    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 109th Congress]
    [109th Congress]
    [House Document 108-241]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 723-751]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                    Rule XVII

    Decorum
                               decorum and debate

    945. Obtaining the floor for debate; and relevancy and
    decorum therein.

      1. (a)  A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who
    desires to speak or deliver a matter to the House shall rise and
    respectfully address himself to ``Mr. Speaker'' and, on being
    recognized, may address the House from any place on the floor. When
    invited by the Chair, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may
    speak from the Clerk's desk.

    [[Page 724]]

      (b) Remarks in debate (which may include references to the Senate or
    its Members) shall be confined to the question under debate, avoiding
    personality.

      This clause (formerly clause 1 of rule XIV) was adopted in 1880, but
    was made up, in its main provisions, from older rules, which dated from
    1789 and 1811 (V, 4979). A rule of comity prohibiting most references in
    debate to the Senate was first enunciated in Jefferson's Manual and was
    strictly enforced in the House through the 108th Congress (albeit with
    certain exceptions adopted in the 100th and 101st Congresses and were
    outlined in paragraph (b)) (Sec. 371, supra; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p.
    6; H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72). In the 109th Congress the exceptions
    were deleted and the parenthetical in paragraph (b) was inserted (sec.
    2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. ----). The rule continues to require
    Members to avoid personality, and the Chair remains under a duty to call
    to order a Member who violates the rule. Before the House recodified its
    rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 1
    of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This clause, and rulings
    of the Chair with respect to references in debate to the Senate, are
    discussed in Sec. Sec. 361, 371, supra.

    [[Page 725]]

    to the Speaker, himself, a Member directs his remarks 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 XVIII, have reminded
    and advised Members of the following: (1) clause 1 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. 2973; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33744;
    July 23, 1998, p. 17032; Oct. 11, 2000, p. 22189; Oct. 2, 2003, p. ----;
    Mar. 10, 2004, 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 such references to the Senate or the
    President (Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551); (7) Members should refrain from
    discussing the President's personal character (May 10, 1994, p. 9697);
    (8) Members should heed the gavel (e.g., Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081; May 22,
    2003, p. ----; Oct. 2, 2003, p. ----; May 19, 2004, p. ----), and
    remarks uttered in debate while not under recognition do not appear in
    the Congressional Record (e.g., May 22, 2003, p. ----; Oct. 2, 2003, p.
    ----; May 19, 2004, p. ----); (9) Members may not use audio devices
    during debate (May 24, 2005, 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

      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. 551; Jan. 18,
    1995, p. 1441; Jan. 19, 1995, p. 1599). 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. 24485).

      This clause also has 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. 5435; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9662;
    Oct. 19, 1995, pp. 28522, 28540, 28646; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 5435; Mar. 7,
    1996, p. 4083; Sept. 26, 1996, p. 25117; July 24, 1998, p. 17157; Sept.
    28, 2000, p. 19940; Sept. 22, 2004, 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. 18609). 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. 23535).

      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.

      Aside from ``special-order,'' ``morning-hour,'' or ``one-minute''
    debate, where no question is pending and recognition is by unanimous
    consent or leadership listings, it is a general rule that a motion must
    be made before a Member may proceed in debate (V, 4984, 4985), and this
    motion may be required to be reduced to writing (V, 4986). A motion must
    also be stated by the Speaker or read by the Clerk before debate may
    begin (V, 4982, 4983, 5304). The withdrawal of a motion precludes
    further debate on it (V, 4989). But sometimes when a communication or a
    report has been before the House it has been debated before any specific
    motion has been made in relation to it (V, 4987, 4988). In a few cases,
    such as conference reports and reports from the Committee of the Whole,
    the motion to agree is considered as pending without being offered from
    the floor (IV, 4896; V, 6517).

    [[Page 726]]

      In presenting a question of personal privilege the Member is not
    required in the first instance to offer 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; see Sec. 708, supra ).
    Personal explanations merely are made by unanimous consent (V, 5065).

    Sec. 946. 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. 6022). He may not be
    deprived of the floor by a parliamentary inquiry (VIII, 2455-2458), a
    question of privilege (V, 5002; VIII, 2459), a motion that the Committee
    rise (VIII, 2325), or a demand for the previous question (VIII, 2609;
    Mar. 18, 1992, p. 6022), 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; June 10, 1999, p. 12471). 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. 9040; Nov. 13, 1997, p. 26533). 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. 16545;
    July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Members should not engage in disruption while
    another is speaking (Dec. 20, 1995, p. 37878; June 27, 1996, p. 15915).

    [[Page 727]]

    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 from the floor 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. 947. 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

    Sec. 948. 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. 26226; Mar. 23, 1995, p. 8986; Nov. 14, 1995, pp. 32354-57,
    32374; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37118; Mar. 12, 1996, p. 4149; Mar. 20, 2002,
    p. ----).

    [[Page 728]]

    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 confined to the
    election of that Member and should not extend to that committee's agenda
    (July 10, 1995, p. 18258).
      During debate on a bill, a Member under recognition must confine his
    remarks to the pending legislation; that is, he must not dwell on
    another measure not before the House (Nov. 4, 1999, p. 28524), rather he
    must maintain a constant nexus between debate and the subject of the
    bill (Nov. 14, 1995, pp. 32354-57; Mar. 12, 1996, p. 4450; Mar. 20,
    2002, p. ----; June 3, 2003, p. ----, p. ----, 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. 3032). 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. 4092).
    However, the Chair has accorded Members latitude in debating a series of
    amendments in the nature of a substitute to a concurrent resolution on
    the budget (Mar. 25, 1999, p. 5734). 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; June 11, 2002, p. ----). 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), because 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. 20323; Sept. 20, 1995, p. 15838; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37118; May
    1, 1996, p. 9888; May 8, 1996, p. 10511; May 15, 1996, p. 1131; Mar. 13,
    1997, p. 3833; Mar. 20, 2002, p. ----) or to the Rules of the House in
    general (July 9, 2004, p. ---- (sustained by tabling of appeal)). 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, pp. 24485, 24486). If a unanimous-consent
    request for a Member to address the House for one hour specifies the
    subject of the address,

