    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 105th Congress]
    [105th Congress]
    [House Document 104-272]
    [Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
    [Pages 164-183]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 164]]

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

                          sec. xvii.--order in debate.

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 165]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 166]]

    House, if they be transgressed, keeping within that line, and not falling
    into the matter itself. Mem. Hakew., 30, 31.

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

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

    Sec. 358. Participation of the Speaker in debate.

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

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

    [[Page 167]]

    his decision to vote on measures relating thereto even though
    not required to do so under clause 6 of rule I (Jan. 12, 1991, p. 1085).

      During the House's consideration of several measures relating to the
    use of military force in the Persian Gulf, the Speaker took the floor
    not only to debate the pending question but also to commend the House on
    the quality of its recent debates on matters of war and peace and to
    explain

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

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

      The House, by clause 1 of rule XIV, provides that the Member shall
    address himself to the question under debate, but neither by rule nor
    practice has the House ever suppressed superfluous or tedious speaking,
    its hour rule (clause 2 of rule XIV) being a sufficient safeguard in
    this respect.

    Sec. 360. Language reflecting on the House.

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

    [[Page 168]]

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

    Sec. 361. Personalities in debate forbidden.

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

      In the practice of the House, a Member is not permitted to refer to
    another Member by name (V, 5144; VIII, 2526, 2529, 2536), or to address
    him in the second person (V, 5140-5143; VI, 600; VIII, 2529). The proper
    reference to another Member is ``the gentleman (or gentlewoman) from --
    ----,'' naming the Member's State (June 14, 1978, p. 17615; July 21,
    1982, pp. 17314-15).

      By rule of the House (clause 1 of rule XIV), as well as by
    parliamentary law, personalities are forbidden (V, 4979, 5145, 5163,
    5169), whether against the Member in the Member's capacity as
    Representative or otherwise (V, 5152, 5153), even if the references may
    be relevant to the pending question (Sept. 28, 1996, p. ----). The House
    has censured a Member for gross personalities (II, 1251). The Chair may
    intervene to prevent improper references where it is evident that a
    particular Member is being described (Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27077). The Chair
    does not rule on the veracity of a statement made by a Member in debate
    (Apr. 9, 1997, p. ----).

      Clause 1 of rule XIV has been held to proscribe: (1) referring to an
    identifiable group of sitting Members as having committed a crime (e.g.,
    ``stealing'' an election) (Feb. 27, 1985, p. 3898; Speaker Wright, Mar.
    21, 1989, p. 5016); (2) referring in a personally critical manner to the
    political tactics of the Speaker or other Members (June 25, 1981, p.
    14056); (3) referring to a particular Member of the House in a
    derogatory fashion (Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27077----); (4) characterizing a
    Member as ``the most impolite Member'' (June 27, 1996, p. ----); (5)
    questioning the integrity of a Member (July 25, 1996, p. ----); and (6)
    denunciating the spirit in which a Member had spoken (V, 6981).

    [[Page 169]]

    and ``you people are going to pay'' were held
    not to be personal references (Nov. 14, 1995, p. ----). Similarly,
    characterizing a pending measure as a ``patently petty political
    terrorist tactic'' was held in order as a reference to the pending
    measure rather than to the motive or character of the measure's
    proponent (Nov. 9, 1995, p. ----). The Chair has also held in order a
    general reference that ``big donors'' receive ``access to leadership
    power and decisions'' because the reference did not identify a specific
    Member as engaging in an improper quid pro quo (Apr. 9, 1997, p. ----).
      A distinction has been drawn between general language, which
    characterizes a measure or the political motivations behind a measure,
    and personalities (V, 5153, 5163, 5169). 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. ----; Nov. 17, 1995,
    p. ----; June 13, 1996, p. ----). For example, references to ``down-in-
    the-dirt gutter politics''

      A Member should refrain from references in debate to the official
    conduct of a Member where such conduct is not the subject then pending
    before the House by way of either a report of the Committee on Standards
    of Official Conduct or another question of the privileges of the House
    (see, e.g., July 24, 1990, p. ----; Mar. 19, 1992, p. ----; May 25,
    1995, p. ----; Sept. 19, 1995, p. ----). This stricture also precludes a
    Member from reciting news articles discussing a Member's conduct (Sept.
    24, 1996, p. ----), reciting the content of a previously tabled
    resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House (Nov. 17,
    1995, p. ----; Sept. 19, 1996, p. ----), or even referring to a Member's
    conduct by mere insinuation (Sept. 12, 1996, p. ----). Notice of an
    intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the
    House under rule IX does not render a resolution ``pending'' and thereby
    permit references to conduct of a Member proposed to be addressed
    therein (Sept. 19, 1996, p. ----).

