[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§ 48. Procedure; Calls to Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10662-10682]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                         E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
 
Sec. 48. Procedure; Calls to Order

    Clause 4 of Rule XIV of the House rules provides a procedure for 
dealing with disorderly words or actions by Members:

        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, and the House 
    shall, if appealed to, decide on the case without debate; if the 
    decision is in favor of the Member called to order, he shall be at 
    liberty to proceed, but not otherwise; and, if the case require it, 
    he shall be liable to censure or such punishment as the House may 
    deem proper.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the violation of the rules is technical and not willful, a 
point of order, rather than a demand that words be taken down, is often 
made, and if sustained the Speaker directs the Member who had the floor 
to proceed in order.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Ch. 31, infra, for points of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where objectionable words are uttered in debate and are called to 
the attention of the House, the provisions of the cited rule are 
followed explicitly. If a Member demands that the offending words ``be 
taken down,'' the Member must take his seat until the words are 
reported pursuant to Rule XIV clause 5:

        If a Member is called to order for words spoken in debate, the 
    Member calling him to order shall indicate the words excepted to, 
    and they shall be taken down in writing at the Clerk's desk and 
    read aloud to the House; but he shall not be held to answer, nor to 
    be subject to the censure of the House therefor, if further debate 
    or other business has intervened.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 761 (1995).
            A Delegate may call a Member to order (2 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 1295).

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

[[Page 10663]]

    As clause 4 of the rule indicates, the Speaker may on his own 
initiative call a Member to order for words spoken in debate or for 
other acts of disorder and has so done on occasion; (4) and 
where a Member has persisted in speaking when not recognized and in 
spite of repeated calls to order, the Speaker has ordered his 
microphone turned off.(5) The Speaker has an affirmative 
duty to call a Member to order for referring, in violation of the 
rules, to individual Senators or to proceedings of the 
Senate.(6) If the words used in debate refer critically to 
the Speaker and are taken down, the Speaker leaves the chair after 
appointing another Member to preside for the purpose of ruling on the 
words objected to.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 48.1, 48.2, 48.5-48.7, 48.9, 48.10, 
        infra.
 5. See Sec. 48.20, infra.
 6. See Sec. 48.3, infra.
            ``[I]t is the duty of the House, and more particularly of 
        the Speaker, to interfere immediately, and not to permit 
        expressions to go unnoticed which may give a ground of 
        complaint to the other House. . . .'' Jefferson's Manual, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 374 (1995).
            For announcements by the Chair stating his intention to 
        strictly enforce the rule of comity, see Sec. 44.8, supra.
 7. See Sec. 48.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the demand to take down words spoken in debate must come 
immediately after the words are uttered,(8) a question of 
privilege based upon such words may not be raised at a subsequent 
time.(9) But the insertion of objectionable words in the 
Congressional Record by a Member, either under leave to revise and 
extend, or without such leave, will support a question of 
privilege.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 49, infra.
 9. See Sec. Sec. 48.14, 48.15, infra.
10. See Sec. 48.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where objectionable words are uttered in the Committee of the 
Whole, a demand must be made to take them down, the Committee rises, 
and the words are reported by the Clerk for a ruling by the Speaker. 
After the House determines whether to expunge offensive words from the 
Record, and whether to permit an offending Member to proceed in order, 
the Committee then resumes sitting without motion.(11) House 
action is strictly limited to the words reported from the 
Committee,(12) and the Speaker will not entertain a request 
that further words spoken in the Committee be taken 
down.(13) The Committee of the Whole can take no action on

[[Page 10664]]

objectionable words, such as expungement from the 
Record,(14) but both the objectionable words and the demand 
that words be taken down may be withdrawn in the 
Committee.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 49.42, infra.
12. See Sec. 50.10, infra.
13. See Sec. 49.39, infra.
14. See Sec. 49.16, infra.
15. See Sec. 49.27, infra (demand may be withdrawn without unanimous 
        consent) and Sec. 49.31, infra (objectionable words may be 
        withdrawn by unanimous consent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following is the order of precedence of motions if words are 
sought to be ruled out of order in the House: (1) under Rule XIV clause 
4, before the Speaker rules, a motion to explain is in order and is 
preferential; (2) when the Speaker rules, any appeal from the ruling 
must come immediately and is not debatable; (3) after the ruling, a 
motion to strike or expunge from the Record has priority, since 
permitting a motion to explain at that stage would undermine the 
Speaker's ruling and a possible appeal; the motion to strike is 
debatable and the previous question should be moved; (4) a motion to 
permit the offending Member to proceed in order is debatable and the 
previous question should be moved, but the motion should be made so 
that the Member is not prohibited from speaking for the remainder of 
the day.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 52, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Forms
        Form of call to order in the House.

