    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 117th Congress]
    [117th Congress]
    [House Document 116-177]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 776-809]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                    Rule XVII

    Decorum
                               decorum and debate

    [[Page 777]]

    by the Chair, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may speak
    from the Clerk's desk.

    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 respectfully
    address the Speaker and, on being recognized, may address the House from
    any place on the floor. When invited

      (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.
    7) and a mobility-based reference was eliminated in the 115th Congress
    (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, 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 778]]

    (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 (Precedents
    (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.2), 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; June 22, 2018, 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 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; Speaker Boehner,
    Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 26, 2013, p. 1680; Oct. 8,
    2013, p. 15429; Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p. 4783; Speaker
    Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, p. 2554; Speaker Ryan, June 23, 2017, p. _).
    Even when referring in debate to the Speaker, Members direct their
    remarks to the occupant of the Chair (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6,
    Sec. 6.3; May 22, 2018, p. _).
      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 do so properly 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 viewing 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) and may not direct remarks to a former
    Member present on the floor (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.9); (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; May 21, 2014, pp. 8821, 8822; June 10,
    2016, p. _; Mar. 16, 2017, 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);

      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; Precedents
    (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.6; Jan. 19, 1995, p. 1599). Engaging in
    personalities with respect to the Speaker's conduct is not in order even
    though possibly relevant to a pending resolution granting him certain
    authority (Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24485).

      This clause has been interpreted to proscribe the wearing of badges by
    Members to communicate a message, because Members must 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; May 22, 2013, p. 7845; Jan. 31,
    2017, p. _). A Member may not address the House in debate where not
    recognized by the Chair for such purpose (Jan. 6, 2011, p. 140; Jan. 31,
    2017, 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 proceeding in
    order (Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535).

    [[Page 779]]

    respect to references to the President, see Sec. 370, supra; and with
    respect to references to the Senate, see Sec. Sec. 371-374, supra.
      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

      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).

    [[Page 780]]

    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; Apr. 2, 2009,
    pp. 9692, 9693). 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.25; 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, pp. 13499, 13500). 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 (VIII, 2474,
    2475), a motion to adjourn (Mar. 8, 2017, p. _), or a motion that the
    Committee of the Whole rise (Sept. 9, 1997, pp. 18183, 18184) in time
    secured for debate only, 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. 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

    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. 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. 4448; Mar. 20, 2002,
    p. 3663), which is untimely after intervening debate (July 31, 2007, p.
    21963).

    [[Page 781]]

    a motion to recommit with instructions under the former version of
    clause 2 of rule XIX had to 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.4).
    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).
      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,
    2007, 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 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, p. 21969)), 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

      Although Speakers have entertained appeals from decisions as to
    irrelevancy, they have held such appeals not debatable (V, 5056-5063).

    [[Page 782]]

    Whole typically does require such relevance in debate. All five-minute
    debate in the Committee of the Whole is confined to the subject (V,
    5240-5256; July 31, 2007, p. 21969 (sustained on appeal)), 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).

    Recognition
      Under prior practice in the 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

    949. Speaker's power of recognition.

        2. When two or more
    Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner seek recognition, the
    Speaker shall name the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who is
    first to speak. * * *

      This provision was adopted in 1789 (V, 4978) and amended in the 115th
    Congress to remove a mobility-based reference (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). 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 783]]

      In the early history of the House, when business proceeded on
    presentation by individual Members, the Speaker recognized the Member
    who sought recognition 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 recognition, 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). A Member desiring to be recognized should take the time to do
    so properly (Speaker Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner,
    Feb. 26, 2013, p. 1680; Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p. 4783; Speaker
    Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, pp. 2553, 2554). A Member offering a
    nondebatable motion (to adjourn) should not preface it with debate (Dec.
    8, 2015, p. 19606).--

    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; Sept. 28, 2012,
    p. 14956), who may refuse to recognize for them until the completion of
    legislative business (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 73; July 24, 1980, p.
    19386) or decline a unanimous-consent request to increase the number
    (Mar. 7, 2001, p. 3027; Sept. 16, 2008, p. 19204; Mar. 21, 2010, p.
    4092; Feb. 27, 2015, p. 2896). 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). 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). A tradition upheld by previous Speakers, and
    formalized by an announced policy in the 115th through 117th Congresses
    (Speaker Ryan, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _;
    Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _), is that the Speaker will recognize
    a Member only once per day by unanimous consent for a one-minute speech,
    and will not entertain a second request (Speaker McCormack, June 11,
    1963, p. 10634; May 1, 1985, p. 9995; July 21, 2009, pp. 18493, 18494;
    July 25, 2018, p. _). The Speaker will not entertain a request to extend
    recognition beyond one minute (Speaker McCormack, June 11, 1963, p.
    10633; Jan. 7, 2014, p. 94; Oct. 2, 2020, p. _).

