    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress]
    [104th Congress]
    [House Document 103-342]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 525-541]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                    Rule XIV.

                             OF DECORUM AND DEBATE.

    [[Page 526]]
    of the Senate, or other quotations from Senate proceedings.

    Sec. 749. Obtaining the floor for debate; and relevancy and
    decorum therein.

      1.  When any Member desires to speak or deliver any
    matter to the House, he shall rise and respectfully address himself to
    ``Mr. Speaker'', and, on being recognized, may address the House from
    any place on the floor or from the Clerk's desk, and shall confine
    himself to the question under debate, avoiding personality. Debate may
    include references to actions taken by the Senate or by committees
    thereof which are a matter of public record, references to the pendency
    or sponsorship in the Senate of bills, resolutions, and amendments,
    factual descriptions relating to Senate action or inaction concerning a
    measure then under debate in the House, and quotations from Senate
    proceedings on a measure then under debate in the House and which are
    relevant to the making of legislative history establishing the meaning
    of that measure, but may not include characterizations of Senate action
    or inaction, other references to individual Members

      This clause was adopted in 1880, but was made up, in its main
    provisions, from older rules, which dated from 1789 and 1811 (V, 4979).
    The last sentence of the clause, relating to references to the Senate,
    had its origins in the 100th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6)
    but was amended in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72)
    to narrowly expand the range of permissible references. This rule, and
    rulings of the Chair with respect to references in debate to the Senate,
    are discussed in Sec. 371, supra; see also Sec. 361, supra.

      The Speaker, who has a responsibility under rule I to maintain and
    enforce decorum in debate, has reminded and advised Members that (1)
    clause 1 of rule XIV requires Members seeking recognition to rise and to
    address themselves to the question under debate, avoiding personality;
    (2) Members should address their remarks to the Chair only and not to
    other entities such as the ``press'' or the television audience; (3)
    Members should not refer to or address any occupant of the galleries;
    (4) Members should refer to other Members in debate only in the third
    person, by state designation (Speaker O'Neill, June 14, 1978, p. 17615;
    Oct. 2, 1984, p. 28520; Mar. 7, 1985, p. 5028); (5) Members should
    refrain from references in debate to the official conduct of other
    Members where such conduct is not under consideration in the House by
    way of a report of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or a
    question of the privilege of the House (July 24, 1990, p. ----; Mar. 19,
    1992, p. ----; May 25, 1995, p. ----); (6) Members should refrain from
    references in debate to the motivations of Members who file complaints
    before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Speaker pro
    tempore Foley, June 15, 1988, p. 14623; July 6, 1988, p. 16630; Mar. 22,
    1989, p. 5130; May 2, 1989, p. 7735; Nov. 3, 1989, p. ----); (7) Members
    should refrain from using profanity or vulgarity in debate (Mar. 5,
    1991, p. ----; Feb. 18, 1993, p. ----); (8) Members should refrain from
    speaking disrespectfully of the Speaker, and under the precedents the
    sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary requirements for
    timeliness of challenges (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 19,
    1995, p. ----), and it is not in order to arraign the personal conduct
    of the Speaker (Jan. 18, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 19, 1995, p. ----); (9) the
    Chair may interrupt a Member engaging in ``personalities'' with respect
    to a fellow Member of the House, just as he would with respect to
    references to the Senate or the President (Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----); and
    (10) Members should refrain from discussing the President's personal
    character (May 10, 1994, p. ----).

    [[Page 527]]
    may not include critical characterizations of members of the Committee
    on Standards of Official Conduct who have investigated a Member's
    conduct (Apr. 1, 1992, p. ----; Mar. 3, 1995, p. ----), nor may it
    include references to investigations undertaken by the Committee on
    Standards of Official Conduct, including suggestions of courses of
    action (Mar. 3, 1995, p. ----), or references to similar conduct of
    another not then the subject of a question pending before the House
    (Apr. 1, 1992, p. ----).
      Although debate on a privileged resolution recommending disciplinary
    action against a Member may include comparisons with other such actions
    taken by or reported to the House for purposes of measuring severity of
    punishment, it is not in order to discuss the conduct of another Member
    not the subject of a committee report (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36271). Debate

      The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has reminded Members that
    remarks in debate should be addressed to the Chairman, and not to
    Members or others not present in the Chamber (Apr. 5, 1979, p. 7356),
    and reminded Members that references to other Members may not be by
    familiar name but must be in the third person, by state designation
    (July 21, 1982, pp. 17314, 17315). Although remarks in debate may not
    include personal attacks against a Member or an identifiable group of
    Members, they may address political motivations for legislative
    positions (Jan. 24, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 8, 1995, p. ----). Even if
    remarks critical of the Speaker are delivered in debate while he is not
    occupying the Chair, they should be addressed to ``Mr. Speaker''
    pursuant to this rule (Nov. 1, 1983, p. 30267). It is not in order to
    address remarks to the ``television'' or to anyone, including Members
    not present, viewing televised House proceedings, and the Chair enforces
    this rule on his or her own initiative (Nov. 8, 1979, p. 31519; Sept.
    29, 1983, p. 26501; Aug. 2, 1984, p. 22271; Oct. 9, 1985, p. 26961; June
    3, 1987, p. 14524; July 23, 1987, p. 20849; Dec. 17, 1987, p. 36139).
    The tendency to address remarks directly to the President (or others not
    in the Chamber) in the second person has been deplored by the Speaker,
    and he cautions Members on his own initiative (Oct. 16, 1989, p. 24715;
    Oct. 17, 1989, p. 24764; Jan. 24, 1990, p. 426; Oct. 9, 1991, p. ----).
    This clause has also been interpreted to proscribe the wearing of badges
    by Members to communicate a message, since Members must rise and address
    the Speaker to deliver any matter to the House (Speaker O'Neill, Apr.
    15, 1986, p. 7525; Feb. 22, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 29, 1995, p. ----). A
    Member's comportment may constitute a breach of decorum even though the
    content of that Member's speech is not, itself, unparliamentary (July
    29, 1994, p. ----).

