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


 

                                Rule XIV.


                         of decorum and debate.


[[Page 553]]

Senate action or inaction concerning a 
measure then under debate in the House, and quotations from Senate 
proceedings on a measure then under debate in the House and which are 
relevant to the making of legislative history establishing the meaning 
of that measure, but may not include characterizations of Senate action 
or inaction, other references to individual Members of the Senate, or 
other quotations from Senate proceedings.



Sec. 749. Obtaining the floor for debate; and relevancy and 
decorum therein.

  1.  When any Member desires to speak or deliver any 
matter to the House, he shall rise and respectfully address himself to 
``Mr. Speaker'', and, on being recognized, may address the House from 
any place on the floor or from the Clerk's desk, and shall confine 
himself to the question under debate, avoiding personality. Debate may 
include references to actions taken by the Senate or by committees 
thereof which are a matter of public record, references to the pendency 
or sponsorship in the Senate of bills, resolutions, and amendments, 
factual descriptions relating to 


  This clause was adopted in 1880, but was made up, in its main 
provisions, from older rules, which dated from 1789 and 1811 (V, 4979). 
The last sentence of the clause, relating to references to the Senate, 
had its origins in the 100th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6) 
but was amended in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72) 
to narrowly expand the range of permissible references. This rule, and 
rulings of the Chair with respect to references in debate to the Senate, 
are discussed in Sec. 371, supra; see also Sec. 361, supra.


[[Page 554]]

to the occupant of the Chair and addresses him as ``Mr. 
Speaker'' pursuant to this clause (Nov. 1, 1983, p. 30267).
  The Speaker, who has a responsibility under rule I to maintain and 
enforce decorum in debate, and the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole, who enforces decorum in debate under rule XXIII, have reminded 
and advised Members that: (1) clause 1 of rule XIV requires Members 
seeking recognition to rise and to address themselves to the question 
under debate, avoiding personality; (2) Members should address their 
remarks to the Chair only and not to other entities such as the 
``press'' or the television audience, and the Chair enforces this rule 
on its own initiative (see, e.g., Nov. 8, 1979, p. 31519; Sept. 29, 
1983, p. 26501; Dec. 17, 1987, p. 36139); (3) Members should not refer 
to or address any occupant of the galleries; (4) Members should refer to 
other Members in debate only in the third person, by state designation 
(Speaker O'Neill, June 14, 1978, p. 17615; Oct. 2, 1984, p. 28520; Mar. 
7, 1985, p. 5028); (5) Members should refrain from using profanity or 
vulgarity in debate (Mar. 5, 1991, p. 5036; Feb. 18, 1993, p. ----; Nov. 
17, 1995, p. ----); (6) the Chair may interrupt a Member engaging in 
``personalities'' with respect to another Member of the House, as the 
Chair does with respect to references to the Senate or the President 
(Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----); and (7) Members should refrain from discussing 
the President's personal character (May 10, 1994, p. ----). The Speaker 
has deplored the tendency to address remarks directly to the President 
(or others not in the Chamber) in the second person, and cautions 
Members on his own initiative (see, e.g., Oct. 16, 1989, p. 24715; Oct. 
17, 1989, p. 24764; Jan. 24, 1990, p. 426; Oct. 9, 1991, p. 25999). Even 
when referring in debate to the Speaker, himself, a Member directs his 
remarks 

  Members should refrain from speaking disrespectfully of the Speaker or 
arraigning the personal conduct of the Speaker, and under the precedents 
the sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary requirements 
for timeliness of challenges (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 18, 
1995, p. ----; Jan. 19, 1995, p. ----). Engaging in personalities with 
respect to the Speaker's conduct is not in order even though possibly 
relevant to a pending resolution granting him certain authority (Sept. 
24, 1996, p. ----).

  This clause has also been interpreted to proscribe the wearing of 
badges by Members to communicate a message, since Members must rise and 
address the Speaker to deliver any matter to the House (Speaker O'Neill, 
Apr. 15, 1986, p. 7525; Feb. 22, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 29, 1995, p. ----; 
Oct. 19, 1995, pp. ----, ----; Nov. 17, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 7, 1996, p. 
----; Sept. 26, 1996, p. ----). A Member's comportment may constitute a 
breach of decorum even though the content of that Member's speech is 
not, itself, unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. ----). Under this 
standard the Chair may deny recognition to a Member who has engaged in 
unparliamentary debate and ignored repeated admonitions by the Chair to 
proceed in order, subject to the will of the House on the question of 
his proceeding in order (Sept. 18, 1996, p. ----).

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

  It is a general rule that a motion must be made before a Member may 
proceed in debate (V, 4984, 4985), and this motion may be required to be 
reduced to writing (V, 4986). A motion must also be stated by the 
Speaker or read by the Clerk before debate may begin (V, 4982, 4983, 
5304). The withdrawal of a motion precludes further debate on it (V, 
4989). But sometimes when a communication or a report has been before 
the House it has been debated before any specific motion has been made 
in relation to it (V, 4987, 4988). In a few cases, such as conference 
reports and reports from the Committee of the Whole, the motion to agree 
is considered as pending without being offered from the floor (IV, 4896; 
V, 6517).

