    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 112th Congress]
    [112nd Congress]
    [House Document 111-157]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 741-769]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 741]]

                                    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 the 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.

      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. 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. 43). A gender-based reference was
    eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p.
    _). 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 742]]

    audience, and the Chair takes the initiative to enforce
    this rule (see, e.g., Nov. 8, 1979, p. 31519; Sept. 29, 1983, p. 26501;
    Dec. 17, 1987, p. 36139; Oct. 17, 2005, p. 22907); (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, pp. 23949, 23950; Mar. 10, 2004, p.
    3849); (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; Oct. 2, 2003, p. 23950; May
    19, 2004, pp. 10107, 10108) because ignoring the gavel is not an act of
    civil disobedience but rather an act of stark incivility (July 28, 2009,
    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. 23950; May 19, 2004, pp. 10107, 10108); (9) Members may not
    use audio devices during debate (May 24, 2005, p. 11008). 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 the Chair's 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 (Nov. 1, 1983, p. 30267).
      The Speaker, who has a responsibility under rule I to maintain and
    enforce decorum in debate, and the chair 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

      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).

    [[Page 743]]

    the Chair to proceed in order, subject to the will
    of the House on the question of proceeding in order (Sept. 18, 1996, p.
    23535).
      This clause also has been interpreted to proscribe the wearing of
    badges by Members to communicate a message, because 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. 18967). 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

      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 must be reduced to writing upon demand (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 a Member is not
    required to offer a resolution, as is the 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 744]]

    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. 7877). A Member
    recognized under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole may
    not yield to another Member to offer an amendment, because 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
    discretion as to whether or not to 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 the Member will yield after
    having declined to do so (Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040; Nov. 13, 1997, p.
    26533; Mar. 19, 2009, p. _). If a Member interrupts another during
    debate without being yielded to or otherwise recognized (as on a point
    of order), such 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 deprived of it 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), 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 may be
    interrupted for a conference report (V, 6451; VIII, 3294) or by a point
    of order (e.g., June 24, 2008, p. _). 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 the right to continue when the subject
    is again continued (V, 5009-5013), but if 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 be
    seated while a paper is being read on the Member's time without losing
    the 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

    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 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 to 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. Remarks must be confined to the subject.

      It  has
    always been held, and generally quite strictly, that in the House
    remarks must be confined to the subject under debate (V, 5043-5048; VI,
    576; VIII, 2481, 2534). The Chair normally does not take initiative but
    waits for the question of relevancy of debate to be raised (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), which is untimely after intervening debate (July 31, 2007, p.
    21963).

    [[Page 745]]

    its nexus to the pending question (July 31, 2007, p.
    21965, p. 21966, p. 21967). Debate on a motion to amend must be confined
    to the amendment (or the second-degree amendment, as the case may be
    (July 31, 2007, p. 21966)), 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, pp. 14971, 14972, 14976 (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,
    p. 14623). Debate on a privileged resolution recommending disciplinary
    action against a Member, although 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).

    [[Page 746]]

      During debate on a bill, a Member under recognition must confine
    remarks to the pending legislation; that is, remarks must not dwell on
    another measure not before the House (Nov. 4, 1999, p. 28524; July 31,
    p. 21970), but rather 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).
    Although remarks comparing a pending question to a broader policy
    concern may be relevant, discussion of the broader policy concern may
    not stray from

      Although Speakers have entertained appeals from decisions as to
    irrelevancy, they have held such appeals 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, remarks did not have
    to be confined 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, if 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 747]]

      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 such
    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 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 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).--

    Sec. 950. Oneminute and specialorder
    speeches.

      Recognition  for one-minute speeches by unanimous consent and the
    order of recognition therefor are entirely within the discretion of the
    Speaker (Nov. 15, 1983, p. 32657; Mar. 7, 2001, p. 3027), who may
    decline a unanimous-consent request to increase the number (Sept. 16,
    2008, p. _; Mar. 21, 2010, p. _). 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, because 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 748]]

