment. 84-1, June 30, 1955, p 9614. A pro forma
amendment may be offered after a substitute has been adopted and
before the vote on the amendment, as amended, by unanimous consent
only, because the amendment has been amended in its entirety and no
further amendments, including pro forma amendments, are in order. A
Member recognized on a pro forma amendment may not allocate or reserve
time, but may, in yielding, indicate to the Chair an intention to
reclaim time after a certain point. The Chair endeavors to alternate
recognition to offer pro forma amendments between majority and
minority Members (giving priority to committee members) rather than
between sides of the question. Manual Sec. 981.
Motions to Strike the Enacting Clause
The preferential motion to rise and report back to the House with
the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken is sometimes
used to gain an additional five minutes for debate in the Committee of
the Whole. Clause 9 of rule XVIII; Manual Sec. Sec. 988, 989. Debate
on the preferential motion is limited to two five-minute speeches, and
the Chair declines to recognize for requests for extensions of that
time. Deschler Ch 19 Sec. 13.2. Only two five-minute speeches are
permitted, notwithstanding the fact that the second Member, recognized
in opposition to the motion, spoke in favor thereof. Deschler Ch 19
Sec. 13.3. Time for debate may not be reserved. Manual Sec. 989.
Debate may go to the merits of the underlying bill. 5 Hinds Sec. 5336.
Members of the committee managing the bill have priority in
recognition for debate in opposition to the motion. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 23.43.
[[Page 438]]
However, the Chair will not announce in advance who will be
recognized in opposition. Manual Sec. 989.
If the House acts to strike the enacting clause as recommended by
the Committee of the Whole, the bill is considered rejected. Manual
Sec. 989; 5 Hinds Sec. 5326. For a general discussion of this motion,
see Committees of the Whole.
Sec. 55 . -- Limiting or Extending Five-minute Debate-- By House
Action
By Unanimous Consent
The House, by unanimous consent, may agree to limit or extend
debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole,
whether or not that debate has commenced. The House may by unanimous
consent agree to an extension of time for such debate even after the
Committee has previously agreed to terminate debate at an earlier
time. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.41.
By Motion
A timely motion to limit debate on a matter pending in the
Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule has been held to lie
in the House as well as in the Committee once that debate has begun.
In an early decision Speaker Crisp held that the Committee did not
have the exclusive right to limit debate on matters pending before it,
and that a motion to limit debate on a section of a bill pending in
Committee would lie in the House. 5 Hinds Sec. 5229. However, in
modern practice the motion is made in the Committee under clause 8 of
rule XVIII. Sec. 56, infra.
Sec. 56 . -- By Motion in the Committee of the Whole
Generally; When in Order
A motion in the Committee of the Whole to limit or close five-
minute debate is permitted by clause 8 of rule XVIII. Manual Sec. 987.
The motion may propose to close debate at once or at the expiration of
a designated time. 8 Cannon Sec. 2572. As noted above, a motion to
extend debate is not in order in the Committee. Sec. 54, supra.
Until a bill has been read for amendment in full or its reading
dispensed with by unanimous consent or special order of business, a
motion to close or limit debate on the entire bill is not in order.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.27. Likewise, a motion to close debate on
a portion of a bill not yet reached in the reading of the bill for
amendment is not in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.29. A motion
to close debate on a portion of a bill that
[[Page 439]]
has been read and on which there has been debate is in order.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.34. For a discussion of unanimous-consent
requests to close or limit debate, see Sec. 57, infra.
A motion to limit or close debate under the five-minute rule is
not in order until debate has begun. 5 Hinds Sec. 5225. Thus, a motion
to close debate on a section of a bill or on an amendment is not in
order until there has been some debate thereon. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 78.22. However, the motion to close debate has been held in order
after only one speech, even though brief (5 Hinds Sec. 5226), and
although the Member making the speech, after gaining recognition to
strike the last word, obtained consent to speak out of order
(Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.25).
Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, a motion in the Committee of the
Whole to close debate under the five-minute rule is privileged.
However, the motion cannot deprive another Member of the floor.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.14. Once pending, the motion must be
disposed of before further recognition by the Chair. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 22.1.
Although it is customary for the Chair to recognize the manager of
the pending bill to offer motions to limit debate, any Member may,
pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, move to limit debate at an
appropriate time in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 23.28. However, the Member managing the bill is entitled to prior
recognition to move to close debate on a pending amendment (after the
proponent has yielded back) over other Members seeking to debate or
amend the amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 24.16.
