[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[D. Control and Distribution of Time for Debate]
[Â§ 32. Interruption of Member With the Floor]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10410-10423]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
 
Sec. 32. Interruption of Member With the Floor

    A Member with the floor may not be interrupted, without his 
consent, for ordinary motions, inquiries, or questions of 
privilege.(17) He may be interrupted by a point of order but 
is entitled to the floor when the point of order is disposed 
of,(18) unless the point of order is directed towards the 
failure of the Member with the floor to observe the rules of debate, in 
which case the Member may be called to order and required to take his 
seat.(19) Messages and conference reports have interrupted 
Members in debate, usually by the request of the Chair that the Member 
speaking suspend his remarks.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. Sec. 32.4-32.7, 32.14, infra.
18. See Sec. Sec. 32.11-32.13, infra.
19. See Sec. Sec. 33.1, 33.2, infra.
20. See Sec. 32.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member who seeks to interrupt another in debate, by requesting 
him to yield, should address the Chair and through the Chair gain the 
consent of the Member with the floor.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 32.1, infra. Unauthorized interruptions may be stricken 
        from the Congressional Record (see Sec. 32.3, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Disorderly interruptions in debate, see Sec. 42, infra.
Points of order interrupting consideration and debate, see Ch. 31, 
    infra.
Quorum calls interrupting consideration and debate, see Ch. 20, supra.
Reception of messages, see Ch. 32, infra.
Yielding for interruptions, see Sec. Sec. 29-31, supra.

[[Page 10411]]

                          -------------------Seeking Permission To 
    Interrupt

Sec. 32.1 A Member desiring to 
    interrupt another in debate should address the Chair for the 
    permission of the Member speaking.

    On June 29, 1956,(2) Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, sustained a point of order that a Member desiring to 
interrupt another in debate, by asking him to yield, should properly 
address the Chair for the permission of the Member speaking:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 102 Cong. Rec. 11455, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ralph W.] Gwinn [of New York]: We had no exact testimony 
    on the point before our committee.
        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gwinn: I would like to answer the question of the 
    distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania first.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: The point of order is that a Member 
    who seeks recognition must first address the Chair rather than 
    inquire of the Member whether he will yield or not.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained. The practice 
    which has grown up here is not a good one. When a request is made 
    for a Member to yield, the request should be made to the Chair and 
    the Chair in turn submits the request to the speaker having the 
    floor.

Sec. 32.2 A Member may interrupt another Member in debate only if the 
    Member who has the floor yields for that purpose.

    On Oct. 14, 1978,(3) the following exchange occurred in 
the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 124 Cong. Rec. 38378, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. Would the gentleman talk a little more slowly so we could 
    absorb these very simple questions he is asking?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Ashley) has the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillip Burton: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have 
    another copy of these questions and answers?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Charles 
    Wilson) has the floor.
        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I do not yield.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: I yield to the gentleman from 
    Michigan.

--When Remarks of Member Interrupting May Be Stricken; Charging Time

Sec. 32.3 Where a Member interrupts another Member dur

[[Page 10412]]

    ing debate without being yielded to and without making a point of 
    order, the time consumed by his remarks will not be charged against 
    the debate time of the Member controlling the floor and his remarks 
    will not be printed in the Record.