    from day to day;
    (7) the respective Leaders may establish additional guidelines for
    entering requests; and (8) the Speaker may withdraw recognition should
    circumstances warrant (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;
    Jan. 5, 2011, p. _).
      Since the 98th Congress the Speaker has followed announced policies of
    alternating recognition for one-minute speeches and special-order
    speeches between majority and minority Members (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). On February 24, 1994, the Speaker
    announced a new policy governing recognition for special-order speeches.
    The Speaker announced that the Chair would recognize for speeches of
    five minutes or less 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 consent). In the 112th Congress,
    the Speaker announced a new policy (effective February 1, 2011) of
    recognizing only for longer speeches following legislative business
    (Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5, 2011, p. _). Under the Speaker's policy: (1)
    recognition does not extend beyond 10 p.m.; (2) recognition is limited
    to four hours equally divided between the majority and minority; (3) the
    first hour for each party is reserved to its respective Leader or
    designee; (4) the second hour for each party is divided into two 30-
    minute periods; (5) time within each party is allotted in accord with a
    list submitted to the Chair by the respective Leader; (6) recognition
    for the first hour alternates between the parties

      Although 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). 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;
    July 21, 2009, p. _). 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). Under
    a former stricture, the Chair did not entertain a unanimous-consent
    request to extend a five-minute special-order speech (Mar. 7, 1995, p.
    7152; Sept. 29, 2009, p. _), to recognize for a special-order speech
    after midnight (May 10, 2007, p. 12222), or to extend a special-order
    speech beyond midnight (Oct. 7, 1998, p. 24394).

      The Chair may withdraw recognition during a special-order speech,
    declare a recess under clause 12 of rule I, and following the recess
    confer recognition for the remainder of the speech (Nov. 4, 2009, p.
    _).-

    [[Page 749]]

    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 debate.

      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 certain days for morning-hour debate
    (e.g., 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). On May 12, 1995 (p. 12765), the House extended and modified the
    above order to accommodate earlier convening times after mid-May of each
    year. Through the 111th Congress, the order applied only to Mondays and
    Tuesdays. Beginning on February 1, 2011, the House expanded the order to
    include Wednesdays and Thursdays. The above-cited orders of the House:
    (1) postpone the Prayer, approval of the Journal, and the Pledge of
    Allegiance during morning-hour debate; 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. Beginning in the 112th Congress, the order
    was altered to allow the filing of privileged reports during morning-
    hour debate (Jan. 5, 2011, p. _). Under the customary order of the House
    establishing morning-hour debate, the Chair does not entertain a
    unanimous-

    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 750]]

    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. 199)
    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 the House establishes a special order for
    consideration of a measure, only a manager identified by the terms of
    that order is recognized to call up the measure (Deschler, ch. 21,
    Sec. 1.25; Jan. 18, 2007, p. 1624). 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 chair 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 the Member to
    prior recognition on a motion relating to another matter (II, 1464). It
    is because the Speaker is governed by these usages that the Speaker
    often asks a Member seeking recognition, ``For what purpose does the
    gentleman (or gentlewoman) seek recognition?''. By this question the
    Speaker determines whether the Member proposes business or a motion that
    is entitled to precedence, and 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 the Member seeks to offer a motion to adjourn does not suffice to
    render 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. 16241; July 13, 2009, p. _). There is no appeal
    from such denial of recognition (II, 1425; VI, 292; VIII, 2429, 2646,
    2762; Feb. 27, 1992, p. 3656). Where the Chair confers recognition
    solely for the reading of a matter and not for debate, the Member so
    recognized may not yield to another for debate (Jan. 6, 2011, p. _).
    Recognition for parliamentary inquiry lies in the discretion of the
    Chair (VI, 541; Mar. 23, 2007, p. 7420, p. 7423), who may take a
    parliamentary inquiry under advisement (VIII, 2174), especially if 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, the
    Speaker is not a free agent in determining who is to have the floor. The
    practice of the House establishes rules from which the Speaker should
    not depart. For example, when the order of business brings before the
    House a certain bill the Speaker 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 chair
    of the committee, for a chair who, in committee, has opposed the bill,
    must yield the prior recognition to a member of the committee who has
    favored the bill (II, 1449). Usually, however, the chair 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 chair 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). In the case of a motion
    to instruct conferees (Mar. 29, 2006, p. 4377), a measure on which the
    previous question has been ordered without intervening motion (Feb. 13,
    2007, p. 3877, p. 3878; Mar. 4, 2010, p. _; July 1, 2010, p. _ (Chair
    corrected himself); Feb. 10, 2011, p. _, p. _, 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. 29061; Nov. 7, 2007, 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 introduces a bill has no claim to recognition as
    opposed to members of the reporting committee, but in cases in which a
    proposition is brought directly before the House 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

    [[Page 751]]

    to espouse a hypothetical outer limit (June 26,
    2009, p. _) and to announce the amount of time consumed (June 26, 2009,
    p. _; May 27, 2010, p. _).
      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, pp. 9944, 9945) and only the nominal time yielded
    for such debate is charged to the manager (June 26, 2009, p. _; June 24,
    2010, p. _). With regard to recognition for such additional time, the
    Chair has refused

    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 remarks (V, 5391-5395; VI, 412; VIII, 2649, 2650).