      The stricture against references to a Member's conduct not then
    pending before the House applies to the conduct of all sitting Members
    (Apr. 1, 1992, p. ----), including conduct that has previously been
    resolved by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or the House
    (Sept. 20, 1995, p. ----; Sept. 24, 1996, pp. ----, ----; Apr. 17, 1997,
    p. ----). This stricture does not apply to the conduct of a former
    Member, provided the reference is not made in an attempt to compare the
    conduct of a former Member with the conduct of a sitting Member (Sept.
    12, 1996, pp. ----, ----).

      Debate on a pending privileged resolution recommending disciplinary
    action against a Member may necessarily involve personalities. However,
    clause 1 of rule XIV still prohibits the use of language that is
    personally abusive (see, e.g., July 31, 1979, p. ----; Jan. 7, 1997, p.
    ----). Furthermore, during the actual pendency of such a resolution, a
    Member may discuss a prior case reported to the House by the Committee
    on Standards of Official Conduct for the purpose of comparing the
    severity of the sanction recommended in that case with the severity of
    the sanction recommended in the pending case, provided that the Member
    does not identify, or discuss the details of the past conduct of, a
    sitting Member (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36271).

    [[Page 170]]

    14623; July 6, 1988, p. 16630; Mar. 22, 1989, p. 5130; May 2, 1989,
    p. 7735; Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27077); (2) to personal criticism of a member
    of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Apr. 1, 1992, p. ----
    ; Mar. 3, 1995, p. ----; Sept. 19, 1996, p. ----; Sept. 24, 1996, p. --
    --); and (3) to an investigation undertaken by the Committee on
    Standards of Official Conduct, including suggestion of a course of
    action (Mar. 3, 1995, p. ----; Sept. 24, 1996, p. ----; Sept. 28, 1996,
    p. ----) or advocacy of an interim status report by the Committee (Sept.
    12, 1996, p. ----; Sept. 28, 1996, p. ----).
      In addition to the prohibition against addressing a Member's conduct
    when it is not actually pending before the House, the Speaker has
    advised that Members should refrain from references in debate (1) to the
    motivations of a Member who filed a complaint before the Committee on
    Standards of Official Conduct (Speaker pro tempore Foley, June 15, 1988, p.

      A Member may not read in debate extraneous material critical of
    another Member, which would be improper if spoken in the Member's own
    words (May 25, 1995, p. ----; Sept. 12, 1996, p. ----). Thus, words in a
    telegram read in debate which repudiated the ``lies and half-truths'' of
    a House committee report were ruled out of order as reflecting on the
    integrity of committee members (June 16, 1947, p. 7065), and
    unparliamentary references in debate to newspaper accounts used in
    support of a Member's personal criticism of another Member were
    similarly ruled out of order (Feb. 25, 1985, p. 3346).

    [[Page 171]]

    Sec. 362. Criticism of the Speaker.

      Complaint  of the conduct
    of the Speaker should be presented directly for the action of the House
    and not by way of debate on other matters (V, 5188). In a case wherein a
    Member used words insulting to the Speaker the House on a subsequent
    day, and after other business had intervened, censured the offender (II,
    1248). In such a case the Speaker would ordinarily leave the chair while
    action should be taken by the House (II, 1366; V, 5188; VI, 565). In the
    104th Congress the Chair reaffirmed that it is not in order to speak
    disrespectfully of the Speaker, and that under the precedents the
    sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary requirements for
    timeliness of challenges (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 19,
    1995, p. ----). It is not in order to arraign the personal conduct of
    the Speaker (Jan. 18, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 19, 1995, p. ----). For
    example, it is not in order to charge dishonesty or disregard of the
    rules (July 11, 1985, p. 18550), to reflect on his patriotism by
    accusing him of ``kowtowing'' to persons who would desecrate the flag
    (June 20, 1990, p. 14877), to refer to him as a ``crybaby'' (Nov. 16,
    1995, p. ----), or to refer to official conduct of the Speaker that has
    previously been resolved by the Committee on Standards of Official
    Conduct or the House (Apr. 17, 1997, p. ----). The Chair may take the
    initiative to admonish Members for references in debate that disparage
    the Speaker (June 25, 1981, p. 14056; Mar. 22, 1996, p. ----). Debate on
    a resolution authorizing the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the
    rules may not engage in personality by discussing the official conduct
    of the Speaker, even if possibly relevant to the question of empowerment
    of the Speaker (Sept. 24, 1996, p. ----).