It is in order in the Committee of the Whole to move to limit or
close debate under the five-minute rule with respect to:
The portion of the text that is pending and all amendments
thereto. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.7.
An amendment and all amendments thereto. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 78.65.
All amendments to the bill (after the bill has been read) and
all amendments thereto. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.30.
A proposition to control or divide the time is not in order as a
part of a motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule. 8 Cannon
Sec. 2570.
Where there is a time limitation on debate on a pending amendment
in the nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto, but not on
the underlying original text, debate on perfecting amendments to the
original text proceeds under the five-minute rule, absent another time
limitation. Where the time for debate on a pending amendment in the
form of a motion to strike (and all amendments thereto) has been
limited, a subsequently offered perfecting amendment considered as
preferential to (rather than as an amend
[[Page 440]]
ment to) the motion to strike remains separately debatable outside the
limitation. Manual Sec. 987.
A limitation on debate on a section of a bill and amendments
thereto does not affect debate on an amendment adding a new section to
the bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.31. The Chair may decline to
recognize a Member to offer such an amendment until perfecting
amendments to the pending section have been disposed of under the
limitation. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.137.
Consideration of Motion; Debate and Amendments
A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule must be
reduced to writing if demanded by any Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 78.52. The motion is not debatable (Manual Sec. 987), although it
is subject to amendment (5 Hinds Sec. 5227; 8 Cannon Sec. 2578).
The motion in the Committee of the Whole to limit debate is not
subject to a motion to reconsider because the motion to reconsider
does not lie in the Committee. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.79.
However, the Committee may by unanimous consent rescind or modify such
an agreement. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.84.
Sec. 57 . -- By Unanimous Consent in the Committee of the Whole
Generally
Debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole
may be closed or limited by the Committee by unanimous consent, even
on portions of the bill not yet read. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.29.
However, such request should include the condition that the portion of
the bill sought to be limited be considered as read and open to
amendment at any point. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.93. Similarly,
the Committee may limit and allocate control of time for debate on
amendments not yet offered by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 987.
In limiting debate by unanimous consent under the five-minute
rule, the Committee of the Whole may include provisions to control and
allocate the time. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.37. For example, the
Committee may, by unanimous consent, limit debate to a certain number
of hours, or to a time certain, to be equally divided and controlled
by the managers of the bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.62.
Rescission or Modification of Limitation
A time limitation on debate imposed by the Committee of the Whole
may be rescinded or modified by the Committee by unanimous consent
(but not by motion). Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 78.42, 78.43. The
Committee
[[Page 441]]
may by unanimous consent permit additional debate on an amendment
before it is offered, notwithstanding a previous limitation imposed by
the Committee on all amendments to the bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 79.63. The Committee can effect minor changes in procedures set
by a special order of the House only by unanimous consent and only
where congruent with the terms of the special order of business.
Manual Sec. 993.
Sec. 58 . Motions Allocating or Reserving Time
A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule in the
Committee of the Whole is not in order if it includes a reservation of
time for any special purpose, including a reservation of time for a
particular Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 78.37, 78.61, 78.67,
78.72. However, the Committee may limit debate and include a
reservation of time by unanimous consent. For example, part of the
time under a limitation may be reserved for the reporting committee by
unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.69.
Sec. 59 . Timekeeping; Charging Time
Generally
A limitation on debate under the five-minute rule may take the
form of a restriction on time for debate (for example, ``for 60
minutes'') or as a limitation on debate to a time certain (for
example, ``until 5 p.m.''). The form of the limitation is particularly
significant in determining how the time is to be accounted for under
the limitation.
When time for debate on a proposition is limited to a fixed
period, such as 60 minutes, the time consumed for purposes other than
debate is not counted or charged against the allowable time for debate
(such as votes, quorum calls, maintaining order, points of order,
reading amendments, or offering and debating preferential motions to
strike the enacting clause). Manual Sec. 987; Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. Sec. 79.10, 79.13. However, if time is limited to a fixed period
on the entire bill and all amendments thereto, the time for the
preferential motion does consume time under the limitation. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.17.