    On Feb. 7, 1985,(5) the House had under consideration 
House Resolution 52, directing the prima facie seating of a Member-
elect, who had been denied seating pending a committee report on the 
question of the final right to the seat in the 99th Congress. A motion 
was made to refer the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 131 Cong. Rec. 2220, 2229, 2231, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to refer.
        The Speaker: (6) The Clerk will report the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Wright moves to refer the resolution to the Committee 
        on House Administration.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wright] is 
    recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield 30 
    minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] or his 
    designees, and pending that I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Now, Mr. Speaker, there is 
    not time to do everything. First let us talk about the 5,000 
    invalidated votes that Republicans stole; 96 percent of the 
    invalidated votes in the recount were done by a recount commission 
    appointed with 2-to-1 Democrats, by a Democrat judge, hardly a 
    Republican shenanigan. . . .
        This is a blockbuster vote. This is murder. This is a rape of a 
    system. The issue is the ultimate abuse of representative 
    government. We have an elected, certified Member. . . .
        [Mr. Wright interjected remarks at this point.]
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I did not yield to the gentleman. Was 
    he making a point of order?
        The Speaker: The Chair would probably understand, as does the 
    gentleman, what the gentleman from Texas was doing. He was 
    questioning whether the words should be taken down or not. But no 
    point of order was made.
        The gentleman from Minnesota will continue.
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Speaker if I might get 
    an appropriate amount of time extra, as the gentleman from Texas 
    did?
        The Speaker: The gentleman will continue.
        Mr. Frenzel: I thank the Speaker. If I may continue.
        The Speaker: The remarks of the gentleman from Texas are not 
    taken out of the time of the gentleman from Minnesota. . . .
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 10413]]

        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is will the Speaker 
    protect my request to strike the intrusion into my discussion by 
    the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Wright], under Deschler's Precedents, and this is volume 8, section 
    24.65, which says that--

            A Member desiring to interrupt another in debate should 
        address the Chair for permission. If the Member having the 
        floor declines to yield, he may strike from the record.

        The Speaker: As to the remarks 
    of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wright], which were not a point of 
    order in view of the fact that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
    Frenzel] had the time and did not yield to the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Wright], the remarks of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wright] 
    will not be printed in the Record.

    Similarly, the question of the effect of remarks interjected into 
debate by one not properly recognized arose on Apr. 19, 
1937,(7) on which date Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the requirement that 
Members seeking to interrupt a Member with the floor obtain recognition 
from the Chair and obtain consent of the Member with the floor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 3588, 3589, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward W.] Curley [of New York]: Last Thursday, April 15, 
    during the discussion of the antilynching bill, I submitted two 
    questions to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth]. Upon 
    reading the Congressional Record the following day I found they 
    were omitted. . . .
        What I wish to know Mr. Speaker, is whether or not I can have 
    the permanent Record corrected so as to include the two questions 
    and the offside remark that went with them?
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from New York allow the Chair 
    to ask him a question before ruling on the gentleman's inquiry?
        Mr. Curley: Certainly.
        The Speaker: Did the gentleman from New York address the Chair 
    and ask whether or not the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth], 
    then occupying the floor, would yield?
        Mr. Curley: I did, Mr. Speaker. I think the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. O'Connor] was presiding on both occasions.
        The Speaker: Did the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] 
    yield?
        Mr. Curley: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] did not 
    yield, and so stated. But not long thereafter the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Gavagan] asked the same questions, received the same 
    reply, that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] did not 
    yield; yet the questions and remarks of the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Gavagan] are incorporated in the Congressional Record.

        The Speaker: This is a rather important inquiry that the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Curley] has submitted. It has not been 
    raised, so far as the Chair recalls, during the present session of 
    Congress. In order that the rights of Members may be

[[Page 10414]]

    protected, and that the Members may know what the rules and 
    precedents are with respect to this proposition, the Chair will 
    read from section 3466, volume 8, of Cannon's Precedents of the 
    House of Representatives, the following statement:

            The Speaker may order stricken from the notes of the 
        reporters remarks made by Members who have not been recognized 
        and to whom the Member having the floor has declined to yield. 
        . . .

        The Chair may say that in conformity with this precedent, and 
    what the Chair conceives to be sound procedure, the rule should be 
    reiterated that when a Member is occupying the floor and a Member 
    after addressing the Chair and asking the Member then occupying the 
    floor if he will yield for a question or for an interruption, and 
    the gentleman then speaking declines to yield, it is not proper for 
    a Member nevertheless to interject into the Record some remarks 
    which he desires to make.