      It is a general rule that a motion must be made before a Member may
    proceed in debate (V, 4984, 4985), and this motion may be required to be
    reduced to writing (V, 4986). A motion must also be stated by the
    Speaker or read by the Clerk before debate may begin (V, 4982, 4983,
    5304). The withdrawal of a motion precludes further debate on it (V,
    4989). But sometimes when a communication or a report has been before
    the House it has been debated before any specific motion has been made
    in relation to it (V, 4987, 4988). In a few cases, such as conference
    reports and reports from the Committee of the Whole, the motion to agree
    is considered as pending without being offered from the floor (IV, 4896;
    V, 6517).

    [[Page 528]]
    not the rule in presenting a case involving the privileges of the House
    (III, 2546, 2547; VI, 565, 566, 580). Personal explanations merely are
    made by unanimous consent (V, 5065).
      In presenting a question of personal privilege the Member is not
    required in the first instance to make a motion or offer a resolution,
    but such is

    Sec. 750. Interruption of a Member in debate.

      A  Member
    having the floor may not be taken off his feet by an ordinary motion,
    even the highly privileged motion to adjourn (V, 5369, 5370; VIII,
    2646), or the motion to table (Mar. 18, 1992, p. ----). He may not be
    deprived of the floor by a parliamentary inquiry (VIII, 2455-2458), a
    question of privilege (V, 5002; VIII, 2459), a motion that the committee
    rise (VIII, 2325), or a demand for the previous question (VIII, 2609;
    Mar. 18, 1992, p. ----), but he may be interrupted for a conference
    report (V, 6451; VIII, 3294). It is a custom also for the Speaker to
    request a Member to yield for the reception of a message. A Member may
    yield the floor for a motion to adjourn or that the Committee of the
    Whole rise without losing his right to continue when the subject is
    again continued (V, 5009-5013), but where the House has by resolution
    vested control of general debate in the Committee of the Whole in
    designated Members, their control of general debate may not be abrogated
    by another Member moving to rise, unless they yield for that purpose
    (May 25, 1967, p. 14121). A Member may also resume his seat while a
    paper is being read in his time without losing his right to the floor
    (V, 5015). A Member who, having the floor, moved the previous question
    was permitted to resume the floor on withdrawing the motion (V, 5474).
    But a Member may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment
    without losing the floor (V, 5021, 5030, 5031; VIII, 2476), and a Member
    may not offer an amendment in time secured for debate only (VIII, 2474),
    or request unanimous consent to offer an amendment unless yielded to for
    that purpose by the Member controlling the floor (Sept. 24, 1986, p.
    25589). A Member recognized under the five-minute rule in the Committee
    of the Whole may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment, as
    it is within the power of the Chair to recognize each Member to offer
    amendments (Apr. 19, 1973, p. 13240; Dec. 12, 1973, p. 41171). A Member
    desiring to interrupt another in debate should address the Chair for
    permission of the Member speaking (V, 5006; VI, 193), but the latter may
    exercise his own discretion as to whether or not he will yield (V, 5007,
    5008; VI, 193; VIII, 2463, 2465). It is not in order to disrupt a
    Member's remarks in debate by repeatedly interrupting to ask whether he
    will yield after he has declined to do so (Apr. 9, 1992, p. ----); and
    the remarks of an interrupting Member do not appear in the Record
    because they were not uttered under recognition (July 21, 1993, p. ----
    ).

    [[Page 529]]
    1371; III, 1950; V, 6097). In more recent years, Speakers have
    frequently entered into debate on substantive legislative issues before
    the House for decision, and the right to participate in debate in the
    Committee of the Whole is without question (see, e.g., Apr. 30, 1987, p.
    10811).

    Sec. 751. Speaker in debate.

      The  Speaker may of right speak
    from the Chair on questions of order and be first heard (II, 1367), but
    with this exception he may speak from the Chair only by leave of the
    House and on questions of fact (II, 1367-1372). On occasions
    comparatively rare Speakers have called Members to the Chair and
    participated in debate on questions of order or matters relating their
    own conduct or rights, usually without asking consent of the House (II,
    1367, 1368,

    Sec. 752. Member must confine himself to the subject.