  In presenting a question of personal privilege the Member is not 
required in the first instance to make a motion or offer a resolution, 
but such is not the rule in presenting a case involving the privileges 
of the House (III, 2546, 2547; VI, 565, 566, 580). Personal explanations 
merely are made by unanimous consent (V, 5065).


[[Page 555]]

5002; VIII, 2459), a motion that the committee 
rise (VIII, 2325), or a demand for the previous question (VIII, 2609; 
Mar. 18, 1992, p. ----), but he may be interrupted for a conference 
report (V, 6451; VIII, 3294). It is a custom also for the Speaker to 
request a Member to yield for the reception of a message. A Member may 
yield the floor for a motion to adjourn or that the Committee of the 
Whole rise without losing his right to continue when the subject is 
again continued (V, 5009-5013), but where the House has by resolution 
vested control of general debate in the Committee of the Whole in 
designated Members, their control of general debate may not be abrogated 
by another Member moving to rise, unless they yield for that purpose 
(May 25, 1967, p. 14121). A Member may also resume his seat while a 
paper is being read in his time without losing his right to the floor 
(V, 5015). A Member who, having the floor, moved the previous question 
was permitted to resume the floor on withdrawing the motion (V, 5474). 
But a Member may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment 
without losing the floor (V, 5021, 5030, 5031; VIII, 2476), and a Member 
may not offer an amendment in time secured for debate only (VIII, 2474), 
or request unanimous consent to offer an amendment unless yielded to for 
that purpose by the Member controlling the floor (Sept. 24, 1986, p. 
25589). A Member recognized under the five-minute rule in the Committee 
of the Whole may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment, as 
it is within the power of the Chair to recognize each Member to offer 
amendments (Apr. 19, 1973, p. 13240; Dec. 12, 1973, p. 41171). A Member 
desiring to interrupt another in debate should address the Chair for 
permission of the Member speaking (V, 5006; VI, 193), but the latter may 
exercise his own discretion as to whether or not he will yield (V, 5007, 
5008; VI, 193; VIII, 2463, 2465). It is not in order to disrupt a 
Member's remarks in debate by repeatedly interrupting to ask whether he 
will yield after he has declined to do so (Apr. 9, 1992, p. ----). Where 
a Member interrupts another during debate without being yielded to or 
otherwise recognized (as on a point of order), his remarks are not 
printed in the Record (Speaker O'Neill, Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2229; July 21, 
1993, p. ----; July 29, 1994, p. ----; Dec. 21, 1995, p. ----). Members 
should not engage in disruption while another is speaking (Dec. 20, 
1995, p. ----; June 27, 1996, p. ----).


Sec. 750. Interruption of a Member in debate.

  A  Member 
having the floor may not be taken off his feet by an ordinary motion, 
even the highly privileged motion to adjourn (V, 5369, 5370; VIII, 
2646), or the motion to table (Mar. 18, 1992, p. ----). He may not be 
deprived of the floor by a parliamentary inquiry (VIII, 2455-2458), a 
question of privilege (V, 



[[Page 556]]



Sec. 751. Speaker in debate.

  The  Speaker may of right speak 
from the Chair on questions of order and be first heard (II, 1367), but 
with this exception he may speak from the Chair only by leave of the 
House and on questions of fact (II, 1367-1372). On occasions 
comparatively rare Speakers have called Members to the Chair and 
participated in debate on questions of order or matters relating their 
own conduct or rights, usually without asking consent of the House (II, 
1367, 1368, 1371; III, 1950; V, 6097). In more recent years, Speakers 
have frequently entered into debate on substantive legislative issues 
before the House for decision, and the right to participate in debate in 
the Committee of the Whole is without question (see, e.g., Apr. 30, 
1987, p. 10811).




Sec. 752. Member must confine himself to the subject.

  It  has 
always been held, and generally quite strictly, that in the House the 
Member must confine himself to the subject under debate (V, 5043-5048; 
VI, 576; VIII, 2481, 2534). The Chair normally waits for the question of 
relevancy of debate to be raised and does not take initiative (Sept. 27, 
1990, p. ----; Mar. 23, 1995, p. ----; Nov. 14, 1995, pp. ----, ----; 
Dec. 15, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 12, 1996, p. ----).