    Speaker Bankhead also answered a parliamentary inquiry on the right 
of Members, when revising the Congressional Record, to delete from 
their remarks statements interposed by other Members not yielded time:

        Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dowell: When a Member has the floor and declines to yield, 
    and no one is recognized to propound a parliamentary inquiry or 
    direct an inquiry to the gentleman having the floor, and the other 
    Member, not being recognized by the Chair, makes some statement, 
    has not the Member who has the floor the right to leave those 
    injected remarks out of the record?
        The Speaker: Under the decision referred to by the Chair, 
    undoubtedly the Member interrupted would have the right to strike 
    those remarks from the Record.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. If a Member with the floor declines to yield for a statement or 
        question but then responds to such an interruption, he may not 
        in his revision of remarks delete the interpolation. See 81 
        Cong. Rec. 3669, 3670, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 20, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interruption by Motions--To Close Debate

Sec. 32.4 A Member having the floor in debate on his amendment may not 
    be interrupted without his consent by a motion to close debate.

    On Aug. 21, 1940,(9) Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin, 
offered an amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the 
Whole and was recognized 
for five minutes. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 86 Cong. Rec. 10698, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman from Wisconsin is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Abe Murdock (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman----

[[Page 10415]]

        Mr. [Henry B.] Steagall [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all 
    amendments thereto close in 5 minutes.
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. Steagall: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this 
    section----
        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I did not yield to the 
    gentleman from Alabama to submit a unanimous-consent request or to 
    make a motion. I have some rights here under the rules of the 
    House. I demand the regular order, and that is that I be permitted 
    to continue without interruption.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes, but 
    there is a motion before the House.
        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against that motion. I did not yield for the gentleman to 
    make a motion. I had the floor. The gentleman did not ask me to 
    yield and I did not yield. I have some rights under the rules of 
    the House and I ask that they be respected by the gentleman who has 
    interrupted even though he is chairman of the important committee 
    in charge of the pending legislation.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
    minutes.

--To Rise

Sec. 32.5 In the Committee of the Whole, a Member may not be 
    interrupted by a motion to rise while he has the floor, unless he 
    yields for that purpose.

    On Mar. 12, 1964,(11) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that unless 
the Member with the floor yielded for that purpose, another Member 
could not move that the Committee rise:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 5101, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: I yield to the 
    gentleman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan]: Would a motion that the 
    Committee rise be in order at this time?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Pennsylvania yields for 
    that purpose.
        Mr. Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I cannot yield further.

--To Adjourn

Sec. 32.6 A Member holding the floor may not be interrupted by a motion 
    to adjourn unless he yields for the motion.

    On Apr. 24, 1956,(12) Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, was 
speaking under a special-order agreement.

[[Page 10416]]

Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, moved that the House adjourn after Mr. 
William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, had made a point of no quorum. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 102 Cong. Rec. 6891, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the gentleman from Georgia retains the floor, that motion is 
    not in order.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For an occasion where a Member recognized for one hour on a special 
        order was interrupted, with his consent, for a motion to 
        suspend the rules made by another Member, see Sec. 73.19, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This principle does not hold true if a 
point of order of no quorum is made during debate and the Chair 
announces that a quorum is not present; Rule XV, clause 6, has been 
amended, however, to prohibit points of order of no quorum during 
debate only.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Sec. 32.7 A Member may not be taken from the floor for a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

    On May 26, 1960,(14) Mr. Donald R. Matthews, of Florida, 
had the floor in the Committee of the Whole and Mr. Cleveland M. 
Bailey, of West Virginia, attempted 
to state a parliamentary inquiry. Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode 
Island, ruled that Mr. Matthews could not be interrupted by Mr. Bailey 
for a parliamentary inquiry without his consent.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 11267, 11268, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 30217, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1968; 
        and 110 Cong. Rec. 1998, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 5, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.8 A Member may not be interrupted by another Member for a 
    parliamentary inquiry without his consent and if the Member who has 
    the floor refuses to yield and demands regular order the Chair will 
    not recognize another Member to propound a parliamentary inquiry.

    On July 8, 1975,(16) the proceedings described above 
occurred in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 21628, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Hebert: . . .

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about which my 
    colleagues have received communications in the last few days from 
    the Sierra Club and from other nationwide conservation 
    organizations. . . .