      It  has
    always been held, and generally quite strictly, that in the House the
    Member must confine himself to the subject under debate (V, 5043-5048;
    VI, 576; VIII, 2481, 2534). Debate on a motion to amend must be confined
    to the amendment, and may neither include the general merits of the bill
    (V, 5049-5051), nor range to the merits of a proposition not included in
    the underlying resolution (Jan. 31, 1995, p. ----). On a motion to
    suspend the rules, debate is confined to the object of the motion and
    may not range to the merits of a bill not scheduled for such
    consideration (Nov. 23, 1991, p. ----). However, debate on a special
    order providing for the consideration of a bill may range to the merits
    of the bill to be made in order (Sept. 26, 1989, p. 21532; Oct. 16,
    1990, p. ----; Oct. 1, 1991, p. ----), since the question of
    consideration of the bill is involved, but should not range to the
    merits of a measure not to be considered under that special order (Sept.
    27, 1990, p. ----). The Chair normally waits for the question of
    relevancy of debate to be raised and does not take initiative (Sept. 27,
    1990, p. ----; Mar. 23, 1995, p. ----). If a unanimous consent request
    for a Member to address the House for one hour specifies the subject of
    the address, the occupant of the Chair during that speech may enforce
    the rule of relevancy in debate by requiring that the remarks be
    confined to the subject so specified (Jan. 23, 1984, p. 93). Debate on a
    question of personal privilege must be confined to the statements or
    issue which gave rise to the question of privilege (V, 5075-5077; VI,
    576, 608; VIII, 2448, 2481; May 31, 1984, p. 14623). Debate on a
    privileged resolution recommending disciplinary action against a Member,
    while it may include comparisons with other such actions taken by or
    reported to the House for purposes of measuring severity of punishment,
    may not extend to the conduct of another Member not the subject of a
    committee report (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36271). The question whether a
    Member should be relieved from committee service is debatable only
    within very narrow limits (IV, 4510; June 16, 1975, p. 19056). Debate on
    a resolution electing a Member to a committee is confined to the
    election of that Member and should not extend to that committee's agenda
    (July 10, 1995, p. ----).

      While the Speakers have entertained appeals from their decisions as to
    irrelevancy, they have held that such appeals were not debatable (V,
    5056-5063).

    [[Page 530]]
    must relate to an issue in the pending portion of the bill; thus, where
    a general provisions title is pending debate may relate to any agency
    funded by the bill (June 13, 1991, p. ----).

    <>   2. When two or
    more Members rise at once, the Speaker shall name the Member who is
    first to speak; * * *

      In Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union during
    general debate the Member need not confine himself to the subject (V,
    5233-5238; VIII, 2590; June 28, 1974, p. 21743); but this privilege does
    not extend to the Committee of the Whole House (V, 5239; VIII, 2590).
    All five-minute debate in Committee of the Whole is confined to the
    subject (V, 5240-5256), even on a pro forma amendment (VIII, 2591), in
    which case debate

      This clause was adopted in 1789 (V, 4978).

    --  Recognition <> for one-minute speeches by unanimous consent and the order
    of recognition are entirely within the discretion of the Speaker (Nov.
    15, 1983, p. 32657). When the House has a heavy legislative schedule,
    the Speaker may refuse to recognize Members for that purpose until the
    completion of legislative business (Procedure, ch. 21, sec. 7.5; July
    24, 1980, p. 19386). It is not in order to raise as a question of the
    privileges of the House a resolution directing the Speaker to recognize
    for such speeches, since a question of privilege cannot amend or
    interpret the rules of the House (July 25, 1980, pp. 19762-64).
      In the early history of the House, when business proceeded on
    presentation by individual Members, the Speaker recognized the Member
    who arose first; and in case of doubt there was an appeal from his
    recognition (II, 1429-1434). But as the membership and business of the
    House increased it became necessary to establish and adhere to a fixed
    order of business, and recognitions, instead of pertaining to the
    individual Member, necessarily came to pertain to the bill or other
    business which would be before the House under the rule regulating the
    order of business. Hence the necessity that the Speaker should not be
    compelled to heed the claims of Members as individuals was expressed in
    1879 in a report from the Committee on Rules, which declared that ``in
    the nature of the case discretion must be lodged with the presiding
    officer'' (II, 1424). And in 1881 the Speaker declined to entertain an
    appeal from his decision on a question of recognition (II, 1425-1428),
    establishing thereby a practice which continues (VI, 292; VIII, 2429,
    2646, 2762). It has also been determined that a Member may not invoke
    rule XXV (Sec. 900, infra), providing that questions relating to the
    priority of business shall be decided by a majority without debate, to
    inhibit the Speaker's power of recognition under this clause (Speaker
    Albert, July 31, 1975, p. 26249).

    [[Page 531]]
    p. 7406). From August 8, 1984, through February 23, 1994, the Speaker
    also followed an announced policy of recognizing Members of the same
    party within a given category in the order in which their requests for
    special orders were granted (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 8, 1984, p. 22963;
    Jan. 5, 1993, p. ----). But since February 24, 1994, the Speaker's
    announced policies for recognition for special order speeches has been
    as follows: (1) recognition does not extend beyond midnight; (2)
    recognition is granted first for speeches of five minutes or less; (3)
    recognition for longer speeches is limited (except on Tuesdays) to four
    hours equally divided between the majority and minority; (4) the first
    hour for each party is reserved to its respective Leader or his
    designees; (5) time within each party is allotted in accord with a list
    submitted to the Chair by the respective Leader; (6) the first
    recognition within a category alternates between the parties from day to
    day, regardless of when requests were granted; (7) Members may not enter
    requests for five-minute special orders earlier than one week in
    advance; and (8) the respective Leaders may establish additional
    guidelines for entering requests (Feb. 11, 1994, p. ----; May 23, 1994,
    p. ----; June 10, 1994, p. ----; Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----; Feb. 16, 1995,
    p. ----; May 12, 1995, p. ----).
      Since the 98th Congress the Speaker has followed announced policies of
    (1) alternating recognition for one-minute speeches and special-order
    speeches between majority and minority Members and (2) recognizing for
    special-order speeches of five minutes or less before longer speeches
    (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 8, 1984, p. 22963; Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----). In the
    101st Congress, the Chair continued the practice of alternating
    recognition for one-minute speeches but began a practice of recognizing
    Members suggested by their party leadership before others in the well
    (Apr. 19, 1990,

