    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 105th Congress]
    [105th Congress]
    [House Document 104-272]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 552-570]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                    Rule XIV.

                             of decorum and debate.

    [[Page 553]]

    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.

    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

      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.

    [[Page 554]]

    to the occupant of the Chair and addresses him as ``Mr.
    Speaker'' pursuant to this clause (Nov. 1, 1983, p. 30267).
      The Speaker, who has a responsibility under rule I to maintain and
    enforce decorum in debate, and the Chairman of the Committee of the
    Whole, who enforces decorum in debate under rule XXIII, have 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, and the Chair enforces this rule
    on its own initiative (see, e.g., Nov. 8, 1979, p. 31519; Sept. 29,
    1983, p. 26501; Dec. 17, 1987, p. 36139); (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 using profanity or
    vulgarity in debate (Mar. 5, 1991, p. 5036; Feb. 18, 1993, p. ----; Nov.
    17, 1995, p. ----); (6) the Chair may interrupt a Member engaging in
    ``personalities'' with respect to another Member of the House, as the
    Chair does with respect to references to the Senate or the President
    (Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----); and (7) Members should refrain from discussing
    the President's personal character (May 10, 1994, p. ----). The Speaker
    has deplored the tendency to address remarks directly to the President
    (or others not in the Chamber) in the second person, and cautions
    Members on his own initiative (see, e.g., Oct. 16, 1989, p. 24715; Oct.
    17, 1989, p. 24764; Jan. 24, 1990, p. 426; Oct. 9, 1991, p. 25999). Even
    when referring in debate to the Speaker, himself, a Member directs his
    remarks

      Members should refrain from speaking disrespectfully of the Speaker or
    arraigning the personal conduct 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. 18,
    1995, p. ----; Jan. 19, 1995, p. ----). Engaging in personalities with
    respect to the Speaker's conduct is not in order even though possibly
    relevant to a pending resolution granting him certain authority (Sept.
    24, 1996, 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. ----;
    Oct. 19, 1995, pp. ----, ----; Nov. 17, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 7, 1996, p.
    ----; Sept. 26, 1996, 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. ----). Under this
    standard the Chair may deny recognition to a Member who has engaged in
    unparliamentary debate and ignored repeated admonitions by the Chair to
    proceed in order, subject to the will of the House on the question of
    his proceeding in order (Sept. 18, 1996, p. ----).

      For further discussion of personalities in debate with respect to
    references to the official conduct of a Member, see Sec. Sec. 361-363,
    supra; with respect to references to the President, see Sec. 370, supra;
    and with respect to references to the Senate, see Sec. Sec. 371-374,
    supra.

      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).

      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 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).

    [[Page 555]]

    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. ----). Where
    a Member interrupts another during debate without being yielded to 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 21,
    1993, p. ----; July 29, 1994, p. ----; Dec. 21, 1995, p. ----). Members
    should not engage in disruption while another is speaking (Dec. 20,
    1995, p. ----; June 27, 1996, p. ----).

    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,

    [[Page 556]]

    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, 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. 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). 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. ----; Nov. 14, 1995, pp. ----, ----;
    Dec. 15, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 12, 1996, p. ----).

    [[Page 557]]

    fined to the election of that Member and should not extend to that
    committee's agenda (July 10, 1995, p. ----).
      During debate on a bill a Member must maintain a constant nexus
    between debate and the subject of the bill (Nov. 14, 1995, p. ----; Mar.
    12, 1996, p. ----). 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. ----). Similarly, debate on a
    motion to recommit with instructions should be confined to the subject
    of the motion rather than dwelling on the general merits of the bill
    (Mar. 7, 1996, 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. 34189).
    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. 29668; Oct. 1, 1991, p. 24836), 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. 26226; July 25, 1995, p. ----; Sept. 20, 1995, p. --
    --; Dec. 15, 1995, p. ----; May 1, 1996, p. ----; May 8, 1996, p. ----;
    May 15, 1996, p. ----; Mar. 13, 1997, p. ----). Debate on a resolution
    providing authorities to expedite the consideration of end-of-session
    legislation may neither range to the merits of a measure that might or
    might not be considered under such authorities nor engage in
    personalities with respect to the official conduct of the Speaker, even
    as asserted to relate to the question of granting the authorities
    proposed (Sept. 24, 1996, 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 sitting 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 con-

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

    <>   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 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. 14692).

