[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress]
[104th Congress]
[House Document 103-342]
[Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
[Pages 163-181]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 

<>   
When the Speaker is seated in his chair, every member is to sit in his 
place. Scob., 6; Grey, 403.

                      SEC. XVII.--ORDER IN DEBATE.



[[Page 164]]

  In the House of Representatives the decorum of Members is regulated by 
the various provisions of rule XIV; and this provision of the 
parliamentary law is practically obsolete.




Sec. 354. Procedure of the Member in seeking recognition.

  When  any Member means to speak, he is to stand up in his place, uncovered, 
and to address himself, not to the House, or any particular Member, but 
to the Speaker, who calls him by his name, that the House may take 
notice who it is that speaks. Scob., 6; D'Ewes, 487, col. 1; 2 Hats., 
77; 4 Grey, 66; 8 Grey, 108. But Members who are indisposed may be 
indulged to speak sitting. 2 Hats., 75, 77; 1 Grey, 143.



<>   When a Member stands up to 
speak, no question is to be put, but he is to be heard unless the House 
overrule him. 4 Grey, 390; 5 Grey, 6, 143.

  In the House of Representatives the Member, in seeking recognition is 
governed by clause 1 of rule XIV, which differs materially from this 
provision of the parliamentary law. The Speaker, moreover, calls the 
Member, not by name, but as ``the gentleman (or gentlewoman) from ------
,'' naming the State. As long ago as 1832, at least, a Member was not 
required to rise from his own seat (V, 4979, footnote).


  In the House of Representatives no question is put as to the right of 
a Member to the floor, unless he be called to order and dealt with by 
the House under clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV.


[[Page 165]]



Sec. 356. The parliamentary law as to recognition by the 
Speaker.

  If  two or more rise to speak nearly together, the Speaker 
determines who was first up, and calls him by name, whereupon he 
proceeds, unless he voluntarily sits down and gives way to the other. 
But sometimes the House does not acquiesce in the Speaker's decision, in 
which case the question is put, ``which Member was first up?'' 2 Hats., 
76; Scob., 7; D'Ewes, 434, col. 1, 2. 



  In the Senate of the United States the President's decision is without 
appeal.


  In the House of Representatives recognition by the Chair is governed 
by clause 2 of rule XIV and the practice thereunder. There has been no 
appeal from a decision by the Speaker on a question of recognition since 
1881, on which occasion Speaker Randall stated that the power of 
recognition is ``just as absolute in the Chair as the judgment of the 
Supreme Court of the United States is absolute as to the interpretation 
of the law'' (II, 1425-1428), and in the later practice no appeal is 
permitted (VIII, 2429, 2646, 2762).



Sec. 357. Right of the Member to be heard a second 
time.

  No  man may speak more than once on the same bill on the same day; 
or even on another day, if the debate be adjourned. But if it be read 
more than once in the same day, he may speak once at every reading. Co., 
12, 115; Hakew., 148; Scob., 58; 2 Hats., 75. Even a change of opinion 
does not give a right to be heard a second time. Smyth's Comw. L., 2, c. 
3; Arcan, Parl., 17.



  But he may be permitted to speak again to clear a matter of fact, 3 
Grey, 357, 416; or merely to explain himself, 2 Hats., 73, in some 
material part of his speech, Ib., 75; or to the manner or words of the 
question, keeping himself to that only, and not traveling into the 
merits of it, Memorials in Hakew., 29; or to the orders of the House, if 
they be transgressed, keeping within that line, and not falling into the 
matter itself. Mem. Hakew., 30, 31.



[[Page 166]]

  The House of Representatives has modified the parliamentary law as to 
a Member's right to speak a second time by clauses 3 and 6 of rule XIV 
and by permitting a Member controlling time in debate to yield to 
another more than once. In ordinary practice rule XIV is not rigidly 
enforced, and Members find little difficulty in making such explanations 
as are contemplated by the parliamentary law.




Sec. 358. Participation of the Speaker in debate.

  But  if 
the Speaker rise to speak, the Member standing up ought to sit down, 
that he may be first heard. Town., col. 205; Hale Parl., 133; Mem. in 
Hakew., 30, 31. Nevertheless, though the Speaker may of right speak to 
matters of order, and be first heard, he is restrained from speaking on 
any other subject, except where the House have occasion for facts within 
his knowledge; then he may, with their leave, state the matter of fact. 
3 Grey, 38.