    [[Page 784]]

    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. 105). 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, and time not claimed at the appropriate point is considered to
    have expired; (6) recognition for the first hour alternates between the
    parties 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. 11459; 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. 105; Jan. 3, 2013, p. 46;
    Jan. 6, 2015, p. 62; Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). In the 116th Congress, the
    Speaker revised the existing policy to provide that Members may be
    recognized for only one special-order speech per week, and this policy
    continued in the 117th Congress (Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _;
    Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, 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 11, 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

    [[Page 785]]

      The Chair will recognize for subdivisions of the first hour for each
    party only on designations (and reallocations) by the leadership
    concerned (Oct. 2, 1998, p. 23151; Dec. 12, 2001, p. 25605; June 21,
    2012, p. 9624; Feb. 14, 2013, p. 1430). 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). Neither a one-hour (Mar. 6, 2012, p. 2989; Jan. 6,
    2016, p. 103; July 14, 2016, p. _) nor 30-minute (Mar. 6, 2012, p. 2994)
    special order may be extended, even by unanimous consent. When
    recognition for 30-minute (Jan. 11, 2016, p. 342) or hour-long (Oct. 1,
    2013, p. 14891; Jan. 6, 2016, p. 99) special-order speeches does not
    commence earlier than one hour or two hours, respectively, before 10
    p.m., the Chair prorates the time remaining before 10 p.m. to maintain
    equity between the parties in the allocation of the time available.
    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, pp. 22877, 22878), 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.
    26795).-

    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. 11458; 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. 104; see, e.g., June 20, 2012, p. 9460;
    Aug. 1, 2012, p. 13055; Dec. 20, 2017, p. _). The order was altered to
    allow the Speaker to dispense with morning-hour debate upon either
    receipt of a notification of an impairment at the place of reconvening
    under clause 12(c) of rule I (Jan. 7, 2014, p. 92) or a change in
    reconvening pursuant to clause 12(e) of rule I (Jan. 6, 2015, pp. 61,
    62); see Sec. 639, supra).

      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) or to extend recognition beyond the specified
    termination (10 minutes before convening) (Jan. 2, 2013, p. 18669). The
    Chair may not recognize a request for legislative business (Feb. 27,
    2013, pp. 1777, 1778; Feb. 26, 2015, p. 2655; Dec. 9, 2015, pp. 19792,
    19793; June 15, 2016, p. _) or that a name be removed from a list of
    cosponsors of a bill (Apr. 26, 1994, p. 8544), or the noticing of intent
    to offer a question of the privileges of the House pursuant to rule IX
    (July 23, 2020, p. _). The Chair may withdraw recognition during
    morning-hour debate (Mar. 28, 2012, pp. 4361, 4362).-

    [[Page 786]]

    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).

    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. 11458; 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.

    [[Page 787]]

    Sec. 953. Speaker governed by usage in
    recognition.

      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). The Chair will entertain
    a unanimous-consent request regarding the disposition of the measure
    only if the majority manager yields for that purpose 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. 10, 2000, p. 1019; Feb. 13, 2007, p. 3877, p. 3878; Mar. 4, 2010,
    pp. 2608, 2609; July 1, 2010, pp. 12633, 12634 (Chair corrected
    himself); Feb. 10, 2011, p. 1497, p. 1509, p. 1521; July 11, 2013, p.
    11328); 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. 30354; May 25, 2011, p. 7881; Feb. 14, 2013, pp. 1406, 1407; Apr. 8,
    2014, p. 5785, p. 5787; May 21, 2014, p. 8834; July 30, 2014, p. 13637;
    Jan. 21, 2015, pp. 843, 844; Oct. 7, 2015, pp. 15825-29; Sept. 6, 2017,
    p. _; July 17, 2018, p. _), even if the Chair has not yet conferred
    recognition for debate (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 30.5; May 17, 2012,
    p. 7084). Where time has been yielded under the hour rule solely for the
    purpose of debate, the Chair may take cognizance of the majority
    manager's refusal to yield for a unanimous-consent request for the
    consideration or disposition of another measure, and need not verify
    such refusal in each instance (Mar. 26, 2014, p. 4864; Aug. 1, 2014, p.
    13979; July 7, 2016, p. _; Sept. 14, 2016, p. _; Jan. 31, 2017, p. _;
    Sept. 6, 2017, p. _). Even if a request is not entertained under these
    strictures, a unanimous-consent request embellished with oratory
    constitutes debate and can become an imposition on the time of the
    manager who yielded (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14979; Jan. 15, 2014, p. 706; Mar.
    26, 2014, p. 4864; Aug. 1, 2014, p. 13979; July 7, 2016, p. _; Sept. 14,
    2016, p. _; Sept. 6, 2017, p. _).

