[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[E. Relevancy in Debate]
[Â§ 35. Debate in the House]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10461-10486]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                         E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
 
Sec. 35. Debate in the House

    The House rules provide in Rule XIV clause 1 that in addressing the 
House a Member ``shall confine himself to the question under debate, 
avoiding personality.'' (19) The rule is neither intended 
nor enforced to prevent free and open debate in the House at the 
appropriate time, but is designed to expedite proceedings when a 
specific proposition is before the House for action. Although the 
Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may on his own 
initiative call a Member to order for indulging in irrelevant 
debate,(20) the Chair generally awaits a point of order 
before ruling on the issue.(1) If a Member persists in 
irrelevant debate after being cautioned by the Chair to proceed in 
order, the House may proceed under clause 4 of Rule XIV, requiring that 
the Member take his seat and not proceed further without the consent of 
the House.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995). For discussion of the 
        rule against indulging in personalities in debate, see Sec. 60, 
        infra.
20. For occasions where the Speaker has called Members to order on his 
        own initiative for failing to confine themselves to a question 
        of privilege, see Sec. 36.5, infra; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2481. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5043 (footnote) indicates 
        that in the early practice of the House of Representatives, the 
        Speaker routinely called Members to order for speaking beside 
        the question.
 1. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 35.1 and 35.11, infra; 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 5043-5048.
 2. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule of relevancy of debate in the House is a rule of common 
sense and flexibility, and Members must be permitted some latitude to 
discuss issues related to the pending proposition.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See the Speaker's statement at Sec. 35.1, infra. Early practice 
        took a very strict construction of the rule; see 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 5043-5048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member may be authorized by the House (or Committee of the Whole) 
to discuss matters unrelated to the pending proposition by requesting 
unanimous consent ``to speak out of order.'' (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 35.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a special rule from the Committee on Rules is pending, to 
provide for the consideration of a bill, debate in the House thereon 
should be confined to the merits and provisions of the resolution and 
should not extend to a general and complete discussion of the measure 
whose consideration is provided for in the resolution, since such 
debate should transpire

[[Page 10462]]

during the consideration of the measure itself. But the nature and 
importance of a special order requires that debate be allowed on the 
general purposes and necessity for consideration of the measure 
provided for, as well as discussion of past proceedings on other bills 
to demonstrate the reasons for the drafting of the resolution in 
question.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 35.1-35.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has always been held, and generally quite strictly, that in the 
House the Member must confine himself to the subject under 
debate.(6) Debate on a motion to amend must be confined to 
the amendment, and may neither include the general merits of the 
bill,(7) nor range to the merits of a proposition not 
included in the underlying resolution.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5043, 5048; 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 576; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2481, 2534.
 7. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5049, 5051.
 8. See Sec. 35.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member raising a question of privilege, either of the House or of 
the Member, must confine himself to the question 
presented,(9) and may not generally refer to pending 
legislation.(10) Where the question of privilege is based 
upon criticism of the Member's statements or actions with respect to a 
certain legislative proposal, he may refer to that proposal in order to 
justify his motivations and to answer the criticism 
raised.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 36.1, infra (personal privilege) and Sec. 36.5, infra 
        (privilege of the House). For earlier precedents, see 6 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 576; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2481.
10. See Sec. 36.3, infra.
11. See Sec. 36.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a proposition is not pending in the House, Members may 
express themselves on any subject (which is otherwise appropriate under 
the rules of the House) by requesting unanimous consent to address the 
House or by inserting remarks in the Record.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For one-minute and special-order speeches, see Sec. 73, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relevancy During General Debate

Sec. 35.1 Debate in the House is confined to the subject under 
    consideration, but the Speaker has indicated that the rule of 
    relevancy is applied with tolerance and latitude.

    On Dec. 10, 1963,(13) Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, 
raised a

[[Page 10463]]

point of order against the remarks of Mr. William H. Avery, of Kansas. 
Mr. Rogers observed that the House was at that time considering a 
special rule on the indigent defendants bill, whereas Mr. Avery was 
talking about the civil rights bill. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 23968, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair takes a lenient attitude toward debate in the House. 
    If the gentleman from Kansas feels that there is anything involved 
    in this bill that might be connected with legislation concerning 
    civil rights, the Chair feels that the gentleman, who is conversant 
    with the rules, is proceeding and will proceed in order.

    Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, then asked unanimous consent that Mr. 
Avery have permission to speak out of order and the House so ordered.

Debate on Special Order

Sec. 35.2 Debate on a resolution reported by the Committee on Rules and 
    providing for the consideration of a bill is generally limited to 
    the merits of such resolution.

    On June 22, 1937, House Resolution 227 was offered by the Committee 
on Rules to provide a special rule for consideration in the Committee 
of the Whole of a bill relating to the tenure of certain federal judges 
(H.R. 2271).(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 6157, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Leon Sacks, of Pennsylvania, who was yielded time, rose:

        Mr. Speaker, there are no words I can utter to defend that 
    great Governor of Pennsylvania, George H. Earle, which would 
    explain his humane qualities and true democratic principles more 
    than his own action. Does the gentleman from Michigan prefer the 
    action of the President of his own party at Anacostia, or would he 
    prefer the orderly prevention of bloodshed in Johnstown?

    Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, sustained a point of order 
that Mr. Sacks was not proceeding in order, since the matter under 
debate was the resolution reported from the Committee on Rules for the 
consideration of the bill and because Mr. Sacks' remarks were not 
directed to the merits of that procedure:

        The Speaker: . . . The Chair will state the rule and its proper 
    interpretation.
        Rule XIV provides as follows:

            When any Member desires to speak or deliver any matter to 
        the House, he shall . . . confine himself to the question under 
        debate, avoiding personality.

        The matter now under debate is the resolution reported out of 
    the Committee on Rules for the consideration of a bill from the 
    Committee on the Judiciary. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will 
    kindly proceed in order under the rule.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 6162.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 10464]]

Sec. 35.3 In debate on a special rule, the terms of which restrict 
    general debate upon a bill to a specified time, it is in order to 
    show by way of illustration from past experience the need for 
    limiting general debate on the bill, but such discussion may not be 
    broadened to include a reply to a speech made at some other time in 
    general debate.

