[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[F. Disorder in Debate]
[Â§ 40. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10523-10538]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                         E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
 
Sec. 40. In General

    Order in debate is governed by numerous rules and practices of the 
House. Proceeding in order in

[[Page 10524]]

debate means not only following all the rules and requirements for the 
conduct of business in the House or Committee of the 
Whole,(12) but also observing the principles of decorum and 
courtesy in debate. This chapter focuses on those rules and practices 
which require Members to address the House in a certain way and to 
avoid personal references or language, and which provide procedures for 
dealing with disorderly words and disorderly acts occurring in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For points of order based on specific rules governing the procedure 
        of the House, the reader is advised to consult the table of 
        contents and the index to this work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker has the authority and the responsibility to preserve 
order and decorum in debate,(13) and the Chairman has like 
power in the Committee of the Whole.(14) The House has the 
power to punish a Member for disorderly conduct in debate by way of 
censure, expulsion, or other disciplinary action.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Rule I clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 622 (1995).
            Decorum in debate is also governed by Rule XIV House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 749 (1995) and by certain provisions in 
        Jefferson's Manual (see House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 353 et 
        seq. [1995]).
14. See Rule XXIII clause 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 861 (1995).
15. See comments to U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 62 et seq. (1995). Although the House may question 
        Members for their words or action in debate, Members may not be 
        compelled to respond outside of Congress for their remarks or 
        legislative activities. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 6, clause 1 
        (see, in general, Ch. 7, supra). For conduct of Members and 
        punishment by the House, see Ch. 12, supra.
            Questions of privilege may be based upon accusations by one 
        Member against another if the charges are not made in debate on 
        the floor of the House (see Ch. 11, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the opening day of the 101st Congress, the Speaker prefaced his 
customary announcement of policies concerning such aspects of the 
legislative process as recognition for unanimous-consent requests and 
privileges of the floor with a general statement concerning decorum in 
the House, including particular adjurations against engaging in 
personalities, addressing remarks to spectators, and passing in front 
of the Member addressing the Chair.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 135 Cong. Rec. 88, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1989. See also 
        139 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993; 141 
        Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Chairman's power to maintain order in Committee of the Whole, see Ch. 
    19, supra.
Clerk maintains order before election of Speaker, see Ch. 1, supra.

[[Page 10525]]

Maintenance of order in committees, see Ch. 17, supra.
Member persisting in irrelevant debate may be required to take his 
    seat, see Sec. 37.1, supra.
Points of order generally, see Ch. 31, infra.
Questions of privilege based on conduct of Members, see Ch. 11, supra.
References to the House, its committees, and Members, see Sec. Sec. 53 
    et seq., infra.
Speaker's power to maintain order and decorum, see Ch. 6, supra.

                         Collateral References
Disorder in debate in the Senate, see Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure, 
    S. Doc. No. 101-28, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. 
    (1992)                          -------------------

Decorum in Debate

Sec. 40.1 In response to a parliamentary inquiry as to order and 
    decorum in debate, the Speaker recently having implemented a system 
    for access to audio coverage of House proceedings by the news media 
    for broadcast distribution, the Speaker advised and reminded 
    Members that (1) clause 1 of Rule XIV requires Members on seeking 
    recognition to rise, address themselves to the Chair, and confine 
    themselves to the question under debate, avoiding personality; (2) 
    Members should address their remarks only to the Chair and not to 
    other entities such as the ``press''; (3) Members should not refer 
    to or address any occupant of the galleries; and (4) Members should 
    refer to other Members in debate only in the third person, by State 
    designation.