[[Page 557]]

fined to the election of that Member and should not extend to that 
committee's agenda (July 10, 1995, p. ----).
  During debate on a bill a Member must maintain a constant nexus 
between debate and the subject of the bill (Nov. 14, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 
12, 1996, p. ----). Debate on a motion to amend must be confined to the 
amendment, and may neither include the general merits of the bill (V, 
5049-5051), nor range to the merits of a proposition not included in the 
underlying resolution (Jan. 31, 1995, p. ----). Similarly, debate on a 
motion to recommit with instructions should be confined to the subject 
of the motion rather than dwelling on the general merits of the bill 
(Mar. 7, 1996, p. ----). On a motion to suspend the rules, debate is 
confined to the object of the motion and may not range to the merits of 
a bill not scheduled for such consideration (Nov. 23, 1991, p. 34189). 
Debate on a special order providing for the consideration of a bill may 
range to the merits of the bill to be made in order (Sept. 26, 1989, p. 
21532; Oct. 16, 1990, p. 29668; Oct. 1, 1991, p. 24836), since the 
question of consideration of the bill is involved, but should not range 
to the merits of a measure not to be considered under that special order 
(Sept. 27, 1990, p. 26226; July 25, 1995, p. ----; Sept. 20, 1995, p. --
--; Dec. 15, 1995, p. ----; May 1, 1996, p. ----; May 8, 1996, p. ----; 
May 15, 1996, p. ----; Mar. 13, 1997, p. ----). Debate on a resolution 
providing authorities to expedite the consideration of end-of-session 
legislation may neither range to the merits of a measure that might or 
might not be considered under such authorities nor engage in 
personalities with respect to the official conduct of the Speaker, even 
as asserted to relate to the question of granting the authorities 
proposed (Sept. 24, 1996, p. ----). If a unanimous-consent request for a 
Member to address the House for one hour specifies the subject of the 
address, the occupant of the Chair during that speech may enforce the 
rule of relevancy in debate by requiring that the remarks be confined to 
the subject so specified (Jan. 23, 1984, p. 93). Debate on a question of 
personal privilege must be confined to the statements or issue which 
gave rise to the question of privilege (V, 5075-5077; VI, 576, 608; 
VIII, 2448, 2481; May 31, 1984, p. 14623). Debate on a privileged 
resolution recommending disciplinary action against a Member, while it 
may include comparisons with other such actions taken by or reported to 
the House for purposes of measuring severity of punishment, may not 
extend to the conduct of another sitting Member not the subject of a 
committee report (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36271). The question whether a 
Member should be relieved from committee service is debatable only 
within very narrow limits (IV, 4510; June 16, 1975, p. 19056). Debate on 
a resolution electing a Member to a committee is con-

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


<>   2. When two or 
more Members rise at once, the Speaker shall name the Member who is 
first to speak; * * *

  In Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union during 
general debate the Member need not confine himself to the subject (V, 
5233-5238; VIII, 2590; June 28, 1974, p. 21743); but this privilege does 
not extend to the Committee of the Whole House (V, 5239; VIII, 2590). 
All five-minute debate in Committee of the Whole is confined to the 
subject (V, 5240-5256), even on a pro forma amendment (VIII, 2591), in 
which case debate must relate to an issue in the pending portion of the 
bill; thus, where a general provisions title is pending debate may 
relate to any agency funded by the bill (June 13, 1991, p. 14692).

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


  In the early history of the House, when business proceeded on 
presentation by individual Members, the Speaker recognized the Member 
who arose first; and in case of doubt there was an appeal from his 
recognition (II, 1429-1434). But as the membership and business of the 
House increased it became necessary to establish and adhere to a fixed 
order of business, and recognitions, instead of pertaining to the 
individual Member, necessarily came to pertain to the bill or other 
business which would be before the House under the rule regulating the 
order of business. Hence the necessity that the Speaker should not be 
compelled to heed the claims of Members as individuals was expressed in 
1879 in a report from the Committee on Rules, which declared that ``in 
the nature of the case discretion must be lodged with the presiding 
officer'' (II, 1424). And in 1881 the Speaker declined to entertain an 
appeal from his decision on a question of recognition (II, 1425-1428), 
establishing thereby a practice which continues (VI, 292; VIII, 2429, 
2646, 2762). It has also been determined that a Member may not invoke 
rule XXV (Sec. 900, infra), providing that questions relating to the 
priority of business shall be decided by a majority without debate, to 
inhibit the Speaker's power of recognition under this clause (Speaker 
Albert, July 31, 1975, p. 26249).


[[Page 558]]

House a resolution directing the Speaker to recognize 
for such speeches, since a question of privilege cannot amend or 
interpret the rules of the House (July 25, 1980, pp. 19762-64).


Sec. 753a. Oneminute and specialorder 
speeches.

    Recognition  for one-minute speeches by unanimous consent and the order 
of recognition are entirely within the discretion of the Speaker (Nov. 
15, 1983, p. 32657). When the House has a heavy legislative schedule, 
the Speaker may refuse to recognize Members for that purpose until the 
completion of legislative business (Procedure, ch. 21, sec. 7.5; July 
24, 1980, p. 19386). It is not in order to raise as a question of the 
privileges of the 


