[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).