    On June 14, 1978,(17) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 17615, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from Maryland will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this:
        On June 8, 1978, the Speaker announced to the House that audio 
    coverage of the House would be allowed and that the national radio 
    networks would be permitted to have access to the House system. At 
    that time the Chair stated and requested from the House the 
    cooperation of all parties involved to insure that the dignity and 
    the integrity of the proceedings of the House would be upheld.
        Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House, I am sure the Speaker 
    knows, include as one of the duties of the Chair to preserve order 
    and decorum. Under clause 8 of rule XIV, a prohibition forbids any 
    Member to introduce or to bring to the

[[Page 10526]]

    attention of the House or to make reference to persons in the 
    gallery, nor may the Speaker entertain a request for the suspension 
    of this rule by unanimous consent or otherwise. Clause 1 of rule 
    XIV also requires that all Members address the Chair at all times.
        The gentleman from Maryland would further state that during the 
    course of recent debate the gentleman has noted that, since the 
    audio coverage of the floor proceedings has begun, and during the 
    several months since televised proceedings have been permitted to 
    be transmitted to the office of Members that Members on a number of 
    occasions have addressed themselves to those people either viewing 
    the proceedings on television or those listening to the radio.
        My parliamentary inquiry is whether under the rules and the 
    precedents of the House the Members must confine themselves to 
    addressing the Chair without any reference to persons outside the 
    Chamber or in the galleries?
        The Speaker: The Chair appreciates the parliamentary inquiry 
    presented by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) and indeed 
    anticipated such an inquiry because the Chair appreciates the 
    talent and vast knowledge the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) 
    has as to the rules of the House and states that in no way may a 
    Member address anybody but the Chair himself, and the Chair has 
    prepared a statement to that effect.
        The Chair is prepared to respond to the parliamentary inquiry 
    put by the gentleman from Maryland.
        The gentleman from Maryland inquires into the proper manner of 
    addressing this body now that the audio coverage of floor 
    proceedings has been authorized pursuant to House Resolution 84. 
    The Chair would point out that clause I, rule XIV, of the rules of 
    the House requires a Member in seeking recognition to rise, address 
    himself to the Speaker, and on being recognized confine himself to 
    the question under debate, avoiding personality. Further, chapter 
    29, section 13.3 of Deschler's Procedure states that a Member 
    should address his remarks to the Chair and only to the Chair; it 
    is not in order for a Member to address his remarks to ``the 
    press.'' Nor is it in order in debate to refer to anyone in the 
    galleries under section 13.5 of the same chapter of Deschler's 
    Procedure. And, a Member should refer to another Member only in the 
    third person, by State designation.
        Accordingly the Chair will inform the gentleman that Members 
    should continue to address their remarks to the Speaker, or to the 
    Chair, and only to the Speaker, or to the Chair.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the Speaker for his ruling and his kind 
    words.

Sec. 40.2 During a special order eulogizing the late Congressman Brooks 
    Hays, author of a publication on order and decorum in the House 
    (``Dignity of the House''), an address delivered by Mr. Hays on the 
    subject in the 85th Congress was inserted in the Record.

    On Nov. 4, 1981,(19) Mr. Beryl F. Anthony, Jr., of 
Arkansas,

[[Page 10527]]

made the following remarks in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 26550, 26572, 26576, 26577, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House, 
    the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Bethune) is recognized for 60 
    minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: . . . I see the distinguished 
    gentleman from south Arkansas is with us today. I would yield to 
    the gentleman. . . .
        Mr. Anthony: . . . Something else that Brooks Hays did that our 
    older Members will realize and I only realized because I 
    accidentally bumped into a little book that Mr. Hays had prepared 
    and it was on the decorum that should be used in this body. . . . I 
    will insert his speech given on this floor on July 11, 1957 at this 
    point in the Record:
        There was no objection.