    On June 20, 1935, while the House was considering a special rule 
(H. Res. 266) for consideration of a deficiency appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8554) in the Committee of the Whole, several points of order were 
made that Mr. Byron B. Harlan, of Ohio, was indulging in general debate 
rather than specific debate on the special rule.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 9783, 9784, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled that Mr. Harlan must 
confine himself to the resolution before the House and not discuss 
extraneous matters. After some intervening debate, the Speaker asked 
Mr. Harlan to suspend his debate for a comment from the Chair:

        . . . It has always been the custom heretofore in discussing 
    resolutions making in order matters of legislation for Members to 
    be rather liberal in their discussions and not necessarily to 
    confine themselves to the pending resolution.
        The Chair thinks that discussion on these rules should not be 
    too narrowly restricted. Of course, under the precedents, a Member 
    must confine himself to the subject of debate when objection is 
    raised. The pending resolution is one which undertakes to limit 
    general debate upon the deficiency bill to 2 hours and to confine 
    the debate to the bill itself. The Chair thinks it is entirely too 
    narrow a construction to undertake to hold a Member, in discussing 
    the resolution either pro or con, to the simple question of whether 
    or not the rule should be adopted, and that it is entirely 
    legitimate discussion for a Member who is undertaking to uphold the 
    rule and to justify confining debate to the bill to cite as 
    illustrations what has occurred in previous discussions. The Chair 
    does not think a Member, in using such illustrations, is justified 
    in answering a speech that has been made upon a previous occasion. 
    However, the Chair repeats that the Chair does think it is 
    perfectly legitimate for a Member who is undertaking to justify the 
    rule to refer to experiences on previous occasions where the debate 
    was not limited to the bill, and the Chair hopes that the gentleman 
    from Ohio will proceed in order.

Debate on Special Order for Consideration of Bill

Sec. 35.4 While under clause 1 of Rule XIV, debate in the House is 
    confined to the question under debate, debate on a special rule re

[[Page 10465]]

    ported from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration 
    of a bill may range to the merits of the bill proposed to be 
    considered.

    On Sept. 26, 1989,(17) during consideration of House 
Resolution 245 (providing for consideration of H.R. 3299, the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989) in the House, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 135 Cong. Rec. 21530, 21532, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Butler] Derrick [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 245 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 245

            Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
        resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
        XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
        the bill (H.R. 3299) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
        section 5 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for the 
        fiscal year 1990. . . .

        Mr. [James A.] Traficant [Jr., of Ohio]: . . . Now, in this 
    package that we are discussing today, there is a capital gains cut 
    proposal being bandied around. Here are the statistics I have, and 
    if I am wrong, I would be glad to be corrected. If you are a family 
    of four and you earn $25,000 your tax break will be $15.

        Mr. [Clifford B.] Stearns [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    point of parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        My question, Mr. Speaker, is this: Is this debate relative to 
    the rule?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The House is presently 
    debating the resolution from the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stearns: And, Mr. Speaker, this particular debate by this 
    distinguished gentleman is relevant to the rule?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The debate on the rule can go beyond 
    the language of the resolution and the rule proposed to the merits 
    of the legislation which will be considered by the rule.

Sec. 35.5 Debate on a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules 
    authorizing the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules 
    on the current calendar day should be confined to that proposal; 
    while it is permissible during debate on such rule to discuss the 
    priority of business and the importance of bills that would not be 
    scheduled for consideration under the rule, it is not permissible 
    to discuss the substance of such bills on the merits.

    On Sept. 27, 1990,(19) the House was considering a 
resolution (20)

[[Page 10466]]

permitting motions to suspend the rules on that calendar day. A bill 
that would not be scheduled for consideration under the proposed rule 
was discussed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 136 Cong. Rec. 26226, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H. Res. 479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . I am sure the 
    chairman of the Judiciary Committee is speaking from the standpoint 
    of this caucus when he says that he has a tough crime bill, but one 
    of our concerns was that, for instance, in that bill that someone 
    who blew up an airplane that contained 300 people would not be 
    eligible for the death penalty. That would not be an option allowed 
    to the jury under Federal law in the bill that 
    he brought forward to us. We regard that as maybe being not quite 
    tough enough.
        There are concerns [about] the business of applying racial 
    quotas to a death penalty consideration that is in the gentleman's 
    bill. There are many people who feel that racial quota portion 
    will, in fact, negate the ability of juries to deal meaningfully 
    with death penalty decisions. . . .
        I simply would say that we have to have a rule on the House 
    floor that allows us to get real votes on some of these meaningful 
    issues. . . .
        Mr. [James A.] Hayes of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I thought that 
    we were discussing the rule on the suspensions. Now we have got 
    into discussing the content of the crime bill. I think it is 
    completely out of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman is 
    correct. The debate should proceed on the matter before the House, 
    and that is the rule proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    on the suspensions. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Terry L. Bruce (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] McCollum [of Florida]: . . . I totally agree with 
    the gentleman. The issue is this rule. The issue is on the question 
    of the consideration of all these suspensions today, instead of 
    considering the crime bill, instead of considering something that 
    could have been out here much earlier than it is apparently going 
    to be, not the substance of the work of the gentleman from Texas. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Craig A.] Washington [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker I raise a 
    point of order that the gentleman is not discussing the matter up 
    for discussion on the floor.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the Members, 
    that in the Chair's opinion discussing the priority of business is 
    probably within the confines of the resolution called up by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts, but when debate ranges into the 
    merits of the relative bills not yet before the House, the Chair 
    would admonish the Members that that probably goes beyond the 
    resolution offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Role of Chair in Enforcing Relevancy

Sec. 35.6 The Chair does not take the initiative to enforce the rule of 
    relevance in debate but does enforce the rule when a point of order 
    based thereon is made.