            The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
            Member: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
            The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
            Member: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
        gentleman from [State] is . . . .
            The Speaker: The point is well taken and the gentleman will 
        proceed in order.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Cannon's Procedure of the House of Representatives, 75, H. Doc. No. 
        122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Call to order for disorderly acts, see Sec. 43, supra.
Call to order may take Member off the floor, see Sec. 33, supra.
Chairman's role in maintaining order in the Committee of the Whole, see 
    Ch. 19, supra.
Clerk maintains order before election of Speaker, see Ch. 1, supra.
Expungement and deletion of matter from the Congressional Record 
    generally, see Ch. 5, supra.
Member persisting in irrelevant debate may be required to take his 
    seat, see Sec. 37, supra.
Punishment for acts by Members, see Ch. 12, supra.
Recognition for points of order, see Sec. 20, supra.

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

[[Page 10665]]

                          -------------------Authority of Speaker or 
    Chairman

Sec. 48.1 The Speaker, observing that debate is becoming personal and 
    approaching a violation of the rules, may request Members to 
    proceed in order.

    On June 23, 1964,(18) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, intervened during debate in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 110 Cong. Rec. 14717, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: The gentleman had better stop 
    right there, or I will have his words taken down, because I am not 
    the head of two national banks. We do not have two charters. You 
    had better either stick to the facts, or you will stop talking; one 
    or the other.
        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: If the gentleman will retract 
    his own words, I cannot help that.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will suspend. Both gentlemen will 
    suspend.
        Mr. Hays: Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Patman: I will not yield until I finish my statement.
        The Speaker: The Chair suggests that the rules are established 
    as the law of the House and the Chair is not passing at this time 
    on any question in connection with the rules, but the Chair 
    suggests that there has been a very close approach in more than one 
    way or two ways to a violation of the rules. The Chair suggests 
    that the gentleman from Texas proceed in order and, if he yields, 
    that the gentleman from Ohio make his observations in order.

Sec. 48.2 The Speaker may call a Member to order for words spoken in 
    debate.

    On Jan. 12, 1961,(19) when Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, 
referred in debate to the ``so-called painless method of packing the 
Rules Committee,'' Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, called him to order 
on his own initiative and ruled the language out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 107 Cong. Rec. 650, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 48.3 It is the duty of the Chair to interrupt a Member in debate 
    when the Member proposes to refer to the opinions or statements of 
    Senators or to Senate proceedings.

    On May 25, 1937,(20) when a Member proposed to read a 
letter from a member of the Senate on the floor of the House, Chairman 
John J. O'Connor, of New York, on his own responsibility made a point 
of order against the reading of the letter from a member of the other 
body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 5013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on Apr. 18, 1939,(1) when a Member referred 
to the

[[Page 10666]]

action of the Senate on a particular appropriation bill then before the 
House, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 84 Cong. Rec. 4404, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair desires to call the attention of the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania to the fact that under the rules of the House he is 
    not permitted to refer to any action taken in the Senate of the 
    United States.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The Chair also intervenes on his own initiative to prevent 
        reference to gallery occupants (see Sec. 45, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair May Take Initiative

Sec. 48.4 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole called the 
    Committee to order and stated that he would not hesitate to call 
    Members to order by name if order was not promptly established.

    During consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 307 (first 
concurrent resolution on the congressional budget for fiscal years 
1981, 1982 and 1983) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 30, 
1980,(3) the Chair made a statement, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 126 Cong. Rec. 9471, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the Committee is not in order.

        The Chairman: (4) Permit the Chair to say that he 
    believes that every Member has a right to be heard in the Committee 
    of the Whole. It is not a matter of the Chair desiring order. It is 
    a matter of Members deserving order so that there can be a 
    reasonable procedure; and the Chair proposes to see to it that each 
    Member is given an opportunity to express himself. It will be a 
    great deal easier for everybody if the Committee comes to order a 
    little bit more quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will conclude by saying he does not hesitate to call 
    names if he must.