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

      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 558]]

    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).

    Sec. 753a. Oneminute and specialorder
    speeches.

        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

      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, 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. ----; Jan. 21, 1997, 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. ----).

    [[Page 559]]

    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 Leaders. 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. ----).

    Sec. 753b. Morninghour debates.

      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. ----; Jan. 21, 1997, p. ----). On May 12, 1995, the House
    extended and modified the above order to accommodate earlier convening

    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 560]]

    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 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). Once the proponent of a pending
    motion has been recognized for debate thereon, a unanimous-consent
    request to modify the motion may be entertained only if the proponent
    yields for that purpose (Jan. 5, 1996, p. ----). 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;

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

      When  an essential motion made by the Member in charge of a bill is
    decided adversely, the right to prior recognition passes to the Member
    leading the opposition to the motion (II, 1465-1468; VI, 308). Under
    this principle control of a measure passes when the House disagrees to a
    recommendation of the committee reporting the measure (II, 1469-1472) or
    when the Committee of the Whole reports the measure adversely (IV, 4897;
    VIII, 2430). Similarly, this principle applies when a motion for the
    previous question is rejected (VI, 308). However, a Member who led the
    opposition to ordering the previous question may be preempted by a
    motion of higher precedence (Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-78). On the
    other hand, the mere defeat of an amendment proposed by the Member in
    charge does not cause the right to prior recognition to pass to an
    opponent (II, 1478, 1479).

    [[Page 561]]

    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). Similarly, the invalidation of a conference report on a
    point of order, which is 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).
    In most cases, when the House refuses to order the previous question on
    a conference report, it then rejects the report (II, 1473-1477; V,
    6396). However, control of a Senate amendment reported from conference
    in disagreement passes to an opponent when the House rejects a motion to
    dispose thereof (Aug. 6, 1993, p. ----).
      Rejection of a conference report after the previous question has been
    ordered thereon does not cause recognition to pass to a Member opposed

    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 562]]

    to consider a motion to suspend the rules and pass an unreported bill (on a
    non-suspension day) (Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21126); (4) requests to permit
    consideration of (nongermane) amendments to bills (Nov. 14, 1991, p.
    32083; Dec. 20, 1995, p. ----); (5) 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. ----); and (6) requests relating to Senate
    passed bills on the Speaker's table (Oct. 25, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 3,
    1996, p. ----). In addition, 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; Jan. 3, 1996, p. ----; Jan. 4, 1996, p. ----; Deschler's
    Precedents, vol. 6, ch. 21, sec. 1.23). The Chair has declined to
    entertain a unanimous-consent request to print a separate volume of
    tributes given in memory of a deceased former Member absent concurrence
    of the Joint Committee on Printing (Aug. 1, 1996, 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). It is not a proper
    parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to indicate which side of the
    aisle has failed under the Speaker's guidelines to clear a unanimous-
    consent request (Feb. 1, 1996, p. ----).

    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
    otherwise in order, this being the way of signifying his objection to
    the request. But this authority did not extend to the former Consent
    Calendar. 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 (see, e.g.,
    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. 64; Jan. 5, 1993, p. ----; Apr. 4, 1995, p. ----). This
    policy has been extended to: (1) requests relating to reported bills
    (July 23, 1993, p. ----); (2) requests for immediate consideration of
    matters (separately unreported) comprising a portion of a measure
    already passed by the House (Dec. 19, 1985, p. 38356); (3) requests

    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. ----).

    [[Page 563]]

      For a discussion of ``morning-hour debates'' and ``Oxford'' style
    debates, see Sec. Sec. 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).