    [[Page 752]]

      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 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 753]]

    matter of discretionary recognition in the first
    instance (Sept. 27, 2006, p. 20065). ``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 cognizance of a
    source of objection for the Record (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 799). The Chair
    will not issue an advisory opinion on whether an amendment would be
    germane to a given proposition for purposes of obtaining clearances
    under this policy (Mar. 21, 2010, p. _). 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 chair 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). The
    Speaker 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 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 the 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; Feb. 10, 2011, p. _) and
    unreported measures (see, e.g., Dec. 15, 1981, p. 31590; Nov. 16, 1983,
    p. 33138; Jan. 25, 1984, p. 354; Jan. 26, 1984, p. 449; Jan. 31, 1984,
    p. 1063; 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; Mar. 20, 2010, p. _);
    (2) requests for immediate consideration of matters (separately
    unreported) comprising a portion of a measure already passed by the
    House (Dec. 19, 1985, p. 38356); (3) requests 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); (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
    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

    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 754]]

    consent requests to enlarge the
    time for debate (Feb. 4, 2009, p. _; Feb. 13, 2009, p. _). In the 104th
    Congress the Speaker announced the intention to strictly enforce time
    limitations on debate (Jan. 4, 1995, pp. 457-552). The Chair has
    announced that the Chair 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; Nov. 21, 2003, p. 30793; Nov. 7, 2009, p.
    _; Mar. 21, 2010, 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 the 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 the Member in charge of measure
    would be recognized for unanimous-

    Managing debate
      For a discussion of morning-hour debate 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 755]]

      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).

      Where a special order of business allocates control of debate to
    specified Members, another may not separately claim time on the basis of
    opposition (Dec. 16, 2010, p. _).

      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). If 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). If 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 (e.g., Mar. 17, 2011, p. _). 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). A Member may yield a final amount of
    time to another for purposes of closing (Mar. 17, 2011, 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.

      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 after that Member has begun speaking
    (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 permitted to speak in the contest has been a
    matter of discussion (V, 5001).

    [[Page 756]]

    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 26, 2002, p. 14972) and including the manager
    of a measure that was reported adversely (Feb. 13, 2002, p. 1355). This
    is so even if 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 if the measure called up is unreported (Apr. 15, 1996, p. 7421;
    July 24, 1998, p. 17263), if an unreported compromise text is made in
    order as original text in lieu of committee amendments (Oct. 19, 1995,
    p. 28650), or if the committee reported the measure without
    recommendation (Feb. 12, 1997, pp. 2108, 2109). If the pending text
    includes a provision recommended by a committee of sequential referral,
    a member of that committee is entitled to close debate in opposition to
    an amendment thereto (June 15, 1989, pp. 12084-87). If 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 opposition 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, pp. 18585-87). 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,

    [[Page 757]]

    24, 1997, pp. 15684, 15685,
    15689). Similarly, the proponent of the amendment may close debate if no
    representative from the reporting committee opposes an amendment to a
    multijurisdictional bill (Mar. 9, 1995, p. 7467); if the measure is
    unreported and has no ``manager'' under the terms of a special rule
    (Apr. 24, 1985, p. 9206); or if 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 if representing 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 if a member of the
    committee does not claim time in opposition (May 13, 1998, p. 9092).
    Similarly, the proponent may close debate if 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, pp. 18585-
    87). If 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

    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 758]]

    or such other punishment as the House may 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

      The first sentence of paragraph (a) and all but the last sentence of
    paragraph (b) (formerly clause 4 of rule XIV) were 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)
    were 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 the
    Member (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 759]]

    in verbal outburst either following
    expiration of recognition for debate (Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081) or during
    recognition of another Member (June 5, 2003, p. 13884). The Chair may
    order the offending Member to be seated (June 5, 2003, p. 13884) or may
    deny further recognition, subject to the will of the House on the
    question of 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

      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. 1899). However, a Member standing
    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. 8554). However, an improper parliamentary inquiry concerning
    the substantive content of the words does render untimely such demand
    (July 20, 2005, pp. 16653, 16654). 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 760]]

    in order (Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22900; Sept. 17, 1996, p.
    23427; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; see also Sec. 366, 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). If
    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, if 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

      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 a 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).