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

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

      Under prior practice in Committee of the Whole, a Member did not have
    to confine himself to the subject during general debate (V, 5233-5238;
    VIII, 2590; June 28, 1974, p. 21743); but under modern practice a
    special order providing for consideration of a measure in the Committee
    of the Whole typically does require such relevance in debate. 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 (VIII,
    2592, 2593); thus, where a general provisions title is pending debate
    may relate to any agency funded by the bill (June 13, 1991, p. 14692).

      This provision was adopted in 1789 (V, 4978). Before the House
    recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
    former clause 2 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

    [[Page 729]]

    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 also has
    been determined that a Member may not invoke clause 6 of rule XIV
    (formerly rule XXV) (Sec. 884, supra), 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).--
      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,

    Sec. 950. 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; Mar. 7, 2001, p. 3027). When the House has a heavy
    legislative schedule, the Speaker may refuse to recognize Members for
    that purpose until the completion of legislative business (Deschler-
    Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 73; July 24, 1980, p. 19386). It is not in order to
    raise as a question of the privileges of the House a resolution
    directing the Speaker to recognize for such speeches, since a question
    of privilege cannot amend or interpret the Rules of the House (July 25,
    1980, pp. 19762-64). The modern practice of limiting recognition before
    legislative business to one minute began August 2, 1937 (p. 8004) and
    was reiterated by Speaker Rayburn on March 6, 1945 (Deschler, ch. 21,
    Sec. 6.1).

    [[Page 730]]

    imous consent but, rather, on lists submitted by the respective party
    Leaders. This policy, the result of bipartisan negotiations, was a
    departure from the modern practice as described in Deschler, ch. 21,
    Sec. 7.1 (special-order speeches following legislative business are
    enabled only by unanimous consent). Under the Speaker's policy: (1)
    recognition does not extend beyond midnight; (2) recognition for longer
    speeches occurs after five-minute speeches and is limited (except on
    Tuesdays) to four hours equally divided between the majority and
    minority; (3) the first hour for each party is reserved to its
    respective Leader or his designees; (4) time within each party is
    allotted in accord with a list submitted to the Chair by the respective
    Leader; (5) recognition for the first hour alternates between the
    parties from day to day; (6) the respective Leaders may establish
    additional guidelines for entering requests; and (7) a Member recognized
    for a five-minute special order may not be recognized for a longer
    special order (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; May 23, 1994, p. 1154; June 10,
    1994, p. 12684; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Feb. 16, 1995, p. 5096; May 12,
    1995, p. 12765; Jan. 21, 1997, p. 460; Jan. 31, 2001, p. 1078).
      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. 551). 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 unanimous-consent requests for special orders were granted
    (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 8, 1984, p. 22963; Jan. 5, 1993, p. 106).
    However, on February 24, 1994, the Speaker announced a new policy
    governing recognition for special-order speeches. With respect to
    recognition for five-minute special orders, the Speaker announced that
    the Chair would recognize for speeches of five minutes or less first,
    before longer speeches, and that Members may not enter requests for
    five-minute special orders earlier than one week in advance. With
    respect to recognition for longer special orders, the Speaker announced
    a policy of recognition that would depend not on orders by unan

      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 nonpartisan
    manner (Aug. 4, 1982, p. 19319). Before 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. 7152) or
    to extend a special order beyond midnight (Oct. 7, 1998, p. 24394). The
    Chair will recognize for subdivisions of the first hour reserved for
    special orders only on designations (and reallocations) by the
    leadership concerned (Oct. 2, 1998, p. 23151; Dec. 12, 2001, p. ----). A
    Member who is recognized to control time during special orders may yield
    to colleagues for such amounts of time as the Member may deem
    appropriate but may not yield blocks of time to be enforced by the
    Chair. Members regulate the duration of their yielding by reclaiming the
    time when appropriate (Jan. 31, 2001, p. 1078).-

    [[Page 731]]

    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. 12765). The House extended such order in a
    modified form to accommodate early convening times on any Monday or
    Tuesday (Jan. 20, 2004, p. ----; Jan. 4, 2005, 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. Under the
    customary order of the House establishing morning-hour debate, the Chair
    does not entertain a unanimous-consent request to extend a five-minute
    period of recognition (Apr. 28, 1998, p. 6924; Nov. 12, 2002, p. ----).
    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. 8544).-

    Sec. 951. 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 early on Mondays and Tuesdays for morning-hour
    debate (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; May 23, 1994, p. 11459; June 8, 1994, p.
    12305; June 10, 1994, p. 12684; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Feb. 16, 1995, p.
    5096; Jan. 21, 1997, p. 460; Jan. 19, 1999, p. 602; Jan. 3, 2001, p. 38;
    Jan. 23, 2002, p. ----; Jan. 7, 2003, p. ----; Jan. 20, 2004, p. ----;
    Jan. 4, 2005, p. ----). On May 12, 1995, the House extended and modified
    the above order to accommodate earlier convening times after mid-May of
    each year. The modified order changes morning-hour debates on Tuesdays
    after mid-May of each year as follows: (1) the House convenes one

    Sec. 952. ``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. 2244; Mar. 11, 1994, p. 4772; May 23,
    1994, p. 11459; June 8, 1994, p. 12305; June 10, 1994, p. 12648).
    Pursuant to that authority the House conducted three ``Oxford''-style
    debates (Mar. 16, 1994, p. 5088; May 4, 1994, p. 9300; July 20, 1994, p.
    17245). 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. 27312).