            Mr. Hays of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, for a number of years 
        prior to his retirement at the end of the 84th Congress, the 
        Honorable George Dondero, a distinguished Member of the House, 
        followed the practice of making a brief presentation early in 
        the first session of each Congress of some of the rules 
        supplementing the instructions that our greatly esteemed 
        Parliamentarian, Mr. Lewis Deschler, and his able assistant, 
        Colonel Roy, always give to new Members. It is a little late in 
        this session to attempt that service and I feel unequal to the 
        task, but I have been requested to present these viewpoints, 
        partly for the benefit of our new Members and partly as a 
        reminder for all of us. . . . There are some things we learn by 
        our individual experience in this body, but sometimes we have 
        to rely on our predecessors. It is in this realm of faith upon 
        those who preceded us that I point to the value of the 
        traditions and Rules of the House. There is a reason for every 
        rule we have. It is the product of our long experience in 
        parliamentary government.
            An error sometimes creeping into our speeches is to begin 
        an address, after obtaining the Speaker's recognition, ``Ladies 
        and gentlemen of the House.'' This is bad practice and actually 
        an affront to the Speaker, for when we address the Speaker we 
        address the House, and we should never add anything to this 
        significant phrase of respect, ``Mr. Speaker.'' The proper 
        beginning, of course, when we are in the Committee of the Whole 
        is ``Mr. Chairman.'' One can quickly ascertain whether it 
        should be ``Mr. Speaker'' or ``Mr. Chairman'' by looking to see 
        if the Mace is in its place. . . .
            We are admonished when any Member has the floor never to 
        walk between him and the Speaker or in front of the person 
        having the floor. Smoking in every part of the Chamber is 
        prohibited specifically . . . .
            Let me move quickly to one or two other points. It is never 
        proper to say ``you'' in addressing another Member nor should 
        his first name ever be used. It is always ``the gentleman from 
        Wyoming, the gentleman from Alabama.''
            One must always stand to object to any unanimous consent 
        request and, of course, address the Speaker before voicing the 
        objection. Anyone who wishes to interrupt a Member should 
        always rise and first address the Chair--``Mr. Speaker, will 
        the gentleman yield?''

Badges

Sec. 40.3 Clause 1 of Rule XIV, requiring Members desiring to ``speak 
    or deliver any matter to the House'' to rise and address the 
    Speaker to be recognized, proscribes, in effect,

[[Page 10528]]

    the wearing of badges by Members to communicate messages; thus, the 
    Speaker, exercising his authority to preserve order and decorum, 
    has advised Members that the wearing of badges is inappropriate 
    under the rules of the House.

    The following statement was made by the Speaker (20) 
during proceedings on Apr. 15, 1986: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 1. 132 Cong. Rec. 7525, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All Members wearing yellow badges should be advised that they 
    are inappropriate under the rules of the House.

    The badges in question urged support of military assistance to the 
Nicaraguan Contras. In recent years, some Members and staff have worn 
various badges on the floor to convey political messages to their 
colleagues and to the TV audience. Under the definition of decorum and 
debate in clause 1 of Rule XIV, a Member must first seek recognition 
and then speak his message, or use exhibits as provided in Rule XXX 
subject to approval of the House if objection is made.

Speaker's Admonition

Sec. 40.4 The Speaker admonished all Members to preserve proper decorum 
    in debate to permit Members to be heard during a series of one-
    minute speeches.

    On July 23, 1987,(2) Speaker James C. Wright, Jr., of 
Texas, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 133 Cong. Rec. 20849, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair will request the cooperation of Members 
    today in that there are a great many Members who have indicated a 
    desire to be heard under the 1-minute rule which is our period of 
    democracy here in the Chamber and during which any Member is 
    entitled to be heard.
        The Chair would ask that Members cooperate in observing the 1-
    minute rule and that other Members observe the decorum of the 
    Chamber and if they do not wish to hear what is being said, to 
    retire from the Chamber, because whoever addresses the House is 
    entitled to be heard.

Sec. 40.5 The rules which direct the Speaker to preserve order and 
    decorum in the House authorize the Chair to take necessary steps to 
    prevent or curtail disorderly outbursts by Members; thus, for 
    example, the Chair may order the microphones in the Chamber turned 
    off if being utilized by a Member, who has not been properly 
    recognized, to engage in disorderly behavior.