    On Sept. 27, 1990,(2) during consideration of a special 
rule author

[[Page 10467]]

izing the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on that 
calendar day, substantive issues relating to bills that would not be 
scheduled for consideration under the rule were discussed during debate 
on the rule.(3) The Chair indicated that the rule of 
relevance in debate is enforced ``where that point of order is made:''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 136 Cong. Rec. 26226, 26227, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. For further discussion of the proceedings, see Sec. 35.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] McCollum [of Florida]: . . . The issue is on the 
    question of the consideration of all these suspensions today, 
    instead of considering the crime bill, instead of considering 
    something that could have been out here much earlier than it is 
    apparently going to be. . . .
        Mr. [Craig A.] Washington [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a 
    point of order that the gentleman is not discussing the matter up 
    for discussion on the floor. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, since we are suspending all of the rules of the 
    House at the Speaker's discretion under this bill, is it not 
    appropriate to discuss matters that the Speaker might decide to 
    suspend the rules on this day? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) . . . [O]nce the House 
    gets into debating the content of the legislation that might be 
    brought before the House, the Chair would admonish Members they 
    have gone beyond the confines of the motion made by the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Terry L. Bruce (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: . . . [I]n discussing suspending all of the rules 
    of the House . . . for the rest of this day, it seems to us there 
    are matters of content involved. Is the Chair suggesting we cannot 
    discuss matters of content of things that might be suspended under 
    the rules?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would admonish the Members 
    that they are not allowed to discuss the merits of matters not 
    pending before the House where that point of order is made. The 
    pending business before the House is the resolution offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts, to adopt the rule reported by the 
    Committee on Rules.
        That is what is before the House.

Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 35.7 Where a Member was addressing the House on a motion to strike 
    out the last word and consent was granted to him to proceed for an 
    additional time, the Speaker held that he must confine his remarks 
    to the bill under consideration where objection was made, 
    notwithstanding that in his original time he had not been 
    proceeding in order.

    On June 15, 1935,(5) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, 
arose to

[[Page 10468]]

state a parliamentary inquiry where the House was considering a bill by 
unanimous consent in the House as in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 79 Cong. Rec. 9383, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Where a Member is speaking on the floor, out of order, under a 
    motion to strike out the last word, and it is clearly apparent to 
    every person present that his speech is out of order, and another 
    Member . . . from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] . . . asks that he be 
    permitted to proceed for 15 minutes so that he may have time to 
    examine his records, when it is generally understood that the whole 
    speech is out of order, and the unanimous consent for such 15 
    additional minutes is granted by the House, is the Member precluded 
    from so using his 15 minutes? I submit that it was generally 
    understood that the extra 15 minutes granted by the House were to 
    be used out of order.

    Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:

        The Chair will state to the gentleman from Mississippi, that 
    the gentleman, of course, is familiar with the rules, and knows how 
    consent may be obtained to speak out of order. The gentleman from 
    Mississippi did not submit his request in that form. The gentleman 
    made reference to some records that the gentleman from New 
    Hampshire was searching for at the time. Consent was given to 
    proceed for 15 minutes. When a Member of the House exercises his 
    privilege and makes the point of order that the gentleman is 
    proceeding out of order when consent has not been given, there is 
    no alternative and the Chair must rule that the point of order is 
    well taken and ask the gentleman speaking to confine himself to the 
    matter before the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker had previously advised that in 
order to obtain permission to deliver remarks unrelated to the pending 
question, a Member must specifically request unanimous consent to 
``speak out of order.''

During Morning Hour Call of Committees

Sec. 35.8 Debate in the House during the morning hour call of 
    committees must be confined to the pending matter under 
    consideration.

    On June 12, 1933,(6) during the morning hour call of 
committees, the Committee on the Judiciary was called and Mr. Gordon 
Browning, of Tennessee, called up a bill to establish a Tennessee 
judicial district. Mr. Edward W. Goss, of Connecticut, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry: ``Do I understand this time is allotted for 
general debate, or is the debate confined to the bill, under the 
rule?'' Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, ruled that ``In the 
House, de

[[Page 10469]]

bate must be confined to the bill under consideration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 77 Cong. Rec. 5816, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on Impeachment Charges

Sec. 35.9 In presenting impeachment charges a Member is not confined to 
    a bare statement of the charges but may supplement them with 
    argumentative statements.

    On May 7, 1935,(7) Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, 
rose in order to prefer charges of impeachment against Federal Judge 
Samuel Alschuler. During Mr. Dirksen's address, in which he stated his 
personal opinion of the judge in question and of other federal judges, 
Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, arose to state:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 79 Cong. Rec. 7081, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I am not familiar with the precedents, but I have the 
    impression that in preferring charges of impeachment, argumentative 
    statements should be avoided as much as possible. If I am wrong in 
    that statement with reference to what the precedents and custom 
    have established, I of course withdraw the 
    observation.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 7085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Dirksen stated that he had no desire to violate the precedents 
but stated that there were two additional pages of explanatory matter 
which he desired either to state to the House or to insert into the 
Record to elaborate the statement of specific charges that had been 
made. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled:

        The Chair thinks it is entirely up to the gentleman from 
    Illinois so far as the propriety of his statement is 
    concerned.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on Jan. 14, 1936, Mr. Robert A. Green, of Florida, arose 
to present impeachment charges against Federal Judge Halsted L. 
Ritter.(10) Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, rose to state a 
point of order that Mr. Green was presenting argumentative and personal 
statements, after Mr. Green had delivered the following remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 404, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I am vitally interested in this investigation for two 
    important reasons: First, from a careful study of the evidence I am 
    convinced that Judge Ritter is an ignorant, unjust, tyrannical, and 
    corrupt judge; that a majority of the people in his district have 
    the same convictions that I have; that confidence in him and his 
    court is lacking; that his usefulness as a judge of the southern 
    district of Florida has long since come to an end. Second, a large 
    portion of the district over which Judge Ritter presides is in my 
    congressional district, and my people demand and feel that they are 
    entitled to a judge learned in the law and one who has dignity, 
    honor, and integrity.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 405, 406.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 10470]]

    Speaker Byrns ruled that Mr. Green was entitled to one hour's 
debate on the charges and that he could use all or any portion of the 
hour as he saw fit, including a general discussion of the charges.

Sec. 35.10 In debating articles of impeachment a Member may refer to 
    the political, social, and family background of the accused.

    On Mar. 2, 1936, Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, called up for 
consideration House Resolution 422 presenting articles of impeachment 
against Federal Judge Ritter.(12) Extensive debate ensued on 
the resolution, and Mr. Louis Ludlow, of Indiana, arose to present 
himself as a ``character witness'' on behalf of Judge Ritter. He began 
to discuss the family background of the accused and the ``outstanding 
character and personality'' of the accused's father.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 80 Cong. Rec. 3066, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, arose to state the point of 
order that Mr. Ludlow was ``endeavoring to read into the Record a 
statement with regard to the progenitors of the gentleman against whom 
these impeachment proceedings are pending.'' Mr. Tarver stated that 
such matters were not properly to be considered by the House and should 
not be discussed.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 3069, 3070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled that within the four 
and one-half hours of debate provided for on the resolution, Members 
could address themselves to any subject relating to the articles of 
impeachment and the accused.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 3069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electing Member to Committee

Sec. 35.11 During debate on the election of a Member to a standing 
    committee, it is beyond the scope of permissible debate to indulge 
    in personal attacks against the nominated Member or to address the 
    possible future agenda of the committee, but should relate to the 
    qualifications of the Member to serve on the committee.