    -  Beginning <> in the second
    session of the 103d Congress, the House has by unanimous consent agreed
    (without prejudice to the Speaker's ultimate power of recognition under
    this rule) to convene 90 minutes early on Mondays and Tuesdays for
    morning-hour debate (Feb. 11, 1994, p. ----; May 23, 1994, p. ----; June
    8, 1994, p. ----; June 10, 1994, p. ----; Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----; Feb.
    16, 1995, p. ----). On May 12, 1995, the House extended and modified the
    above order to accommodate earlier convening times after May 14 of each
    year. The modified order changes morning hour debates on Tuesdays after
    May 14 of each year as follows: (1) the House convenes one hour early
    (rather than 90 minutes); (2) time for debate is limited to 25 minutes
    for each Party (rather than 30 minutes); and (3) in no event is morning
    hour debate to continue beyond 10 minutes before the House is to convene
    (May 12, 1995, p. ----). The above-cited orders of the House also: (1)
    postpone the Prayer, approval of the Journal, and the Pledge of
    Allegiance during morning hour debates; and (2) require the Chair to
    recognize Members for not more than five minutes each, alternating
    between the majority and minority parties in accord with lists supplied
    by their respective Lead

    [[Page 532]]
    ers. During morning hour debate it is not in order to request that a
    name be removed from a list of cosponsors of a bill (Apr. 26, 1994, p.
    ----).

      While the Chair's calculation of time consumed under one-minute
    speeches is not subject to challenge, the Chair endeavors to recognize
    Majority and then Minority Members by allocating time in a non-partisan
    manner (Aug. 4, 1982, p. 19319). Prior to legislative business, the
    Speaker will traditionally recognize a Member only once by unanimous
    consent for a one-minute speech, and will not entertain a second request
    (May 1, 1985, p. 9995). The Chair will not entertain a unanimous consent
    request to extend a five-minute special order (Mar. 7, 1995, p. ----).

    Sec. 753c. ``Oxford'' style debates.

      In  the 103d Congress
    the House agreed by unanimous consent to conduct at a time designated by
    the Speaker structured debate on a mutually agreeable topic announced by
    the Speaker, with four participants from each party in a format
    announced by the Speaker (Feb. 11, 1994, p. ----; Mar. 11, 1994, p. ----
    ; May 23, 1994, p. ----; June 8, 1994, p. ----; June 10, 1994, p. ----).
    Pursuant to that authority the House conducted three ``Oxford''-style
    debates (Mar. 16, 1994, p. ----; May 4, 1994, p. ----; July 20, 1994, p.
    ----). As a precursor to those structured debates, special-order time
    was used for a ``Lincoln-Douglas'' style debate involving five Members,
    with one Member acting as ``moderator'' by controlling the hour under
    this clause (Nov. 3, 1993, p. ----).

    [[Page 533]]
    recognized to call up a measure in the House has priority of
    recognition to move the previous question thereon, even over the
    chairman of the committee reporting that measure (Oct. 1, 1986, p.
    27468). The fact that a Member has the floor on one matter does not
    necessarily entitle him to prior recognition on a motion relating to
    another matter (II, 1464). It is because the Speaker is governed by
    these usages that he often asks, when a Member seeks recognition, ``For
    what purpose does the gentleman rise?''. By this question he determines
    whether the Member proposes business or a motion which is entitled to
    precedence and he may deny recognition (VI, 289-291, 293; Aug. 13, 1982,
    pp. 20969, 20975-78; Speaker Wright, Feb. 17, 1988, p. 1583; Feb. 27,
    1992, p. ----) and from such denial there is no appeal (II, 1425; VI,
    292; VIII, 2429, 2646, 2762; Feb. 27, 1992, p. ----). Recognition for
    parliamentary inquiry lies in the discretion of the Chair (VI, 541), who
    may take a parliamentary inquiry under advisement (VIII, 2174),
    especially where not related to the pending proceedings (Apr. 7, 1992,
    p. ----).

    Sec. 754. Speaker governed by usage in
    recognitions.

      Although  there is no appeal from the Speaker's recognition, he is
    not a free agent in determining who is to have the floor. The practice
    of the House establishes rules from which he may not depart. When the
    order of business brings before the House a certain bill he must first
    recognize, for motions for its disposition, the Member who represents
    the committee which has reported it (II, 1447; VI, 306, 514). This is
    not necessarily the chairman of the committee, for a chairman who, in
    committee, has opposed the bill, must yield the prior recognition to a
    member of his committee who has favored the bill (II, 1449). Usually,
    however, the chairman has charge of the bill and is entitled at all
    stages to prior recognition for allowable motions intended to expedite
    it (II, 1452, 1457; VI, 296, 300). This principle does not, however,
    apply to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole (II, 1453). The
    Member who originally introduces the bill which a committee reports has
    no claims to recognition as opposed to the claims of the members of the
    committee, but in cases where a proposition is brought directly before
    the House by a Member the mover is entitled to prior recognition for
    motions and debate (II, 1446, 1454; VI, 302-305, 417; VIII, 2454, 3231).
    And this principle applies to the makers of certain motions. Thus, the
    Member on whose motion the enacting clause of a bill is stricken out in
    Committee of the Whole is entitled to prior recognition when the bill is
    reported to the House (V, 5337; VIII, 2629), and in a case where a
    Member raised an objection in the joint session to count the electoral
    vote the Speaker recognized him first when the Houses had separated to
    consider the objection (III, 1956). But a Member may not, by offering a
    debatable motion of higher privilege than the pending motion, deprive
    the Member in charge of the bill of possession of the floor for debate
    (II, 1460-1463; VI, 290, 297-299; VIII, 2454, 3193, 3197, 3259). The
    Member in charge of the bill and having the floor may demand the
    previous question, although another Member may propose to offer a motion
    of higher privilege (VIII, 2684); but the motion of higher privilege
    must be put before the previous question (V, 5480; VIII, 2684). The
    Member who has been