    Sec. 760. The call to order for words spoken in
    debate.

      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
    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.

    [[Page 564]]

      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.

      Clause 4 was adopted in 1789 and amended in 1822 and 1880 (V, 5175).
    Clause 5 was adopted in 1837 and amended in 1880, although the practice
    of writing down objectionable words had been established in 1808.

    Sec. 761. Words taken down and other calls to order
    for unparliamentary debate.

      Members  transgressing the rules of debate and
    decorum may be called to order by the Speaker (VIII, 2481, 2521, 3479),
    a Member (II, 1344; V, 5154, 5161-5163, 5175, 5192), or a delegate (II,
    1295). A Member may initiate a call to order either by making a point of
    order that a Member is transgressing the rules or by formally demanding
    that words be taken down under clause 5 (Sept. 12, 1996, pp. ----, ----;
    Sept. 17, 1996, p. ----; Sept. 18, 1996, p. ----; Sept. 25, 1996, p. --
    --). A Member's comportment in debate may constitute a breach of decorum
    even though the content of the Member's speech is not, itself,
    unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. ----). Except for naming the
    offending Member, the Speaker may not otherwise censure or punish him
    (II, 1345; VI, 237; Sept. 18, 1996, p. ----; see also Sec. 366, supra).
    The House may by proper motions under clauses 4 and 5 of this rule
    dictate the consequences of a ruling by the Chair that a Member was out
    of order (May 26, 1983, p. 14048).

      As discussed in Sec. 374, supra, it is customary for the Chair to
    initiate the call to order a Member who criticizes the actions of the
    Senate, its Members, or its committees, whether in debate or through an
    insertion in the Record (Speaker Albert, Apr. 17, 1975, p. 10458; Oct.
    7, 1975, p. 32055; Feb. 27, 1997, p. ----). On the other hand, the Chair
    customarily awaits an initiative from the floor to call to order a
    Member engaging in personalities in debate with respect to another
    Member of the House (June 29, 1987, p. 18072; Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----;
    Feb. 27, 1997, p. ----). The Chair may take initiative to call to order
    a Member engaging in verbal outburst following expiration of his
    recognition for debate (Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081). The Chair may deny
    further recognition to an offending Member, subject to the will of the
    House on the question of his proceeding in order (Speaker O'Neill, June
    16, 1982, p. 13843; July 29, 1994, p. ----; Sept. 18, 1996, p. ----).
    The Chair may admonish a Member for words spoken in debate and request
    that they be removed from the Record even prior to a demand that the
    words be taken down (Sept. 24, 1992, p. ----).

    [[Page 565]]

    consent is not required for a Member to withdraw his demand
    that words be taken down prior to a ruling by the Chair (June 18, 1986,
    p. 14232).
      Clause 5 prohibits the taking down of words after intervening business
    (V, 5177; VIII, 2536; Sept. 16, 1991, p. ----; Mar. 28, 1996, p. ----).
    However, a Member on his feet and seeking recognition at the appropriate
    time may yet be recognized to demand that words be taken down even
    though brief debate may have 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). Action taken by the Chair to
    determine whether a point of order from the floor is intended as a
    demand that words be taken down is not such intervening debate or
    business as would render the demand untimely (Oct. 2, 1984, p. 28522).
    Unanimous

      While a demand that a Member's words be taken down is pending, that
    Member should be seated immediately (July 29, 1994, p. ----; Jan. 25,
    1995, p. ----), and no Member may engage the Chair until the demand has
    been disposed of (Nov. 9, 1995, p. ----; Nov. 15, 1995, p. ----). Where
    two Members consecutively demand that each others' words be taken down
    as unparliamentary, the Chair advises both Members to be seated and then
    directs the Clerk to report the first words objected to (June 19, 1996,
    p. ----). An offending Member may be directed by the Chair to be seated
    even if a formal demand that the Member's words be taken down is not
    pending; for example, where a Member declines to proceed in order at the
    directive of the Chair after points of order have been sustained against
    unparliamentary references in debate, the Chair may, under rules I and
    XIV, deny the Member further recognition as a disposition of the
    question of order, subject to the will of the House on the question of
    proceeding in order (see Sec. 366, supra; Sept. 12, 1996, p.----; Sept.
    17, 1996, p. ----; Sept. 18, 1996, p. ----).