    [[Page 732]]

    allowable motions intended to expedite it (II, 1452, 1457; VI, 296,
    300). This principle does not, however, apply to the Chairman of the
    Committee of the Whole (II, 1453). 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. 348). The Member who
    originally introduces the bill which a committee reports has no claims
    to recognition as opposed to the claims of the members of the committee,
    but in cases where a proposition is brought directly before the House by
    a Member the mover is entitled to prior recognition for motions and
    debate (II, 1446, 1454; VI, 302-305, 417; VIII, 2454, 3231). This
    principle applies to the makers of certain motions. Thus, the Member on
    whose motion the enacting clause of a bill is stricken in Committee of
    the Whole is entitled to prior recognition when the bill is reported to
    the House (V, 5337; VIII, 2629). Where a Member raised an objection in a
    joint session to count the electoral vote, and the Houses separated to
    consider the objection, the Chair first recognized the Member who raised
    the objection (III, 1956; Jan. 6, 2005, p. ----) or a co-signer of the
    objection (Jan. 6, 1969, pp. 145-7). 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. 3656). For example, a Member's mere revelation that he seeks to
    offer a motion to adjourn does not suffice to make that motion
    ``pending,'' and thus the Chair remains able to declare a short recess
    under clause 12 of rule I (Oct. 28, 1997, p. 23524; June 25, 2003, p. --
    --). There is no appeal from such denial of recognition (II, 1425; VI,
    292; VIII, 2429, 2646, 2762; Feb. 27, 1992, p. 3656). 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. 8273).

    Sec. 953. 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 should not depart. For
    example, on February 24, 1994, the Speaker announced a policy with
    respect to recognition for special-order speeches that departed from the
    established practice of recognition by unanimous consent (Deschler, ch.
    21, Sec. 7.1; see Sec. 26, supra). The Speaker's new policy was the
    product of bipartisan negotiations, which justified the departure from
    the then-established practice. The policy became the new established
    practice of the House, from which the Speaker should not depart except
    by unanimous consent. 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

    [[Page 733]]

    tional time to make their remarks in debate (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27834;
    May 18, 2004, p. ----).
      The Chair may follow a tradition of the House to allow the highest
    ranking elected leaders (Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader)
    addi

    Sec. 954. 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
    who the Speaker perceives to be 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).

      Rejection of a conference report after the previous question has been
    ordered thereon does not cause recognition to pass to a Member opposed
    to the report, and the manager retains control to offer the initial
    motion to dispose of amendments in disagreement (Speaker Albert, May 1,
    1975, p. 12761). 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. 19582).

    Sec. 955. Prior right of Members 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).

    [[Page 734]]

      In recognizing for 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 40 minutes of debate on motions for
    suspension of the rules and the previous question (II, 1442).

    [[Page 735]]

    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. 2260;
    Nov. 22, 2002, p. ----), but the Chair may indicate his cognizance of a
    source of objection for the Record (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 799). 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. 86; Jan. 4, 1996, pp. 200, 210; Deschler, ch. 21, Sec. 1.23). For a
    discussion of recognition for unanimous-consent requests to vary
    procedures in the Committee of the Whole governed by a special order
    adopted by the House, see Sec. 993, infra.

    Sec. 956. 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. Where the previous question was ordered to passage of a bill
    without intervening motion except recommittal, the Chair declined to
    entertain a unanimous-consent request to further amend the pending bill
    as an exercise of his discretionary power of recognition under this
    clause (Feb. 10, 2000, p. 1019). 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. 21247). The Speaker has
    announced and enforced a policy of conferring recognition for unanimous-
    consent requests for the consideration of certain legislation 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. 106;
    Apr. 4, 1995, p. 12097). This policy includes: (1) requests relating to
    reported bills (July 23, 1993, p. 16820); (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 to consider a motion to suspend the rules and pass an
    unreported bill (on a nonsuspension day) (Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21126; Mar.
    30, 1998, p. 5153); (4) requests to permit consideration of (nongermane)
    amendments to bills (Nov. 14, 1991, p. 32083; Dec. 20, 1995, p. 37877;
    June 27, 2002, p. ----; July 28, 2005, 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 2 of
    rule XV (formerly clause 3 of rule XXVII) (June 9, 1992, p. 13900); (6)
    requests relating to Senate-passed bills on the Speaker's table (Oct.
    25, 1995, p. 29347; Jan. 3, 1996, p. 58; Aug. 2, 1999, p. 18942),
    including one identical to a House-passed bill (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 799)
    and a Senate concurrent resolution to correct an enrollment (Oct. 20,
    1998, p. 27358); and (7) requests to dispose of Senate amendments to
    House bills on the Speaker's table (Jan. 4, 1996, pp. 200, 210; Nov. 22,
    2002, p. ----). The Speaker will recognize for an ``omnibus'' unanimous-
    consent request (one request disposing of various measures) only when
    assured that the request, and each constituent part of the request, has
    been cleared under this policy (Oct. 10, 2002, p. ----; Oct. 16, 2002,
    p. ----; Nov. 14, 2002, p. ----). The Speaker's enforcement of this
    policy is not subject to appeal (Apr. 4, 1995, p. 10298). ``Floor
    leadership'' in this

    Sec. 957. The hour rule in debate.

      2.  * * * A Member,
    Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not occupy more than one hour in
    debate on a question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole House
    on the state of the Union except as otherwise provided in this rule.

      This provision (formerly clause 2 of rule XIV) 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). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
    provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
    1999, p. 47).