Sec. 48.5 The Chair may take the initiative to enforce the prohibition 
    in clause 1 of Rule XIV against Members engaging in personalities 
    during debate and call to order a Member alleging that an 
    identifiable group of sitting Members have committed a crime.

    During proceedings in the House on Mar. 21, 1989,(5) 
Speaker James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, exercised his prerogative under 
Rule XIV, clause 1, in calling a Member to order for use of 
personalities in debate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 135 Cong. Rec. 5016, 5017, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, 
    bipartisanship

[[Page 10667]]

    in the House has taken a curious twist. It now appears that the 
    Democrat leadership is attempting to influence and interfere in the 
    race for Republican whip. . . .
        To those Democrats who have been a part of trying to influence 
    the outcome of this election, let it be noted that the last time 
    you played this game, you stole the Indiana seat from the 
    Republican Party. That outrage and this one tell us more than we 
    need to know about your definition of bipartisanship.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is not proceeding in a parliamentary 
    manner. He used the word ``stole.'' His accusation that Members of 
    the House stole an election is improper, and the gentleman realizes 
    that. . . .
        The gentleman is engaging in personalities and when he uses 
    words like the word ``stole'' with reference to an identifiable 
    group of Members, that has been held improper.

Sec. 48.6 Instance where the Speaker ignored the demand that words be 
    taken down and exercised his initiative to caution the offending 
    Member.

    On July 12, 1990,(6) it was demonstrated that the range 
of permissible references to the Senate in debate does not extend to 
the opinions or policy positions of individual Senators. The 
proceedings in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 136 Cong. Rec.  ____, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Gingrich asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous 
    for the Senate Democratic leader to publicly demand higher taxes 
    and a massive 25-percent increase in the income tax top rate. The 
    Senate Democratic leader is threatening to destroy the budget 
    summit.
        Mr. Speaker, Senator Mitchell does not attend summit meetings. 
    He publicly demands tax increases. Senator Mitchell does not offer 
    serious budget reforms. He publicly demands tax increases. Senator 
    Mitchell does not offer spending cuts.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask that 
    the words of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] be taken 
    down.
        The Speaker: (7) The Chair will merely caution the 
    gentleman from Georgia that such references to members of the other 
    body are not in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gingrich: I would inquire of the Speaker, if it is in 
    reference to a public newspaper account of public activity by a 
    political leader, and I believe in this House we have a remarkably 
    wide range of free speech, and this is not a reference to any 
    action by the Senator of Maine in the Senate.
        The Speaker: Under clause 1, rule XIV, it is an improper 
    reference to a Member of the other body.
        The Chair would ask the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] 
    to observe the traditions of the House.

[[Page 10668]]

Speaker Sometimes Takes Initiative Where Improper Remarks Are Uttered

Sec. 48.7 The Speaker cautioned a Member that it is a breach of order 
    under clause 1 of Rule XIV to allege in debate that a Member has 
    engaged in conduct similar to the subject of a complaint pending 
    before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct against 
    another Member; and under clause 4 of that rule, the Chair takes 
    the initiative in calling to order Members improperly engaging in 
    personalities in debate.

    Speaker Pro Tempore G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery, of Mississippi, 
called a Member to order in the House on Mar. 22, 1989,(8) 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 135 Cong. Rec. 5130, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Alexander asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, after arriving 
    at the Capitol a few minutes ago on this glorious spring day, I 
    learned that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
    conducted an election for minority whip resulting in the election 
    of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) as minority whip. . . 
    .
        I would note to those who are observing that the gentleman from 
    Georgia made his name, so to speak, by a sustained personal attack 
    on the good name of Jim Wright, the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives who has devoted decades of meritorious service to 
    our country. The gentleman from Georgia alleged that the Speaker 
    has circumvented minimum income limits of Members of Congress by 
    writing a book for which he received a royalty.
        Now, it is also to be noted that just this week it was learned 
    that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) also allegedly has a 
    book deal. It is alleged in the Washington Post this week that the 
    gentleman from Georgia received a royalty or a payment in the 
    nature of a royalty. This is apparently similar to the Wright 
    arrangement which is the basis of the gentleman from Georgia's 
    complaint before the Ethics Committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman 
    that he cannot make personal references, as the gentleman has done 
    in his remarks.