On the other hand, where the time for debate has been fixed to a
time certain, such as 5 p.m., the time consumed by matters other than
debate (such as parliamentary inquiries, points of order, rereading of
amendments, maintaining order, votes, quorum calls, or offering and
debating preferential motions to strike the enacting clause) is
charged against the time remaining. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. Sec. 79.5, 79.9. Such a limitation terminates all debate at the
time specified, notwithstanding any allotted time remaining. Deschler-
[[Page 442]]
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.8. In such cases, no point of order lies against
the inability of the Chair to recognize each Member desiring
recognition. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 22.31. The time specified can
be rescinded or modified only by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 987. A
unanimous consent-request or motion to close debate at a time certain
should specify that the debate cease at a certain time, and not that
the Committee of the Whole vote at a certain time, because the Chair
cannot control time consumed by quorum calls or votes on other
intervening motions. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.75. If the Committee
rises before the expiration of such a limitation, and does not resume
consideration before the time certain arrives, no further time for
debate remains. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.128.
If debate is closed instantly on the entire bill and all
amendments thereto, no further debate is in order for any purpose
(including the preferential motion that the enacting clause be
stricken); and further amendments may be offered but not debated
unless they have been printed in the Congressional Record. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 79.1, 79.23.
Role of the Chair in Allocating Time
Where debate on an amendment has been limited, the Chair has
several options in allocating the remaining time. The Chair may (1)
continue to recognize under the five-minute rule; (2) divide the time
between Members indicating a desire to speak; or (3) as is
increasingly the case under the modern practice, divide time between
the proponent of the amendment and an opponent (giving priority in
recognition among opponents to committee members) and allow them in
turn to yield time to other Members. Manual Sec. 987.
The Chair also has the discretion to give priority in recognition
under a limitation to those Members seeking to offer amendments, over
other Members standing at the time the limitation was agreed to. Where
time for debate on a bill and all amendments thereto has been limited
to a time certain several hours away, the Chair has the discretion to
continue to proceed under the five-minute rule until deciding to
allocate remaining time on possible amendments. The Chair may then
divide that time among proponents of anticipated amendments and
committee members opposing those amendments. The Chair also has
discretion to reallocate time to conform to the limit set by unanimous
consent of the Committee of the Whole. Manual Sec. 987.
Time Remaining After Committee Rises
The adoption of a motion to rise during debate on an amendment in
the Committee of the Whole does not affect the time remaining on the
[[Page 443]]
amendment when the bill is resumed as unfinished business in the
Committee of the Whole, where debate is limited to a number of minutes
and not to a time certain. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.131. However,
where a measure has been limited to a time certain, and the Committee
rises before that time without having completed action on the pending
measure, no time is considered to be remaining when the Committee, on
a later day, resumes consideration of the measure. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 79.127. The Committee may extend debate on the subsequent day
only by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.84.
Where after limiting debate under the five-minute rule the
Committee of the Whole is about to rise on motion, the Chair has the
discretion to defer the allocation of that time until the Committee
resumes consideration of the bill on a subsequent day. Deschler-Brown
Ch 29 Sec. 79.52.
H. Reading Papers; Displays and Exhibits
Sec. 60 . Reading Papers
In the early practice of the House, the reading of papers,
including a Member's own written speech, was usually permitted without
question; and Members usually read such papers as they pleased. Manual
Sec. 964; 5 Hinds Sec. 5258. However, that privilege was subject to
the authority of the House if another Member objected under a former
version of clause 6 of rule XVII. Manual Sec. 964. If objection was
made to such a reading under the former rule, the question was
determined by the House without debate. The rule was amended in 1993
to apply only to exhibits and not to readings and the question no
longer must be submitted to the House. Manual Sec. 963.
Sec. 61 . Use of Exhibits
Generally
Members often use relevant exhibits in debate for the information
of other Members. The display of exhibits in debate was at one time
automatically subject to House consent under clause 6 of rule XVII if
objection was made. However, the clause was amended in the 107th
Congress to give the Chair the discretion to submit the question of
its use to the House. Manual Sec. 963.
For procedures under the former rule, see Manual Sec. 963.
It is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to judge
the accuracy of the content of an exhibit. It is not in order to
request that the
[[Page 444]]
electronic voting display be turned on during debate as an exhibit to
accompany a Member's debate. Manual Sec. 963.
Exhibits that have been permitted by the House or the Committee of
the Whole, either by vote or because no objection was raised, include:
A pair of oversized dice. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.2.
Models prepared by the Committee on Science and Astronautics.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.4.
Electronic voting equipment to be installed in the House
Chamber. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.