  Since the 98th Congress the Speaker has followed announced policies of 
(1) alternating recognition for one-minute speeches and special-order 
speeches between majority and minority Members and (2) recognizing for 
special-order speeches of five minutes or less before longer speeches 
(Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 8, 1984, p. 22963; Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----). In the 
101st Congress, the Chair continued the practice of alternating 
recognition for one-minute speeches but began a practice of recognizing 
Members suggested by their party leadership before others in the well 
(Apr. 19, 1990, p. 7406). From August 8, 1984, through February 23, 
1994, the Speaker also followed an announced policy of recognizing 
Members of the same party within a given category in the order in which 
their requests for special orders were granted (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 8, 
1984, p. 22963; Jan. 5, 1993, p. ----). But since February 24, 1994, the 
Speaker's announced policies for recognition for special order speeches 
has been as follows: (1) recognition does not extend beyond midnight; 
(2) recognition is granted first for speeches of five minutes or less; 
(3) recognition for longer speeches is limited (except on Tuesdays) to 
four hours equally divided between the majority and minority; (4) the 
first hour for each party is reserved to its respective Leader or his 
designees; (5) time within each party is allotted in accord with a list 
submitted to the Chair by the respective Leader; (6) the first 
recognition within a category alternates between the parties from day to 
day, regardless of when requests were granted; (7) Members may not enter 
requests for five-minute special orders earlier than one week in 
advance; and (8) the respective Leaders may establish additional 
guidelines for entering requests (Feb. 11, 1994, p. ----; May 23, 1994, 
p. ----; June 10, 1994, p. ----; Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----; Feb. 16, 1995, 
p. ----; May 12, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 21, 1997, p. ----).


  While the Chair's calculation of time consumed under one-minute 
speeches is not subject to challenge, the Chair endeavors to recognize 
Majority and then Minority Members by allocating time in a non-partisan 
manner (Aug. 4, 1982, p. 19319). Prior to legislative business, the 
Speaker will traditionally recognize a Member only once by unanimous 
consent for a one-minute speech, and will not entertain a second request 
(May 1, 1985, p. 9995). The Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent 
request to extend a five-minute special order (Mar. 7, 1995, p. ----).


[[Page 559]]

times after May 14 of each year. The modified order changes morning hour 
debates on Tuesdays after May 14 of each year as follows: (1) the House 
convenes one hour early (rather than 90 minutes); (2) time for debate is 
limited to 25 minutes for each Party (rather than 30 minutes); and (3) 
in no event is morning hour debate to continue beyond 10 minutes before 
the House is to convene (May 12, 1995, p. ----). The above-cited orders 
of the House also: (1) postpone the Prayer, approval of the Journal, and 
the Pledge of Allegiance during morning hour debates; and (2) require 
the Chair to recognize Members for not more than five minutes each, 
alternating between the majority and minority parties in accord with 
lists supplied by their respective Leaders. During morning hour debate 
it is not in order to request that a name be removed from a list of 
cosponsors of a bill (Apr. 26, 1994, p. ----).



Sec. 753b. Morninghour debates.

  Beginning  in the second 
session of the 103d Congress, the House has by unanimous consent agreed 
(without prejudice to the Speaker's ultimate power of recognition under 
this rule) to convene 90 minutes early on Mondays and Tuesdays for 
morning-hour debate (Feb. 11, 1994, p. ----; May 23, 1994, p. ----; June 
8, 1994, p. ----; June 10, 1994, p. ----; Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----; Feb. 
16, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 21, 1997, p. ----). On May 12, 1995, the House 
extended and modified the above order to accommodate earlier convening 





Sec. 753c. ``Oxford'' style debates.

  In  the 103d Congress 
the House agreed by unanimous consent to conduct at a time designated by 
the Speaker structured debate on a mutually agreeable topic announced by 
the Speaker, with four participants from each party in a format 
announced by the Speaker (Feb. 11, 1994, p. ----; Mar. 11, 1994, p. ----
; May 23, 1994, p. ----; June 8, 1994, p. ----; June 10, 1994, p. ----). 
Pursuant to that authority the House conducted three ``Oxford''-style 
debates (Mar. 16, 1994, p. ----; May 4, 1994, p. ----; July 20, 1994, p. 
----). As a precursor to those structured debates, special-order time 
was used for a ``Lincoln-Douglas'' style debate involving five Members, 
with one Member acting as ``moderator'' by controlling the hour under 
this clause (Nov. 3, 1993, p. ----).



[[Page 560]]

VIII, 2454, 3231). And this principle applies to the makers of certain 
motions. Thus, the Member on whose motion the enacting clause of a bill 
is stricken out in Committee of the Whole is entitled to prior 
recognition when the bill is reported to the House (V, 5337; VIII, 
2629), and in a case where a Member raised an objection in the joint 
session to count the electoral vote the Speaker recognized him first 
when the Houses had separated to consider the objection (III, 1956). But 
a Member may not, by offering a debatable motion of higher privilege 
than the pending motion, deprive the Member in charge of the bill of 
possession of the floor for debate (II, 1460-1463; VI, 290, 297-299; 
VIII, 2454, 3193, 3197, 3259). The Member in charge of the bill and 
having the floor may demand the previous question, although another 
Member may propose to offer a motion of higher privilege (VIII, 2684); 
but the motion of higher privilege must be put before the previous 
question (V, 5480; VIII, 2684). The Member who has been recognized to 
call up a measure in the House has priority of recognition to move the 
previous question thereon, even over the chairman of the committee 
reporting that measure (Oct. 1, 1986, p. 27468). The fact that a Member 
has the floor on one matter does not necessarily entitle him to prior 
recognition on a motion relating to another matter (II, 1464). It is 
because the Speaker is governed by these usages that he often asks, when 
a Member seeks recognition, ``For what purpose does the gentleman 
rise?''. By this question he determines whether the Member proposes 
business or a motion which is entitled to precedence and he may deny 
recognition (VI, 289-291, 293; Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-78; 
Speaker Wright, Feb. 17, 1988, p. 1583; Feb. 27, 1992, p. ----) and from 
such denial there is no appeal (II, 1425; VI, 292; VIII, 2429, 2646, 
2762; Feb. 27, 1992, p. ----). Recognition for parliamentary inquiry 
lies in the discretion of the Chair (VI, 541), who may take a 
parliamentary inquiry under advisement (VIII, 2174), especially where 
not related to the pending proceedings (Apr. 7, 1992, p. ----).