    On July 10, 1995,(15) the House had under consideration 
a resolution to elect a Member to a standing committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Boehner [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 
    183) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page 10471]]

                                H. Res. 183

            Resolved, that the following named Member be, and he is 
        hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the 
        House of Representatives:
            Committee on Ways and Means: Mr. Laughlin of Texas, to rank 
        following Mr. Portman of Ohio. . . .

        Mr. Boehner: . . . Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Republican 
    Conference, I am pleased to welcome the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
    Greg Laughlin, to our party. Mr. Laughlin saw fit several weeks ago 
    to change parties here in the House of Representatives, and we are 
    glad to have him on our side of the aisle.
        As a result, about a week and a half ago, the Republican 
    conference did 
    in fact vote by unanimous vote to place the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Laughlin] on the Committee on Ways and Means. To my colleagues 
    on the other side of the aisle who appear to have some chagrin over 
    the fact we are placing Mr. Laughlin on the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, I would point out that today Republicans hold about 58 
    percent of the seats on the Committee on Ways and Means. It has 
    been since 1923 that the majority party has had less than 60 
    percent of the votes on the Committee on Ways and Means. 
    Historically, that percentage has been a 60 to 40 split between the 
    majority and minority on the Committee on Ways and Means. . . .
        Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I 
    would like to respond to the case that the distinguished gentleman 
    from Ohio has made on behalf of the Republican side. I would like 
    to respond to both what is happening here procedurally and what is 
    happening substantively.
        First, the procedure: The gentleman is correct in saying that 
    in past Congresses there has been a desire on the part of the 
    majority party on certain key committees to have a larger ratio 
    than the ratio represented by the members of the House. Many times 
    in the past, we have had 60 percent, as Democrats on the Committee 
    on Ways and Means and on the Committee on Rules. But I would point 
    out that in all of those times, the ratio that the Democrats 
    represented in the House was higher than the 53 percent that the 
    Republicans now represent as part of the House. . . .
        Let me talk about the substance. What I think is really going 
    on here is an attempt, as was pointed out in the Washington Times 
    on Friday, June 30, 1995, to add a Republican member of senior 
    status to shield freshman Republicans from having to vote for deep, 
    deep cuts in Medicare.
        I quote, ``Mr. Laughlin likely will provide support for 
    potentially unpopular reductions in Medicare benefits, should GOP 
    leaders give three committee freshmen, all of whom won with less 
    than 51 percent of the vote, permission to vote `no.' ''
        My colleagues, what is about to happen in Medicare are the 
    largest changes to Medicare in the history of the program. If the 
    hints we are reading in the weekend press are right, we are talking 
    about huge increases in the premiums for Medicare recipients. If 
    that is what is going on here, a stacking of the committee in order 
    to make sure those cuts go through, then this is substantively 
    wrong. If Members on your side of the aisle believe in these kinds 
    of changes in Medicare, everybody should vote for it. Why should we

[[Page 10472]]

    be shielding Members from voting for these kinds of cuts?
        Finally, let me tell you what I really think is going on here. 
    In reading the comments of leaders on the Republican side for some 
    time now, not just lately, I think there is an effort here to make 
    Medicare a voluntary program. I think there is an effort to get rid 
    of Medicare. I think that is what is really at stake. . . .
        Mr. Boehner: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, is it my understanding that the debate on this 
    issue should be confined to the resolution that is on the floor of 
    the House?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The rules and 
    precedents of the House would indicate that debate on the matter 
    should relate to the matter before the House. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Robert S. Walker (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David E.] Bonior [of Michigan]: . . . Mr. Speaker, let us 
    not kid ourselves this evening. This debate is about one simple 
    thing. And while we may talk about representation on the committee, 
    which, in fact, I believe has been skewed, this debate is about 
    Medicare. It is about whether or not we should cut Medicare to 
    provide tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our society. It is 
    about whether or not we should double Medicare premiums to give a 
    tax break to the wealthiest corporations in America. . . .
        Mr. Boehner: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
    gentleman is not speaking to the relevant issue at hand. I make a 
    point of order that the gentleman in the well, the minority whip, 
    is not talking to the relevant issue at hand that is in the debate 
    today. The issue is the seating of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Laughlin] on the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman 
    proceeded, as others before him have, to talk about the issue of 
    Medicare, which is not the subject of debate. As I understand the 
    rules of the House, the gentleman should be required to speak to 
    the issue that is on the floor.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman makes a point of order 
    that engaging in debate should be on the topic before the House. 
    The gentleman in the well is reminded that the debate topic before 
    the House is the resolution with regard to membership on the 
    committee and debate should be confined to that subject matter.
        Mr. Bonior: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Members that the 
    members who serve on that committee will determine that fate of 
    literally 40 million Americans on Medicare. There is no way you can 
    divide or divorce the issue of who sits on that committee and the 
    issue of what tax breaks are given, what tax breaks are taken away, 
    what Medicare benefits are given, what Medicare benefits are taken 
    away, what Medicaid benefits are given, what Medicaid benefits are 
    taken away. They are bound together. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is requested by the 
    Chair to proceed in order.
        Mr. Bonior: As this Washington Times article points out, ``Mr. 
    Laughlin will provide support for potentially unpopular reductions 
    in Medicare benefits, should the GOP leaders give three committee 
    freshmen, all of whom won with less than 51 percent of vote, per

[[Page 10473]]

    mission to vote no.'' Which raises the question, what will Mr. 
    Laughlin do on this committee? Will he cover for these three 
    freshmen? It is an interesting question. Mr. Laughlin ought to tell 
    the American people. He ought to tell the people of the district 
    what are his intentions with respect to Medicare, if he is going to 
    serve as a member of this committee.