    [[Page 761]]

      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 the 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. 7074). 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).

      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 if admonitions have been ignored, may deny the
    Member recognition for the balance of the time for which 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).

      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 has proceeded to consider 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 762]]

    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 on the floor of the House may not smoke or use a mobile
    electronic device that impairs decorum. 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, 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) and again in the 112th Congress to cover any mobile
    electronic device that impairs decorum (sec. 2(e)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
    2011, 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 763]]

    plying Members the privilege of the
    floor (July 17, 1979, pp. 19008, 19073). In the 106th and 109th
    Congresses Members were reminded of the need to be in proper attire in
    the Chamber (June 28, 2000, p. 12654; June 20, 2006, p. 11895), and the
    Chair has so admonished a Member speaking in debate without a jacket
    (Apr. 3, 2001, p. 5361). The donning of a distinctive uniform of another
    occupation is not proper (Oct. 20, 2009, p. _). 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 noncom

      Pursuant to the modification of this clause in the 112th Congress, the
    Speaker announced that mobile electronic devices that impair decorum
    include wireless telephones and personal computers, but that electronic
    tablet devices may be used unobtrusively in the Chamber, although no
    device may be used for still photography or for audio or video recording
    (Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5, 2011, p. _). The Chair has also announced that
    Members should disable wireless telephones on entering the Chamber
    (e.g., June 12, 2000, p. 10369).

      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);
    (2) that Members should not engage in disruption while another Member is
    speaking (Dec. 20, 1995, p. 37878), including shouting interjections
    during debate (Feb. 13, 2009, p. _). 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 764]]

    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).

    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

    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 the discretion of the Chair, 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 give the Chair the
    discretion to submit the question of its use to the House (sec. 2(o), H.
    Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). A gender-based reference was eliminated in
    the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. _). 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 765]]

      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 the
    disallowance 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. Although Members may use exhibits such as charts
    during debate subject to this rule, the Speaker may, pursuant to the
    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 766]]

    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). 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 the Member proposed to have read in his or
    her own time or to read in his or her 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

    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
    takes the initiative to enforce this clause (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 767]]

    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. 23950; May 19, 2004, pp. 10107, 10108). 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.

    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 such
    individual has communications that such individual 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). Gender-based references were
    eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p.
    _). 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 768]]

    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 chair 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 having
    additional communications to make (May 10, 2007, p. 12114, 12177). The
    motion for a secret session is not debatable (June 20, 1979, p. 15711;
    Mar. 31, 1998, p. 5229; Sept. 26, 2006, p. 19781) but is subject to the
    motion to lay on the table (May 10, 2007, p. 12177).

      The following procedures apply during a secret session. 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 the
    manager 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).

      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
    House may subsequently by unanimous consent order printed in the
    Congressional Record such proceedings, with appropriate deletions and
    revisions agreeable to the committees (July 17, 1979, p. 19049).

    [[Page 769]]

    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).
      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

      On March 13, 2008, the House by unanimous consent authorized the Chair
    to resolve the House into secret session pursuant to this rule, that
    debate therein proceed without intervening motion for one hour equally
    divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Whip, and
    that at the conclusion of debate the secret session be dissolved and the
    House stand adjourned (p. _). Before commencement of that secret
    session, the Speaker pro tempore (1) read to the House the contents of
    clause 9; (2) announced a recess to clear the galleries and floor of all
    persons except Members and necessary staff, to permit staff to sign a
    notarized oath of secrecy, and to conduct a security sweep of the
    Chamber; (3) reminded Members of clause 13 of the Code of Official
    Conduct; (4) announced that all proceedings in secret session would
    remain secret unless otherwise ordered by the House; (5) announced that
    three bells would be rung approximately 15 minutes before the House
    reconvened for the secret session (Mar. 13, 2008, p. _).

      The House conducted a 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 because the Speaker must rely on the assurance of a Member
    claiming to have confidential communications to make to the House, and
    because 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).

     end segment .010 segment .011 -- rule XVIII through XXI

      Under the 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).