Sec. 754. Speaker governed by usage in 
recognitions.

  Although  there is no appeal from the Speaker's recognition, he is 
not a free agent in determining who is to have the floor. The practice 
of the House establishes rules from which he may not depart. When the 
order of business brings before the House a certain bill he must first 
recognize, for motions for its disposition, the Member who represents 
the committee which has reported it (II, 1447; VI, 306, 514). This is 
not necessarily the chairman of the committee, for a chairman who, in 
committee, has opposed the bill, must yield the prior recognition to a 
member of his committee who has favored the bill (II, 1449). Usually, 
however, the chairman has charge of the bill and is entitled at all 
stages to prior recognition for allowable motions intended to expedite 
it (II, 1452, 1457; VI, 296, 300). Once the proponent of a pending 
motion has been recognized for debate thereon, a unanimous-consent 
request to modify the motion may be entertained only if the proponent 
yields for that purpose (Jan. 5, 1996, p. ----). This principle does 
not, however, apply to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole (II, 
1453). The Member who originally introduces the bill which a committee 
reports has no claims to recognition as opposed to the claims of the 
members of the committee, but in cases where a proposition is brought 
directly before the House by a Member the mover is entitled to prior 
recognition for motions and debate (II, 1446, 1454; VI, 302-305, 417; 




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

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



[[Page 561]]

to the report, and the manager retains control to offer the initial 
motion to dispose of amendments in disagreement (Speaker Albert, May 1, 
1975, p. 12761). Similarly, the invalidation of a conference report on a 
point of order, which is equivalent to its rejection by the House, does 
not give the Member raising the question of order the right to the floor 
(VIII, 3284) and exerts no effect on the right to recognition (VI, 313). 
In most cases, when the House refuses to order the previous question on 
a conference report, it then rejects the report (II, 1473-1477; V, 
6396). However, control of a Senate amendment reported from conference 
in disagreement passes to an opponent when the House rejects a motion to 
dispose thereof (Aug. 6, 1993, p. ----).
  Rejection of a conference report after the previous question has been 
ordered thereon does not cause recognition to pass to a Member opposed 



Sec. 756. Prior right of Members of the committee to 
recognition for debate.

  In  debate the members of the committee--except 
the Committee of the Whole (II, 1453)--are entitled to priority of 
recognition for debate (II, 1438, 1448; VI, 306, 307), but a motion to 
lay a proposition on the table is in order before the Member entitled to 
prior recognition for debate has begun his remarks (V, 5391-5395; VI, 
412; VIII, 2649, 2650).


  In recognizing for general debate under general House rules the Chair 
alternates between those favoring and those opposing the pending matter, 
preferring members of the committee reporting the bill (II, 1439-1444). 
When a member of a committee has occupied the floor in favor of a 
measure the Chair attempts to recognize a Member opposing next, even 
though he be not a member of the committee (II, 1445). The principle of 
alternation is not insisted on rigidly where a limited time is 
controlled by Members, as in the ``forty minutes'' of debate on motions 
for suspension of the rules and the previous question (II, 1442).


[[Page 562]]

to consider a motion to suspend the rules and pass an unreported bill (on a 
non-suspension day) (Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21126); (4) requests to permit 
consideration of (nongermane) amendments to bills (Nov. 14, 1991, p. 
32083; Dec. 20, 1995, p. ----); (5) requests to permit expedited 
consideration of measures on subsequent days, as by waiving the 
requirement that a bill be referred to committee for 30 legislative days 
before a motion to discharge may be presented under clause 3 of rule 
XXVII (June 5, 1992, p. ----); and (6) requests relating to Senate 
passed bills on the Speaker's table (Oct. 25, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 3, 
1996, p. ----). In addition, with respect to unanimous-consent requests 
to dispose of Senate amendments to House bills on the Speaker's table, 
the Chair will entertain such a request only if made by the chairman of 
the committee with jurisdiction, or by another committee member 
authorized to make the request (Apr. 26, 1984, p. 10194; Feb. 4, 1987, 
p. 2675; Jan. 3, 1996, p. ----; Jan. 4, 1996, p. ----; Deschler's 
Precedents, vol. 6, ch. 21, sec. 1.23). The Chair has declined to 
entertain a unanimous-consent request to print a separate volume of 
tributes given in memory of a deceased former Member absent concurrence 
of the Joint Committee on Printing (Aug. 1, 1996, p. ----). The 
Speaker's enforcement of this policy is not subject to appeal (Apr. 4, 
1995, p. ----). ``Floor leadership'' in this context has been construed 
to apply only to the Minority Leader and not to the entire hierarchy of 
minority leadership, where the Chair had been assured that the Minority 
Leader had been consulted (Apr. 25, 1985, p. 9415). It is not a proper 
parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to indicate which side of the 
aisle has failed under the Speaker's guidelines to clear a unanimous-
consent request (Feb. 1, 1996, p. ----).