    Sec. 755. Loss of right to recognition by Member in
    charge.

      When  an essential motion made by the Member in charge of the bill
    is decided adversely the right to prior recognition passes to the Member
    leading the opposition to the motion (II, 1465-1468; VI, 308). The
    control of the measure passes under this principle when the House
    disagrees to the recommendation of the committee reporting the bill (II,
    1469-1472), when the Committee of the Whole reports a bill adversely
    (IV, 4897; VIII, 2430), when the motion for the previous question is
    rejected (VI, 308), subject to the motion of the Member who led the
    opposition to the previous question being preempted by a motion of
    higher precedence (Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-78), and in most
    cases, when the House refuses to order the previous question on a
    conference report and then rejects the report (II, 1473-1477; V, 6396).
    But the mere defeat of an amendment proposed by the Member in charge
    does not cause right to prior recognition to pass to the opponents (II,
    1478, 1479), and the invalidation of a conference report on a point of
    order, while equivalent to its rejection by the House, does not give the
    Member raising the question of order the right to the floor (VIII, 3284)
    and exerts no effect on the right to recognition (VI, 313). Rejection of
    a conference report after the previous question has been ordered thereon
    does not cause recognition to pass to a Member opposed to the report,
    and the manager retains control to offer the initial motion to dispose
    of amendments in disagreement (Speaker Albert, May 1, 1975, p. 12761).

    [[Page 534]]

    Sec. 756. Prior right of Members of the committee to
    recognition for debate.

      In  debate the members of the committee--except
    the Committee of the Whole (II, 1453)--are entitled to priority of
    recognition for debate (II, 1438, 1448; VI, 306, 307), but a motion to
    lay a proposition on the table is in order before the Member entitled to
    prior recognition for debate has begun his remarks (V, 5391-5395; VI,
    412; VIII, 2649, 2650).

      In recognizing for general debate under general House rules the Chair
    alternates between those favoring and those opposing the pending matter,
    preferring members of the committee reporting the bill (II, 1439-1444).
    When a member of a committee has occupied the floor in favor of a
    measure the Chair attempts to recognize a Member opposing next, even
    though he be not a member of the committee (II, 1445). The principle of
    alternation is not insisted on rigidly where a limited time is
    controlled by Members, as in the ``forty minutes'' of debate on motions
    for suspension of the rules and the previous question (II, 1442).

    [[Page 535]]

    Sec. 757. Exceptions to the usages constraining the Speaker
    as to recognitions.

      As  to motions to suspend the rules, which are in
    order on Mondays and Tuesdays of each week, the Speaker exercises a
    discretion to decline to recognize (V, 6791-6794, 6845; VIII, 3402-
    3404). He also may decline to recognize a Member who desires to ask
    unanimous consent to set aside the rules in order to consider a bill not
    other-wise in order, this being the way of signifying his objection to
    the request. But this authority does not extend to proceedings under
    clause 4 of rule XIII. The Speaker has announced and enforced a policy
    of conferring recognition for unanimous consent requests for the
    consideration of unreported bills and resolutions only when assured that
    the majority and minority floor and committee leaderships have no
    objection (Dec. 15, 1981, p. 31590; May 4, 1982, p. 8613; Nov. 16, 1983,
    p. 33138; Jan. 25, 1984, p. 354; Jan. 26, 1984, p. 449; Jan. 31, 1984,
    p. 1063; Oct. 2, 1984, p. 28516; Feb. 4, 1987, p. 2675; Jan. 3, 1989, p.
    89; Jan. 3, 1991, p. ----; Jan. 5, 1993, p. ----; Apr. 4, 1995, p. ----
    ). In the 103d Congress this policy was extended to reported bills (July
    23, 1993, p. ----). The Speaker's enforcement of this policy is not
    subject to appeal (Apr. 4, 1995, p. ----). ``Floor leadership'' in this
    context has been construed to apply only to the Minority Leader and not
    to the entire hierarchy of minority leadership, where the Chair had been
    assured that the Minority Leader had been consulted (Apr. 25, 1985, p.
    9415). This policy applies (1) to requests to immediately consider
    matters (separately unreported) comprising a portion of a measure
    already passed by the House (Dec. 19, 1985, p. 38356); (2) to requests
    to consider a motion to suspend the rules and pass an unreported bill
    (on a non-suspension day) (Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21126); (3) to requests to
    permit consideration of (nongermane) amendments to bills (Nov. 14, 1991,
    p. ----); and (4) to requests to permit expedited consideration of
    measures on subsequent days, as by waiving the requirement that a bill
    be referred to committee for 30 legislative days before a motion to
    discharge may be presented under clause 3 of rule XXVII (June 5, 1992,
    p. ----). With respect to unanimous consent requests to dispose of
    Senate amendments to House bills on the Speaker's table, the Chair will
    entertain such a request only if made by the chairman of the committee
    with jurisdiction, or by another committee member authorized to make the
    request (Apr. 26, 1984, p. 10194; Feb. 4, 1987, p. 2675; Deschler's
    Precedents, vol. 6, ch. 21, sec. 1.23).