      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 on whose motion the enacting clause of
    a bill is stricken in the 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), a co-signer of the objection (Jan. 6, 1969, pp. 145-7), or another
    Member in support of the objection (Jan. 6, 2021, p. _). 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).

    [[Page 788]]

    (VIII, 2174), especially if not related to the pending proceedings (Apr.
    7, 1992, p. 8273).
      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. 17493). 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. 140). 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

      The Chair may follow a tradition of the House to allow the highest
    ranking party leaders (Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader)
    additional time to make their remarks in debate (Precedents (Wickham),
    ch. 3, Sec. Sec. 6.18, 6.19) and only the nominal time yielded for such
    debate is charged to the manager (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3,
    Sec. Sec. 6.20, 6.21). With regard to recognition for such additional
    time, the Chair has refused to espouse a hypothetical outer limit (June
    26, 2009, p. 16734) and to announce the amount of time consumed
    (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 6.20; May 27, 2010, p. 9686).

    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
    whom 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).

    [[Page 789]]

      A Member managing debate on a measure does not lose the right to
    recognition or yield back controlled time when taking a seat after
    properly reserving such time during debate (June 27, 2019, p. _).

    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).

      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).
    Where debate time is divided and controlled by a majority manager and a
    minority manager, the Chair has discretion to alternate recognition
    between the two (July 7, 2016, p. _). 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 790]]

    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; Oct. 1, 2013, p. 14876; Oct. 4, 2013, p. 15196, p. 15204; Oct.
    12, 2013, p. 15788). 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch.
    5, Sec. 18.22; 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. 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 (Precedents
    (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 6.22). 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; Oct. 11, 2013, pp. 15713, 15714;
    Oct. 12, 2013, p. 15788; Feb. 6, 2019, p. _), 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. 4172). 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. Sec. 993a, 993b, infra.

    Sec. 956. Exceptions to the usages constraining the Speaker
    as to recognition.

      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. 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. 1476) 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. 4033; Mar. 5, 2013, p. 2331; Dec. 18, 2015, p.
    21534); (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) or a suspension day (Feb. 1, 2012, p. 690;
    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

    [[Page 791]]

    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 792]]

    Managing debate
      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-consent requests to enlarge the time
    for debate (Feb. 4, 2009, p. 2698; Feb. 13, 2009, p. 4140). 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 (not multiple statements (July 11, 2013,
    p. 11317)) 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.27;
    May 9, 2003, p. 11039; Nov. 21, 2003, p. 30793; Nov. 7, 2009, p. 27192;
    Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.30; Oct. 13, 2011, pp. 15520,
    15521; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.28; May 4, 2017, p. _). The
    Chair evaluates each request individually to determine whether it
    constitutes debate (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.28) and the
    decision of the Chair is subject to appeal (July 11, 2013, p. 11323-24,
    p. 11406, p. 11410-11). The Chair exercises discretion in determining
    whether to deduct time from the yielding manager (Precedents (Wickham),
    ch. 5, Sec. 21.13) and it is not a proper motion that the time deducted
    for such debate be restored to the yielding Member (July 11, 2013, p.
    11321, p. 11329). Similarly, a unanimous-consent request for the
    consideration or disposition of a measure that is embellished with
    oratory constitutes debate and may become an imposition on the time of
    the manager who yielded for that purpose (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14979; Jan.
    15, 2014, p. 706; Mar. 26, 2014, p. 4864; Aug. 1, 2014, p. 13979; July
    7, 2016, p. _; Sept. 14, 2016, p. _; Sept. 6, 2017, p. _).

    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.