Sec. 757. Exceptions to the usages constraining the Speaker 
as to recognitions.

  As  to motions to suspend the rules, which are in 
order on Mondays and Tuesdays of each week, the Speaker exercises a 
discretion to decline to recognize (V, 6791-6794, 6845; VIII, 3402-
3404). He also may decline to recognize a Member who desires to ask 
unanimous consent to set aside the rules in order to consider a bill not 
otherwise in order, this being the way of signifying his objection to 
the request. But this authority did not extend to the former Consent 
Calendar. The Speaker has announced and enforced a policy of conferring 
recognition for unanimous-consent requests for the consideration of 
unreported bills and resolutions only when assured that the majority and 
minority floor and committee leaderships have no objection (see, e.g., 
Dec. 15, 1981, p. 31590; May 4, 1982, p. 8613; Nov. 16, 1983, p. 33138; 
Jan. 25, 1984, p. 354; Jan. 26, 1984, p. 449; Jan. 31, 1984, p. 1063; 
Oct. 2, 1984, p. 28516; Feb. 4, 1987, p. 2675; Jan. 3, 1989, p. 89; Jan. 
3, 1991, p. 64; Jan. 5, 1993, p. ----; Apr. 4, 1995, p. ----). This 
policy has been extended to: (1) requests relating to reported bills 
(July 23, 1993, p. ----); (2) requests for immediate consideration of 
matters (separately unreported) comprising a portion of a measure 
already passed by the House (Dec. 19, 1985, p. 38356); (3) requests 





Sec. 758. The hour rule in debate.

  2.  * * * and no Member 
shall occupy more than one hour in debate on any question in the House 
or in committee, except as further provided in this rule.


  This clause dates from 1841, when the increase of membership had made 
it necessary to prevent the making of long speeches which sometimes 
occupied three or four hours each (V, 4978).

  It applies to debate on a question of privilege, as well as to debate 
on other questions (V, 4990; VIII, 2448); and when the time of debate 
has been placed within the control of those representing the two sides 
of a question it must be assigned to Members in accordance with this 
rule (V, 5004, 5005; VIII, 2462). Under this clause a Member recognized 
for one hour for a ``special order'' speech in the House may not extend 
that time, even by unanimous consent (July 12, 1971, pp. 24594, 24603; 
Feb. 9, 1966, p. 2794). In the 104th Congress the Speaker announced his 
intention to strictly enforce time limitations on debate (Jan. 5, 1995, 
p. ----).


[[Page 563]]

  For a discussion of ``morning-hour debates'' and ``Oxford'' style 
debates, see Sec. Sec. 753b-c, supra.




Sec. 759. The opening and closing of general debate.

  3.  The 
Member reporting the measure under consideration from a committee may 
open and close, where general debate has been had thereon; and if it 
shall extend beyond one day, he shall be entitled to one hour to close, 
notwithstanding he may have used an hour in opening.


  This clause was adopted in 1847 and perfected in 1880 (V, 4996).


  In the later practice this right to close may not be exercised after 
the previous question is ordered (V, 4997-5000). This clause applies to 
general debate in Committee of the Whole (Mar. 26, 1985, p. 6283).



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

  4.  If any Member, in speaking or otherwise, transgress the rules 
of the House, the Speaker shall, or any Member may, call him to order; 
in which case he shall immediately sit down, unless permitted, on motion 
of another Member, to explain, and the House shall, if appealed to, 
decide on the case without debate; if the decision is in favor of the 
Member called to order, he shall be at liberty to proceed, but not 
otherwise; and, if the case requires it, he shall be liable to censure 
or such punishment as the House may deem proper.



[[Page 564]]

  5. If a Member is called to order for words spoken in debate, the 
Member calling him to order shall indicate the words excepted to, and 
they shall be taken down in writing at the Clerk's desk and read aloud 
to the House; but he shall not be held to answer, nor be subject to the 
censure of the House therefor, if further debate or other business has 
intervened.