  This provision is usually observed in the practice of the House, so 
far as the conduct of the Speaker in the chair is concerned. In several 
instances the Speaker has been permitted by the House to make a 
statement from the chair, as in a case wherein his past conduct had been 
criticised (II, 1369), and in a case wherein there had been unusual 
occurrences in the joint meeting to count the electoral vote (II, 1372), 
and in a matter relating to a contest for the seat of the Speaker as a 
Member (II, 1360). In rare instances the Speaker has made brief 
explanations from the chair without asking the assent of the House (II, 
1373, 1374). Speakers have called others to the chair and participated 
in debate, usually without asking consent of the House (II, 1360, 1367, 
footnote, 1368, 1371; III, 1950), and in one case a Speaker on the floor 
debated a point of order which the Speaker pro tempore was to decide (V, 
6097). In rare instances Speakers have left the chair to make motions on 
the floor (II, 1367, footnote). Speakers may participate in debate in 
Committee of the Whole, although at certain periods in the history of 
the House the privilege was rarely exercised (II, 1367, footnote).


  During the House's consideration of several measures relating to the 
use of military force in the Persian Gulf, the Speaker took the floor 
not only to debate the pending question but also to commend the House on 
the quality of its recent debates on matters of war and peace and to 
explain his decision to vote on measures relating thereto even though 
not required to do so under clause 6 of rule I (Jan. 12, 1991, p. ----).




Sec. 359. Impertinent, superfluous, or tedious 
speaking.

  No  one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, 
superfluous, or tediously. Scob., 31, 33; 2 Hats., 166, 168; Hale Parl., 
133.



[[Page 167]]
tice has the House ever suppressed superfluous or tedious speaking, its 
hour rule (clause 2 of rule XIV) being a sufficient safeguard in this 
respect.

  The House, by clause 1 of rule XIV, provides that the Member shall 
address himself to the question under debate, but neither by rule nor 
prac




Sec. 360. Language reflecting on the House.

  No  person is to 
use indecent language against the proceedings of the House; no prior 
determination of which is to be reflected on by any Member, unless he 
means to conclude with a motion to rescind it. 2 Hats., 169, 170; 
Rushw., p. 3, v. 1, fol. 42. But while a proposition under consideration 
is still in fieri, though it has even been reported by a committee, 
reflections on it are no reflections on the House. 9 Grey, 508.



  In the practice of the House of Representatives it has been held out 
of order in debate to cast reflections on either the House or its 
membership or its decisions, whether present or past (V, 5132-5138). A 
Member who had used offensive words against the character of the House, 
and who declined to explain, was censured (II, 1247). Words impeaching 
the loyalty of a portion of the membership have also been ruled out (V, 
5139). Where a Member reiterated on the floor certain published charges 
against the House, action was taken, although other business had 
intervened, the question being considered one of privilege (III, 2637). 
It has been held inappropriate and not in order in debate to refer to 
the proceedings of a committee except such as have been formally 
reported to the House (V, 5080-5083; VIII, 2269, 2485-2493; June 24, 
1958, pp. 12120, 12122), but this rule does not apply to the proceedings 
of a committee of a previous Congress (Chairman Hay, Feb. 2, 1914, p. 
2782), and the rationale for this limitation on debate is in part 
obsolete under the modern practice of the House insofar as the doctrine 
is applied to open committee meetings and hearings.


[[Page 168]]
or unmannerly words against a particular Member. Smyth's Comw., L. 2, 
c. 3. * * *



Sec. 361. Personalities in debate forbidden.

  No  person, in 
speaking, is to mention a Member then present by his name, but to 
describe him by his seat in the House, or who spoke last, or on the 
other side of the question, &c., Mem. in Hakew., 3; Smyth's Comw., L. 2, 
c. 3; nor to digress from the matter to fall upon the person, Scob., 31; 
Hale Parl., 133; 2 Hats., 166, by speaking reviling, nipping, 