Sec. 48.8 The Chair enforces section 364 of Jefferson's Manual by 
    admonishing Members who attempt to disturb Members who are 
    addressing the House by conversing with them.

    In the proceedings of Feb. 21, 1984,(9) the Chair sought 
to preserve order by admonishing Mem

[[Page 10669]]

bers not to converse with a Member attempting to address the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 130 Cong. Rec. 2758, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(10) The House will be in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to suggest that the rules of the House 
    prohibit the engagement of private conversation with someone who is 
    in the process of speaking or has just concluded speaking and would 
    ask the gentleman on his left and the gentleman on his right to 
    extend to one another the courtesies commonly expected of Members 
    of the House.

Sec. 48.9 Where a Member transgresses clause 1 of Rule XIV by engaging 
    in personalities in debate, and discusses behavior of a Member 
    where a complaint has been filed with the Committee on Standards of 
    Official Conduct concerning that conduct, the Chair takes the 
    initiative to call him to order pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XIV.

    On Nov. 3, 1989,(11) the following proceedings occurred 
in 
the House during a special-order speech:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 135 Cong. Rec. 27077, 27082, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(12) Under a previous order 
    of the House, 
    the gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer] is recognized for 60 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jolene Unsoeld (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: . . . I want to 
    make clear to my colleagues that at the appropriate time in the 
    near future, I will offer a resolution, in one form or another, to 
    expel [two Members specified]. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will pause. The 
    gentleman is discussing a matter pending before the Ethics 
    Committee. I would remind the gentleman from California that clause 
    1 of rule XIV prevents Members in debate from engaging in 
    personalities. Clause 4 of that rule provides that if any member 
    transgresses the rules of the House, the Speaker shall, or any 
    Member may, call him to order.
        The gentleman may proceed within the rules of the House.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . George Washington Law Professor John 
    Banzhaf has done extensive research on a case of Member ``X.'' He 
    concludes that Member ``X'' has publicly admitted to committing 
    crimes, and a refusal to take any action would undermine the 
    public's confidence in the mechanism set up to ensure that Members 
    of Congress abide by ethical and moral standards at least as high 
    as those to which we currently hold attorneys, cadets at the 
    Nation's military academies, high military officials, and even 
    school principals.
        Indeed, since the prostitute was prosecuted and convicted for 
    sodomy and his school principal lover was forced to resign, a 
    failure to take any action against a Congressman who commits the 
    same crimes would lead

[[Page 10670]]

    people to believe that lesser rather than stricter standards were 
    being applied.
        The Boston Globe wrote, ``Were Member X's transgressions 
    serious enough to warrant his departure from Congress? Yes. For his 
    own good and for the good of his constituents, his causes and 
    Congress''----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will cease. The Chair 
    would remind the gentleman, and will repeat again, and will read 
    the Speaker's full statement, clause 1 of rule XIV prevents Members 
    in debate from engaging in personalities. Clause 4 of that rule 
    provides that if any Member transgresses the rules of the House, 
    the Speaker shall, or any Member may, call him to order. Members 
    may recall that on December 18, 1987, the Chair enunciated the 
    standard that debate would not be proper if it attempted to focus 
    on the conduct of a Member about whom a report had been filed by 
    the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or whose conduct was 
    not the subject of a privileged matter then pending before the 
    House. Similarly, the Chair would suggest that debate is not proper 
    which speculates on the motivations of a Member who may have filed 
    a complaint before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
    against another Member.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Madam Speaker, I have no longer made reference 
    to a specific Member. I have merely made reference to ``Member X.''
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is referring to 
    newspaper stories which specifically names Members.

Sec. 48.10 Where a Member transgresses clause 1 of Rule XIV, by 
    engaging in personalities in debate (as by discussing the facts 
    surrounding a disciplinary resolution then pending on the House 
    Calendar), the Chair takes the initiative to call him to order 
    pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XIV.

