[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 110th Congress]
[110th Congress]
[House Document 109-157]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 731-759]
[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.



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


[[Page 732]]

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.
  This clause (formerly clause 1 of rule XIV) was adopted in 1880, but 
was made up, in its main provisions, of 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 outlined in 
former paragraph (b)) (Sec. 371, supra; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6; 
H. Res. 5, Jan.

  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; Oct. 17, 2005, p. ----); (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 
(see, e.g., Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081; May 22, 2003, p. 12965; 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. 12965; 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 to the Speaker, Members 
direct their remarks to the occupant of the Chair and address him as 
``Mr. Speaker'' pursuant to this clause (Nov. 1, 1983, p. 30267).


[[Page 733]]

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).
  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

  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).

  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).


[[Page 734]]

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; May 11, 2006, p. ----). 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 
Members 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).


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



[[Page 735]]



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 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. 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. 3663).



[[Page 736]]

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, pp. 3663-64; June 3, 2003, p. 13483, p. 13486). 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. 9997). 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. 3664) 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, 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 that gave rise to the question of privilege (V, 5075-5077; VI, 
576, 608; VIII, 2448, 2481; May 31, 1984,

  While 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 737]]

tion 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 line of 
precedent that 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, necessarily came to pertain to the bill or other 
business that 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 discre



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 738]]

sent). 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 unanimous 
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 con

  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), 
to recognize for a special order after midnight (May 10, 2007, p. ----), 
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. 25605). 
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 739]]

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. ----; Jan. 31, 2006, p. ----; Jan. 4, 2007, 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. 
21327). 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. 3; Jan. 7, 2003, p. 24; Jan. 20, 2004, p. ----; Jan. 
4, 2005, p. ----; Jan. 31, 2006, p. ----; Jan. 4, 2007, 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 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




Sec. 952. ``Oxfordstyle'' 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 740]]

quest to modify the motion may be entertained only if the proponent 
yields for that purpose (Jan. 5, 1996, p. 348). In the case of a motion 
to instruct conferees (Mar. 29, 2006, p. ----), a measure on which the 
previous question has been ordered without intervening motion (Feb. 13, 
2007, p. ----, p. ----), or a measure on which time has been yielded 
under the hour rule solely for the purpose of debate (Dec. 16, 2005, p. 
----), the Chair will entertain a unanimous-consent request regarding 
the disposition of the measure only if the majority manager yields for 
that purpose. The Member who originally introduces the bill that a 
committee reports has no claim 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 raises an objection in a joint session to count the electoral 
vote, and the Houses separate to consider the objection, the Chair first 
recognizes that Member (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). When an 
order of the House makes consideration of a measure in order, only a 
manager will be recognized to bring it up (Deschler, ch. 21, Sec. 1.25; 
Jan. 18, 2007, p. ----). 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 
that 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 discre

[[Page 741]]

tion of the Chair (VI, 541; Mar. 23, 2007, p. ----), 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. 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 that 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). 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 re


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



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 742]]

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).
  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


[[Page 743]]

measures) only when assured that the request, and each constituent part 
of the request, has been cleared under this policy (Oct. 10, 2002, p. 
20339; Oct. 16, 2002, p. 20765; Nov. 14, 2002, p. 22513). The Speaker's 
enforcement of this policy is not subject to appeal (Apr. 4, 1995, p. 
10298) and is a matter of discretionary recognition in the first 
instance (Sept. 27, 2006, 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. 2260; 
Nov. 22, 2002, p. 23510), 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, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, the Speaker exercises 
discretion in recognition (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. This policy includes: (1) requests relating to 
reported measures (July 23, 1993, p. 16820) and unreported measures 
(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. 
10297); (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. 11838); (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. 23510). The Speaker will recognize for 
an ``omnibus'' unanimous-consent request (one request disposing of 
various





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 that 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 744]]

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. 19527). In the 104th Congress the Speaker announced his intention to 
strictly enforce 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 27, 
2002, p. 11849; May 9, 2003, p. 11039; 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


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.


[[Page 745]]

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).
  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 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 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. 14313). 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. 2059). 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.

  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 where not a member of the reporting 
committee (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 746]]

26, 2002, p. 14972) and including the manager of a measure that was 
reported adversely (Feb. 13, 2002, p. 1355). 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 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 in oppostion to 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 in oppostion to 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 paragraph (c) (June 15, 2000, pp. 11040, 11047).
  As codified in paragraph (c), the manager of a bill or other 
representative of the committee and not the proponent of an amendment 
has the right to close controlled debate on an amendment (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), 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


[[Page 747]]

porting 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 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 re



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 748]]

consider proper. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not be 
held to answer a 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

  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 749]]

(Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081) or during recognition of another Member (June 
5, 2003, p. 13884). He may order the offending Member to take his seat 
(June 5, 2003, p. 13884) or may deny further recognition, 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. 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

  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) and the Chair's ruling in that regard is 
subject to appeal (Jan. 22, 2007, 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). 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. 24002). For instances in which the 
Chair admonished Members for improper references to the Senate after 
brief intervening debate, see Sec. 371, supra.


[[Page 750]]

  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).

  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 (VIII, 2528, 2538, 2540, 2543, 2544; July 16, 
1998, p. 15827; June 28, 2000, pp. 12771, 12776). Unanimous consent is 
not required for a Member to withdraw his demand that words be taken 
down before a ruling by the Chair (June 18, 1986, p. 14232).

  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, 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. 9005).

  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. 10232) or offered by any 
Member (July 25, 1996, p. 1970; Mar. 21, 2007, p. ----). 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 751]]

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 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

  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. 10232), 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).

  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).



[[Page 752]]

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.




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 
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.


  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. 7). 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 753]]

to be in proper attire in the Chamber (June 28, 2000, p. 12654; June 20, 
2006, p. ----), 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).
  Originally Members wore their hats during sessions, as in Parliament, 
and the custom was not abolished until 1837 (II, 1136). The prohibition 
against Members wearing hats in the Chamber while the House is in 
session includes doffing a 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 and 109th Congresses 
Members were reminded of the need

  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). The Chair has 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. 14627); 
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).



[[Page 754]]

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).




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


  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).


[[Page 755]]

  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. 12977). 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.



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 
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).


  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 from the well of the House of a chart that is not being 
utilized during debate (Apr. 1, 1982, p. 6304), or that is otherwise 
disruptive of decorum.


[[Page 756]]

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).

Galleries


Sec. 965. Earlier practice.

  The reading  of papers other than 
those 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 that 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





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 757]]

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 Record by unanimous consent only (Mar. 20, 
2002, p. 3663). 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. 12965; 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




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).


[[Page 758]]

message from the President was referred without reading; but no motion 
was made for a secret session (V, 7255).
  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

  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 that the Member has a secret communication to 
make to the House (June 6, 1978, p. 16376). A motion having been 
defeated, a Member may offer a second motion on the same legislative day 
if he has additional communications to make (May 10, 2007, p. ----). The 
motion is subject to the motion to lay on the table (May 10, 2007, p. --
--).

  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 assured 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).


[[Page 759]]

session, a Member may be recognized to offer a motion that the session 
be dissolved (July 17, 1979, pp. 19057-59).
  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; Sept. 26, 2006, p. ----). 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

  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, 
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 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).