                               point of order

        Mr. Boehner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Boehner: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
    gentleman in the well is questioning the motives of the gentleman 
    that is in question on the resolution appointing him to the 
    committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman at this point has not 
    named any member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman 
    is reminded, however, that he has an obligation to the rules of the 
    House to proceed in order. . . .
        Mr. Bonior: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the 
    Speaker then. The question is this, how does the Speaker intend to 
    separate those who serve on the committee from the jurisdiction 
    which they have on that committee? What is the dividing line? Would 
    the Chair give a ruling to this Member on where the dividing line 
    is?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The resolution before the House is on 
    the election of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] to the 
    committee. The subject matter before the House is not what he plans 
    to do once he joins the committee. The gentleman will confine 
    himself to the issue before the House. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Hayworth [Jr., of Arizona]: . . . Mr. Speaker, it 
    is absolutely fascinating to listen to the guardians of the old 
    order, the new minority, espouse a form of institutional amnesia. I 
    may not have been here in previous Congresses, but thanks to C-SPAN 
    and thanks to the history books, we can take a look and we can see 
    what happened time and again in this Chamber. Debate was shut up. 
    People were stifled. We had a decision that existed that was 
    egregious.

                               point of order

        Mr. Bonior: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman is not 
    talking about the resolution and he is off the issue.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
    Hayworth] must confine himself to the subject matter of the 
    resolution before the House. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Paxon [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats 
    give a big tax liberal a seat on the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    they call it good government. However, when Republicans give a 
    smaller tax, smaller government conservative a seat on the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, the Democrats say something is wrong 
    with that. The truth is today's debate has nothing to do at all 
    with selling out or with Medicare or anything else. It has to do 
    with sour grapes.
        For years the Democrats' liberal leadership has used 
    conservatives. They have promised them seats on important 
    committees, like the Com

[[Page 10474]]

    mittee on Ways and Means, but when it came time to deliver, it was 
    not done.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Barney] Frank of Massachusetts: Point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker. My point of order is that unless the Speaker has taken the 
    words of the gentleman from Michigan to heart, that violates the 
    subject of the Speaker's previous instructions, Mr. Speaker. It is 
    off the point of the issue of appointing the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Laughlin].
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Paxon] is reminded he must proceed in order.
        Mr. Paxon: Mr. Speaker, the truth about this whole committee's 
    assignment brouhaha brought up by our friends across the aisle is 
    that the liberal leadership wants conservative bodies in their 
    caucus but does not want to deliver for them on this House floor. 
    Now they are angry that the gentleman from Texas, Greg Laughlin, 
    the gentleman from Georgia, Nathan Deal, Richard Shelby, Senator 
    Campbell, and about 100 State and local Democrats have switched 
    parties. That is what this debate is about here.

                               point of order

        Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. This 
    clearly violates the spirit of the Speaker's previous instructions. 
    I would like to be clear that unless we are going to have one test 
    of rules for this party and another set of rules for the other, 
    that clearly violates what the gentleman stated to the gentleman 
    from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair had reminded Members on both 
    sides of the aisle when the question has been raised that they are 
    to proceed in order. The Chair would continue to say to both sides 
    of the aisle in fairness that they must proceed in order on the 
    resolution. The subject matter under discussion is the election of 
    the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] on the Committee on Ways 
    and Means. That should be the subject of the discussion on the 
    floor.

Resignation From Committee

Sec. 35.12 In response to parliamentary inquiries, the Speaker 
    indicated that the question of whether a Member should be relieved 
    from committee service was debatable only within narrow limits and 
    that the Chair would take the initiative in enforcing that 
    restriction.

    On June 16, 1975,(17) after the Speaker (18) 
laid before the House a letter of resignation from the chairman of the 
Select Committee on Intelligence, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 19054, 19056, 19059, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker laid before the House the [resignation of Mr. 
    Lucien N. Nedzi, of Michigan] from the House Select Committee on 
    Intelligence. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is, shall the resignation be 
    accepted?

[[Page 10475]]

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Nedzi). . 
    . .
        Mr. Nedzi: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara).
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, before 
    proceeding, I wonder if I could address to the Chair a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the precedents and I 
    am somewhat uncertain as to the proper scope of the debate on such 
    a question. I would hope that the Chair could enlighten this 
    gentleman and the House.
        The Speaker: . . . The Chair will state that rule XIV, clause 
    1, requires that a Member confine himself to the question under 
    debate in the House, avoiding personalities. On January 29, 1855, 
    as cited in section 4510 of volume 4, Hinds' Precedents, Speaker 
    Boyd held that the request of a Member that he be excused from 
    committee service was debatable only within very narrow limits.
        The Chair trusts that debate on the pending question will be 
    confined within the spirit of that ruling and the Chair will 
    further state that he will strictly enforce the rule as to the 
    relevancy of debate. . . .
        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: . . . Under the germaneness test 
    that the Speaker recited at the commencement of this discussion did 
    the Speaker contemplate that on his own volition and initiative 
    that he would raise the question of germaneness; or must that 
    question of germaneness be raised by someone on the floor? . . .
        Does the Speaker [intend] to question the germaneness when in 
    his mind it appears to be nongermane?
        The Speaker: The Chair has so stated, and the Chair so intends.

Disciplinary Resolution

Sec. 35.13 Debate on a resolution reprimanding a Member is confined to 
    the official conduct of that Member and may not extend to the 
    conduct or criminal convictions of other Members or former Members.

    During consideration of House Resolution 1414 in the House on Oct. 
13, 1978,(19) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 36976-81, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 1414) and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1414

            Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the 
        report by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated 
        October 6, 1978, in the matter of Representative Charles H. 
        Wilson of California.