      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 otherwise alleged to have been uttered (June 9, 1992, p. ----
    ). 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). Where demands are made to take down words both
    as spoken in a one-minute speech and as reiterated when the offending
    Member is permitted by unanimous consent to explain, the Chair may rule
    simultaneously on both (July 25, 1996, p. ----). A decision of the Chair
    on a point of order that a Member is engaging in personalities is
    subject to appeal (Sept. 28, 1996, p. ----).

      The rule permits a motion that an offending Member be permitted to
    explain before the Chair rules on the words taken down, and the Chair
    has discretion to ask for explanation before ruling on the words (Feb.
    1, 1940, p. 954). The Chair also may recognize an offending Member,
    permitted by unanimous consent, to explain words ruled out of order
    (Nov. 10, 1971, pp. 40442-43).

    [[Page 566]]

    the Chair (Oct. 8, 1991, p. 25757; Mar. 29, 1995, p.
    ----; July 25, 1996, p. ----) or offered by any Member (July 25, 1996,
    p. ----). The motion is not inconsistent with the immediate consequence
    of the call to order because clause 4 also permits the House to
    determine the extent of the sanction for a given breach (Oct. 10, 1991,
    p. 26102). The motion is debatable within narrow limits of relevance
    under the hour rule, and consequently also is subject to the motion to
    lay on the table (Speaker Foley, Oct. 8, 1991, p. 25757).
      If words taken down are ruled 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. ----; Apr. 17, 1997, p. ----),
    even on yielded time (V, 5147), and may not insert unspoken remarks in
    the Record (Jan. 25, 1995, p. ----), but still may exercise his right to
    vote or to demand the yeas and nays (VIII, 2546). The ruling does not
    take the ``issue'' off the floor, and other Members may proceed to
    debate the same subject (July 25, 1996, p. ----). The offending Member
    will not lose the floor if the House permits the Member to proceed in
    order (see, e.g., May 10, 1990, p. 9992), which motion may be stated on
    the initiative of

      Where a Member has been called to order not in response to a formal
    demand that words be taken down but in response to a point of order, the
    former practice was to test the opinion of the House by a motion ``that
    the gentleman be allowed to proceed in order'' (V, 5188, 5189; VIII,
    2534). Under the modern practice the Chair either may invite the
    offending Member to proceed in order (see, e.g., Sept. 12, 1996, p. ----
    ) or, particularly where admonitions have been ignored, may deny the
    Member recognition for the balance of the time for which he was
    recognized, subject to the will of the House, as by a vote on the
    question whether the Member should be permitted to proceed in order
    (Sept. 12, 1996, p. ----; Sept. 17, 1996, p. ----; Sept. 18, 1996, p. --
    --; Sept. 25, 1996, p. ----).

      Words taken down and ruled out of order by the Chair are subject to a
    motion that they be stricken or expunged from the Record. This motion
    has precedence (VIII, 2538-2541; Aug. 21, 1974, pp. 29652-53), is often
    stated on the initiative of the Chair (May 10, 1990, p. 9992), and is
    debatable within narrow limits (VIII, 2539; Speaker Martin, June 12,
    1947, p. 6896). However, the motion may not be entertained in the
    Committee of the Whole (Feb. 18, 1941, p. 1126) or offered by the Member
    called to order (Feb. 11, 1941, pp. 894, 899), although that Member may
    ask unanimous consent to withdraw his words (VIII, 2528, 2538, 2540,
    2543, 2544).

      When disorderly words are spoken in the Committee of the Whole, they
    are taken down 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 reported from the
    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 reported therefrom (V, 5202). After words reported to
    the House from Committee of the Whole have been disposed of (by decision
    of the Chair and any associated action by the House), the Committee
    resumes its sitting without motion (VIII, 2539, 2541).