      Paragraph (a) was adopted in 1847 and perfected in 1880 (V, 4996).
    Paragraph (b) was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1840 (V, 4991). Before
    the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraph (a) was
    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). This clause
    applies to general debate in the Committee of the Whole (Mar. 26, 1985,
    p. 6283).

      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. 22417). In response to a parliamentary
    inquiry, the Chair advised that a manager of controlled debate may yield
    time to a Member from the other party, but that any Member to whom a
    block of time was yielded may not control that time (Oct. 9, 2015, pp.
    15999, 16000). 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.

    [[Page 793]]

    to the same Member (Apr. 5, 2000, p. 4497; Oct. 18, 2007, p. 27575). For
    a discussion of the right of a Member to speak more than once under the
    five-minute rule, see Sec. 981, infra. See also Sec. 357, supra.
      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, and a
    Member controlling debate under the hour rule may yield more than once

      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. 4399).
    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. 4399).

      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 794]]

    mittee 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 a measure
    assigns a managerial role by vesting control of debate: (1) in named
    Members who do not serve on a committee of jurisdiction of an unreported
    measure (Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19325); or (2) of a reported measure, in a
    committee other than one of referral (Feb. 15, 2012, p. 1642), those
    managers are entitled to close controlled debate in opposition to an
    amendment thereto. 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, 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 com

    [[Page 795]]

    Call to order
      The proponent of an amendment may close controlled 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; May 13, 1998, p. 9092; July 14,
    1998, p. 15321; July 17, 2003, pp. 18585-87); 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 (July 24, 1997, pp.
    15684, 15685, 15689); no representative from the reporting committee
    opposes an amendment to a multijurisdictional bill (Mar. 9, 1995, p.
    7467); the measure is unreported and has no ``manager'' under the terms
    of a special rule (Apr. 24, 1985, p. 9206); 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); a Member is recognized by unanimous consent to control time
    otherwise reserved for an opponent (e.g., Mar. 8, 2012, p. 3162; July
    23, 2014, p. 12747).

    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 796]]

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

      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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.13; see also
    Sec. 684, supra).

    [[Page 797]]

    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; Precedents
    (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.16; 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 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

      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 seeking
    recognition at the appropriate time may yet be recognized to demand that
    words be taken down even though brief debate may have intervened, as
    long as the request is contemporaneous with the objectionable words
    (July 16, 2019, p. _; Jan. 6, 2021, p. _), 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;
    Apr. 27, 2016, p. _). For instances in which the Chair admonished
    Members for improper references to the Senate after brief intervening
    debate, see Sec. 371, supra.

      While a demand that a Member's words be taken down is pending, that
    Member should be seated immediately (July 29, 1994, p. 18609; Jan. 25,
    1995, p. 2352; Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045), 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
    other's 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 in order (Sept.
    12, 1996, p. 22900; Sept. 17, 1996, p. 23427; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535;
    see also Sec. 366, supra).

    [[Page 798]]

    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 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;

      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; Apr. 17, 1997, p. 5832; Mar. 7,
    2012, p. 3045) and may not proceed on the same day without the
    permission of the House (Jan. 29, 1946, p. 533; Precedents (Wickham),
    ch. 5, Sec. 22.1; Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352), 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; Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045). The offending Member will not lose the
    floor if the House permits the Member to proceed in order (see, e.g.,
    Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.6), 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. 19170; June 13, 2002, p. 10232) or offered by
    any Member (July 25, 1996, p. 19172; 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).

    [[Page 799]]

    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).
      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

      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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5,
    Sec. 22.1). 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 the 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).

    Comportment
      For a discussion of resolving the use of objectionable exhibits that
    are a breach of decorum, see Sec. 622, supra; and for a discussion of
    resolving the use of objectionable exhibits that are not necessarily a
    breach of decorum, see clause 6, Sec. 963, infra.

    [[Page 800]]

    may not exit or cross 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 non-religious headdress or 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.

    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

      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. 80). In the 115th Congress, the first sentence was amended to
    replace a mobility-based reference (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017,
    p. _). In the 116th Congress, the rule was amended to codify an
    exemption for religious headdress (sec. 102(x), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019,
    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). The Chair may enlist the Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce a
    breach of this clause (Sept. 17, 1997, p. 19027; Precedents (Wickham),
    ch. 6, Sec. 15.7; June 22, 2018, p. _).