[[Page 10529]]

    On Mar. 16, 1988,(3) during the period for one-minute 
speeches in the House, it was demonstrated that, where a Member has 
been notified by the Chair that his debate time has expired, he is 
thereby denied further recognition in the absence of the permission of 
the House to proceed, and he has no right to further address the House 
after that time. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 134 Cong. Rec. 4079, 4084, 4085, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Dornan of California asked and was given permission to 
    address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his 
    remarks.)
        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: Mr. Speaker, and I 
    address a different Member of this Chamber from New York, because 
    you have left your chair, and Mr. Majority Whip from California, 
    you have also fled the floor. In 10 years Jim and Tony--I am not 
    using any traditional titles like ``distinguished gentleman''--Jim 
    and Tony, in 10 years I have never heard on this floor so obnoxious 
    a statement as I heard from Mr. Coelho, which means ``rabbit'' in 
    Portuguese, as ugly a statement as was just delivered. Mr. Coelho 
    said that we on our side of the aisle and those conservative 
    Democrats, particularly those representing States which border the 
    Gulf of Mexico, sold out the Contras. That is absurd . . . . Panama 
    is in chaos and Communists in Nicaragua, thanks to the liberal and 
    radical left leadership in this House are winning a major victory, 
    right now.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(4) The time of the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dornan of California: Wait a minute. On Honduran soil and 
    on Nicaraguan soil.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Dornan of California: And it was set up in this House as 
    you set up the betrayal of the Bay of Pigs.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Dornan of California: I ask--wait a minute--I ask unanimous 
    consent for 30 seconds. People are dying.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Dornan of California: People are dying.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, regular 
    order, regular order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired. 
    Will the Sergeant at Arms please turn off the microphone?
        Mr. Dornan of California:  . . . I demand a Contra vote on aid 
    to the Democratic Resistance and the freedom fighters in Central 
    America. In the name of God and liberty and decency I demand 
    another vote in this Chamber next week. . . .
        Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I was just in my office viewing the proceedings 
    here, and during one of the proceedings, when the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Dornan] was addressing the House, it was

[[Page 10530]]

    drawn to my attention that the Speaker requested that Mr. Dornan's 
    microphone be turned off, upon which Mr. Dornan's microphone was 
    turned off.
        Mr. Speaker, my inquiry of the Chair is: Under what rule does 
    the Speaker decide to gag opposite Members of the House? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is referring to Mr. Dornan. 
    He requested permission of the Chair to proceed for 1 minute, and 
    that permission was granted by the House. Mr. Dornan grossly 
    exceeded the limits and abused the privilege far in excess of 1 
    minute, and the Chair proceeded to restore order and decorum to the 
    House. . . .
        Mr. Gregg: . . . I have not heard the Chair respond to my 
    inquiry which is what ruling is the Chair referring to which allows 
    him to turn off the microphone of a Member who has the floor?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Clause 2 of rule I.
        Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that that rule be read. I 
    would ask that that rule be read, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It reads, 2. He shall preserve order 
    and decorum, and, in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct in 
    the galleries, or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        The gentlewoman from Illinois would inquire of the Chair, 
    because it was difficult occasionally to hear the rather strained 
    ruling from the Chair, when I heard the Chair read from the rule, 
    and I hope the Chair will recheck that sentence, because the Chair 
    talked about disturbances in the gallery and disturbances outside 
    the floor of the House.
        Would the Speaker reread the exact sentence that would indicate 
    why and how a microphone could be turned off of a duly elected 
    Member of the House on the floor of the House? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under rule I, clause 2--and I will 
    only read the half of it that applies, so as not to cause confusion 
    in the minds of those who appear to be confused--``He shall 
    preserve order and decorum.''
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    sentence goes on.
        Mrs. Martin of Illinois: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you have 
    been requested specifically to quote that rule that affects a 
    Member of the House on the floor, and that is not that sentence. . 
    . . The Chair is not saying that a Member of the House, is subject 
    to the same rule, even though it does not state it, as applied to 
    the gallery, will apply to Members of the House. I do not believe 
    that that can happen in an elected representative body.
        Mr. Speaker, would the Chair please quote how it affects an 
    elected Member speaking on the floor?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will read just what he read 
    before.
        ``He shall preserve order and decorum, and,--'' Then it 
    proceeds to speak about in another place.
        ``Order and decorum is not just in the halls and in the 
    galleries. The word ``and'' is followed by a comma.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Clause 4 of Rule XIV (5) is, of 
course, also