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

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

      The arraignment of the motives of Members is not permitted (V, 5147-
    51; Dec. 13, 1973, p. 41270), and the Speakers have intervened to
    prevent it, in the earlier practice preventing even mildest imputations
    (V, 5161, 5162). However, remarks in debate may address political, but
    not personal, motivations for legislative positions (Jan. 24, 1995, p.
    ----; Mar. 8, 1995, p. ----; Nov. 17, 1995, p. ----; June 13, 1996, p.
    ----) or for committee membership (July 10, 1995, p. ----). Accusing
    another Member of hypocrisy has been held not in order (July 24, 1979,
    p. 20380; Mar. 29, 1995, p. ----), and characterizing the motivation of
    a Member in offering an amendment as deceptive and hypocritical was
    ruled out of order (June 12, 1979, p. 11461). A statement in debate that
    an amendment could only be demagogic or racist because only demagoguery
    or racism impelled such an amendment was ruled out of order as impugning
    the motives of the Member offering the amendment (Dec. 3, 1973, pp.
    41270, 41271). However, debate characterizing a pending measure as a
    ``patently petty political terrorist tactic'' was held in order as
    directed at the pending measure rather than the motive or the character
    of its proponent (Nov. 9, 1995, p. ----). While in debate the assertion
    of one Member may be declared untrue by another, yet in so doing an
    intentional misrepresentation must not be implied (V, 5157-5160), and if
    stated or implied is censurable (II, 1305) and presents a question of
    privilege (III, 2717; VI, 607). A Member in debate having declared the
    words of another ``a base lie,'' censure was inflicted by the House on
    the offender (II, 1249).

    [[Page 172]]

    to take books or papers from the table,
    or write there, 2 Hats., 171, p. 170.

    Sec. 364. Disorder and interruptions during debate.

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

      The House of Representatives has by clause 7 of rule XIV prescribed
    certain rules of decorum differing somewhat from this provision of the
    parliamentary law, but supplemental to it rather than antagonistic. In
    one respect, however, the practice of the House differs from the
    apparent intent of the parliamentary law. In the House a Member may
    interrupt by addressing the Chair for permission of the Member speaking
    (V, 5006; VIII, 2465); but it is entirely within the discretion of the
    Member occupying the floor to determine when and by whom he shall be
    interrupted (V, 5007, 5008; VIII, 2463, 2465). There is no rule of the
    House requiring a Member having the floor to yield to another Member to
    whom he has referred during debate (Aug. 2, 1984, p. 22241). The Chair
    may take the initiative in preserving order when a Member declining to
    yield in debate continues to be interrupted by another Member, may order
    that the interrupting Member's remarks not appear in the Record (July
    26, 1984, p. 21247), and may admonish Members not to converse with a
    Member attempting to address the House (Feb. 21, 1984, p. 2758), as it
    is not in order to engage in disruption while another is delivering
    remarks in debate (June 27, 1996, p. ----). On the opening day of the
    103d Congress, during the customary announcement of policies with
    respect to particular aspects of the legislative process, the Chair
    elaborated on the rules of order in debate with a general statement
    concerning decorum in the House of Representatives (Jan. 5, 1993, p. --
    --). For further discussion of interruptions in debate, see Sec. 750,
    infra.

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

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

    [[Page 173]]

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

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

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

      This provision of parliamentary law should be in conjunction with
    clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV, Sec. Sec. 760-761, infra, particularly as
    this provision relates to the ultimate authority of the House to
    determine whether a Member ignoring repeated calls to order should be
    permitted to proceed in order.