    [[Page 567]]

    leged to be treasonable (II, 1252), or when a Member has uttered an
    attack on the Speaker (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 19, 1995,
    p. ----).
      The House has censured a Member for disorderly words (II, 1253, 1254,
    1259, 1305; VI, 236). The House may proceed to censure or other action
    although business may have intervened in certain exceptional cases, such
    as when disorderly words are part of an occurrence constituting a breach
    of privilege (II, 1657), when a Member's language has been investigated
    by a committee (II, 1655), when a Member has reiterated on the floor
    certain published charges (III, 2637), when a Member has uttered words al-

      For a discussion of resolving the use of objectional exhibits that are
    a breach of decorum, see Sec. 622, supra; and for a discussion of
    resolving the use of objectional exhibits that are not necessarily a
    breach of decorum, see rule XXX, Sec. 915, infra.

    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. 873a, 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).

    [[Page 568]]

    ommended 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. ----
    ). Where the rule providing for the consideration of an unreported
    measure designates managers who do not serve on a committee of
    jurisdiction, those managers are entitled to close controlled debate
    against an amendment thereto (Sept. 18, 1997, p. ----).
      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).
    The Chair will assume that the manager of a measure is representing the
    committee of jurisdiction even where the measure called up is unreported
    (Apr. 15, 1996, p. ----), where an unreported compromise text is made in
    order as original text in lieu of committee amendments (Oct. 19, 1995,
    p. ----), or where the committee reported the measure without
    recommendation (Feb. 12, 1997, p. ----). Where the pending text includes
    a provision rec-

      Under certain circumstances, however, the proponent of the amendment
    may close debate, as where he represents the position of the reporting
    committee (Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21660) or where no committee representative
    opposes the amendment (Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22057). Where a committee
    representative is allocated control of time in opposition to an
    amendment not by recognition from the Chair but by unanimous-consent
    request of a third Member who was allocated the time by the Chair, then
    the committee representative is not entitled to close debate as against
    the proponent (July 24, 1997, p. ----). Similarly, the proponent of the
    amendment may close debate where no representative from the reporting
    committee opposes an amendment to a multi-jurisdictional bill (Mar. 9,
    1995, p. ----); where the measure is unreported and has no ``manager''
    under the terms of a special rule (Apr. 24, 1985, p. 9206); or where a
    measure is being managed by a single reporting committee and the Member
    controlling time in opposition, though a member of the committee having
    jurisdiction over the amendment, does not represent the reporting
    committee (Nov. 9, 1995, p. ----).

    [[Page 569]]

    equipment (including cellular phones and
    computers) upon the floor of the House at any time.

    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

      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 (secs. 201 and 223, 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.
    ----; June 10, 1996, 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. 29248), nor during sittings of the Committee of the
    Whole (Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21707); and the prohibition extends to smoking
    behind the 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: (1) that
    Members should not traffic, or linger in, the well of the House while
    another Member is speaking (Feb. 3, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 3, 1995, p. ----
    ; Dec. 15, 1995, p. ----); and (2) that Members should not engage in
    disruption while another Member is speaking (Dec. 20, 1995, p. ----).

    [[Page 570]]

    thereto, until the resolution of a contested election to which
    he was party (H. Res. 233, Sept. 18, 1997, p. ----).

      A former Member must observe proper decorum under this clause, and the
    Chair may direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist the Chair in maintaining
    such decorum (Sept. 17, 1997, p. ----). In the 105th Congress the House
    adopted a resolution offered as a question of the privileges of the
    House alleging indecorous behavior of a former Member and instructing
    the Sergeant-at-Arms to ban the former Member from the floor, and rooms
    leading

    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; however, such a unanimous-consent request does not
    permit a Member to remove remarks actually uttered (Jan. 4, 1995, p. --
    --). Clause 9(a) also applies to statements and rulings of the Chair
    (Jan. 20, 1995, p. ----).