    [[Page 736]]

    time limitations on debate (Jan. 4, 1995, pp. 457-552). The Chair has
    announced that he would accommodate as many unanimous-consent requests
    to insert remarks in debate as necessary provided they comprise a
    simple, declarative statement of the Member's attitude toward the
    pending measure; however, any embellishment of such a request with other
    oratory may become an imposition on the time of the Member who yielded
    for that purpose (see, e.g., Mar. 24, 1995, p. 9215; June 22, 2002, p.
    ----; May 9, 2003, p. ----; June 26, 2003, p. ----; July 24, 2003, p. --
    --; Nov. 21, 2003, p. ----).
      This provision applies to debate on a question of privilege, as well
    as to debate on other questions (V, 4990; VIII, 2448). When the time for
    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). A Member recognized to call up a
    privileged resolution may yield the floor upon expiration of his hour
    without moving the previous question, thereby permitting another Member
    to be recognized for a successive hour (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27838). 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
    (Feb. 9, 1966, p. 2794; July 12, 1971, pp. 24594, 24603; Oct. 23, 1997,
    p. 23254). The Chair has advised that he will recognize the managers of
    a measure (as so designated by a special rule governing consideration of
    the measure) for unanimous-consent requests to enlarge the time for
    debate (Oct. 8, 2002, p. ----). In the 104th Congress the Speaker
    announced his intention to strictly enforce

    Managing debate
      For a discussion of morning-hour debates and ``Oxford''-style debates,
    see Sec. Sec. 951-952, supra.

    958. The opening and closing of general debate.

      3. (a)  The
    Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who calls up a measure may
    open and close debate thereon. When general debate extends beyond one
    day, that Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall be entitled
    to one hour to close without regard to the time used in opening.

    Sec. 959. Member to speak but once to the same question;
    right to close controlled debate.

      (b)  Except as provided in paragraph (a),
    a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not speak more than
    once to the same question without leave of the House.

      (c) A manager of a measure who opposes an amendment thereto is
    entitled to close controlled debate thereon.

      Paragraphs (a) and (c) (formerly clause 3 of rule XIV) were adopted in
    1847 and perfected in 1880 (V, 4996). Paragraph (b) (formerly clause 6
    of rule XIV) was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1840 (V, 4991). Before
    the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraphs (a) and
    (c) were found in former clause 3 of rule XIV and paragraph (b) was
    found in former clause 6 of rule XIV. The recodification also added
    paragraph (c) to codify modern practice (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
    47).

    [[Page 737]]

    manager of the bill who represents the primary committee of jurisdiction
    is entitled to close general debate; for example, as against another
    manager representing an additional committee of jurisdiction (May 13,
    1998, p. 9042, 9050); or as against the subject of a disciplinary
    resolution (July 24, 2002, p. ----). Where an order of the House divides
    debate on an unreported measure among four Members, the Chair will
    recognize for closing speeches in the reverse order of the original
    allocation (Mar. 24, 1999, p. 5454). Where a special order of the House
    allocates time for debate, which is further fractionalized under a later
    order by unanimous consent, the Chair recognizes for closing speeches in
    the reverse order of their original recognitions, concluding with the
    Member who opened the debate. This is true even when the manager who
    opened debate is opposed, as in the case of a measure reported adversely
    (July 22, 1998, p. 16726; July 27, 1999, p. 18012; June 21, 2000, pp.
    11704, 11721; July 26, 2000, p. 16437). In response to a parliamentary
    inquiry, the Chair advised that time unused by a minority manager in
    general debate is considered as yielded back upon recognition of the
    majority manager to close general debate (Feb. 27, 2002, p. ----). For
    further discussion of management of time for general debate and for
    debate on amendments in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 978, infra.
      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). A
    majority

      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 of order
    that a Member has spoken already if no one claims the floor until he has
    made some progress in his speech (V, 4992). Paragraph (b) is often
    circumscribed by modern practice and by special orders of business that
    vest control of debate in designated Members and permit them to yield
    more than once to other Members (Apr. 5, 2000, p. 4497). For a
    discussion of the right of a Member to speak more than once under the
    five-minute rule, see Sec. 981, 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 738]]

    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. 7421; July 24, 1998, p. 17263), where an unreported compromise
    text is made in order as original text in lieu of committee amendments
    (Oct. 19, 1995, p. 28650), or where the committee reported the measure
    without recommendation (Feb. 12, 1997, pp. 2108, 2109). Where the
    pending text includes a provision recommended by a committee of
    sequential referral, a member of that committee is entitled to close
    debate against an amendment thereto (June 15, 1989, pp. 12084-87). 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. 19325). The majority manager of
    the bill will be recognized to control time in opposition to an
    amendment thereto, without regard to the party affiliation of the
    proponent, where the special order allocated control to ``a Member
    opposed'' (May 13, 1998, p. 9110). The right to close debate in
    opposition to an amendment devolves to a member of the committee of
    jurisdiction who derived debate time by unanimous consent from a manager
    who originally had the right to close debate (Sept. 10, 1998, pp. 19961-
    63). Such right to close may not devolve to the manager of a bill who
    derived debate time by unanimous consent from a non-committee Member
    controlling time in opposition because that right may be transferred
    only where there has been an unbroken line of committee affiliation in
    opposition to the amendment (July 17, 2003, p. ----). The proponent of a
    first-degree amendment who controls time in opposition to a second-
    degree amendment that favors the original bill over the first-degree
    amendment does not qualify as a ``manager'' within the meaning of clause
    3(c) of rule XVII in opposing (June 15, 2000, pp. 11040, 11047).
      As codified in paragraph (c), 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, p. 9961; July 26, 2002, p. --
    --), including the minority manager (June 29, 1984, p. 20253; Aug. 14,
    1986, p. 21660; July 26, 1989, p. 16403; Oct. 27, 1997, p. 23212; July
    26, 2002, p. ----) and including the manager of a measure that was
    reported adversely (Feb. 13, 2002, p. ----). This is so even where the
    manager is also the proponent of a pending amendment to the amendment
    (Mar. 16, 1983, p. 5792). The Chair

    [[Page 739]]

    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. 31964).