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

      For  instances of assaults and affrays in the House of Commons,
    and the proceedings thereon, see 1 Pet. Misc., 82; 3 Grey, 128; 4 Grey,
    328; 5 Grey, 382; 6 Grey, 254; 10 Grey, 8. Whenever warm words or an
    assault have passed between Members, the House, for the protection of
    their Members, requires them to declare in their places not to prosecute
    any quarrel, 3 Grey, 128, 293; 5 Grey, 280; or orders them to attend the
    Speaker, who is to accommodate their differences, and report to the
    House, 3 Grey, 419; and they are put under restraint if they refuse, or
    until they do. 9 Grey, 234, 312.

    [[Page 174]]

    (II, 1643). In case of an aggravated assault by one Member on
    another on the portico of the Capitol for words spoken in debate, the
    House censured the assailant and three other Members who had been
    present, armed, to prevent interference (II, 1655, 1656). Assaults or
    affrays in the Committee of the Whole are dealt with by the House (II,
    1648-1651).

      In several instances assaults and affrays have occurred on the floor
    of the House of Representatives. Sometimes the House has allowed these
    affairs to pass without notice, the Members concerned making apologies
    either personally or through other Members (II, 1658-1662). In other
    cases the House has exacted apologies (II, 1646-1651, 1657), or required
    the offending Members to pledge themselves before the House to keep the
    peace

    [[Page 175]]

    any time the same day. 2 Hats., 196; Mem. in Hakew., 71; 3 Grey, 48;
    9 Grey, 514.

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

      Disorderly  words are not to be noticed till the Member has
    finished his speech. 5 Grey, 356; 6 Grey, 60. Then the person objecting
    to them, and desiring them to be taken down by the Clerk at the table,
    must repeat them. The Speaker then may direct the Clerk to take them
    down in his minutes; but if he thinks them not disorderly, he delays the
    direction. If the call becomes pretty general, he orders the Clerk to
    take them down, as stated by the objecting Member. They are then a part
    of his minutes, and when read to the offending Member, he may deny they
    were his words, and the House must then decide by a question whether
    they are his words or not. Then the Member may justify them, or explain
    the sense in which he used them, or apologize. If the House is
    satisfied, no further proceeding is necessary. But if two Members still
    insist to take the sense of the House, the Member must withdraw before
    that question is stated, and then the sense of the House is to be taken.
    2 Hats., 199; 4 Grey, 170; 6 Grey, 59. When any Member has spoken, or
    other business intervened, after offensive words spoken, they can not be
    taken notice of for censure. And this is for the common security of all,
    and to prevent mistakes which must happen if words are not taken down
    immediately. Formerly they might be taken down at

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

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

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

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

    Sec. 370. References in debate to the
    Executive.

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

    [[Page 176]]

    ----; Jan. 24, 1996, p. ----; May 30, 1996, p. ----); (5) calling him a
    ``draft-dodger'' or accusing him of ``raping the truth'' (Apr. 24, 1996,
    p. ----; Sept. 30, 1996, p. ----); (6) describing his action as
    ``cowardly'' (Oct. 25, 1989, p. 25817); (7) charging him with intent to
    be intellectually dishonest (May 9, 1990, p. 9828); (8) referring to him
    as ``a little bugger'' (Nov. 18, 1995, p. ----); (9) alluding to alleged
    sexual misconduct on his part (May 10, 1994, p. ----); and (10) alluding
    to a propensity for unethical behavior on his part (June 20, 1996, p. --
    --). The Chair may admonish Members transgressing this stricture even
    after other debate has intervened (Jan. 23, 1996, p. ----).
      This provision of the parliamentary law is manifestly inapplicable to
    the House of Representatives (V, 5086); and it has been held in order in
    debate to refer to the President of the United States or his opinions,
    either with approval or criticism, provided that such reference be
    relevant to the subject under discussion and otherwise conformable to
    the rules of the House (V, 5087-5091; VIII, 2500). Under this standard
    the following references are in order: (1) a reference to the probable
    action of the President (V, 5092); (2) an adjuration to the President to
    keep his word (although an improper form of address) (Dec. 19, 1995, p.
    ----); and (3) an accusation that the President ``frivolously vetoed'' a
    bill (Nov. 8, 1995, p. ----). Although wide latitude is permitted in
    debate on a proposition to impeach the President (V, 5093), Members must
    abstain from language personally offensive (V, 5094). Personal abuse,
    innuendo, or ridicule of the President is not permitted (VIII, 2497;
    Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21078; Oct. 21, 1987, p. 8857; Sept. 21, 1994, p. ----
    ). Under this standard the following references are not in order: (1)
    calling the President a ``liar'' or accusing him of ``lying'' (June 26,
    1985, p. 17394; Sept. 24, 1992, p. ----; Nov. 15, 1995, p. ----; June 6,
    1996, p. ----); (2) attributing to him ``hypocrisy'' (Sept. 25, 1992, p.
    ----); (3) accusing him of giving aid and comfort to the enemy (Jan. 25,
    1995, p. ----); (4) accusing him of ``demagoguery'' (Jan. 23, 1996, p.