[[Page 10531]]

applicable in situations such as that described above. In pertinent 
part, that rule states: ``If any Member, in speaking or otherwise, 
transgress the rules of the House, the Speaker shall, or any Member 
may, call him to order; in which case he shall immediately sit down, 
unless permitted, on motion of another Member, to explain . . .''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 40.6 A resolution proscribing the Chair from ordering microphones 
    turned off any time a Member is speaking on the floor (not merely 
    when a Member is recognized for debate) does not give rise to a 
    question of the privileges of the House under Rule IX, since not 
    alleging a violation of any rule of the House (an outburst or 
    demonstration occurring beyond recognition for debate time not 
    being a ``proceeding'' of the House); similarly, while a Member may 
    as a question of personal privilege be recognized to complain about 
    an abuse of House rules as applied to debate in which he was 
    properly participating, he may not raise a question of personal 
    privilege merely to complain that microphones had been ordered 
    turned off during disorderly conduct during a period in which he 
    had not been recognized.

    On Mar. 16, 1988,(6) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 134 Cong. Rec. 4085, 4086, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    question of a privilege of the House under rule IX. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Clerk will report 
    the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The proceedings on which the resolution was based are discussed in 
        Sec. 40.5, supra. For subsequent proceedings, see Sec. 40.10, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Whereas, the Speaker pro tempore ordered the microphone cut 
        off as a duly-elected Member of the House was speaking; Be it 
        therefore
            Resolved, That the Speaker, Speaker pro tempore, or any 
        Member of the House as the Presiding Officer of the House of 
        Representatives may not order the microphone to be cut off 
        while any Member is speaking on the floor of the House of 
        Representatives. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The resolution does not allege an 
    abuse of the House rules, and is not a question of privilege.
        The House will proceed to the unfinished business. . . .
        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: Mr. Speaker, I take a 
    point of personal privilege . . . . It is my understanding . . . 
    that my microphones

[[Page 10532]]

    were not cut off on the House floor, that the microphones were only 
    cut off to my home in Garden Grove where my wife was watching and 
    to all people observing these proceedings through the national 
    technical means of these six cameras on this Chamber.
        My point of personal privilege is that I was offended as a 
    Member by having my words cut off going to the outside world 
    through the electronic means that this House voted for--not 
    unanimously--voted for in this Chamber.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has already just previously 
    stated that his directions were to the House microphones and not to 
    the electronic microphones.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As noted above, clause 9(b)(1) of Rule I, 
which requires complete and unedited broadcast coverage of the 
proceedings of the House, does not require in-House microphone 
amplification of disorderly conduct by a Member following expiration of 
his recognition for debate. It is also arguable whether clause 9(b)(1) 
applies to disorderly debate or demonstrations, since these should not 
be construed to be ``proceedings'' of the House.

The Day They Broke Every Rule in the House

Sec. 40.7 The Speaker recognized a Member prior to legislative business 
    for a ``long minute'' to pay tribute to Bob Hope (who was present 
    in the gallery) on his 75th birthday; at the sufferance of the 
    Speaker, Members referred to and addressed remarks to the guest in 
    the gallery; and a Member, yielded to during an extended ``one-
    minute'' speech, sang during debate and was ``excused'' for that 
    action by unanimous-consent request of the Speaker from the floor.

    The following events occurred in the House on May 25, 1978: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 15397-402, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (10) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Findley) for a long minute, and the Chair would 
    request the Members to ask the gentleman to yield. That will be the 
    procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, today is the 
    75th birthday celebration of Bob Hope, the greatest humorist of 
    this century. . . . [W]e are taking this time to express our deep 
    gratitude on behalf of the American people for his consistent 
    willingness over the years to contribute countless hours serving 
    his country and worthy charities. . . .
        I yield to our assistant floor leader, the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Wydler).
        Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
    gentleman for yielding.
        I am going to violate the House rules for that one sentence and 
    address a