    On July 24, 1990,(13) the following proceedings occurred 
in 
the House during a special-order speech:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 136 Cong. Rec.  ____, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Un-der a previous 
    order of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer] 
    is recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Timothy J. Penny (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker and 
    Members, I have taken this special order this evening for the 
    purpose of talking to my colleagues about the matter that will be 
    coming up on the floor of the House for consideration, probably 
    sometime this week, dealing with our colleague, the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. The House Ethics Committee submitted a 
    report on July 20, which was just last Friday and that report has 
    now been printed in the Record, and I will make reference to it as 
    I discuss this issue. . . .
        I would like briefly to discuss the issue of what was contained 
    in the Ethics Committee report to the House on July 20. I believe 
    that the newspaper accounts of the conduct of Mr. Frank are quite 
    well-known to all of

[[Page 10671]]

    us, but I think it is also appropriate that some discussion be made 
    so that we have the issue before us.
        Beginning sometime in 1985, believed to be around April of that 
    year, at least in the statement of----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Dannemeyer] will suspend for a moment, at this point the Chair 
    would caution all Members that it is not in order in debate to 
    engage in personalities. Members should refrain from references in 
    debate to the conduct of other Members, where such conduct is not 
    the subject then pending before the House as a question of the 
    privileges of the House.
        When a privileged resolution is offered, it would be 
    appropriate for any Member then to discuss the details of the case. 
    At this point, it would be inappropriate.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Do I understand the Speaker to say that it 
    would be inappropriate for me to discuss the details of the report 
    that has been filed?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would be inappropriate to discuss 
    the conduct of other Members, where such conduct is not the subject 
    then pending before the House as a question of privilege.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Well, if I may inquire of the Speaker, the 
    report of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was filed 
    July 20. It describes in detail the items that I feel like I am in 
    a position to discuss at this time, by virtue of the fact that this 
    report is now part of the public record.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The report has been filed. The report 
    is not the pending business.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It is not in order in debate to refer to 
the official conduct of a Member where such conduct is not the 
subject then pending before the House by way of a report of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or as a question of the 
privileges of the House. Moreover, it is the consideration of a 
disciplinary resolution, not the filing of a report thereon, that is 
the condition for debate on the conduct of the Member concerned. Any 
discussion of a Member's conduct should be considered as dealing in 
``personality'' unless the conduct is the subject of the business then 
pending before the House. When the conduct is the pending business of 
the House, 
its relevance under the Constitutional prerogative of the House to 
punish its Members for disorderly behavior supersedes the prohibition 
against ``personality'' in debate and its probative value outweighs its 
tendency to impair 
decorum. The only other permissible debate of a Member's conduct would 
be in the context of debate on another Member's conduct, by way of 
comparison of contemplated punishments, but within narrower limits than 
if the conduct being debated were the Member's own in the context of a 
disciplinary resolution relating to him.

[[Page 10672]]

Where Objectionable Words Impugn the Speaker

Sec. 48.11 Where words used in debate have affected the Speaker and 
    have been taken down, the Speaker has left the Chair after 
    designating another Member to preside.

    On Feb. 7, 1935,(15) and on May 31, 1934,(16) 
when words were used in debate impugning the integrity of the Speaker, 
the Speaker left the Chair after designating another Member to preside 
and to rule on the words objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 1680, 1681, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. 78 Cong. Rec. 10167-70, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedure In the House

Sec. 48.12 The only method by which the words of the Member having the 
    floor may be challenged is through a demand that his words be taken 
    down.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 4, 
1984,(17) during consideration of the Oregon Wilderness Act 
of 1983 (H.R. 1149):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 14805, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: . . . The House has had its 
    opportunity to work its will. The only thing that would be gained 
    now by not voting for this bill as it is would be to delay a final 
    resolution, pushing it off further down the road . . . running this 
    issue up against all the other issues that the Congress is going to 
    be dealing with in its rush toward adjournment and that will 
    guarantee the doom of this bill.
        Obviously, no responsible person on either side of this issue 
    wants such a thing to happen.
        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(18) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that 
    the gentleman not use the term ``no responsible person.''
        Both Members from Oregon are very responsible members of the 
    committee that I am ranking member of, and I consider my 
    responsibility very seriously and to say that we are not 
    responsible because we are in opposition to this bill is incorrect.
        I would respectfully suggest that the gentleman reconsider his 
    words.
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Speaker, this gentleman said that no 
    responsible person wants to see a resolution of this bill delayed 
    to such a date in which no passage of the bill dealing with the 
    Oregon RARE II problem would be possible. . . .
        I assume it applies to the gentleman from Alaska. I think he is 
    responsible. I do not think he wants to see a resolution of this 
    bill delayed.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: The bill is basically wrong. I rose 
    against the bill

[[Page 10673]]

    and to allude to the fact that we are irresponsible does not become 
    the gentleman at all. That disturbs me a great deal. . . .
        So I would suggest again to the gentleman to choose his words 
    very carefully.
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Speaker, what is the regular order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman may proceed. The 
    gentleman has not asked the words be taken down. The gentleman may 
    proceed.