A bottle of liquor alleged to be ``government rum.'' Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.1.
A chart showing complex funding formulas. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 84.5.
Photographs of missing children. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 84.14.
A display of dismantled weapons. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 84.17.
A chart showing stockpiled weaponry. 99-1, June 19, 1985, p
16359.
The Speaker or chair of the Committee of the Whole may under rule
I direct the removal of an exhibit from the well if the exhibit is not
being used in debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 84.9, 84.10.
The Speaker has denied a request that a Member be permitted to use
a video recorder on the floor of the House during a special-order
speech, as an audio-visual display of comments by non-Members would be
contrary to precedents limiting the privilege of debate to Members.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 80.8. The Speaker has disallowed the use of
a person on the floor as a guest of the House as an ``exhibit.''
Manual Sec. 622; Sec. 21, supra.
Beginning in the 111th Congress, the Speaker has announced
guidelines for appropriate comportment in the chamber when the House
is not in session. Such guidelines re-affirm the Speaker's
responsibility for control of the Hall of the House under clause 3 of
rule I, indicate that the chamber remains on static display during
periods of adjournment, and prohibit any activity (including audio or
video recording) that might be taken to carry the imprimatur of the
House. 111-1, Jan. 6, 2009, p __.
Sec. 62 . -- Decorum Requirements
The Speaker's responsibility under clause 2 of rule I to preserve
decorum requires that the use of exhibits in debate that would be
demeaning to the House or that would be disruptive of the decorum
thereof be disallowed. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.16. Thus the
Speaker may inquire of a Member's intentions as to the use of exhibits
before conferring recognition to address the House. Deschler-Brown Ch
29 Sec. 84.11. In one instance, the Chair declined to permit a bumper
sticker to be attached to the lectern in the House Chamber. 101-1,
Sept. 13, 1989, p 20362. In 1995, a caricature of
[[Page 445]]
the Speaker presented during debate was ruled out of order. 104-1,
Nov. 16, 1995, p 33393-95. In another instance, where a Member during
debate on a bill funding the arts indicated his intention to show as
exhibits certain photographs--some innocuous and some alleged to be
pornographic--the Chair announced that he would prevent the display of
all such exhibits on the pending bill. The Chair observed that
although the first amendment to the Constitution provides that
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, the
Constitution also provides in article I that the House may determine
the rules of its proceedings, and in clause 2 of rule I the House has
assigned to the Chair the responsibility of preserving order and
decorum. Manual Sec. 622.
At the request of the Committee on Ethics, the Speaker announced
that (1) all handouts distributed on or adjacent to the floor must
bear the name of a Member authorizing the distribution; (2) the
content of such handouts must comport with the standards applicable to
words used in debate; (3) failure to comply with these standards may
constitute a breach of decorum and thus give rise to a question of
privilege; (4) staff are prohibited in the Chamber or rooms leading
thereto from distributing handouts and from attempting to influence
Members with regard to legislation; and (5) Members should minimize
the use of handouts to enhance the quality of debate. Manual Sec. 622.
I. Secret Sessions
Sec. 63 . In General
Generally; Historical Background
In the early days of the Congress, secret sessions of the House
were frequent. The sessions of the Continental Congress were secret.
Up to and during the War of 1812, secret sessions of the House were
held often. Normally, the House sat with galleries open. When the
occasion required, as on receipt of a confidential communication from
the President, the galleries were cleared by House order. 5 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 7247, 7251 (note). Following that period, the practice fell
into disuse, remaining dormant for almost a century, and there have
been but few secret sessions in the modern era. 6 Cannon Sec. 434.
It has been held that each House has a right to hold secret
sessions whenever in its judgment the proceedings should require
secrecy. In 1848, the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia upheld
a Senate contempt proceeding conducted in a secret session arising out
of the publication of a trea
[[Page 446]]
ty pending before the Senate in executive session. Nugent v. Beale, 18
F. Cas. 141 (C.C.D.C. 1848) (No. 10375); 2 Hinds Sec. 1640.
Procedure
The oath of office taken by elected House officers obligates them
to ``keep the secrets of the House'' under clause 1 of rule II. Manual
Sec. 640. Clause 9 of rule XVII, dating from 1792, authorizes the
holding of a secret session (1) whenever confidential communications
are received from the President, or (2) whenever the Speaker or any
Member informs the House that such individual has communications that
such individual believes ought to be kept secret. Manual Sec. 969.