[[Page 169]]
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. ----); and that they should refrain from 
critical personal references to members of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct (Mar. 3, 1995, 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).
  In the practice of the House a Member is not permitted to refer to 
another by name (V, 5144; VIII, 2526, 2529, 2536), or to address him in 
the second person (V, 5140-5143; VI, 600; VIII, 2529). The proper 
reference to a colleague is ``the gentleman (or gentlewoman) from ------
,'' naming the State (June 14, 1978, p. 17615; July 21, 1982, pp. 17314-
15). By rule of the House (clause 1 of rule XIV), as well as by the 
parliamentary law, personalities are forbidden (V, 4979, 5145, 5163, 
5169), whether against the Member in his capacity as Representative or 
otherwise (V, 5152, 5153). But a distinction has been drawn between 
charges made by one Member against another in a newspaper and the same 
made in debate on the floor (III, 2691). A Member may not read in debate 
extraneous material, critical of Members, which would be improper if 
spoken in the Member's own words (May 25, 1995, p. ----); thus words in 
a telegram read in debate which repudiated the ``lies and half-truths'' 
of a House committee report were taken down and ruled out of order as 
reflecting on the integrity of committee members (June 16, 1947, p. 
7065). Questions have arisen sometimes involving a distinction between 
general language and personalities (V, 5153, 5163, 5169). A denunciation 
of the spirit in which a Member had spoken was held out of order as a 
personality (V, 6981). The House has censured a Member for gross 
personalities (II, 1251). References in debate to an identifiable group 
of sitting Members as having committed a crime (e.g., ``stealing'' an 
election) are proscribed by clause 1 of rule XIV (Feb. 27, 1985, p. 
3898; Speaker Wright, Mar. 21, 1989, p. 5016). That rule prohibits 
references in debate to newspaper accounts used in support of a Member's 
personal criticism of a sitting Member in a way which would be 
unparliamentary if uttered as the Member's own words (Feb. 25, 1985, p. 
3346). It is not in order in debate to refer in a personally critical 
manner to the political tactics of the Speaker or other Members (June 
25, 1981, p. 14056), by charging dishonesty or disregard of the rules 
(July 11, 1985, p. 18550), to reflect on his patriotism (``kowtowing'' 
to persons who would desecrate the flag, June 20, 1990, p. 14877), or to 
refer to a particular Member of the House in a derogatory fashion, and 
the Chair will intervene to prevent improper references where it is 
evident that a particular Member is being described (Oct. 28, 1981, p. 
25681; Nov. 3, 1989, p. ----). 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. ----). The Speaker 
has reminded and advised Members that they should refrain from 
references in debate to the official conduct of other Members where such 
conduct is not the subject then pending before the House by way of 
either a report of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or 
another question of the privileges of the House (July 24, 1990, p. ----; 
Mar. 19, 1992, p. ----); that they should refrain from references in 
debate 




Sec. 362. Criticism of the Speaker.

  Complaint  of the conduct 
of the Speaker should be presented directly for the action of the House 
and not by way of debate on other matters (V, 5188). In a case wherein a 
Member used words insulting to the Speaker the House on a subsequent 
day, and after other business had intervened, censured the offender (II, 
1248). In such a case the Speaker would ordinarily leave the chair while 
action should be taken by the House (II, 1366; V, 5188; VI, 565). In the 
104th Congress the Chair reaffirmed that it is not in order to speak 
disrespectfully of the Speaker, and that 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. ----). It is not in order to arraign the personal conduct of 
the Speaker (Jan. 18, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 19, 1995, p. ----).





Sec. 363. Motives of Members not to be arraigned.

  * * *  The 
consequences of a measure may be reprobated in strong terms; but to 
arraign the motives of those who propose to advocate it is a 
personality, and against order. Qui digreditur a materia ad personam, 
Mr. Speaker ought to suppress. Ord. Com., 1604, Apr. 19.



[[Page 170]]
as impugning the motives of the Member offering the amendment (Dec. 3, 
1973, pp. 41270, 41271). While in debate the assertion of one Member may 
be declared untrue by another, yet in so doing an intentional 
misrepresentation must not be implied (V, 5157-5160), and if stated or 
implied is censurable (II, 1305) and presents a question of privilege 
(III, 2717; VI, 607). A Member in debate having declared the words of 
another ``a base lie,'' censure was inflicted by the House on the 
offender (II, 1249).

  The arraignment of the motives of Members is not permitted (V, 5147-
51; Dec. 13, 1973, p. 41270), and the Speakers have intervened to 
prevent it, in the earlier practice preventing even mildest imputations 
(V, 5161, 5162). However, remarks in debate may address political, but 
not personal, motivations for legislative positions (Jan. 24, 1995, p. 
----; Mar. 8, 1995, p. ----) or for committee membership (July 10, 1995, 
p. ----). Accusing another Member of hypocrisy has been held not in 
order (July 24, 1979, p. 20380; Mar. 29, 1995, p. ----), and 
characterizing the motivation of a Member in offering an amendment as 
deceptive and hypocritical was ruled out of order (June 12, 1979, p. 
11461). A statement in debate that an amendment could only be demagogic 
or racist because only demagoguery or racism impelled such an amendment 
was ruled out of order 




Sec. 364. Disorder and interruptions during debate.

  No  one 
is to disturb another in his speech by hissing, coughing, spitting, 6 
Grey, 322; Scob., 8; D'Ewes, 332, col. 1, 640, col. 2, speaking or 
whispering to another, Scob., 6; D'Ewes, 487, col. 1; nor stand up to 
interrupt him, Town, col. 205; Mem. in Hakew., 31; nor to pass between 
the Speaker and the speaking Member, nor to go across the House, Scob., 
6, or to walk up and down it, or to take books or papers from the table, 
or write there, 2 Hats., 171, p. 170.