[[Page 10533]]

    comment on our distinguished guest, Bob Hope.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is aware of the rules.
        Mr. Wydler: I am aware of the rules.
        On behalf of the people in my district, Bob, and on behalf of 
    the people in America just this one sentence sums up our feelings 
    toward you, and that is: ``Thanks for the Memories.'' . . .
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Speaker, If I 
    could be granted one wish today it would be that this House could 
    claim as a member, our honored guest, Bob Hope.
        Think of it: All that expertise in foreign affairs from a man 
    who has been on the road to Morocco, Singapore, and Zanzibar. . . .
        Following the traditional prayer, Congressman Hope could regale 
    us with a 1-minute comic monolog on the legislation before us. 
    Since quite a bit of the legislation is funny enough as it is, his 
    comments would serve as frosting on the cake.
        The man who once was a prizefighter under the name of ``Packy 
    East'' would have no trouble adjusting to the floor battles between 
    Republicans and Democrats. . . .
        While I would like to think Bob Hope is inclined to be a 
    Republican, he plays golf like a Democrat. Why, he is the only 
    golfer ever to run up a deficit score on the course. . . .
        I would like to conclude this welcome with a parody on a 
    familiar refrain so well known to our honored guest:

                            Thanks for the Memories

        Thanks for the memories,
        Of places you have gone,
        To cheer our soldiers on.
        President sent Kissinger,
        But you sent Jill St. John.
        We thank you so much!

        Thanks for the memories,
        Of bringing Christmas cheer,
        You did your best, I hear,
        But servicemen all say your jokes,
        Were worse than Billy Beer. . . .
        We thank you so much!

                                    (Chorus)
        Seventy plus five is now your age, Bob
        We're glad to see your still upon the stage, Bob
        We hope you make a decent living wage, Bob
        For the more you make,
        The more we take!

        So thanks for the memories,
        We honor you today,
        And this is what we say:
        Thank God you left Old England
        And came to the U.S.A. . . .
        We . . . thank you . . . sooooooo much! . . .

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois, Bob Michel, 
    be excused for ``singing.''
        There was no objection.
        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I explain to our guests, 
    particularly, that singing in the House, and speaking in a foreign 
    language are not customary in the House. Also, you may be 
    interested to know that in my 26 years in Congress, and I know 
    there are Members senior to me here, never before have I ever 
    witnessed anything of this nature. The

[[Page 10534]]

    rules say that nobody can be introduced from the galleries and that 
    rule cannot be waived. Presidents' wives and former Presidents 
    merely sit there. I have seen distinguished visitors, who have come 
    to this House, sit in the galleries; but never before have I seen 
    anything compared to what is transpiring on the floor today. It is 
    a show of appreciation, of love and affection to a great American, 
    and I think it is a beautiful tribute.

Speaking in Foreign Language

Sec. 40.8 A Member addressed the Committee of the Whole speaking 
    Spanish, to whom another Member responded in Italian, there being 
    no rule prohibiting a Member's speaking in a foreign language.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Oct. 5, 1981,(11) during consideration of H.R. 3112 (to 
extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 127 Cong. Rec. 23187, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
    the requisite number of words, and I rise to oppose the amendment.
        (The following is a translation of remarks which were delivered 
    in Spanish:)
        Mr. Leland: My colleagues, I want to begin speaking Spanish. I 
    want to begin speaking the language of millions of citizens of this 
    country. Many of you cannot understand me. And if you cannot 
    understand me, nor can you understand 21 percent of the adult 
    citizens of El Paso, Tex.; and nor can you understand 17 percent of 
    all adult workers of the Southwest. These citizens of the United 
    States speak only Spanish. You perhaps cannot understand them nor 
    participate in their culture--but these are citizens of the United 
    States, with the rights of citizens; their culture is an American 
    culture, and an intimate part of our culture which makes it more 
    rich and more strong.
        And even though you cannot understand me when I speak Spanish 
    maybe you can begin to understand the hypocrisy of our political 
    system which excludes the participation of Hispanic-Americans only 
    for having a different culture and speaking a different language. 
    Ya Basta!!
        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?

        Mr. Leland: I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
        Mrs. Fenwick (In Spanish): ``Si, my colleague, I beg you have 
    pity on us''.
        (In Italian) ``I speak for our Italian citizens. They, too, 
    have a great culture.''