--Where Member Has Breached Rules of Decorum

Sec. 48.13 Upon a timely demand that words spoken in debate be taken 
    down as unparliamentary, the Chair gavels the proceedings to a 
    halt, directs the challenged Member to be seated under clause 4 of 
    Rule XIV and directs the Clerk to report the words; but, 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).

    The proceedings of July 29, 1994,(19) demonstrate 
procedures following a demand that the words be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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: (1) The gentlewoman from 
    California [Ms. Waters] must suspend and be seated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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:(2) The Clerk will report the words.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            He had to be gaveled out of order because he badgered a 
        woman who

[[Page 10674]]

        was a witness from the White House, Maggie Williams. I am 
        pleased I was able to come to her defense. Madam Chairwoman, 
        the day is over when men can badger and intimidate women.

        The Speaker: 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 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.
        The Chair wishes to ask if there is objection to the 
    gentlewoman from California proceeding in good order.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right 
    to object, Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the Chair is putting 
    the question to the House under unanimous consent of the 
    gentlewoman being able to proceed for the rest of the day?
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair.
        The Speaker: Without objection, so ordered.
        There was no objection.

--Raising Question of Personal Privilege

Sec. 48.14 A question of personal privilege may not normally be based 
    upon language uttered on the floor of the House in debate, the 
    proper course being the demand that words be taken down before 
    other debate on business intervenes.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 2651, 2652, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 16, 1949; 93 
        Cong. Rec. 2314, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 20, 1947; 92 Cong. 
        Rec. 5000, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., May 14, 1946; 84 Cong. Rec. 
        2883, 2884, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 16, 1939; and 81 Cong. 
        Rec. 6309, 6310, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 24, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 7, 1935,(4) Mr. Jennings Randolph, of West 
Virginia, arose to a question of personal privilege, resulting in the 
following ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 79 Cong. Rec. 8864, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Randolph: I wish to answer certain remarks made yesterday 
    by the gentleman from Texas referring to testimony I gave in the 
    district court on two occasions, and also his comment upon my 
    service in the Congress.
        The Speaker: (5) In the opinion of the Chair it is 
    not in order to rise to a question of personal privilege based on 
    matters uttered in debate on the floor of the House. The proper 
    course to be

[[Page 10675]]

    pursued under such circumstances is to demand that the 
    objectionable words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair does not think the gentleman can rise to a question 
    of personal privilege under the circumstances.

Sec. 48.15 A Member may rise neither to a question of personal 
    privilege nor to a question of privilege of the House based on 
    words uttered in debate on the floor of the House.

    On Feb. 6, 1950,(6) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
arose to state a ``question of the privilege of the House and also a 
question of personal privilege.'' He based his question on a one-minute 
speech made on the floor of the House on Feb. 2, 1950, by Mr. Anthony 
Cavalcante, of Pennsylvania, wherein reflections were cast ``upon the 
House as a whole,'' upon ``more than two-thirds of the Members of the 
House,'' upon an individual Member of the House, and upon a member of 
``the other body.'' Mr. Hoffman then introduced a resolution to strike 
the allegedly objectionable words from the Congressional Record of Feb. 
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 96 Cong. Rec. 1514, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated his opinion that a question 
of privilege coming several days after objectionable words were uttered 
was improper and impracticable. Mr. Hoffman responded that although the 
words were uttered on the floor and that he was present in the Chamber 
at the time, he had not heard all the words spoken. He stated that 
there were precedents to the effect that a point of order need not 
necessarily be made at the time the words were uttered.
    Speaker Rayburn ruled as follows:

        The Chair will read the rule:

            If a Member is called to order for words spoken in debate, 
        the Member calling him to order shall indicate the words 
        excepted to, and they shall be taken down in writing at the 
        Clerk's desk and read aloud to the House; but he shall not be 
        held to answer, nor be subject to the censure of the House 
        therefore, if further debate or other business has 
        intervened.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XIV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 761 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair, in the interest of orderly procedure, is forced to 
    hold that after the Journal has been read and approved and the 
    Record read and approved, it would be bad practice to go back and 
    open it up.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under normal practice, the only situation 
where a question of personal privilege can be raised for objectionable 
words after intervening debate is where the words are in

[[Page 10676]]

serted, not spoken, and appear in the Record or under Extensions of 
Remarks.