        The Speaker: (20) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Georgia (Mr. Flynt) for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flynt: . . . Mr. Speaker, in early 1977 . . . the House 
    directed the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to . . . 
    conduct a ``full and

[[Page 10476]]

    complete inquiry and investigation to determine whether Members of 
    the House of Representatives . . . accepted anything of value . . . 
    from the Government of the Republic of Korea or representatives 
    thereof.''. . .
        This violation charged against my colleague and my friend, 
    Charles H. Wilson of California, is that he acted 
    in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the House of 
    Representatives, in that he made a statement in writing to the 
    committee in response to a questionnaire, whether he had received 
    anything of value over $100 from Tongsun Park.
        When Mr. Wilson responded, he said that he had not. 
    Subsequently, he told the committee . . . that he had previously 
    received a wedding gift, on the occasion of his marriage in the 
    Republic of Korea, from Tongsun Park. . . .
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: . . . I have already 
    informed the House of my decision not to contest the committee's 
    recommendation that acceptance of its report shall constitute a 
    reprimand. . . .
        My decision was extraordinarily difficult for several reasons. 
    My action may be considered by some as an admission of guilt. This 
    is not the case. I assure you that I now believe, as I have 
    throughout, that I am innocent. I freely admit that my wife and I 
    received a cash wedding present from Tongsun Park. But there was 
    nothing improper in this. The committee itself has found that the 
    receipt of that present violates no statute or rule of this House. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Caputo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I respect the 
    right of everyone to feel differently about this matter; but some 
    of us went to Korea to hear Tongsun Park. I do not know if you had 
    a chance to read his testimony. I gather a lot of you did not. He 
    testified that he made $850,000 in payments to some 34 Members of 
    the House and the Senate. A lot of them are no longer Members of 
    the House. Some of them are Members of the Senate. That is why all 
    are not here today facing charges.
        Second, a former Member of the House was indicted and 
    convicted. Let me read to you from his conviction:

            It was further part of said conspiracy that Tongsun Park, 
        with knowledge and under the direction of the Korean Central 
        Intelligence Agency, would corruptly provide money to various 
        Members of the Congress and the Senate.

        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Sisk: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
    gentleman is not speaking on the subject under consideration. At 
    the present time we are hearing a situation in connection with our 
    colleague from California (Mr. Charles H. Wilson). We are not 
    discussing the whole Korean episode from start to finish.
        I think the gentleman is talking out of line in connection with 
    something he is raising. I do not think he is in order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will speak on the subject matter 
    before us, which is House Resolution 1414, concerning Mr. Charles 
    H. Wilson of California.

Sec. 35.14 No point of order lies, during debate on a discipli

[[Page 10477]]

    nary resolution (of censure) reported from the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct, against discussion of evidence 
    allegedly not presented before the Committee, as the Chair can only 
    rule on the basis of relevancy in debate, and not on the 
    admissibility of evidence which is related to the charges on which 
    censure is based.

    On May 29, 1980,(1) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House during consideration of 
a privileged resolution reported from the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct (censuring Charles H. Wilson):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 12661, 12662, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Floyd] Spence [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 
    minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
        (Mr. Thomas asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
    his remarks.)
        Mr. [William M.] Thomas [of California]: . . . In addition to 
    the sources the committee chairman mentioned located in the 
    committee report, I have recently been able to obtain a candidate's 
    campaign statement from the secretary of state of California, a 
    statement that was required to be filed for primary elections and 
    for general and special elections. I have before me this statement:

            I, Charles H. Wilson, hereby state that at the general 
        election held on the 3rd day of November, 1970, I was a 
        candidate for election to the office of: United States House of 
        Representatives, and that all moneys paid, loaned, contributed, 
        or otherwise furnished to me, directly or indirectly, . . . 
        were, . . . as follows: . . .

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: . . . [A] point of order, 
    Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I believe all we are supposed to be examining here 
    is the record that was developed by the committee. I did not object 
    when the gentleman from Wyoming (Mr. Cheney) brought in matters 
    that were not in the record, but now the gentleman is going outside 
    the action of the committee and presenting to this body evidence 
    that was not presented before the committee, evidence that was 
    apparently obtained by him independent of the committee's 
    recommendation.
        It is my assumption that Mr. Wilson has to defend against the 
    record that was sent here by the committee. Now, if we have to 
    defend against anything that anyone else wants to bring in, that is 
    another matter.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Chair does not 
    believe that the gentleman is stating a point of order 
    specifically. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Robert A. Roe (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is against 
    the gentleman's introducing evidence here that was not introduced 
    before the committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would rule on the 
    gentleman's point of order by saying that the only test of the 
    debate on the issues is the

[[Page 10478]]

    relevancy of the matter presented. . . .
        Mr. [William L.] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Clay: Mr. Speaker, is it correct that we are supposedly 
    deliberating on charges against one, Charles H. Wilson, that took 
    place in 1971 and 1972? And, if so, what bearing on that does a 
    record from 1970 have?
        That is the record the gentleman is quoting from, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, may I answer that question?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Yes, the gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, the loan of $10,000 was made July 31, 
    1970. It was stated in the committee that that loan was 
    reimbursement for campaign expenses. I am quoting from a November 
    1970 document filed with the secretary of state of California which 
    indicates no moneys whatsoever were expended on the basis of that 
    loan. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the dollar amounts indicate in fact in the primary 
    and in the general election there was a campaign surplus. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the Chair may address the point of 
    order, as far as the Chair is concerned, the Chair observes that 
    the dialog that is taking place in the colloquy relates to the 
    subject matter that is before the House, and the Chair thinks that 
    it may unfold as the gentleman in the well is presenting it. The 
    Chair sees no valid reason for a point of order at this point.
        Mr. Clay: Mr. Speaker, if I may proceed with my point of order, 
    this committee has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for 
    investigators and attorneys. They spent 18 months investigating 
    this case and did not present this at the hearing or at the trial 
    of Charles H. Wilson.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will suspend.
        The Chair observes that this is a very vitally important 
    matter. The Chair feels that there are 350 to 400 pages in this 
    committee report alone, plus all kinds of other background data.
        The Chair does not feel that it has the prerogative of judging 
    specifically other than general relevancy.
        The Chair overrules the point of order, and the gentleman in 
    the well will proceed.

Sec. 35.15 Debate on a resolution recommending a disciplinary sanction 
    against a Member may not exceed the scope of the conduct of the 
    accused Member.

    On Dec. 18, 1987,(3) during consideration of a 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 335, disciplining a Member) in the 
House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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:

[[Page 10479]]

                                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. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Dixon] is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Doug McCurdy (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I commend the 
    committee for its report and its recommendation. Given the facts, a 
    reprimand is a reasonable recommendation and I will vote ``yes'' 
    but I sympathize with the plight of Mr. Murphy. We must be careful 
    not to make a scapegoat of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        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. . . .
        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 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.
        Mr. Robinson: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker. To my knowledge, these charges are not before the 
    committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Georgia will 
    proceed in order.