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



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

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


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


[[Page 565]]

consent is not required for a Member to withdraw his demand 
that words be taken down prior to a ruling by the Chair (June 18, 1986, 
p. 14232).
  Clause 5 prohibits the taking down of words after intervening business 
(V, 5177; VIII, 2536; Sept. 16, 1991, p. ----; Mar. 28, 1996, p. ----). 
However, a Member on his feet and seeking recognition at the appropriate 
time may yet be recognized to demand that words be taken down even 
though brief debate may have intervened, and a request that a Member 
uttering objectionable words yield does not forfeit the right to demand 
that the words be taken down (VIII, 2528). Action taken by the Chair to 
determine whether a point of order from the floor is intended as a 
demand that words be taken down is not such intervening debate or 
business as would render the demand untimely (Oct. 2, 1984, p. 28522). 
Unanimous 

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

  The words having been read from the desk, the Chair decides whether 
they are in order (II, 1249; V, 5163, 5169, 5187), as read by the Clerk 
and not as otherwise alleged to have been uttered (June 9, 1992, p. ----
). When a Member denies that the words taken down are the exact words 
used by himself, the question as to the words is put to the House for 
decision (V, 5179, 5180). Where demands are made to take down words both 
as spoken in a one-minute speech and as reiterated when the offending 
Member is permitted by unanimous consent to explain, the Chair may rule 
simultaneously on both (July 25, 1996, p. ----). A decision of the Chair 
on a point of order that a Member is engaging in personalities is 
subject to appeal (Sept. 28, 1996, p. ----).

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


[[Page 566]]

the Chair (Oct. 8, 1991, p. 25757; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 
----; July 25, 1996, p. ----) or offered by any Member (July 25, 1996, 
p. ----). The motion is not inconsistent with the immediate consequence 
of the call to order because clause 4 also permits the House to 
determine the extent of the sanction for a given breach (Oct. 10, 1991, 
p. 26102). The motion is debatable within narrow limits of relevance 
under the hour rule, and consequently also is subject to the motion to 
lay on the table (Speaker Foley, Oct. 8, 1991, p. 25757).
  If words taken down are ruled out of order, the Member loses the floor 
(V, 5196-5199; Jan. 25, 1995, p. ----) and may not proceed on the same 
day without the permission of the House (Jan. 29, 1946, p. 533; Aug. 21, 
1974, pp. 29652-53; Jan. 25, 1995, p. ----; Apr. 17, 1997, p. ----), 
even on yielded time (V, 5147), and may not insert unspoken remarks in 
the Record (Jan. 25, 1995, p. ----), but still may exercise his right to 
vote or to demand the yeas and nays (VIII, 2546). The ruling does not 
take the ``issue'' off the floor, and other Members may proceed to 
debate the same subject (July 25, 1996, p. ----). The offending Member 
will not lose the floor if the House permits the Member to proceed in 
order (see, e.g., May 10, 1990, p. 9992), which motion may be stated on 
the initiative of 

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

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

  When disorderly words are spoken in the Committee of the Whole, they 
are taken down and read at the Clerk's desk, and the Committee rises 
automatically (VIII, 2533, 2538, 2539) and reports them to the House 
(II, 1257-1259, 1348). Action in the House on words reported from the 
Committee of the Whole is limited to the words reported (VIII, 2528), 
and it is not in order as a question of privilege in the House to 
propose censure of a Member for disorderly words spoken in Committee of 
the Whole but not reported therefrom (V, 5202). After words reported to 
the House from Committee of the Whole have been disposed of (by decision 
of the Chair and any associated action by the House), the Committee 
resumes its sitting without motion (VIII, 2539, 2541).


[[Page 567]]

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


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




Sec. 762. Member to speak but once to the same question; 
right to close controlled debate.

  6.  No Member shall speak more than once 
to the same question without leave of the House, unless he be the mover, 
proposer, or introducer of the matter pending, in which case he shall be 
permitted to speak in reply, but not until every Member choosing to 
speak shall have spoken.


  This clause was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1840 (V, 4991).

  A Member who has spoken once to the main question may speak again to 
an amendment (V, 4993, 4994). It is too late to make the point that a 
Member has spoken already if no one claims the floor until he has made 
some progress in his speech (V, 4992). This clause is often 
circumscribed by special orders of business that vest control of debate 
in designated Members and permit them to yield more than once to other 
Members. For a discussion of the right of a Member to speak more than 
once under the five-minute rule, see Sec. 873a, infra. The right to 
close may not be exercised after the previous question has been ordered 
(V, 4997-5000). The right to close does not belong to a Member who has 
merely moved to reconsider the vote on a bill which he did not report 
(V, 4995). The right of a contestant in an election case to close when 
he is permitted to speak in the contest has been a matter of discussion 
(V, 5001).


[[Page 568]]