Personal Privilege Not Appropriate To Address Offenses in Debate

Sec. 40.9 A Member may not rise to a question of personal privilege 
    under Rule IX merely to complain of words

[[Page 10535]]

    previously spoken of him in debate.

    On Mar. 16, 1988,(12) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding a point of personal privilege, as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 134 Cong. Rec. 4087, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    point of parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I would like to inquire if this Member is able to take a point 
    of personal privilege, that is 1 hour of debate on the House floor 
    at the moment it is granted, if I feel that my honor was impugned 
    when the majority whip, who also spoke way beyond 1 minute . . . if 
    Mr. Coelho tells me that I have sold out the young men and women 
    that I visited with not more than a month ago who are at this 
    moment being strafed and rocketed by Soviet gunships, to tell me to 
    my face--and I am sitting in the front row--that I sold them out 
    impugned my honor.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The gentleman will 
    state a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dornan of California: Do I have a right for a point of 
    personal privilege on that?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is not a remedy that the 
    gentleman has under the circumstances.
        Mr. Dornan of California: May I ask the ruling of the Chair as 
    to why I cannot maintain a point of personal privilege that my 
    honor was impugned.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of personal privilege does 
    not derive from words spoken in debate.

Privilege of House Alleging Rule Violation

Sec. 40.10 A question of the privileges of the House under Rule IX may 
    be based upon an alleged violation of a rule by the Chair; thus, a 
    resolution alleging that termination by the Chair of audio 
    broadcast coverage of House proceedings had been improperly 
    ordered, and directing the Speaker to assure future compliance with 
    Rule I, clause 9(b)(1), requiring 
    complete audio coverage of House proceedings, by not permitting 
    interruptions of coverage, was held to involve a question of the 
    integrity of House proceedings and to constitute a question of the 
    privileges of the House.

    On Mar. 17, 1988,(14) the House adopted a resolution 
offered as a question of the privileges of the House directing the 
Speaker to assure uninterrupted audio and visual coverage of House 
proceedings, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 134 Cong. Rec. 4180, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the

[[Page 10536]]

    privileges of the House pursuant to rule IX of the rules of the 
    House, and I have a resolution at the desk and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 406

            Whereas, the broadcast coverage of House proceedings 
        affects the dignity, decorum and integrity of those 
        proceedings; and
            Whereas, House Rule I, clause 9(b) requires the ``complete 
        and unedited audio and visual broadcasting'' of House 
        proceedings; and
            Whereas, the Speaker held on April 30, 1985, that H. Res. 
        150, directing the Speaker to ``provide for the audio and 
        visual broadcast coverage of the Chamber while Members are 
        voting,'' raised a legitimate question of the privileges of the 
        House (House Rules & Manual, 100th Congress, Sec. 662); and
            Whereas, on Wednesday, March 16, 1988,(15) the 
        audio broadcast coverage of House proceedings was terminated 
        during a Member's spoken remarks while the audio system in the 
        Chamber continued to operate; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For further discussion of the occurrences on the floor on Mar. 16, 
        1988, see Sec. 40.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Whereas, such termination of audio broadcast coverage 
        violates the provision of clause 9(b)(1) of House Rule I 
        requiring ``complete and unedited audio and visual broadcasting 
        of House proceedings'': Now, therefore, be it
            Resolved, The Speaker is hereby directed to take such steps 
        as are necessary to ensure future compliance with House Rule I, 
        clause 9(b) that the audio and visual broadcast coverage of 
        House proceedings not be interrupted, including instructions to 
        any Members acting as Speaker pro tempore, and any officers or 
        employees of the House involved with the broadcast system, and 
        the implementation of any necessary safeguards to prevent the 
        termination of such coverage.