Sec. 35.16 Debate on a motion to postpone, whether when first offered 
    or when reconsid

[[Page 10480]]

    ered, must be confined to the advisability of postponement and may 
    not go to the merits of the main proposition.

    During consideration of House Resolution 660 (in the matter of 
Representative Charles H. Wilson) in the House on May 29, 
1980,(5) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 126 Cong. Rec. 12663-65, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I was in 
    the House when the previous speaker got in the well and evidently 
    brought in material which was not in the record before the 
    committee, which in my judgment means there has been surprise to 
    the defense in this case in the fact that the gentleman brought up 
    evidence, which is a document from the State of California. . . .
        I did vote on the prevailing side not to postpone. I would not 
    have voted not to postpone, except for this what I 
    consider to be a very unfair procedure. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote to postpone. . . .
        The Speaker: (6) Does the gentleman have the motion 
    in writing?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ertel moves that the House reconsider the vote on the 
        motion to postpone to a day certain. . . .

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by Mr. Ertel 
    to reconsider the vote on the motion offered by Mr. Rousselot to 
    postpone consideration. . . .
        So the motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to postpone 
    was agreed to. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) to postpone to June 10.
        Mr. [Wyche] Fowler [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I would like 
    to ask unanimous consent from this body for 10 minutes, to be 
    equally divided between the opposition and the majority party, to 
    debate the motion now before us by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Rousselot). . . .
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the 10 minutes' debate?
        The Chair hears none.
        Mr. Fowler: Mr. Speaker, I have been permitted by my chairman 
    of the committee to say to the body that we were willing, able, and 
    prepared to stand on the report, the recommendations of our 
    committee to this body on the matter of Charles H. Wilson. We were 
    surprised today by the document introduced by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Thomas). No other member of the committee had seen 
    it. Mr. Charles H. Wilson had not seen it. We did not know that it 
    was going to be introduced, and I would like to ask and would yield 
    to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) to ask him if he 
    would request unanimous consent to strike from the Record that 
    testimony in order to lay on the table.
        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. 
    . . .
        I assume that the rules for debate of this 10 minutes are 
    controlled by the

[[Page 10481]]

    House rules, as was the original debate on the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from California, and that limits it to the question 
    of delaying this matter, and not the merits of the case.
        The Speaker: Under the unanimous-consent request the gentleman 
    is within his rights, the debate is on the advisability of 
    postponement.

Speaker's Reluctance To Rule in Advance on Relevancy

Sec. 35.17 Where a special order provided that one hour out of four 
    hours of debate on conference reports considered en bloc be 
    confined 
    to one of the reports, the Speaker declined in advance of the 
    debate to discuss the scope of relevancy during the designated 
    hour, but stated he would rule on any points of order made during 
    such debate.

    On Oct. 14, 1978,(7) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 124 Cong. Rec. 38349, 38350, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    House Resolution 1434, I call up the conference reports on the 
    bills [H.R. 4018, Public Utility Rates; H.R. 5037, Energy 
    Conservation; H.R. 5146, Coal Conversion; H.R. 5289, Natural Gas 
    Policy; and H.R. 5263, Energy Tax].
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) Pursuant to House 
    Resolution 1434, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) will be 
    recognized for 2 hours and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Anderson) will be recognized for 2 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) 
    and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) for 30 minutes to 
    debate the conference report on H.R. 5289. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: May I . . . inquire of 
    the Chair whether the first hour of debate is to be directed to the 
    natural gas conference report and not to the other four conference 
    reports?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Only to the natural gas conference report?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Would it be out of order to discuss the other parts 
    during that time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman that the Chair would have to rule as points along that 
    line are brought to the attention of the Chair.

Motion To Postpone

Sec. 35.18 Debate on a motion to postpone must be confined to the issue 
    of the desirability of postponement, and may not go to the merits 
    of the main proposition.

    During consideration of a privileged resolution reported from the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the Speaker advised

[[Page 10482]]

the Members as to the scope of debate on a motion to postpone. The 
proceedings in the House on May 29, 1980,(9) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 126 Cong. Rec. 12649, 12650, 12652, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I call 
    up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 660) in the matter of 
    Representative Charles H. Wilson, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 660

            Resolved,
            (1) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be censured: . . 
        .

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rousselot moves to postpone further consideration of 
        House Resolution 660 until June 10, 1980.

        The Speaker: (10) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Rousselot) for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes, for the purposes 
    of debate only, to my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Bethune).
        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
    gentleman for yielding this time to me.
        Mr. Speaker, during the course of the committee hearings one of 
    the critical arguments that was made by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Charles H. Wilson) was that the committee was 
    acting as investigator, prosecutor, grand juror----
        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House 
    the debate must be confined to the question of the postponement and 
    not to any of the matters involving the matter being postponed.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        The Chair would like to advise the Members that a motion to 
    postpone to a day certain is debatable within very narrow limits 
    only. Under the precedents of the House, the motion is debatable 
    only as to the desirability of postponing consideration of this 
    resolution to June 10, and it does not admit debate on the merits 
    of the pending proposition.

Debate as Legislative History

Sec. 35.19 A Member's allegation that debate between two other Members 
    was an improper attempt to establish legislative history on a 
    pending motion in the House was held not to constitute a proper 
    point of order or parliamentary inquiry.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Dec. 2, 
1982,(11) during consideration of

[[Page 10483]]

H.R. 2330 (Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorization):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 128 Cong. Rec. 28552, 28559, 28560, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) Pursuant to clause 4, 
    rule XXVIII, a motion to reject section 23 of the conference report 
    having been adopted, the conference report is considered as 
    rejected and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) is recognized 
    to offer an amendment consisting of the remainder of the conference 
    report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    clause 4, rule XXVIII, and the action of the House, I move that the 
    House recede from its disagreement and concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment which I send to the desk.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Udall moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        Senate amendment with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, insert the 
        following: . . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Is it correct that the 
    Commission's existing uranium mill tailings licensing requirements 
    would then automatically go into effect, without constraints 
    related to possible inconsistencies with proposed EPA standards?
        Mr. Udall: Yes, that is correct. The applicability of NRC's 
    existing standards in total would not be left in doubt by any 
    provisions of the amendment.
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        Are the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Arizona 
    establishing statutory legislation with these colloquies? They are 
    giving to the EPA something that it does not have under the 
    statutory law, or to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York fails to 
    state a point of order.
        Mr. Stratton: Well, it is a point of inquiry, Mr. Speaker. I am 
    trying to determine whether this colloquy is going to go down in 
    the law books as being the law of the land, because it certainly 
    differs to what the legislation [is] at the present time. The 
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no authority over mill tailings 
    or has any authority to direct the EPA.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is unable to respond to the 
    gentleman's inquiry. The response will have to come from the 
    gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from New 
    York that obviously we cannot with a colloquy change the law. We 
    cannot change the conference report. We can indicate what it means 
    and how it is interpreted by Members who served on it.