Sec. 48.16 A question of personal privilege may be based upon 
    unparliamentary language inserted by a Member in his speech under 
    leave to revise and extend his remarks.

    On June 24, 1937,(8) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
arose to a question of personal privilege. He based his question on 
remarks printed in the Congressional Record of June 22, 1937, made by 
Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, and Mr. Maury Maverick, of Texas. 
Mr. Maverick's remarks had been uttered on the floor in debate, but Mr. 
Sabath's remarks had not been made on the floor but inserted in the 
Record under leave to revise and extend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 6309, 6310, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, stated that in his opinion 
Mr. Hoffman could not base a question of personal privilege on remarks 
which had been uttered on the floor in debate.
    As to the remarks inserted in the Record by Mr. Sabath, the Speaker 
stated as follows:

        If, as a matter of fact, the gentleman from Illinois inserted 
    in the Record matters not actually stated by him upon the floor at 
    the time which gave offense to the gentleman from Michigan, it was 
    then the privilege of the gentleman from Michigan to raise that 
    question, as he has now raised it, as a matter of personal 
    privilege when his attention was called to the offending language. 
    In view of the fact that the gentleman from Illinois has undertaken 
    to make an explanation of the matter and has offered to move to 
    have the offending language stricken from the Record, does the 
    gentleman still insist on the matter of personal privilege? . . .
        The gentleman would, if he insisted, after the ruling of the 
    Chair on the second point of order involving the language of the 
    gentleman from Illinois, be entitled to discuss that matter.

Sec. 48.17 Words spoken in the Committee of the Whole may be taken down 
    and ruled on in the House by the Speaker, but they do not give rise 
    to a question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 16, 1949,(9) while the Committee of the Whole 
was considering Senate Joint Resolution 36, authorizing a contribution 
by the United States for the relief 
of Palestine refugees, Mr. John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated in reference to Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, ``Before Pearl Harbor the gentleman was opposed 
to every bill necessary for

[[Page 10677]]

the defense of our country.'' The words were demanded to be taken down, 
the Committee rose, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the 
language objected to was merely an opinion and not a violation of the 
rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 2651, 2652, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee resumed its sitting, and Mr. McCormack proceeded in 
debate. Mr. Rankin then arose to a question of personal privilege. 
Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, ruled as follows:

        Such a point may not be raised in the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Rankin: Oh, yes; where the offense is committed in the 
    Committee of the Whole, it is in order.
        The Chairman: The proper remedy is to have the words taken 
    down.
        Mr. Rankin: The words have been taken down and were read by the 
    Clerk.
        The Chairman: I may say to the gentleman from Mississippi that 
    the Speaker of the House has already ruled on that.

Sec. 48.18 Where a Member attempted to raise a question of personal 
    privilege based on objectionable words spoken in debate, the 
    Speaker, while declining to rule on the question presented, 
    recognized him for a one-minute speech to reply to the derogatory 
    remarks.

    On Oct. 15, 1969,(10) Mr. William E. Brock, 3d, of 
Tennessee, made the following one-minute speech in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 30080, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, most of us heard last evening a great plea for 
    honest debate, for free and open discussion of the issues of the 
    tragedy of Vietnam. That debate went on for 5 hours.
        Now, today, we have witnessed a turn. Those who spoke so 
    eloquently for freedom and full debate now object to the 
    consideration of a resolution which endorses the right of dissent 
    in this country. I think it is typical of the double standard that 
    is applied in this country by those elements who are so critical of 
    an honest effort of a great Nation to achieve a lasting peace.

    Mr. Arnold Olsen, of Montana, then rose to a point of privilege:

        Mr. Speaker, my point of personal privilege is the attack just 
    made from the well of the House on the loyalty of so many of us and 
    the right of free speech in this country.
        Mr. Speaker, I think that address is entitled to a response of 
    1 minute.