[[Page 171]]

  The House of Representatives has by clause 7 of rule XIV prescribed 
certain rules of decorum differing somewhat from this provision of the 
parliamentary law, but supplemental to it rather than antagonistic. In 
one respect, however, the practice of the House differs from the 
apparent intent of the parliamentary law. In the House a Member may 
interrupt by addressing the Chair for permission of the Member speaking 
(V, 5006; VIII, 2465); but it is entirely within the discretion of the 
Member occupying the floor to determine when and by whom he shall be 
interrupted (V, 5007, 5008; VIII, 2463, 2465). There is no rule of the 
House requiring a Member having the floor to yield to another Member to 
whom he has referred during debate (Aug. 2, 1984, p. 22241). The Chair 
may take the initiative in preserving order when a Member declining to 
yield in debate continues to be interrupted by another Member, may order 
that the interrupting Member's remarks not appear in the Record (July 
26, 1984, p. 21247), and may admonish Members not to converse with a 
Member attempting to address the House (Feb. 21, 1984, p. 2758). On the 
opening day of the 103d Congress, during the customary announcement of 
policies with respect to particular aspects of the legislative process, 
the Chair elaborated on the rules of order in debate with a general 
statement concerning decorum in the House of Representatives (Jan. 5, 
1993, p. ----).




Sec. 365. Parliamentary method of silencing a 
tedious Member.

  Nevertheless,  if a Member finds that it is not the inclination of 
the House to hear him, and that by conversation or any other noise they 
endeavor to drown his voice, it is his most prudent way to submit to the 
pleasure of the House, and sit down; for it scarcely ever happens that 
they are guilty of this piece of ill manners without sufficient reason, 
or inattention to a Member who says anything worth their hearing. 2 
Hats., 77, 78.



  In the House of Representatives, where the previous question and hour 
rule of debate have been used for many years, the parliamentary method 
of suppressing a tedious Member has never been imported into the 
practice (V, 5445).




Sec. 366. The parliamentary law as to naming a disorderly 
Member.

  If  repeated calls do not produce order, the Speaker may call by 
his name any Member obstinately persisting in irregularity; whereupon 
the House may require the Member to withdraw. He is then to be heard in 
exculpation, and to withdraw. Then the Speaker states the offense 
committed; and the House considers the degree of punishment they will 
inflict. 2 Hats., 167, 7, 8, 172.



  The House of Representatives, in clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV, has made 
a provision which supersedes this provision of the parliamentary law.


[[Page 172]]
Members, the House, for the protection of their Members, requires them 
to declare in their places not to prosecute any quarrel, 3 Grey, 128, 
293; 5 Grey, 280; or orders them to attend the Speaker, who is to 
accommodate their differences, and report to the House, 3 Grey, 419; and 
they are put under restraint if they refuse, or until they do. 9 Grey, 
234, 312.



Sec. 367. Proceedings in cases of assaults and 
affrays.

  For  instances of assaults and affrays in the House of Commons, 
and the proceedings thereon, see 1 Pet. Misc., 82; 3 Grey, 128; 4 Grey, 
328; 5 Grey, 382; 6 Grey, 254; 10 Grey, 8. Whenever warm words or an 
assault have passed between 



  In several instances assaults and affrays have occurred on the floor 
of the House of Representatives. Sometimes the House has allowed these 
affairs to pass without notice, the Members concerned making apologies 
either personally or through other Members (II, 1658-1662). In other 
cases the House has exacted apologies (II, 1646-1651, 1657), or required 
the offending Members to pledge themselves before the House to keep the 
peace (II, 1643). In case of an aggravated assault by one Member on 
another on the portico of the Capitol for words spoken in debate, the 
House censured the assailant and three other Members who had been 
present, armed, to prevent interference (II, 1655, 1656). Assaults or 
affrays in the Committee of the Whole are dealt with by the House (II, 
1648-1651).


[[Page 173]]
in which he used them, or apologize. If the House is satisfied, no 
further proceeding is necessary. But if two Members still insist to take 
the sense of the House, the Member must withdraw before that question is 
stated, and then the sense of the House is to be taken. 2 Hats., 199; 4 
Grey, 170; 6 Grey, 59. When any Member has spoken, or other business 
intervened, after offensive words spoken, they can not be taken notice 
of for censure. And this is for the common security of all, and to 
prevent mistakes which must happen if words are not taken down 
immediately. Formerly they might be taken down at any time the same day. 
2 Hats., 196; Mem. in Hakew., 71; 3 Grey, 48; 9 Grey, 514.



Sec. 368. Parliamentary law as to taking down 
disorderly words.