    Call to order
      Under certain circumstances, however, the proponent of the amendment
    may close debate where he represents the position of the reporting
    committee (Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21660); for example, the proponent of a
    ``manager's amendment'' may close controlled debate thereon where a
    member of the committee does not claim time in opposition (May 13, 1998,
    p. 9092). Similarly, the proponent may close debate where neither a
    committee representative nor a Member assigned a managerial role by the
    governing special order oppose the amendment (Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22057;
    May 6, 1998, pp. 8307, 8316; July 14, 1998, p. 15321; July 17, 2003, p.
    ----). 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, pp. 15684, 15685,
    15689). Similarly, the proponent of the amendment may close debate where
    no representative from the reporting committee opposes an amendment to a
    multijurisdictional bill (Mar. 9, 1995, p. 7467); where the measure is
    unreported and has no ``manager'' under the terms of a special rule
    (Apr. 24, 1985, p. 9206); or where

    960. The call to order for words spoken in
    debate.

      4. (a)  If a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, in speaking
    or otherwise, transgresses the Rules of the House, the Speaker shall, or
    a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may, call to order the
    offending Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, who shall
    immediately sit down unless permitted on motion of another Member,
    Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner to explain. If a Member,
    Delegate, or Resident Commissioner is called to order, the Member,
    Delegate, or Resident Commissioner making the call to order shall
    indicate the words excepted to, which shall be taken down in writing at
    the Clerk's desk and read aloud to the House.

    [[Page 740]]

    call to order, and may not be subject to the censure of the House
    therefor, if further debate or other business has intervened.

      (b) The Speaker shall decide the validity of a call to order. The
    House, if appealed to, shall decide the question without debate. If the
    decision is in favor of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
    called to order, the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall be
    at liberty to proceed, but not otherwise. If the case requires it, an
    offending Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall be liable to
    censure or such other punishment as the House may consider proper. A
    Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not be held to answer a

      The first sentence of paragraph (a) and all but the last sentence of
    paragraph (b) (formerly clause 4 of rule XIV) was adopted in 1789 and
    amended in 1822 and 1880 (V, 5175). The last sentence of paragraph (a)
    and the last sentence of paragraph (b) (formerly clause 5 of rule XIV)
    was adopted in 1837 and amended in 1880, although the practice of
    writing down objectionable words had been established in 1808. When the
    House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, it consolidated former
    clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV into a single clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
    1999, p. 47).

    Sec. 961. 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 this clause (Sept. 12, 1996, pp. 22897,
    22899; Sept. 17, 1996, p. 23426; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; Sept. 25,
    1996, p. 24759). 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. 18609). Except for naming the
    offending Member, the Speaker may not otherwise censure or punish him
    (II, 1345; VI, 237; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; see also Sec. 366, supra).
    The House may by proper motions under this clause dictate the
    consequences of a ruling by the Chair that a Member was out of order
    (May 26, 1983, p. 14048). As an exercise of recognition, the Chair's
    determination that a Member's time in debate has expired is not subject
    to appeal (Mar. 22, 1996 p. 6086; see also Sec. Sec. 622, 629, supra).
    Furthermore, a Member speaking while not under recognition (as when
    speaking beyond the allotted time) is not entitled to in-House
    amplification (Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081; see also Sec. 684, supra).

    [[Page 741]]

    will of the House on the question of his proceeding in order (Speaker
    O'Neill, June 16, 1982, p. 13843; July 29, 1994, p. 18609; Sept. 18,
    1996, p. 23535). The Chair may admonish a Member for words spoken in
    debate and request that they be removed from the Record even before a
    demand that the words be taken down (Sept. 24, 1992, p. 27345).
      As discussed in Sec. 374, supra, it is customary for the Chair to
    initiate the call to order of a Member who engages in personality in
    debate with respect to Members of the Senate, including an insertion in
    the Record (Speaker Albert, Apr. 17, 1975, p. 10458; Oct. 7, 1975, p.
    32055; Feb. 27, 1997, pp. 2784, 2785). On the other hand, it is
    customary for the Chair to await an initiative from the floor to call to
    order a Member who engages in personality in debate with respect to
    another Member of the House (June 29, 1987, p. 18072; Jan. 4, 1995, p.
    551; Feb. 27, 1997, pp. 2784, 2785). The Chair may take initiative to
    call to order a Member engaging in verbal outburst either following
    expiration of his recognition for debate (Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081) or
    during recognition of another Member (June 5, 2003, p. ----). He may
    order the offending Member to take his seat (June 5, 2003, p. ----) or
    may deny further recognition, subject to the

      This clause (formerly clause 5) prohibits the taking down of words
    after intervening business (V, 5177; VIII, 2536; Sept. 16, 1991, p.
    23032; Mar. 28, 1996, p. 6934). 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). Similarly, a parliamentary inquiry
    concerning the propriety of words just spoken in debate does not render
    untimely a demand that the words be taken down as unparliamentary (May
    6, 2004, p. ----). However, an improper parliamentary inquiry concerning
    the substantive content of the words does render untimely such demand
    (July 20, 2005, p. ----). Although under this clause a Member may not be
    held to answer a call to order if further debate or business has
    intervened, the Chair may under clause 2 of rule I generally admonish
    Members to preserve proper decorum even after intervening debate (Dec.
    5, 2001, p. ----). For instances in which the Chair admonished Members
    for improper references to the Senate after brief intervening debate,
    see Sec. 371, supra.