    Sec. 758. The hour rule in debate.

      2.  * * * and no Member
    shall occupy more than one hour in debate on any question in the House
    or in committee, except as further provided in this rule.

      This clause dates from 1841, when the increase of membership had made
    it necessary to prevent the making of long speeches which sometimes
    occupied three or four hours each (V, 4978).

      It applies to debate on a question of privilege, as well as to debate
    on other questions (V, 4990; VIII, 2448); and when the time of debate
    has been placed within the control of those representing the two sides
    of a question it must be assigned to Members in accordance with this
    rule (V, 5004, 5005; VIII, 2462). Under this clause a Member recognized
    for one hour for a ``special order'' speech in the House may not extend
    that time, even by unanimous consent (July 12, 1971, pp. 24594, 24603;
    Feb. 9, 1966, p. 2794). In the 104th Congress the Speaker announced his
    intention to strictly enforce time limitations on debate (Jan. 5, 1995,
    p. ----).

      For a discussion of ``morning-hour debates'' and ``Oxford'' style
    debates, see Secs. 753b-c, supra.

    Sec. 759. The opening and closing of general debate.

      3.  The
    Member reporting the measure under consideration from a committee may
    open and close, where general debate has been had thereon; and if it
    shall extend beyond one day, he shall be entitled to one hour to close,
    notwithstanding he may have used an hour in opening.

      This clause was adopted in 1847 and perfected in 1880 (V, 4996).

      In the later practice this right to close may not be exercised after
    the previous question is ordered (V, 4997-5000). This clause applies to
    general debate in Committee of the Whole (Mar. 26, 1985, p. 6283).

    [[Page 536]]
    Member called to order, he shall be at liberty to proceed, but not
    otherwise; and, if the case requires it, he shall be liable to censure
    or such punishment as the House may deem proper.

    Sec. 760. The call to order.

      4.  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

      This clause was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1822 and 1880 (V,
    5175).

    [[Page 537]]

      Members transgressing the rules shall be called to order by the
    Speaker (VIII, 2481, 2521, 3479) or any Member (II, 1344; V, 5154, 5161-
    5163, 5175, 5192); and unanimous consent is not required for a Member to
    withdraw his demand that another Member's words be taken down, prior to
    a ruling by the Chair (June 18, 1986, p. 14232); but except for naming
    him the Speaker may not otherwise censure or punish him (II, 1345; VI,
    237). A Delegate may call a Member to order (II, 1295). It is the duty
    of the Speaker to call to order a Member who criticizes the actions of
    the Senate, its Members or committees, in debate or through an insertion
    in the Record (Speaker Albert, Apr. 17, 1975, p. 10458; Oct. 7, 1975, p.
    32055), and the Speaker may deny an offending Member further recognition
    subject to permission of the House to proceed in order (Speaker O'Neill,
    June 16, 1982, p. 13843). The Chair may take the initiative to call to
    order a Member engaging in or tending toward personalities in debate,
    for example, allegations of unethical conduct by other Members not
    reported by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (June 29,
    1987, p. 18072); or to call to order a Member engaging in verbal
    outburst following expiration of his recognition for debate (Mar. 16,
    1988, p. 4081). The Speaker may admonish a Member for words spoken in
    debate and request that they be removed from the Record even prior to a
    demand by another that they be taken down (Sept. 24, 1992, p. ----). In
    the 104th Congress the Speaker announced that the Chair may interrupt a
    Member engaging in ``personalities'' with respect to a fellow Member of
    the House, just as he would with respect to references to the Senate or
    the President (Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----). Where words are taken down and
    ruled out of order by the Chair, the motion to strike or expunge the
    words from the Record has precedence (VIII, 2538-2541; Aug. 21, 1974,
    pp. 29652-53), is often undertaken by the Chair on his own initiative
    (May 10, 1990, p. 9992), and is debatable within narrow limits (VIII,
    2539; Speaker Martin, June 12, 1947, p. 6896), but the motion to expunge
    or strike may not be made in Committee of the Whole (Feb. 18, 1941, p.
    1126) and may not be made by the Member called to order (Feb. 11, 1941,
    pp. 894, 899), although the Member called to order may withdraw his
    words by unanimous consent (VIII, 2528, 2538, 2543, 2544). Where a
    Member interrupts another during debate without being yielded or
    otherwise recognized (as on a point of order) his remarks are not
    printed in the Record (Speaker O'Neill, Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2229; July 29,
    1994, p. ----).