  Disorderly  words are not to be noticed till the Member has 
finished his speech. 5 Grey, 356; 6 Grey, 60. Then the person objecting 
to them, and desiring them to be taken down by the Clerk at the table, 
must repeat them. The Speaker then may direct the Clerk to take them 
down in his minutes; but if he thinks them not disorderly, he delays the 
direction. If the call becomes pretty general, he orders the Clerk to 
take them down, as stated by the objecting Member. They are then a part 
of his minutes, and when read to the offending Member, he may deny they 
were his words, and the House must then decide by a question whether 
they are his words or not. Then the Member may justify them, or explain 
the sense 



  The House of Representatives has, by clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV, 
provided a method of procedure in cases of disorderly words. The House 
permits and requires them to be noticed as soon as uttered, and has not 
insisted that the offending Member withdraw while the House is deciding 
as to its course of action.




Sec. 369. Disorderly words taken down and reported 
from Committee of the Whole.

  Disorderly  words spoken in a committee must be 
written down as in the House; but the committee can only report them to 
the House for animadversion. 6 Grey, 46.



  This provision of the parliamentary law has been applied to the 
Committee of the Whole rather than to select or standing committees. The 
House has censured a Member for disorderly words spoken in Committee of 
the Whole and reported therefrom (II, 1259).




Sec. 370. References in debate to the 
Executive.

  In  Parliament, to speak irreverently or seditiously against 
the King is against order. Smyth's Comw., L. 2, c. 3; 2 Hats., 170.




[[Page 174]]
debate to refer to the President of the United States or his opinions, 
either with approval or criticism, provided that such reference be 
relevant to the subject under discussion and otherwise conformable to 
the rules of the House (V, 5087-5091; VIII, 2500). Also a reference to 
the probable action of the President was held in order (V, 5092). 
Although wide latitude is permitted in debate on a proposition to 
impeach the President (V, 5093), Members must abstain from language 
personally offensive (V, 5094), such as calling the President a ``liar'' 
(June 26, 1985, p. 17394; Sept. 24, 1992, p. ----), attributing to him 
``hypocrisy'' (Sept. 25, 1992, p. ----), or accusing him of giving aid 
and comfort to the enemy (Jan. 25, 1995, p. ----). Furthermore, personal 
abuse, innuendo, or ridicule of the President is not permitted (VIII, 
2497; Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21078; Oct. 21, 1987, p. 8857; Sept. 21, 1994, 
p. ----), such as describing an action as ``cowardly'' (Oct. 25, 1989, 
p. 25817), or charging that the President has with intent been 
intellectually dishonest (May 9, 1990, p. 9828). A Member may not read 
in debate extraneous material personally abusive of the President, which 
would be improper if spoken in the Member's own words, such as calling 
the President a liar (Mar. 3, 1993, p. ----). The Chair has advised that 
the protections afforded by Jefferson's Manual and the precedents 
against unparliamentary references to the President himself do not 
necessarily obtain for members of his family (July 12, 1990, p. ----). 
In the 102d Congress, the Speaker enunciated a minimal standard of 
propriety for all debate concerning candidates for the Presidency, based 
on the traditional proscription against personally offensive references 
to the President even in his capacity as a candidate (Speaker Foley, 
Sept. 24, 1992, p. ----). In the 103d Congress, in response to frequent 
remarks alluding to alleged sexual misconduct by the President, the 
Speaker reminded Members that the rules of comity prohibit such 
discussions of the President's personal character (May 10, 1994, p. ----
).
  This provision of the parliamentary law is manifestly inapplicable to 
the House of Representatives (V, 5086); and it has been held in order in 

  For discussion of the stricture against addressing remarks in debate 
to the President, as in the second person, see Sec. 749, infra.

  On January 27, 1909 (VIII, 2497), the House adopted a report of a 
committee appointed to investigate the question, which report in part 
stated:

  ``The freedom of speech in debate in the House of Representatives 
should never be denied or abridged, but freedom of speech in debate does 
not mean license to indulge in personal abuses or ridicule. The right of 
Members of the two Houses of Congress to criticise the official acts of 
the President and other executive officers is beyond question, but this 
right is subject to proper rules requiring decorum in debate. Such right 
of criticism in inherent upon legislative authority. The right to 
legislate involves the right to consider conditions as they are and to 
contrast present conditions with those of the past or those desired in 
the future. The right to correct abuses by legislation carries the right 
to consider and discuss abuses which exist or which are feared.


[[Page 175]]
to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without unnecessarily 
and unduly exciting animosity among its Members or antagonism from those 
other branches of the Government with which the House is correlated.''

  ``It is, however, the duty of the House to require its Members in 
speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the 
House 




Sec. 371. Debate and proceedings in the other House not to 
be noticed in debate.