      A Member may not read in debate extraneous material personally abusive
    of the President, which would be improper if spoken in the Member's own
    words (July 12, 1996, p. ----; July 26, 1996, p. ----), such as calling
    the President a liar (Mar. 3, 1993, p. ----; Nov. 15, 1995, p. ----; May
    2, 1996, p. ----). The Chair has advised that the protections afforded
    by Jefferson's Manual and the precedents against unparliamentary
    references to the President, himself, do not necessarily obtain for
    members of his family (July 12, 1990, p. 17206). In the 102d Congress,
    the Speaker enunciated a minimal standard of propriety for all debate
    concerning nominated candidates for the Presidency, based on the
    traditional proscription against personally offensive references to the
    President even in his capacity as a candidate (Speaker Foley, Sept. 24,
    1992, p. ----).

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

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

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

    [[Page 177]]

      ``It is, however, the duty of the House to require its Members in
    speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the
    House to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without
    unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among its Members or
    antagonism from those other branches of the Government with which the
    House is correlated.''

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

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

    [[Page 178]]

    of a Senator in an attempt to influence his future vote (Oct. 25, 1990,
    p. 34083).
      Until clause 1 of rule XIV, was amended by adoption of the rules in
    the 100th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6) and again in the
    101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72), this principle of
    comity and the parliamentary law as described by Jefferson governed
    debate in the House of Representatives to the full extent of its
    provisions (see generally, V, 5095-5130; VIII, 2501-21; July 31, 1984,
    p. 21670; Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14). Clause 1 of rule XIV, now
    provides that ``debate may include references to actions taken by the
    Senate or by committees thereof which are a matter of public record,
    references to the pendency or sponsorship in the Senate of bills,
    resolutions, and amendments, factual descriptions relating to Senate
    action or inaction concerning a measure then under debate in the House,
    and quotations from Senate proceedings on a measure then under debate in
    the House and which are relevant to the making of legislative history
    establishing the meaning of that measure, but may not include
    characterizations of Senate action or inaction, other references to
    individual Members of the Senate, or other quotations from Senate
    proceedings.'' The prohibition against such references to Senators
    includes a reference not explicitly naming the Senator (VIII, 2512; Feb.
    23, 1994, p. ----; June 30, 1995, p. ----; Feb. 27, 1997, p. ----). A
    Member may not read or quote from the record of speeches or proceedings
    in the Senate, or insert such material in the Record (V, 5107-5111;
    VIII, 2501-2506; June 25, 1986, p. 15576; Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14.3)
    except to make legislative history on a measure then under debate, and
    the prohibition extends to quoting accounts of Senate debates printed
    elsewhere, such as in reprints or in the press (VIII, 2053). It has even
    been held out of order to criticize words spoken in the Senate by one
    not a Member of that body in the course of an impeachment trial (V,
    5106). It is not in order in debate to mention the name of a Senator
    (except as the sponsor of a measure or in quotations from Senate
    proceedings for the purpose of making legislative history), to refer to
    a Senator or his vote on a proposition (Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14.2;
    Sept. 29, 1983, pp. 26515-16), or to publish the telephone number