      When a Member is called to order under this rule it is the practice to
    test the opinion of the House by a motion ``that the gentleman be
    allowed to proceed in order'' (V, 5188, 5189; VIII, 2534; May 10, 1990,
    p. 9992), which may be stated on the initiative of the Chair (Oct. 8,
    1991, p. ----; Mar. 29, 1995, p. ----), is debatable within narrow
    limits of relevance under the hour rule, and is consequently also
    subject to the motion to lay on the table (Speaker Foley, Oct. 8, 1991,
    p. ----). The motion is not inconsistent with the immediate consequence
    of the call to order, since clause 4 also permits the House to determine
    the extent of the sanction for a given breach (Oct. 10, 1991, p. ----).
    The rule permits a motion that the offending Member be permitted to
    explain before the Speaker rules on the words taken down, and the
    Speaker has in his discretion asked for explanation before ruling on the
    words (Feb. 1, 1940, p. 954). But the Speaker has recognized the
    offending Member by unanimous consent to explain words ruled out of
    order (Nov. 10, 1971, pp. 40442-43). A Member called to order must be
    seated immediately (July 29, 1994, p. ----; Jan. 25, 1995, p. ----). If
    held to be out of order, the Member loses the floor (V, 5196-5199; Jan.
    25, 1995, p. ----) and may not proceed on the same day without the
    permission of the House (Jan. 29, 1946, p. 533; Aug. 21, 1974, pp.
    29652-53; Jan. 25, 1995, p. ----), even on yielded time (V, 5147), and
    may not insert unspoken remarks in the Record (Jan. 25, 1995, p. ----).
    However, this does not prevent the offending Member from exercising his
    right to vote or to demand the yeas and nays (VIII, 2546).

      The House has censured Members for disorderly words (II, 1253, 1254,
    1259, 1305; VI, 236). A Member's comportment may constitute a breach of
    decorum even though the content of that Member's speech is not, itself,
    unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. ----).

      The display of exhibits, demonstrations, or other unusual adjuncts to
    debate by way of illustration is subject to the will of the House and
    any Member may object (VIII, 2452), and where objection is made the
    question is put to the House without debate (June 21, 1937, p. 6104).
    See also Sec. 915, infra.

    [[Page 538]]

    Sec. 761. Words taken down.

      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 be subject to the censure of the House therefor, if
    further debate or other business has intervened.

      This clause was adopted in 1837, with amendment in 1880, but the
    practice of writing down objectionable words had been established in
    1808. The rule was adopted to prevent the taking down of words after
    intervening business (V, 5177; VIII, 2536), but a Member on his feet and
    requesting recognition at the time may be recognized to demand that
    words be taken down even though brief debate has intervened, and a
    request that a Member uttering objectionable words yield does not
    forfeit the right to demand that the words be taken down (VIII, 2528).
    The Chair's determination whether a Member's point of order (that
    remarks just spoken in debate impugn another Member's motives)
    constitutes a demand that those words be taken down is not such
    intervening debate or business as to render the demand untimely (Oct. 2,
    1984, p. 28522).

      The words having been read from the desk, the Chair decides whether
    they are in order (II, 1249; V, 5163, 5169, 5187), as read by the Clerk
    and not as alleged to have been uttered (June 9, 1992, p. ----). The
    House may by proper motions under clauses 4 and 5 of this rule dictate
    the consequences of the Chair's ruling the words out of order (May 26,
    1983, p. 14048). When a Member denies that the words taken down are the
    exact words used by himself, the question as to the words is put to the
    House for decision (V, 5179, 5180).

      When the disorderly words are spoken in the Committee of the Whole,
    they are taken down as in the House and read at the Clerk's desk, and
    the Committee rises automatically (VIII, 2533, 2538, 2539) and reports
    them to the House (II, 1257-1259, 1348). Action in the House on words
    taken down and reported from Committee of the Whole is limited to the
    words reported (VIII, 2528); and it is not in order as a question of
    privilege in the House to propose censure of a Member for disorderly
    words spoken in Committee of the Whole but not taken down or reported
    therefrom (V, 5202). Words so taken down may be withdrawn only by
    unanimous consent (VIII, 2528, 2538, 2540, 2543, 2544). Consideration of
    words reported to the House from Committee of the Whole having been
    disposed of, either by decision of the Speaker holding them in order or
    by action of the House if held unparliamentary, the Committee resumes
    its sitting without motion (VIII, 2539, 2541).

    [[Page 539]]

      In certain exceptional cases, as when disorderly words are part of an
    occurrence constituting a breach of privilege (II, 1657), or when a
    Member's language has been investigated by a committee (II, 1655), or
    when he has reiterated on the floor certain published charges (III,
    2637), or when he has uttered words alleged to be treasonable (II,
    1252), or when he has uttered an attack on the Speaker (II, 1248; Jan.
    4, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 19, 1995, p. ----), the House may proceed to
    censure or other action although business may have intervened.

    Sec. 762. Member to speak but once to the same question;
    right to close controlled debate.

      6.  No Member shall speak more than
    once to the same question without leave of the House, unless he be the
    mover, proposer, or introducer of the matter pending, in which case he
    shall be permitted to speak in reply, but not until every Member
    choosing to speak shall have spoken.

      This clause was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1840 (V, 4991).

      A Member who has spoken once to the main question may speak again to
    an amendment (V, 4993, 4994). It is too late to make the point that a
    Member has spoken already if no one claims the floor until he has made
    some progress in his speech (V, 4992). This clause is often
    circumscribed by special orders of business that vest control of debate
    in designated Members and permit them to yield more than once to other
    Members. For a discussion of the right of a Member to speak more than
    once under the five-minute rule, see Sec. 873, infra. The right to close
    may not be exercised after the previous question has been ordered (V,
    4997-5000). The right to close does not belong to a Member who has
    merely moved to reconsider the vote on a bill which he did not report
    (V, 4995). The right of a contestant in an election case to close when
    he is permitted to speak in the contest has been a matter of discussion
    (V, 5001).