      While a demand that a Member's words be taken down is pending, that
    Member should be seated immediately (July 29, 1994, p. 18609; Jan. 25,
    1995, p. 2352), and no Member may engage the Chair until the demand has
    been disposed of (Nov. 9, 1995, p. 31913; Nov. 14, 1995, p. 32472).
    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. 14655). 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 rule
    I and this rule, 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 (Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22900; Sept. 17, 1996, p.
    23427; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; see also Sec. 366, supra).

    [[Page 742]]

    his demand that words be taken down before a ruling by the Chair (June
    18, 1986, p. 14232).
      The Chair may entertain a unanimous-consent request to withdraw or
    modify words taken down either before (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29,
    Sec. 51.1) or after (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 51.2) the words have
    been reported to the House. Unanimous consent is not required for a
    Member to withdraw

      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.
    13902). 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. 19170). A decision of
    the Chair on words taken down is subject to appeal (Sept. 28, 1996, p.
    25780; Apr. 9, 2003, 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, p. 40442).

      If words taken down are ruled out of order, the Member loses the floor
    (V, 5196-5199; Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352) and may not proceed on the same
    day without the permission of the House (Jan. 29, 1946, p. 533; Aug. 21,
    1974, p. 29652; Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352; Apr. 17, 1997, p. 5832), even on
    yielded time (V, 5147), and may not insert unspoken remarks in the
    Record (Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352), 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. 19170). 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 the Chair (Oct. 8, 1991, p. 25757; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9676;
    July 25, 1996, p. 1970; June 13, 2002, p. ----) or offered by any Member
    (July 25, 1996, p. 1970). The motion is not inconsistent with the
    immediate consequence of the call to order because this clause (formerly
    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).

    [[Page 743]]

    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. 22899; Sept.
    17, 1996, p. 23426; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; Sept. 25, 1996, p. 24759).
      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.
    22898) 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

      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, p. 29652). Unanimous
    consent to expunge such words often is granted upon the initiative of
    the Chair (May 10, 1990, p. 9992; June 13, 2002, p. ----), 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; July 16, 1998, p. 15827; June 28, 2000, pp. 12771, 12776).

      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).

      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
    alleged to be treasonable (II, 1252), or when a Member has uttered an
    attack on the Speaker (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Jan. 19, 1995, p.
    1599).

    Comportment
      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 clause 6, Sec. 963, infra.

    [[Page 744]]

    Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner is speaking, a Member,
    Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not pass between the person
    speaking and the Chair. During the session of the House, a Member,
    Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not wear a hat or remain by the
    Clerk's desk during the call of the roll or the counting of ballots. A
    person may not smoke or use a wireless telephone or personal computer on
    the floor of the House. The Sergeant-at-Arms is charged with the strict
    enforcement of this clause.

    962. Decorum of Members in the Hall.

      5.  When the Speaker is
    putting a question or addressing the House, a Member, Delegate, or
    Resident Commissioner may not walk out of or across the Hall. When a

      Until the 104th Congress this clause (formerly clause 7 of rule XIV)
    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 a
    prohibition against using any personal electronic office equipment was
    added (secs. 201 and 223, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, pp. 463, 469).
    However, that prohibition was modified in the 108th Congress to cover
    only a wireless telephone or personal computer (sec. 2(k), H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 7, 2003, p. ----). Before the House recodified its rules in the
    106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 7 of rule XIV
    (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

    [[Page 745]]

      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. 13569; June 10, 1996, p. 13560). 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 noncomplying Members the
    privilege of the floor (July 17, 1979, pp. 19008, 19073). In the 106th
    Congress Members were reminded of the need to be in proper attire in the
    Chamber (June 28, 2000, p. 12654), and the Chair has so admonished a
    Member speaking in debate without his jacket (Apr. 3, 2001, p. 5361). 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).

      The prohibition against using personal electronic office equipment was
    affirmed by response to a parliamentary inquiry (Feb. 23, 1995, p.
    5639). The Chair announced that the use of cellular telephones was not
    permitted on the floor of the House or in the gallery (July 13, 1999, p.
    15744; Oct. 7, 1999, p. 24415; Jan. 27, 2000, p. 132) and that Members
    should disable wireless telephones on entering the Chamber (e.g., June
    12, 2000, p. 10369; July 19, 2000, p. 15344; Oct. 10, 2000, p. 22021;
    Oct. 19, 2000, p. 23616; May 13, 2004, p. ----).

      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. 5640).

      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. 105; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551). 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. 3541;
    Mar. 3, 1995, p. 6721; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37111), including Members who
    may have been invited to the well by the Member speaking (June 12, 2003,
    p. ----); and (2) that Members should not engage in disruption while
    another Member is speaking (Dec. 20, 1995, p. 37878). Under this
    provision the Chair may require a line of Members waiting to sign a
    discharge petition to proceed to the rostrum from the far right-hand
    aisle and require the line not to stand between the Chair and Members
    engaging in debate (Oct. 24, 1997, p. 23293).

      Hissing and jeering is not proper decorum in the House (May 21, 1998,
    p. 10282).

    Exhibits
      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. 19027). 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 thereto, until the resolution of a contested election to which
    he was party (H. Res. 233, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19340).

    [[Page 746]]

    in his discretion, may submit the question of its use to the House
    without debate.