Debate on Special Orders

Sec. 35.20 Unanimous-consent requests to address the House for up to 
    one hour may specify the subject of the ``special order'', and the 
    occupant of the Chair during that special order may enforce the 
    rule of relevancy in debate if the special order has been permitted 
    only on that subject.

[[Page 10484]]

    Most special-order requests do not specify the subject to be 
debated, and if granted by the House the Member recognized may speak on 
any subject. Under Rule XIV, clause 1, however, if the question under 
debate has been specified by the House, the Member must confine his 
remarks to that subject. On Jan. 23, 1984,(13) a Member 
indicated the subject of special orders requested, and another Member 
asked for a ruling that the special orders be strictly limited to those 
subjects:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 130 Cong. Rec. 90-93, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that today, following legislative business and 
    any special orders heretofore entered into, the following Members 
    may be permitted to address the House, revise and extend their 
    remarks, and include extraneous material:
        Ms. Oakar, for 15 minutes;
        Mr. Annunzio, for 5 minutes;
        Mr. Gonzalez, for 30 minutes . . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) . . . Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard B. Ray (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that 
    following legislative business on the following days, these special 
    orders be allowed so that Members may revise and extend their 
    remarks, and include therein extraneous material:
        Mrs. Schroeder, to honor the prior Congressman, Mr. Rogers----
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Regular order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Speaker, may I make a point? These are 
    requests for the honoring of members who were deceased over the 
    period that we have been adjourned.
        Mr. Walker: Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
        The unanimous-consent request is simply for time, and it is not 
    supposed to include the title of what it is that is being done. . . 
    .
        Mrs. Schroeder: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is precedent for 
    restating why we want special days assigned, and several Members, 
    prior Members of this body, were deceased during this period while 
    we have been adjourned.
        Many Members would like to participate in the special orders, 
    and Members have requested certain days in advance so that we could 
    know that and send out a ``Dear Colleague'' in order to do that. . 
    . .
        The three orders dealing with that are these:
        Myself, representing the memory of Byron Rogers, which we hope 
    to do on January 30 for 60 minutes; and
        Mr. Kastenmeier and Mr. Fascell on January 31, both wanting 60 
    minutes to the memory of our deceased prior chairman, Mr. Zablocki.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentlewoman from Colorado?
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so 
    to request of the Chair whether or not these special orders will be 
    absolutely limited to those subject matters. I ask whether

[[Page 10485]]

    the Chair will rule at this point that those special orders being 
    entered into will be absolutely limited to those subject matters 
    that were suggested by the gentlewoman from Colorado.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the occupant 
    of the chair at the time would have to rule on such matters.

Motion To Amend

Sec. 35.21 Debate on a motion to amend must be confined to the subject 
    of the amendment, and may not range to the merits of a proposition 
    not included in the underlying resolution.

    On Jan. 31, 1995,(15) H. Res. 43, permitting committee 
chairmen to schedule and announce hearings, was being considered in the 
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H. Res. 43

        Resolved, That, in rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives, clause 2(g)(3) is amended to read as follows:
        ``(3) The chairman of each committee of the House (except the 
    Committee on Rules) shall make public announcement of the date, 
    place, and subject matter of any committee hearing at least one 
    week before the commencement of the hearing. If the chairman of the 
    committee determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing 
    sooner, the chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest 
    possible date. Any announcement made under this subparagraph shall 
    be promptly published in the Daily Digest and promptly entered into 
    the committee scheduling service of the House Information 
    Systems.''.

    An amendment was offered:

        Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 2, line 2, strike 
        ``If'' and all that follows through the period on page 2, line 
        5 and insert the following: ``If the chairman of the committee, 
        with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, determines 
        there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the 
        committee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being 
        present for the transaction of business, the chairman shall 
        make the announcement at the earliest possible date.''. . .

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the amendment speaks for itself. It 
    is an agreed-upon amendment. I do not know of any opposition to it. 
    At the appropriate time, if there are no other speakers on the 
    other side of the aisle, I would expect to move the previous 
    question.
        Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if he 
    has any requests for time.
        Mr. [John J.] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have 
    requests from the Members who were part 
    of the compact we struck last Friday. . . .
        Mr. [John] Bryant of Texas: Mr. Speaker, this is a rules change 
    pending

[[Page 10486]]

    before the House today that was worked out and brought to the floor 
    over a period of several days. Into this rules change was invested 
    a good deal of effort by the Republicans and by the Democrats, but 
    this is not a rules change that the public is concerned about.
        When the House of Representatives adopted its rules for the 
    104th Congress, a rules change, which the public is concerned about 
    and that had the overwhelming support of Democrats, was 
    conspicuously absent. That is a rule to prohibit the taking of 
    gifts by Members of Congress from paid lobbyists.
        Mr. [John] Linder [of Georgia]: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. 
    Regular order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) For what purpose does 
    the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William E. Barrett (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Linder: Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Bryant] is speaking to the motion before the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that debate must 
    be confined to the pending resolution.
        The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] may proceed in order.
        Mr. Bryant of Texas: Mr. Speaker, the pending resolution ought 
    to include language to say that Members of Congress cannot take 
    free meals and free vacations and free golf trips from lobbyists 
    that are paid to influence the proceedings before this House. That 
    addition to this provision could have been brought forward. It 
    ought to be brought forward.
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, regular order. The gentleman is not 
    talking in regard to a germane amendment to the issue before us 
    right now.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that the debate must be confined to the subject at hand.
        Mr. Bryant of Texas: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, if I advocate that this amendment ought to be 
    defeated unless it includes the language that I have suggested with 
    regard to prohibiting Members of Congress from taking freebies from 
    lobbyists, would I then not be talking upon the amendment at hand?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is not relevant to discuss 
    unrelated issues as a contingency on this resolution.