        The Speaker: (16) The Chair believes that the 
    resolution offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin] 
    does constitute a question of the privileges of the House under the 
    precedents cited in the preamble of the resolution since it directs 
    compliance with clause 9[(b)(1)] of rule I, which requires complete 
    and unedited broadcast coverage of the proceedings of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Therefore, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin] is 
    recognized for 1 hour. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: . . . Mr. Speaker, we 
    have no objection to the adoption of the resolution on this side, 
    but I think it is important to note as well that while the American 
    people certainly have the right to see whatever occurs on the floor 
    of the House during the legislative session of the House, it is 
    also incumbent on all Members of the House on both sides of the 
    aisle to observe the rules of the House and to observe good order 
    and decorum. And without attempting to characterize the events of 
    yesterday, it is clear that under the traditions and rules of the 
    House, members who proceed out of order after their time has 
    expired or proceed when not properly recognized by the Chair are 
    not in good order and are not debating in the spirit of the rules 
    of the House. . . .
        As the gentlewoman has said, the American people have the right 
    under

[[Page 10537]]

    our rules to see what occurs on the House floor. We hope that 
    Members on both sides of the aisle will behave in a way that 
    indicates that they are observing good order and decorum, that they 
    are responding to the rulings of the Chair, and that they are also 
    observing the rules that proper debate cannot take place in the 
    House when the time allotted to the Member has expired or the 
    Member is acting in contravention to the proper rulings of the 
    Chair.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The resolution was adopted. See 134 Cong. Rec. 4181, 4182, 100th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 17, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comportment as Breach of Decorum

Sec. 40.11 A Member's comportment may constitute a breach of decorum 
    even though the content of her speech is not, in itself, 
    unparliamentary; it is a breach of decorum for a Member to ignore 
    the Chair's gavel and request to be seated.

    On July 29, 1994,(18) a Member ignored repeated requests 
by the Chair to suspend and be seated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Maxine] Waters [of California]: Madam Speaker, last 
    evening a Member of this House, Peter King, had to be gaveled out 
    of order at the Whitewater hearings of the Banking Committee. He 
    had to be gaveled out of order because he badgered a woman who was 
    a witness from the White House, Maggie Williams. I am pleased I was 
    able to come to her defense. Madam Speaker, the day is over when 
    men can badger and intimidate women.
        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Madam 
    Speaker, I demand the gentlewoman's words be taken down.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The gentlewoman from 
    California [Ms. Waters] must suspend and be seated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carrie Meek (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the words.
        Ms. Waters:----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman will please desist and 
    take her seat.
        Ms. Waters:----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is about to direct the 
    Sergeant at Arms to present the mace.
        The Speaker: (20) The Clerk will report the words. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        While in the opinion of the Chair the word ``badgering'' is not 
    in itself unparliamentary, the Chair believes that the demeanor of 
    the gentlewoman from California was not in good order in the 
    subsequent period immediately following those words having been 
    uttered.
        Accordingly, the Chair rules that without leave of the House, 
    the gentlewoman from California may not proceed for the rest of 
    today. The Chair would ask whether there is objection to the 
    gentlewoman from California receiving the right to proceed in good 
    order.
        Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Reserving the right 
    to ob

[[Page 10538]]

    ject, Mr. Speaker, does that mean that all of the words will be 
    taken down subsequent to the point that she was ruled out of order 
    and stricken from the Record?
        The Speaker: None of those words will be in the Record, the 
    Chair will state to the gentleman. None of the words will be in the 
    Record subsequent to that since she was not recognized. . . .
        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by the word 
    ``demeanor.'' I was in the Chamber at the time, and I did see the 
    Chair try to gavel the gentlewoman down, but I can understand why 
    she could not hear, because there were so many people at mikes and 
    I think she was confused by that. So I am a little troubled about 
    that. How can you challenge ``demeanor''?
        The Speaker: The Chair wishes to advise the gentlewoman from 
    Colorado that it is the opinion of the Chair that the Chair at the 
    time was attempting to insist that the gentlewoman from California 
    desist with any further statements and sit down. She did not accord 
    cooperation to the Chair and follow the Chair's instructions. 
    Consequently, it is the finding of the Chair that her demeanor at 
    that point in refusing to accept the Chair's instructions was out 
    of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While a Member who is held to have breached 
the rules of decorum in debate is presumptively disabled from further 
recognition on that day, by tradition the Speaker's ruling and any 
necessary expungement of the Record are deemed sufficient sanction, and 
by custom the chastened Member is permitted to proceed in order 
(usually by unanimous consent).