[[Page 10417]]

        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of 
    order to the germaneness of this amendment.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I do not yield for the point of 
    order. The point of order is too late.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair rules that the point of 
    order is too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, may we have the regular order. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) refuses 
    to yield.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: That could only be made before the gentleman from 
    Michigan was recognized with respect to his amendment. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I ask for the regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) refuses 
    to yield.
        Under regular order, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    is recognized.

Sec. 32.9 A Member may not interrupt another Member in debate by a 
    parliamentary inquiry unless the Member having the floor yields for 
    that purpose.

    The following exchange occurred in the House on Feb. 25, 1985: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 131 Cong. Rec. 3344, 3346, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) Under a previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is 
    recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam B. Hall, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I am going to 
    insert in the Record today and read into the Record several 
    editorials, one from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution 
    yesterday, Sunday, February 24, and one this morning from the Wall 
    Street Journal. . . .
        Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman has not asked me to 
    yield, and I was in fact making an inquiry myself to the Chair. I 
    was asking the Chair to rule in this sort of setting if one is 
    reporting to the House on the written opinion of a columnist in 
    which the columnist has said very strong things, is it appropriate 
    for the House to be informed of this and, if so, what is the 
    correct procedure?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The ruling of the Chair is that the 
    gentleman should not read into the Record things which would 
    clearly be outside the rules of this House. . . .(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For discussion of the prohibition against reading in debate of 
        press accounts which are personally critical of a sitting 
        Member, see Sec. 83, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. Oakar: I am going to ask my own parliamentary inquiry. . . 
    .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman yield to the 
    gentlewoman for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Gingrich: Not at the present moment. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Let the gentleman continue with his 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 10418]]

        Mr. Gingrich: I might tell the gentlewoman that since this is a 
    special order that she cannot get the floor unless I yield it to 
    her.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will make the rulings. . . .
        The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is recognized.

--Parliamentary Inquiry and Point of Order

Sec. 32.10 A Member having the floor may not be interrupted by another 
    Member raising a parliamentary inquiry unless he yields for that 
    purpose, but the Chair must permit an interruption to rule on any 
    point of order raised during debate.

    On Dec. 18, 1987,(1) during consideration of a 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 335, disciplining a Member) in the 
House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 133 Cong. Rec. 36266, 36271, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 335) in the matter of Representative 
    Austin J. Murphy, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                H. Res. 335

            Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the 
        report by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated 
        December 16, 1987, in the matter of Representative Austin J. 
        Murphy of Pennsylvania. . . .

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I commend the 
    committee for its report and its recommendation. . . .
        This committee's earlier report on the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island should be reexamined with this new yardstick. The 
    committee's letter on the gentlewoman from Ohio should be 
    scrutinized with this new yardstick. The admission of $24,000 in 
    election law violations by the gentleman from California should be 
    held up to this new yardstick.
        Finally, the numerous allegations about the Speaker must be----
        Mr. [Tommy F.] Robinson [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Dave McCurdy (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were here today to hear 
    a very serious charge against one of our colleagues from 
    Pennsylvania, not from California or other States.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman suspend? Does the 
    gentleman from Georgia yield?
        Mr. Gingrich: No, I do not yield, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that we are 
    here to consider the committee's report against our colleague 
    Austin Murphy and not

[[Page 10419]]

    against other Members today that the charges have not been 
    substantiated or presented to the committee.
        Mr. Gingrich: Would the Chair----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman suspend?
        The [gentleman] will yield on the point of order.
        On the debate currently ongoing, there can be references made 
    to other cases reported by the committee, not by individual or by 
    name. The gentleman from Georgia, as the Chair understands, has not 
    mentioned other individuals and the gentleman from Arkansas----
        Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, he has, too.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman may compare disciplinary 
    actions reported by the committee and should confine his remarks to 
    the matters before the House.

Point of Order and Call of the House

Sec. 32.11 A Member stating a question of privilege may be interrupted 
    by a point of order relating thereto.