The House, and not the Committee of the Whole, determines whether
to conduct a secret session under clause 9 of rule XVII. Manual
Sec. 969; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.6. Provision for the session is
generally made pursuant to a motion considered in the House. See
Sec. 64, infra. The material to be presented in the secret session is
not required to be relevant to any particular legislation. Deschler-
Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.9. No point of order lies in the secret session
that the material in question must be produced for the Members in
advance to determine whether secret or confidential communications are
involved. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.14.
For procedures governing a secret session of the House called to
resolve a conflict between the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the President with respect to disclosure of
classified information, see clause 11(g) of rule X. Manual Sec. 785.
Use of Special Orders of Business
In 1983, for the first time, a secret session was held pursuant to
a special order of business reported from the Committee on Rules and
adopted by the House. The special order of business provided for
preliminary general debate on a bill in secret session of the
Committee of the Whole and for further consideration of the bill in
open session of the Committee of the Whole. 98-1, H. Res. 261, July
14, 1983, p 19133. Following the secret session, the Speaker stated
that Members were bound not to release or revise or make public any of
the transcript thereof until further order of the House, and that
pursuant to the special order of business the transcript would be
referred to the two committees reporting the bill. 98-1, July 19,
1983, pp 19776, 19777. Six months later, the Speaker laid before the
House communications transmitting the recommendations of those
committees that the transcript of the secret session not be publicly
released. 98-2, Jan. 23, 1984, p 84.
[[Page 447]]
In 2008, for the first time, a secret session was held pursuant to
a unanimous-consent request that, similar to a special order of
business, provided the terms for debate. Manual Sec. 969.
Sec. 64 . Motions; Debate
A motion to go into a secret session is in order when any Member
informs the House that such Member has communications that should be
considered in confidence. The motion takes precedence over a motion to
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of
privileged legislative business such as an appropriation bill. 8
Cannon Sec. 3630.
The motion to resolve into secret session may be made only in the
House and not in the Committee of the Whole. Manual Sec. 969;
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.6. The Member offering the motion must
qualify by asserting that such Member has a secret communication to
make to the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.5. The motion may be
repeated on the same legislative day if the proponent asserts
additional qualifying communications. Manual Sec. 969. The motion is
not debatable, although the Chair may explain the operation of the
rule and respond to parliamentary inquiries after the motion has been
agreed to and before the secret session commences. Manual Sec. 969;
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 85.7, 85.9. The motion to resolve into
secret session is subject to the motion to lay on the table. Manual
Sec. 969.
After a motion to resolve into a secret session has been adopted,
the Member who offered the motion may be recognized for one hour of
debate. The normal rules of debate, including the principle that
motions are in order only when the Member in control yields for that
purpose, apply. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.13.
A motion in secret session to make the proceedings public is
debatable for one hour, within narrow limits of relevancy. At the
conclusion of debate in secret session, a Member may be recognized to
offer a motion that the session be dissolved. Deschler-Brown Ch 29
Sec. 85.18. In 2008, the unanimous-consent agreement pursuant to which
the House resolved into secret session provided for adjournment of the
House immediately following the secret session. Manual Sec. 969.
Sec. 65 . Secrecy Restrictions and Guidelines
The Speaker may announce before a secret session commences that
the galleries will be cleared. The Speaker also may announce that the
Chamber will be cleared of all persons except Members and those
officers and employees whose attendance is essential to the
functioning of the secret session
[[Page 448]]
and so specified by the Speaker, and that all proceedings in the
secret session must be kept secret until otherwise ordered by the
House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 85.8, 85.9. In one instance, the
Speaker directed all officers and employees designated by him as
essential to the proceedings to come to the desk and sign an oath of
secrecy. The Speaker announced that violation of the oath was
punishable by the House and that Members and employees were subject to
standards of conduct and disciplinary proceedings under House rules.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.9. Where the House has concluded a secret
session and has not voted to release the transcripts of that session
to the public, the injunction of secrecy remains and the Speaker may
informally refer the transcripts to appropriate committees for their
evaluation and report to the House as to their ultimate disposition.
Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.10. Under clause 13 of rule XXIII (which
was added to the Code of Official Conduct in the 104th Congress), all
Members, officers, and employees are required to execute an oath
before they are given access to classified information. The list of
Members signing this oath is published weekly in the Congressional
Record. For a discussion of committee meetings in executive session,
see Committees.