[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. ----).