    On June 30, 1939,(3) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
was in the process of stating a point of personal privilege based on an 
insertion in the Congressional Record. Mr. Hoffman was interrupted by 
several points of order on the grounds that a question of privilege was 
not stated and on the grounds that Mr. Hoffman was not confining his 
remarks to the question of privilege. Mr. Hoffman objected to the 
interruptions and stated that he did not yield for a point of order. 
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that a Member making a 
point of order was entitled to recognition while the question of 
privilege was being stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 8468, 8469, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Special Order Interrupted by Call of the House; Member Regains Floor 
    After Motion To Dispense With Proceedings

Sec. 32.12 When a Member holding the floor under a special order is 
    interrupted by a call of the House, he is again entitled to the 
    floor when a motion to dispense with further proceedings under the 
    call has been agreed to.

    On June 4, 1963,(4) two special-order speeches were 
scheduled, the first by Mr. Clark MacGregor, of Minnesota. Mr. 
MacGregor was repeatedly interrupted by quorum calls which demonstrated 
a quorum as being present. Mr. MacGregor retained the right to the 
floor pending each quorum call,

[[Page 10420]]

and he resumed after a motion to dispense with further proceedings 
under a call had been agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 10151-65, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point of No Quorum

Sec. 32.13 A point of no quorum is a privileged matter and is in order 
    at any time, even when a Member has the floor in debate.

    On May 4, 1949,(5) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman Henry M. Jackson, of Washington, ruled that a motion to 
adjourn was not in order and that the motion that the Committee rise 
could not be made unless the Member with the floor yielded for that 
purpose. Mr. Donald W. Nicholson, of Massachusetts, then made the point 
of order that a quorum was not present. Mr. Monroe M. Redden, of North 
Carolina, objected that Mr. Nicholson was out of order since he had not 
asked the Member with the floor [Mr. Miller] to yield for that purpose. 
Chairman Jackson ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 5616, 5617, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that a point of order based on no quorum 
    is a privileged matter and is in order at any time.

    On July 12, 1949,(6) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. 
William R. Poage, of Texas, who had the floor, declined to yield to Mr. 
Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio. Mr. Hays then made the point of order that a 
quorum was not present. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, objected 
that Mr. Poage had not yielded for that purpose, but Chairman Charles 
M. Price, of 
Illinois, overruled the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 9312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, a point of order: A Member has no 
    right to interrupt the speaker to make a point of no quorum.
        The Chairman: A point of no quorum may be made at any time.
        Mr. Rankin: The gentleman from Texas did not yield for that 
    point.
        The Chairman: The point of no quorum is in order at any time.

Question of Personal Privilege

Sec. 32.14 A Member may not be deprived of the floor by another raising 
    a question of personal privilege.

    On July 5, 1945,(7) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, 
offered a motion to correct the Record, in order to accurately record a 
colloquy occurring between himself and Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi. Mr. Rankin sought recognition to be heard in opposition to 
the motion, but Speaker Sam

[[Page 10421]]

Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that Mr. Tarver had the floor. Mr. Rankin then 
attempted to raise a question of personal privilege. The Speaker ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 7221-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman cannot take the gentleman from Georgia off the 
    floor by a question of personal privilege. The only way he could do 
    it would be by a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Sec. 32.15 A question of personal privilege cannot take another Member 
    from the floor.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Sept. 29, 1983: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 26508, 26509, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I hope that 
    within the next few minutes I can maintain my balance. I have 
    really become so nauseated by the drivel I have heard from the 
    gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander). He leaves out one 
    important component about what contributes to deficits. Blaming the 
    President for deficits is just unconscionable.
        No President, Republican or Democrat, whatever, can spend one 
    dime 
    unless this Congress first appropriates. . . .
        I am serving my 27th year in this Congress, always as a member 
    of the minority party, and I will tell the Members that I have been 
    down in this well supporting amendments to cut funding, and I will 
    stack that record of mine up against that of the gentleman from 
    Arkansas and any other Member who spoke on the Democratic side 
    tonight. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Michel: I will accord the gentleman the same courtesy he 
    gave me. I will wait until the end of my remarks.
        Mr. Alexander: Well, the gentleman mentioned my name. I assert 
    a point of personal privilege.
        Mr. Michel: I know. And the gentleman referred to my name, too, 
    so we will just accord him the same courtesy.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker----
        Mr. Michel: I refuse to yield, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I assert a point of personal 
    privilege. The gentleman used my name, and I would like to assert a 
    point of personal privilege.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman from 
    Mississippi (Mr. Lott) controls the time and cannot be taken from 
    the floor by a point of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: I do not yield, Mr. Speaker. 
    I yielded to the gentleman from Illinois.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time is that of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi.
        Mr. Lott: And I continue to yield to the gentleman from 
    Illinois.
        Mr. Michel: The Democratic Presidential contender, Ernest 
    Hollings, said it best, I think: ``Every time a special interest 
    appeared, we responded.''