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, did not rule on 
whether a question of personal privilege was presented, but granted Mr. 
Olsen ``under the circumstances'' the right to make a one-minute speech 
in reply to Mr. Brock's remarks.

[[Page 10678]]

Interrupting Member Who Declines To Yield; Deleting Remarks of Member 
    Not Recognized

Sec. 48.19 A Member wishing to interrupt another in debate should 
    address the Chair for permission of the Member speaking who may 
    exercise his own discretion as to whether or not to yield; the 
    Chair will take the initiative in preserving order when a Member 
    declining to yield in debate continues to be interrupted by another 
    Member, and may order that the remarks of the Member interrupting 
    not appear in the Record.

    On July 26, 1984,(11) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 11, the Education Amendments of 1984. Mr. 
Robert S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, who was discussing prayer in 
schools, was interrupted by George Miller, of California, who was 
reading passages aloud from the Bible for purposes of demonstrating his 
argument that the right to pray is not absolute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 130 Cong. Rec. 21247, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: . . . It has been referred to by many people on the 
    floor today that they know of no situation in the country where 
    silent prayer has ever been ruled out of order by the courts. That 
    is wrong.
        I have here an article before me from CQ in which it says that 
    in Alabama the silent prayer in Alabama was ruled out of order by 
    the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. . . .
        [Mr. Miller of California proceeded to read from the Bible at 
    this point.]
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) The gentleman will 
    suspend. The gentleman from California will suspend. The gentleman 
    is out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Miller of California: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 
    raise the point----
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman is out of order.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I have not yielded to the gentleman.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman has not yielded.
        The gentleman's words when he spoke in the well without getting 
    the permission of the Member who had the floor will not appear in 
    the Record.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania may proceed. . . .
        Mr. Walker: . . . I must say that the gentleman reading from 
    the Holy Bible in the course of the discussion here I think is 
    somewhat inappropriate. It was far more appropriate in the course 
    of political debate; it was far more appropriate than the so-called 
    prayer uttered earlier by the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Miller of California: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Walker: I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.

[[Page 10679]]

        Mr. Miller of California: I think the point is this: That 
    suggesting that this is an absolute right and that in fact to try 
    to prescribe it, whether it is audible, whether it is oral, whether 
    it is loud, whether it is soft, whether it is silent, is a point of 
    real contention, because it is not an absolute right, as the 
    gentleman suggests.
        We just saw the rules of the House work against that right. The 
    gentleman raised the point earlier about a teacher----
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania has expired.

In the House; Turning Off Microphone as Way To Preserve Order

Sec. 48.20 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 turned off if being 
    utilized by a Member, who has not been properly recognized, to 
    engage in disorderly behavior.

    On Mar. 16, 1988,(13) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 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: (14) The time of the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dornan of California: Wait a minute. On Honduran soil and 
    on Nicaraguan soil.

[[Page 10680]]

        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 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. . 
    . .
        Mrs. [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? . . .

[[Page 10681]]

        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 (15) is, of 
course, also applicable in situations such as that described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedure Before Adoption of Rules

Sec. 48.21 Prior to adoption of the rules, the Speaker suggested that, 
    if necessary, he might maintain decorum by directing a Member who 
    had not been recognized in debate beyond an allotted time to be 
    removed from the well, and by directing the Sergeant at Arms to 
    present the mace as the traditional symbol of order.

    The following exchange occurred on Jan. 3, 1991, during 
consideration of House Resolution 5, adopting the rules of the 102d 
Congress: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 137 Cong. Rec. 58, 59, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The time of the 
    gentlewoman has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Nancy L.] Johnson of Connecticut: The majority party is 
    proposing a rules change. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House will operate under proper 
    decorum.
        Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut: Rather through the rule, they are 
    intending to abrogate the content and meaning of the laws. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman is out of order. . . .
        Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut: . . . I am sorry. I know this is 
    unpleasant.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman will remove herself 
    from the well within 30 seconds.
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    point of order. . . .

[[Page 10682]]

        The gentlewoman is out of order . . . I am imploring the Chair 
    to exercise its authority to enforce the rules of the House by 
    summoning the Sergeant at Arms and presenting the mace.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair may do that.