    963. Objections to use of exhibits.

      6.  When the use of an
    exhibit in debate is objected to by a Member, Delegate, or Resident
    Commissioner, the Chair,

      This provision was rewritten in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
    1993, p. 49) to address the use of exhibits in debate rather than the
    reading from papers. As rewritten in the 103d Congress, an objection to
    the use of an exhibit automatically triggered a vote by the House on its
    use. The clause was amended in the 107th Congress to permit the Chair in
    his discretion to submit the question of its use to the House (sec.
    2(o), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). Before the House recodified its
    rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former rule XXX
    (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

      When the use of an exhibit in debate was objected to before the clause
    was rewritten in the 107th Congress, the Chair immediately put the
    question on whether use of the exhibit would be permitted (the Chair was
    not determining a breach of decorum under clause 2 of rule I) (Nov. 1,
    1995, p. 31154; Nov. 10, 1995, p. 20689; July 31, 1996, p. 20689). The
    Chair put the question without debate, and without requiring the
    objecting Member to state the basis for the objection (Nov. 10, 1995, p.
    20689). As such, an objection under this rule was not a point of order:
    it could have been resolved by withdrawal of the exhibit; that failing,
    it amounted to a demand that the Chair put to the House the question
    whether the exhibit may be used (July 31, 1996, p. 20700).

      It is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to judge the
    accuracy or authenticity of the content of an exhibit (Nov. 10, 1995, p.
    32142; July 11, 2001, p. ----). The Chair has held that a second
    virtually consecutive invocation of this provision, resulting in a
    second pair of votes on use of a chart and on reconsideration thereof,
    was not dilatory under former clause 10 of rule XVI (current clause 1 of
    rule XVI) or former clause 4(b) of rule XI (current clause 6(b) of rule
    XIII) (July 31, 1996, p. 20700). It is not in order to request that the
    voting display be turned on during debate as an exhibit to accompany a
    Member's debate (Oct. 12, 1998, p. 25770). For a discussion of the
    Speaker's responsibility to preserve decorum that may require that he
    disallow the use of exhibits in debate that would be demeaning to the
    House, or to any Member of the House, or that would be disruptive of the
    decorum thereof, see Sec. 622, supra.

    [[Page 747]]

    a report, the reading of it could be demanded as a matter of right, but
    the latest ruling left to the House to determine whether or not an
    accompanying record of testimony should be read (V, 5261, 5262). In
    general the reading of a report was held to be in the nature of debate
    (V, 5292); but where a report presented facts and conclusions but no
    legislative proposition, it was read if submitted for action (IV, 4663).
    Where a paper is offered as involving a matter of privilege it may be
    read to the House (III, 2597; VI, 606; VIII, 2599), rather than by the
    Speaker privately (III, 2546), but a Member may not, as a matter of
    right, require the reading of a book or paper on suggestion that it
    contains matter infringing on the privileges of the House (V, 5258).

    Sec. 964. History of former rule on reading of
    papers.

      The earlier  form of the rule (formerly rule XXX), originally adopted in
    1794 and amended in 1802 and 1880 (V, 5257), addressed reading from
    papers. It recognized the right of a Member under the general
    parliamentary law to have read the paper on which the House is to vote
    (V, 5258), but when that paper had been read once, the reading could not
    be repeated unless by order of the House (V, 5260). The right could be
    abrogated by suspension of the rules (V, 5278-5284; VIII, 3400); but was
    not abrogated simply by the fact that the current procedure was taking
    place under the rule for suspension (V, 5273-5277). On a motion to refer

      The former rule XXX prohibiting the reading of papers in debate was
    held to apply to the exhibition of articles as evidence or in
    exemplification in debate (VIII, 2452, 2453; June 2, 1937, p. 6104; Aug.
    5, 1949, p. 10859), and the new form of the rule adopted in the 103d
    Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49) marks the modern relevance of
    that application. While Members may use exhibits such as charts during
    debate subject to this rule, the Speaker may, pursuant to his authority
    to preserve order and decorum under rule I (see Sec. 622, supra), direct
    the removal of a chart from the well of the House which is not being
    utilized during debate (Apr. 1, 1982, p. 6304), or which is otherwise
    disruptive of decorum.

    [[Page 748]]

    Galleries

    Sec. 965. Earlier practice.

      The reading  of papers other than
    the one on which the vote was about to be taken was usually permitted
    without question (V, 5258), and the Member in debate usually read such
    papers as he pleased. However, this privilege was subject to the
    authority of the House if another Member objected (V, 5285-5291; VIII,
    2597, 2602; Dec. 19, 1974, p. 41425; Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34669). This
    principle applied even to the Member's own written speech (V, 5258;
    VIII, 2598), to a report which he proposed to have read in his own time
    or to read in his place (V, 5293), and to excerpts from the
    Congressional Record (VIII, 2597). After the previous question was
    ordered, a Member could not ask the decision of the House on a request
    for the reading of a paper not before the House for action (V, 5296),
    even though it be the report of the committee (V, 5294, 5295). For
    further discussion, see Sec. Sec. 432-436, supra. Pursuant to the former
    form of this rule, the consent of the House for a Member to read a paper
    in debate only permitted the Member seeking such permission to read as
    much of the paper as possible in the time yielded or allotted to that
    Member, and did not necessarily grant permission to read or to insert
    the entire document (Mar. 1, 1979, p. 3748). Where a Member objected to
    another's reading from a paper, the Chair put the question without
    debate. It was not in order under the guise of parliamentary inquiry to
    debate that question by indicating that the objection was a dilatory
    tactic (Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34672).

    966. Gallery occupants not to be introduced.

      7.  During a
    session of the House, it shall not be in order for a Member, Delegate,
    or Resident Commissioner to introduce to or to bring to the attention of
    the House an occupant in the galleries of the House. The Speaker may not
    entertain a request for the suspension of this rule by unanimous consent
    or otherwise.

    Congressional Record
      This clause was adopted April 10, 1933 (VI, 197). Before the House
    recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
    former clause 8 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The Chair
    enforces this clause on his own initiative (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29,
    Sec. Sec. 45.4, 45.7).

    967. Revisions of remarks in debate.

      8. (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, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner making the remarks.

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

    Sec. 968. Standard of conduct.