      Ordinarily the manager of a bill or other representative of the
    committee position and not the proponent of an amendment has the right
    to close debate on an amendment on which debate has been limited and
    allocated under the five-minute rule in Committee of the Whole (VIII,
    2581; July 16, 1981, p. 16043; Apr. 4, 1984, p. 7841; June 5, 1985, p.
    14302; July 10, 1985, p. 18496; Oct. 24, 1985, p. 28824; May 2, 1988, p.
    9638; May 5, 1988, pp. 9961-62), including the minority manager (June
    29, 1984, p. 20253; Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21660; July 26, 1989, p. 16403).
    Where the pending text includes a provision recommended by a committee
    of sequential referral, a member of that committee is entitled to close
    debate against an amendment thereto (June 15, 1989, pp. 12084-87). By
    recommending an amendment in the nature of a substitute, a reporting
    committee implicitly opposes a further amendment that could have been
    included therein, such that a committee representative who controls time
    in opposition may close debate thereon (June 4, 1992, pp. ---- and ----;
    June 13, 1995, p. ----).

    [[Page 540]]
    (Mar. 9, 1995, p. ----); or where an unreported measure is being
    considered and there is no ``manager'' under the terms of a special rule
    (Apr. 24, 1985, p. 9206).

      Under certain circumstances, however, the proponent of the amendment
    may close debate, as where he represents the reporting committee
    position (Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21718); where no committee representative
    opposes the amendment (Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22057); where no representative
    from the reporting committee opposes an amendment to a multi-
    jurisdictional bill

    Sec. 763. Decorum of Members in the Hall.

      7.  While the
    Speaker is putting a question or addressing the House no Member shall
    walk out of or across the hall, nor, when a Member is speaking, pass
    between him and the Chair; and during the session of the House no Member
    shall wear his hat, or remain by the Clerk's desk during the call of the
    roll or the counting of ballots, or smoke upon the floor of the House;
    and the Sergeant-at-Arms is charged with the strict enforcement of this
    clause. Neither shall any person be allowed to smoke or to use any
    personal, electronic office equipment (including cellular phones and
    computers) upon the floor of the House at any time.

    [[Page 541]]
    rail (Feb. 23, 1995, p. ----). 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
    (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 88; see also Jan. 5, 1993, p. ----; Jan. 4, 1995, p.
    ----). In the 104th Congress the Speaker announced that Members should
    not traffic the well of the House when another Member is speaking (Feb.
    3, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 3, 1995, p. ----).

      Until the 104th Congress this clause was made up of provisions adopted
    in 1789, 1837, 1871, and 1896. In the 104th Congress a reference to the
    former Doorkeeper was deleted and the prohibition against using personal
    electronic office equipment was added (H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----
    ). The prohibition was affirmed by response to a parliamentary inquiry
    (Feb. 23, 1995, p. ----). Originally Members wore their hats during
    sessions, as in Parliament, and the custom was not abolished until 1837
    (II, 1136). In the 103d Congress the Speaker announced that the
    prohibition against Members wearing hats included doffing the hat in
    tribute to a group (Speaker Foley, June 22, 1993, p. ----). In the 96th
    Congress, the Speaker announced that he considered as proper the
    customary and traditional attire for Members, including a coat and tie
    for male Members and appropriate attire for female Members (where
    thermostat controls had been raised in the summer to conserve energy);
    the House then adopted a resolution, offered as a question of the
    privileges of the House, requiring Members to wear proper attire as
    determined by the Speaker, and denying non-complying Members the
    privilege of the floor (July 17, 1979, pp. 19008, 19073). In the 97th
    Congress, the Speaker announced during a vote by electronic device that
    Members were not permitted under the traditions of the House to wear
    overcoats on the House floor (Dec. 16, 1981, p. 31847). Smoking is not
    permitted in the Hall during sessions of the House (Oct. 15, 1990, p. --
    --), nor during sittings of the Committee of the Whole (Aug. 14, 1986,
    p. 21707); and the prohibition extends to smoking behind the

    Sec. 764. Gallery occupants not to be introduced.

      8.  It
    shall not be in order for any Member to introduce to or to bring to the
    attention of the House during its sessions any occupant in the galleries
    of the House; nor may the Speaker entertain a request for the suspension
    of this rule by unanimous consent or otherwise.

      This clause was adopted April 10, 1933 (VI, 197).

    Sec. 764a. Revisions of remarks in debate.

      9. (a)  The
    Congressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of
    remarks made during the proceedings of the House, subject only to
    technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the
    Member making the remarks involved.

      (b) Unparliamentary remarks may be deleted only by permission or order
    of the House.

    Sec. 764b. Standard of conduct.

      (c)  This clause establishes
    a standard of conduct within the meaning of clause 4(e)(1)(B) of rule X.

      This clause was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 213, H. Res. 6,
    Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----). Under clause 9(a) a unanimous consent request to
    revise and extend remarks permits a Member (1) to make technical,
    grammatical, and typographical corrections to remarks uttered and (2) to
    include in the Record additional remarks not uttered to appear in a
    distinctive typeface (Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----). Clause 9(a) also applies
    to statements and rulings of the Chair (Jan. 20, 1995, p. ----).