ommended by a committee of sequential referral, a member 
of that committee is entitled to close debate against an amendment 
thereto (June 15, 1989, pp. 12084-87). By recommending an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, a reporting committee implicitly opposes a 
further amendment that could have been included therein, such that a 
committee representative who controls time in opposition may close 
debate thereon (June 4, 1992, pp. ---- and ----; June 13, 1995, p. ----
). Where the rule providing for the consideration of an unreported 
measure designates managers who do not serve on a committee of 
jurisdiction, those managers are entitled to close controlled debate 
against an amendment thereto (Sept. 18, 1997, p. ----).
  Ordinarily the manager of a bill or other representative of the 
committee position and not the proponent of an amendment has the right 
to close debate on an amendment on which debate has been limited and 
allocated under the five-minute rule in Committee of the Whole (VIII, 
2581; July 16, 1981, p. 16043; Apr. 4, 1984, p. 7841; June 5, 1985, p. 
14302; July 10, 1985, p. 18496; Oct. 24, 1985, p. 28824; May 2, 1988, p. 
9638; May 5, 1988, pp. 9961-62), including the minority manager (June 
29, 1984, p. 20253; Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21660; July 26, 1989, p. 16403). 
The Chair will assume that the manager of a measure is representing the 
committee of jurisdiction even where the measure called up is unreported 
(Apr. 15, 1996, p. ----), where an unreported compromise text is made in 
order as original text in lieu of committee amendments (Oct. 19, 1995, 
p. ----), or where the committee reported the measure without 
recommendation (Feb. 12, 1997, p. ----). Where the pending text includes 
a provision rec-


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


[[Page 569]]

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



Sec. 763. Decorum of Members in the Hall.

  7.  While the 
Speaker is putting a question or addressing the House no Member shall 
walk out of or across the hall, nor, when a Member is speaking, pass 
between him and the Chair; and during the session of the House no Member 
shall wear his hat, or remain by the Clerk's desk during the call of the 
roll or the counting of ballots, or smoke upon the floor of the House; 
and the Sergeant-at-Arms is charged with the strict enforcement of this 
clause. Neither shall any person be allowed to smoke or to use any 
personal, electronic office 


  Until the 104th Congress this clause was made up of provisions adopted 
in 1789, 1837, 1871, and 1896. In the 104th Congress a reference to the 
former Doorkeeper was deleted and the prohibition against using personal 
electronic office equipment was added (secs. 201 and 223, H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----). The prohibition was affirmed by response to a 
parliamentary inquiry (Feb. 23, 1995, p. ----). Originally Members wore 
their hats during sessions, as in Parliament, and the custom was not 
abolished until 1837 (II, 1136). In the 103d Congress the Speaker 
announced that the prohibition against Members wearing hats included 
doffing the hat in tribute to a group (Speaker Foley, June 22, 1993, p. 
----; June 10, 1996, p. ----). In the 96th Congress, the Speaker 
announced that he considered as proper the customary and traditional 
attire for Members, including a coat and tie for male Members and 
appropriate attire for female Members (where thermostat controls had 
been raised in the summer to conserve energy); the House then adopted a 
resolution, offered as a question of the privileges of the House, 
requiring Members to wear proper attire as determined by the Speaker, 
and denying non-complying Members the privilege of the floor (July 17, 
1979, pp. 19008, 19073). In the 97th Congress, the Speaker announced 
during a vote by electronic device that Members were not permitted under 
the traditions of the House to wear overcoats on the House floor (Dec. 
16, 1981, p. 31847).

  Smoking is not permitted in the Hall during sessions of the House 
(Oct. 15, 1990, p. 29248), nor during sittings of the Committee of the 
Whole (Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21707); and the prohibition extends to smoking 
behind the rail (Feb. 23, 1995, p. ----). On the opening day of the 
101st Congress, the Speaker prefaced his customary announcement of 
policies concerning such aspects of the legislative process as 
recognition for unanimous-consent requests and privileges of the floor 
with a general statement concerning decorum in the House, including 
particular adjurations against engaging in personalities, addressing 
remarks to spectators, and passing in front of the Member addressing the 
Chair (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 88; see also Jan. 5, 1993, p. ----; Jan. 4, 
1995, p. ----). In the 104th Congress the Speaker announced: (1) that 
Members should not traffic, or linger in, the well of the House while 
another Member is speaking (Feb. 3, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 3, 1995, p. ----
; Dec. 15, 1995, p. ----); and (2) that Members should not engage in 
disruption while another Member is speaking (Dec. 20, 1995, p. ----).


[[Page 570]]

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

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




Sec. 764. Gallery occupants not to be introduced.

  8.  It 
shall not be in order for any Member to introduce to or to bring to the 
attention of the House during its sessions any occupant in the galleries 
of the House; nor may the Speaker entertain a request for the suspension 
of this rule by unanimous consent or otherwise.



  This clause was adopted April 10, 1933 (VI, 197).



Sec. 764a. Revisions of remarks in debate.

  9. (a)  The 
Congressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of 
remarks made during the proceedings of the House, subject only to 
technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the 
Member making the remarks involved.


  (b) Unparliamentary remarks may be deleted only by permission or order 
of the House.




Sec. 764b. Standard of conduct.

  (c)  This clause establishes 
a standard of conduct within the meaning of clause 4(e)(1)(B) of rule X.





  This clause was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 213, H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----). Under clause 9(a) a unanimous-consent request to 
revise and extend remarks permits a Member (1) to make technical, 
grammatical, and typographical corrections to remarks uttered and (2) to 
include in the Record additional remarks not uttered to appear in a 
distinctive typeface; however, such a unanimous-consent request does not 
permit a Member to remove remarks actually uttered (Jan. 4, 1995, p. --
--). Clause 9(a) also applies to statements and rulings of the Chair 
(Jan. 20, 1995, p. ----).