      Except as permitted in clause 1 of rule XIV, it is equally out of
    order to characterize the position of the Senate, or of Senators
    designated by name or position, on legislative issues (Oct. 5, 1984, pp.
    30326-27; Oct. 11, 1984, p. 32153; Nov. 2, 1989, p. 26918; July 12,
    1990, p. ----), or to speculate as to the intent of Senators or of the
    Senate on legislation (Oct. 11, 1984, pp. 32221-23), or to characterize
    Senate action or inaction (see, e.g., Apr. 29, 1986, p. 8856; July 31,
    1986, p. 18253; Aug. 4, 1987, p. 22288; Oct. 28, 1993, p. ----; Jan. 3,
    1996, p. ----); or to question the courage or resolve of its Members
    (Aug. 4, 1989, p. 19315). Nor is it in order in debate to specifically
    urge that the Senate take certain action; thus a Member may not refer to
    confirmation proceedings in the Senate by advocating that it take a
    certain action with respect to a Presidential nominee (Feb. 7, 1984, p.
    1979; Oct. 8, 1991, p. 25754; May 24, 1995, p. ----), or by
    characterizing the action of a Senate committee on a judicial nominee
    (July 9, 1992, p. ----), or suggest that the President urge Senate
    conferees to meet with House conferees on specific legislation (Aug. 2,
    1984, p. 22270).

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

    [[Page 179]]

    or to the Vice President in his former capacity as a Senator (Dec. 14,
    1995, p. ----). References in debate to the Vice President (as President
    of the Senate) are governed by the standards of reference permitted
    toward the President rather than the more stringent prohibitions under
    clause 1 of rule XIV against references to sitting Senators (Dec. 14,
    1995, p. ----). References to Members of the Senate in their capacities
    as candidates for the Presidency or other office are not prohibited;
    where a Senator is a candidate for President or Vice President his
    official policies, actions, and opinions as a candidate may be
    criticized in terms not personally offensive (Speaker Wright, Sept. 29,
    1988, p. 26683), but references attacking the character or integrity of
    a Senator even in that context are not in order (Oct. 30, 1979, p.
    30150).
      In one case, the personal views of a Senator, not uttered in the
    Senate, were allowed to be quoted in the House (V, 5112), but the weight
    of recent precedent and the purposes of the rule prohibit references to
    speeches or statements of Senators occurring outside the Senate Chamber
    (VIII, 2515; June 26, 1935, pp. 10189-90; May 2, 1941, pp. 3566-67;
    Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14.3; May 21, 1984, p. 13024). With respect to
    references to members of the Senate acting in another capacity,
    references to former Members of the House who are presently Senators are
    only permissible if they merely address prior House service and are
    not implicitly critical of Senate service (May 8, 1984, p.
    11428). A Member of the House has been permitted to refer to a speech
    made in the Senate by one no longer a Member of that body (V, 5112),
    although references to Senate proceedings on legislation in the current
    Congress other than those expressly permitted to establish legislative
    history should be avoided. In the 104th Congress the Chair held that the
    precise standard in clause 1 of rule XIV for references to ``individual
    Members of the Senate'' does not apply to references to former Senators

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

    [[Page 180]]

    his own conduct and motives, without bringing the whole controversy into
    discussion or assailing the Senator (V, 5123-5126). Propositions relating
    to breaches of these principles have been entertained as of privilege (V,
    5129, 6980).

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

      While  the Senate may be referred to properly in
    debate, it is not in order to criticize its acts (V, 5114-5120; Dec. 10,
    1980, p. 33205; Apr. 27, 1993, p. ----); refer to a Senator in terms of
    personal criticism (V, 5121, 5122; VIII, 2518, 2521; July 10, 1990, p.
    17205); even anonymously (VIII, 2512; Feb. 23, 1994, p. ----; June 30,
    1995, p. ----; Feb. 27, 1997, p. ---- ); for purpose of complimenting
    (VIII, 2509; Apr. 21, 1993, p. ----), or read a paper making such
    criticism (V, 5127); and the inhibition extends to references to the
    remarks or actions of a Senator outside the Senate (VIII, 2515; Speaker
    Albert, Oct. 7, 1975, p. 32055). The prohibition extends to references
    to another person's criticism of a Member of the Senate (Aug. 4, 1983,
    p. 23145). After examination by a committee a speech reflecting on the
    character of the Senate was ordered to be stricken from the Record, on
    the ground that it tended to create ``unfriendly conditions between the
    two bodies * * * obstructive of wise legislation and little short of a
    public calamity'' (V, 5129). But where a Member has been assailed in the
    Senate, he has been permitted to explain

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

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

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

    [[Page 181]]

    pressions to go unnoticed which may give a ground of complaint to the
    other House, and introduce proceedings and mutual accusations between
    the two Houses, which can hardly be terminated without difficulty and
    disorder. 3 Hats., 51.