  It  is a breach of order in debate to notice what 
has been said on the same subject in the other House, or the particular 
votes or majorities on it there; because the opinion of each House 
should be left to its own independency, not to be influenced by the 
proceedings of the other; and the quoting them might beget reflections 
leading to a misunderstanding between the two Houses. 8 Grey, 22.



[[Page 176]]
ings for the purpose of making legislative history), to refer to a 
Senator or his vote on a proposition (Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14.2; 
Sept. 29, 1983, pp. 26515-16), or to publish the telephone number of a 
Senator in an attempt to influence his future vote (Oct. 25, 1990, p. --
--).
  Until clause 1 of rule XIV, was amended by adoption of the rules in 
the 100th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6) and again in the 
101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72), this principle of 
comity and the parliamentary law as described by Jefferson governed 
debate in the House of Representatives to the full extent of its 
provisions (see generally, V, 5095-5130; VIII, 2501-21; July 31, 1984, 
p. 21670; Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14). Clause 1 of rule XIV, now 
provides that ``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 of the Senate, or other quotations from Senate 
proceedings,''and such prohibited references to Senators include 
references to Senators although not identified by name (Feb. 23, 1994, 
p. ----; June 30, 1995, p. ----). A Member may not read or quote from 
the record of speeches or proceedings in the Senate, or insert such 
material in the Record (V, 5107-5111; VIII, 2501-2506; June 25, 1986, p. 
15576; Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14.3) except to make legislative history 
on a measure then under debate, and the prohibition extends to quoting 
accounts of Senate debates printed elsewhere, such as in reprints or in 
the press (VIII, 2053). It has even been held out of order to criticize 
words spoken in the Senate by one not a Member of that body in the 
course of an impeachment trial (V, 5106). It is not in order in debate 
to mention the name of a Senator (except as the sponsor of a measure or 
in quotations from Senate proceed

  Except as permitted in clause 1 of rule XIV, it is equally out of 
order to characterize the position of the Senate, or of Senators 
designated by name or position, on legislative issues (Oct. 5, 1984, pp. 
30326-27; Oct. 11, 1984, p. 32153; Nov. 2, 1989, p. ----; July 12, 1990, 
p. ----), or to speculate as to the intent of Senators or of the Senate 
on legislation (Oct. 11, 1984, pp. 32221-23), or to characterize Senate 
action or inaction (Apr. 29, 1986, p. 8856; July 31, 1986, p. 18253; 
Aug. 4, 1987, p. 22288; Oct. 28, 1993, p. ----); or to question the 
courage or resolve of its Members (Aug. 4, 1989, p. 19315). Nor is it in 
order in debate to specifically urge that the Senate take certain 
action; thus a Member may not refer to confirmation proceedings in the 
Senate by advocating that it take a certain action with respect to a 
Presidential nominee (Feb. 7, 1984, p. 1979; Oct. 8, 1991, p. ----; May 
24, 1995, p. ----), or by characterizing the action of a Senate 
committee on a judicial nominee (July 9, 1992, p. ----), or suggest that 
the President urge Senate conferees to meet with House conferees on 
specific legislation (Aug. 2, 1984, p. 22270).

  On one occasion before the rule was changed in the 101st Congress to 
permit certain quotations from Senate proceedings for the purpose of 
making legislative history, the Speaker entertained a unanimous consent 
request that a Member be permitted to refer in debate to Senate 
proceedings (to quote a statement by the Senate Majority Leader as to 
probable Senate action on the measure then pending in the House), but 
the Speaker first ascertained in what manner the reference would be 
made, in order to assure that remarks critical of the Senate, its 
Members or proceedings would not be made (Speaker O'Neill, June 4, 1980, 
p. 13212). But the Chair will not entertain such a request where the 
references would necessarily imply criticism of the Senate, such as to 
respond to remarks in the Senate which were critical of Members of the 
House (VIII, 2519).


[[Page 177]]
in their capacity as candidates for the Presidency or other office are 
not prohibited, and where a Senator is a candidate for President or Vice 
President his official policies, actions, and opinions as a candidate 
may be criticized in terms not personally offensive (Speaker Wright, 
Sept. 29, 1988, p. 26683), but references attacking the character or 
integrity of a Senator even in that context are not in order (Oct. 30, 
1979, p. 30150).
  In one case, the personal views of a Senator, not uttered in the 
Senate, were allowed to be quoted in the House (V, 5112), but the weight 
of recent precedent and the purposes of the rule prohibit references to 
speeches or statements of Senators occurring outside the Senate Chamber 
(VIII, 2515; June 26, 1935, pp. 10189-90; May 2, 1941, pp. 3566-67; 
Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14.3; May 21, 1984, p. 13024). With respect to 
references to members of the Senate acting in another capacity, 
references to former Members of the House who are presently Senators are 
only permissible if they merely address prior House service and are not 
implicitly critical of Senate service (May 8, 1984, p. 11428). A Member 
of the House has been permitted to refer to a speech made in the Senate 
by one no longer a Member of that body (V, 5112), although references to 
Senate proceedings on legislation in the current Congress other than 
those expressly permitted to establish legislative history should be 
avoided. References to Members of the Senate 