Interruption To Reserve Objection

Sec. 32.16 Where a Member has been recognized for one hour

[[Page 10422]]

    of debate, and makes a unanimous-consent request, any time consumed 
    by a Member who reserves the right to object to that request is not 
    charged to the Member who has been recognized for an hour.

    On Apr. 15, 1970, Mr. Louis C. Wyman, of New Hampshire, was 
recognized for one hour of debate for a special-order speech. As he 
began his remarks, he asked unanimous consent to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous matter. Mr. Phillip Burton, of 
California, reserved the right to object and made several remarks on 
the pending resolution. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that Mr. Wyman still had one 
hour of debate available on his unanimous-consent request and that the 
time consumed by Mr. Burton would not be charged to Mr. Wyman's 
hour.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 11917, 11918, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfecting Amendment May Not Be Offered While Member Debating Motion To 
    Strike

Sec. 32.17 While a motion to strike a pending portion of a bill will be 
    held in abeyance until perfecting amendments to that portion are 
    disposed of, a Member who has been recognized to debate his motion 
    to strike may not be deprived of the floor by another Member who 
    seeks to offer a perfecting amendment, but the perfecting amendment 
    may be offered and voted on before the question is put on the 
    motion to strike.

    During consideration of H.R. 10024 (Depository Institutions 
Amendments of 1975) in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 31, 
1975,(11) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 34564, 34565, 34566, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot: Beginning on page 10, 
        line 18, strike all that follows through page 188, line 10.

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I believe that under the rules of the House since this 
    amendment involves a motion to strike the title, that perfecting 
    amendments that are at the desk take precedence over such a motion 
    to strike a title. Is that not correct?

[[Page 10423]]

        The Chairman: (12) That is true, if any are offered. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Spark M. Matsunaga (Ha.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I might 
    state that I was standing when the Chairman recognized the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot), and I have a perfecting 
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rousselot, is pending now, 
    and that the gentleman from California has been recognized. The 
    gentleman may offer his perfecting amendment after the gentleman 
    from California has completed his five minutes in support of his 
    amendment to strike.

Messages and Conference Reports

Sec. 32.18 Both the reception of 
    a message from the Senate 
    and the consideration of a 
    conference report are highly privileged matters and may interrupt 
    the consideration of a bill, even though the previous question has 
    been ordered thereon.

    On May 3, 1961,(13) the Committee of the Whole rose and 
reported back to the House H.R. 6441, to amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that 
pursuant to the rule the previous question was ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 7172, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker then interrupted the further consideration of the bill 
to receive a message from 
the Senate that the Senate had agreed to a conference report on H.R. 
3935 (to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act), and to recognize Mr. Adam 
C. Powell, of New York, to call up the conference report on H.R. 3935.
    Parliamentarian's Note: When a Member with the floor suspends 
temporarily for the reception of a message or conference report or 
other pressing legislative business, the time consumed by the 
interruption is not charged to his time. See, for example, Sec. 73.19, 
infra, where a Member occupying the floor for a ``special order 
speech'' suspended for a motion to suspend the rules and consumed the 
remainder of his time following adoption of the motion.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The Speaker may request the Member with the floor to suspend for 
        the reception of a message [see House Rules and Manual Sec. 561 
        (1995)]. The presentation and consideration of a conference 
        report is highly privileged [see Rule XXVIII clause 1(a) and 
        comments thereto, House Rules and Manual Sec. 909 (1995)], and 
        takes precedence over the operation of the previous question on 
        another measure.

[[Page 10424]]