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

      * * *  Where the complaint is of words
    disrespectfully spoken by a Member of another House, it is difficult to
    obtain punishment, because of the rules supposed necessary to be
    observed (as to the immediate noting down of words) for the security of
    Members. Therefore it is the duty of the House, and more particularly of
    the Speaker, to interfere immediately, and not to permit ex-

      In the House of Representatives this rule of the parliamentary law is
    considered as binding on the Chair (V, 5130; VIII, 2465), and it is the
    duty of the Speaker to call to order a Member who criticizes the actions
    of the Senate, its Members or committees in debate or through an
    insertion in the Record (Speaker Albert, Apr. 17, 1975, p. 10458; Oct.
    7, 1975, pp. 32055-56). The Chair has distinguished between engaging in
    personality toward another Member of the House, as to which the Chair
    normally awaits a point of order from the floor, and improper references
    to Members of the Senate, which violate comity between the Houses
    whether or not engaging in personality, as to which the Chair normally
    takes initiative (Feb. 27, 1997, p. ----). Pending consideration of a
    measure relating to the Senate, the Speaker announced his intention to
    strictly enforce this provision of Jefferson's Manual prohibiting
    improper references to the Senate, and to deny recognition to Members
    violating the prohibition, subject to permission of the House to proceed
    in order (Speaker O'Neill, June 16, 1982, p. 13843). While the Chair
    should take the initiative to prevent improper references to the Senate
    in debate, the Chair will not respond to hypothetical questions as to
    the propriety of possible characterizations of Senate actions prior to
    their use in debate (Oct. 24, 1985, p. 28819). For a further discussion
    of the Speaker's duties regarding unparliamentary debate, see
    Sec. Sec. 760-61, infra.

    [[Page 182]]

    draw before any question is moved. But if the question itself is the
    charge, as for breach of order or matter arising in the debate, then the
    charge must be stated (that is, the question must be moved), himself
    heard, and then to withdraw. 2 Hats., 121, 122.

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

      No  Member may be present when a bill or any business
    concerning himself is debating; nor is any Member to speak to the merits
    of it till he withdraws. 2 Hats., 219. The rule is that if a charge
    against a Member arise out of a report of a committee, or examination of
    witnesses in the House, as the Member knows from that to what points he
    is to direct his exculpation, he may be heard to those points before any
    question is moved or stated against him. He is then to be heard, and
    with-

      In 1832, during proceedings for the censure of a Member, the Speaker
    informed the Member that he should retire (II, 1366); but this seems to
    be an exceptional instance of the enforcement of the law of Parliament.
    In other cases, after the proposition for censure or expulsion has been
    proposed, Members have been heard in debate, either as a matter of right
    (II, 1286), as a matter of course (II, 1246, 1253), by express provision
    (II, 1273), and in writing (II, 1273), or by unanimous consent (II,
    1275). A Member against whom a resolution of censure was pending was
    asked by the Speaker if he desired to be heard (VI, 236). But a Member
    was not permitted to depute another Member to speak in his behalf (II,
    1273). In modern practice the Member has been permitted to speak in his
    own behalf, both in censure (June 10, 1980, pp. 13802-11) and expulsion
    proceedings (Oct. 2, 1980, pp. 28953-78). A Member-elect has been
    permitted to participate in debate on a resolution relating to his right
    to take the oath (Jan. 10, 1967, p. 23).

    Sec. 376. Disqualifying personal interest of a
    Member.

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

    [[Page 183]]

    a vote given by a Senator on a question relating to his own
    right to a seat; but the House has never had occasion to proceed so far
    (V, 5959).

      In the House of Representatives it has not been usual for the Member
    to withdraw when his private interests are concerned in a pending
    measure, but the House has provided by clause 1 of rule VIII that the
    Member shall not vote in such a contingency. In one instance the Senate
    disallowed

    Sec. 377. Wearing of hats by Members.

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

    Sec. 378. Adjournment of questions of order.

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

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

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

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