  Even prior to the 100th Congress (as indicated in Procedure, ch. 29, 
sec. 14.1) it was permissible to refer to proceedings in the other 
House, provided the reference does not contravene the principles stated 
by Jefferson. A Member must be permitted to refer to the existence of 
the Senate and its functions in a general and neutral way. For example, 
a Member may oppose a sine die adjournment resolution on the grounds 
that Congress should stay in session to complete action on specified 
legislation then pending in the Senate (V, 5115). It is appropriate to 
state whether or not the Senate has acted on House-passed legislation as 
long as criticism is neither stated nor implied (Oct. 4, 1984, p. 
30047). If references to the Senate are appropriate, the Member 
delivering them is not required to use the term ``the other body,'' and 
the use of the term ``Senate'' is not a per se violation of the rule of 
comity (Oct. 4, 1984, p. 30047). It is in order in debate, while 
discussing a question involving conference committee procedure, to state 
what actually occurred in a conference committee session, without 
referring to or criticizing a named member of the Senate (July 29, 1935, 
p. 12011).



[[Page 178]]



Sec. 372. The other House and its Members not to be 
criticized in debate.

  While  the Senate may be referred to properly in 
debate, it is not in order to criticize its acts (V, 5114-5120; Dec. 10, 
1980, p. 33205; Apr. 27, 1993, p. ----); refer to a Senator in terms of 
personal criticism (V, 5121, 5122; VIII, 2518, 2521; July 10, 1990, p. 
----); even anonymously (VIII, 2512); for purpose of complimenting 
(VIII, 2509; Apr. 21, 1993, p. ----), or read a paper making such 
criticism (V, 5127); and the inhibition extends to references to the 
remarks or actions of a Senator outside the Senate (VIII, 2515; Speaker 
Albert, Oct. 7, 1975, p. 32055). The prohibition extends to references 
to another person's criticism of a Member of the Senate (Aug. 4, 1983, 
p. 23145). After examination by a committee a speech reflecting on the 
character of the Senate was ordered to be stricken from the Record, on 
the ground that it tended to create ``unfriendly conditions between the 
two bodies * * * obstructive of wise legislation and little short of a 
public calamity'' (V, 5129). But where a Member has been assailed in the 
Senate, he has been permitted to explain his own conduct and motives, 
without bringing the whole controversy into discussion or assailing the 
Senator (V, 5123-5126). Propositions relating to breaches of these 
principles have been entertained as of privilege (V, 5129, 6980).





Sec. 373. Complaint by one House of conduct of a 
Member of the other.

  Neither  House can exercise any authority over a Member 
or officer of the other, but should complain to the House of which he 
is, and leave the punishment to them.



  In a notable instance, wherein a Member of the House had assaulted a 
Senator in the Senate Chamber for words spoken in debate, the Senate 
examined the breach of privilege and transmitted its report to the 
House, which punished the Member (II, 1622). A Senator having assailed a 
House Member in debate, the House messaged to the Senate a resolution 
declaring the language a breach of privilege and requested the Senate to 
take appropriate action (Sept. 27, 1951, p. 12270). The Senator 
subsequently asked unanimous consent to correct his remarks in the 
permanent Congressional Record, but objection was raised (Sept. 28, 
1951, p. 12383). But where certain Members of the House, in a published 
letter, sought to influence the vote of a Senator in an impeachment 
trial, the House declined to consider the matter as a breach of 
privilege (III, 2657). While on one occasion it was held that a 
resolution offered in the House requesting the Senate to expunge from 
the Record statements in criticism of a Member of the House did not 
constitute a question of privilege, being in violation of the rule 
prohibiting references to the Senate in debate (VIII, 2519), a properly 
drafted resolution referring to language published in the record on a 
designated page of Senate proceedings as constituting a breach of 
privilege and requesting the Senate to take appropriate action 
concerning the subject has been held to present a question of the 
privileges of the House (VIII, 2516).


[[Page 179]]
tween the two Houses, which can hardly be terminated without difficulty 
and disorder. 3 Hats., 51.



Sec. 374. Duty of the Speaker to prevent expressions 
offensive to the other House.