      (c)  This clause establishes a
    standard of conduct within the meaning of clause 3(a)(2) of rule XI.

    [[Page 749]]

    Record by unanimous consent only (Mar. 20, 2002, p. ----). Remarks
    uttered while not under recognition (such as when a Member fails to heed
    the gavel at the expiration of debate time) do not appear in the Record
    (e.g., May 22, 2003, p. ----; Oct. 2, 2003, p. ----; May 19, 2004, p. --
    --). Paragraph (a) also applies to statements and rulings of the Chair
    (Jan. 20, 1995, p. 1866). For a discussion of rules relating to the
    Congressional Record, see Sec. Sec. 685-692, supra.

    Secret sessions
      This clause was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 213, H. Res. 6,
    Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Before the House recodified its rules in the
    106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 9 of rule XIV
    (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Under paragraph (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. 541). For example, remarks held irrelevant by the
    Chair may be removed from the

    969. Secret session of the House.

      9.  When confidential
    communications are received from the President, or when the Speaker or a
    Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner informs the House that he has
    communications that he believes ought to be kept secret for the present,
    the House shall be cleared of all persons except the Members, Delegates,
    Resident Commissioner, and officers of the House for the reading of such
    communications, and debates and proceedings thereon, unless otherwise
    ordered by the House.

      This provision (formerly rule XXIX), in a somewhat different form, was
    adopted in 1792, although secret sessions had been held by the House
    before that date. They continued to be held at times with considerable
    frequency until 1830. In 1880, at the time of the general revision of
    the rules, the House concluded to retain the rule, although it had been
    long in disuse (V, 7247; VI, 434). Before the House recodified its rules
    in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former rule XXIX (H.
    Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

      The two Houses have legislated in secret session, transmitting their
    messages also in secrecy (V, 7250); but the House has declined to be
    bound to secrecy by act of the Senate (V, 7249). Motions to remove the
    injunction of secrecy should be made with closed doors (V, 7254). In
    1843 a confidential message from the President was referred without
    reading; but no motion was made for a secret session (V, 7255).

    [[Page 750]]

    that the Member has a secret communication to make to the House (June 6,
    1978, p. 16376).
      The House and not the Committee of the Whole determines whether the
    Committee may sit in executive session, and an inquiry relative to
    whether the Committee of the Whole should sit in secret session is
    properly addressed to the Speaker and not to the Chairman of the
    Committee of the Whole (May 9, 1950, p. 6746; June 6, 1978, p. 16376;
    June 20, 1979, p. 15710). A Member seeking to offer the motion that the
    House resolve itself into secret session must qualify, as provided by
    the rule, by asserting

      On June 20, 1979, the House adopted by voice vote a motion that the
    House resolve itself into secret session pursuant to this rule (the
    first such occasion since 1830), where the Member offering the motion
    had ensured the Speaker that he had confidential communications to make
    to the House as required by the rule (pp. 15711-13). The Speaker pro
    tempore announced on that occasion before the commencement of the secret
    session that the galleries would be cleared of all persons, that the
    Chamber would be cleared of all persons except Members and those
    officers and employees specified by the Speaker whose attendance was
    essential to the functioning of the secret session, who would be
    required to sign an oath of secrecy, and that all proceedings in the
    secret session must be kept secret until otherwise ordered by the House
    (June 20, 1979, pp. 15711-13). Where the House has concluded a secret
    session and has not voted to release the transcripts of that session,
    the injunction of secrecy remains and the Speaker may informally refer
    the transcripts to appropriate committees for their evaluation and
    report to the House as to ultimate disposition to be made (June 20,
    1979, pp. 15711-13).

      The following procedures apply during a secret session. The motion for
    a secret session is not debatable (June 20, 1979, p. 15711; Mar. 31,
    1998, p. 5229). The Member who offers the motion may be recognized for
    one hour of debate after the House resolves into secret session, and the
    normal rules of debate, including the principle that no motions would be
    in order unless he yields for that purpose, apply. The Speaker having
    found that a Member has qualified to make the motion for a secret
    session, having confidential communications to make, no point of order
    lies that the material in question must be submitted to the Members to
    make that determination (the motion for a secret session having been
    adopted by the House). No point of order lies in secret session that
    employees designated by the Speaker as essential to the proceedings, who
    have signed an oath of secrecy, may not be present. A motion in secret
    session to make public the proceedings therein is debatable for one
    hour, within narrow limits of relevancy. At the conclusion of debate in
    secret session, a Member may be recognized to offer a motion that the
    session be dissolved (July 17, 1979, pp. 19057-59).

    [[Page 751]]

    1980, p. 3618). Another secret session was held in the 98th Congress
    pending consideration of a bill amending the Intelligence Authorization
    Act to prohibit United States support for military or paramilitary
    operations in Nicaragua (July 19, 1983, p. 19776).
      The House conducted another secret session in the 96th Congress to
    receive confidential communications consisting of classified information
    in the possession of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Permanent
    Select Committee on Intelligence, which those committees had authorized
    to be used in a secret session of the House if ordered; on that occasion
    the Speaker overruled a point of order against the motion for a secret
    session since the Speaker must rely on the assurance of a Member that he
    has confidential communications to make to the House, and since the
    Speaker was aware that the committee with possession of the materials
    had authorized those materials to be used in a secret session (Feb. 25,

      The House may subsequently by unanimous consent order printed in the
    Congressional Record proceedings in secret session, with appropriate
    deletions and revisions agreeable to the committees to which the secret
    transcript has been referred for review (July 17, 1979, p. 19049).

      Under his authority in clause 3 of rule I, the Speaker may convene a
    classified briefing for Members on the House floor when the House is not
    in session (e.g., Mar. 18, 1999, p. 4863).