  * * *  Where the complaint is of words 
disrespectfully spoken by a Member of another House, it is difficult to 
obtain punishment, because of the rules supposed necessary to be 
observed (as to the immediate noting down of words) for the security of 
Members. Therefore it 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, 
and introduce proceedings and mutual accusations be



  In the House of Representatives this rule of the parliamentary law is 
considered as binding on the Chair (V, 5130; VIII, 2465), and 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, pp. 32055-56). Pending consideration of a measure relating to 
the Senate, the Speaker announced his intention to strictly enforce this 
provision of Jefferson's Manual prohibiting improper references to the 
Senate, and to deny recognition to Members violating the prohibition, 
subject to permission of the House to proceed in order (Speaker O'Neill, 
June 16, 1982, p. 13843). While the Chair should take the initiative to 
prevent improper references to the Senate in debate, the Chair will not 
respond to hypothetical questions as to the propriety of possible 
characterizations of Senate actions prior to their use in debate (Oct. 
24, 1985, p. 28819).




Sec. 375. Course of the Member when business concerning 
himself is debating.

  No  Member may be present when a bill or any business 
concerning himself is debating; nor is any Member to speak to the merits 
of it till he withdraws. 2 Hats., 219. The rule is that if a charge 
against a Member arise out of a report of a committee, or examination of 
witnesses in the House, as the Member knows from that to what points he 
is to direct his exculpation, he may be heard to those points before any 
question is moved or stated against him. He is then to be heard, and 
withdraw before any question is moved. But if the question itself is the 
charge, as for breach of order or matter arising in the debate, then the 
charge must be stated (that is, the question must be moved), himself 
heard, and then to withdraw. 2 Hats., 121, 122.



[[Page 180]]
In other cases, after the proposition for censure or expulsion has been 
proposed, Members have been heard in debate, either as a matter of right 
(II, 1286), as a matter of course (II, 1246, 1253), by express provision 
(II, 1273), and in writing (II, 1273), or by unanimous consent (II, 
1275). A Member against whom a resolution of censure was pending was 
asked by the Speaker if he desired to be heard (VI, 236). But a Member 
was not permitted to depute another Member to speak in his behalf (II, 
1273). In modern practice the Member has been permitted to speak in his 
own behalf, both in censure (June 10, 1980, pp. 13802-11) and expulsion 
proceedings (Oct. 2, 1980, pp. 28953-78). A Member-elect has been 
permitted to participate in debate on a resolution relating to his right 
to take the oath (Jan. 10, 1967, p. 23).

  In 1832, during proceedings for the censure of a Member, the Speaker 
informed the Member that he should retire (II, 1366); but this seems to 
be an exceptional instance of the enforcement of the law of Parliament. 




Sec. 376. Disqualifying personal interest of a 
Member.

  Where  the private interests of a Member are concerned in a bill or 
question he is to withdraw. And where such an interest has appeared, his 
voice has been disallowed, even after a division. In a case so contrary, 
not only to the laws of decency, but to the fundamental principle of the 
social compact, which denies to any man to be a judge in his own cause, 
it is for the honor of the House that this rule of immemorial observance 
should be strictly adhered to. 2 Hats., 119, 121; 6 Grey, 368.



  In the House of Representatives it has not been usual for the Member 
to withdraw when his private interests are concerned in a pending 
measure, but the House has provided by clause 1 of rule VIII that the 
Member shall not vote in such a contingency. In one instance the Senate 
disallowed a vote given by a Senator on a question relating to his own 
right to a seat; but the House has never had occasion to proceed so far 
(V, 5959).



[[Page 181]]



Sec. 377. Wearing of hats by Members.

  No  Member is to come 
into the House with his head covered, nor to remove from one place to 
another with his hat on, nor is to put on his hat in coming in or 
removing, until he be set down in his place. Scob., 6.





Sec. 378. Adjournment of questions of order.

  Until 1837 the parliamentary practice of wearing hats during the 
session continued in the House; but in that year it was abolished by 
clause 7 of rule XIV.
   A question of 
order may be adjourned to give time to look into precedents. 2 Hats., 
118.



<>   In 
Parliament, all decisions of the Speaker may be controlled by the House. 
3 Grey, 319.

  The Speaker has declined, on a difficult question of order, to rule 
until he had taken time for examination (III, 2725; VI, 432; VII, 2106; 
VIII, 2174, 2396, 3475), and may take a parliamentary inquiry under 
advisement, especially where not related to the pending proceedings 
(VIII, 2174; Apr. 7, 1992, p. ----), but it is conceivable that a case 
might arise wherein this privilege of the Chair would require approval 
of the majority of the House, to prevent arbitrary obstruction of the 
pending business by the Chair. On occasion, the Chair has reversed as 
erroneous a decision previously made (VI, 639; VII, 849; VIII, 2794, 
3435). The law of Parliament evidently contemplates that the adjournment 
of a question of order shall be controlled by the House.




  The Speaker's decision on a decision of order is subject to appeal by 
any Member (clause 4 of rule I).