    [[Page 801]]

    priate 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 (Precedents
    (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.2). In the 106th, 109th, and 112th through
    116th 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;
    Speaker Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 26, 2013,
    p. 1680; July 31, 2013, p. 12804; Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p.
    4783; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, p. 2553; Speaker Ryan, June 23,
    2017, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Mar. 10, 2020, p. _), and the Chair has so
    admonished a Member speaking in debate without a jacket (Apr. 3, 2001,
    p. 5361) and has withdrawn recognition of a Member not wearing proper
    attire (Mar. 28, 2012, p. 4361). The donning of a distinctive uniform of
    another occupation is not proper (Oct. 20, 2009, p. 25164). 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 non-religious headdress or 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)
    and the donning of a hood (Mar. 28, 2012, pp. 4361, 4362), but in the
    116th Congress, the Speaker announced that discretion would be applied
    in enforcing the prohibition with respect to hats or head coverings worn
    out of medical necessity (Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). In the 96th Congress the
    Speaker announced that he considered as proper the customary and
    traditional attire for Members, including a coat and tie for male
    Members and appro

      Pursuant to the modification of this clause in the 112th Congress, the
    Speaker has 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 (Speaker
    Boehner, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 106), although no device may be used for still
    photography or for audio or video recording (Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5,
    2011, p. 106; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, p. 2553; June 23, 2016, p.
    _; Speaker Ryan, June 23, 2017, p. _). The display of an image on an
    electronic device while not under recognition impairs decorum (Mar. 13,
    2014, p. 4393). The Chair has also announced that Members should disable
    wireless telephones on entering the Chamber (e.g., June 12, 2000, p.
    10369). The Chair has cited this clause in prohibiting the use of a
    mobile telephone to play audio on the House floor (June 22, 2018, p. _).

      Smoking is not permitted in the Hall during sessions of the House
    (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.20), 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).

    [[Page 802]]

    Speaker Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 179), including Members who may have
    been invited to the well by the Member speaking (June 12, 2003, p.
    14627; July 7, 2016, p. _); (2) that Members should not engage in
    disruption while another Member is speaking (Dec. 20, 1995, p. 37878),
    including shouting interjections during debate (Feb. 28, 1995, p. 6259;
    Feb. 13, 2009, p. 4136; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 4.3; Oct. 11,
    2011, p. 15117). Mass presence of Members in the well while not under
    recognition constitutes a breach of decorum (Precedents (Wickham), ch.
    6, Sec. 6.1). 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 form between
    the Chair and Members engaging in debate (Oct. 24, 1997, p. 23293).
      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;

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

    Exhibits
      A former Member must observe proper decorum under this clause, and the
    Chair may direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist the Chair in maintaining
    such decorum (Sept. 17, 1997, p. 19027). In the 105th Congress the House
    adopted a resolution offered as a question of the privileges of the
    House alleging indecorous behavior of a former Member and instructing
    the Sergeant-at-Arms to ban the former Member from the floor, and rooms
    leading thereto, until the resolution of a contested election to which
    he was party (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.6).

    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. 7). 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).

    [[Page 803]]

    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). In response
    to a point of order raised against an exhibit, the Chair has
    acknowledged that submitting the question of its use to the House before
    deciding instead to rule on the point of order under clause 2 of rule I
    is a matter of discretion (Jan. 20, 2018, p. _ (sustained by tabling of
    appeal)).
      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

      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 as an exhibit to accompany a Member's debate
    (Oct. 12, 1998, p. 25770). A Member under recognition to notice a
    question of the privileges of the House is not recognized for debate and
    thus may not display an exhibit (Mar. 13, 2014, p. 4393). 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.

    [[Page 804]]

    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 (July 27, 2017, p. _).

    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 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).

    [[Page 805]]

    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 806]]

    Legislative Proceedings
      This clause was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 213, H. Res. 6,
    Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Before the House recodified its rules in the
    106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 9 of rule XIV
    (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Under paragraph (a) a unanimous-
    consent request to revise and extend remarks permits a Member (1) to
    make technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections to remarks
    uttered and (2) to include in the Record additional remarks not uttered
    to appear in a distinctive typeface; however, such a unanimous-consent
    request does not permit a Member to remove remarks actually uttered
    (Jan. 4, 1995, p. 541). For example, remarks held irrelevant by the
    Chair may be removed from the 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
    or when a Member attempts to interject remarks in debate where the
    Member under recognition has refused to yield) do not appear in the
    Record (e.g., May 22, 2003, p. 12965; Oct. 2, 2003, p. 23950; May 19,
    2004, pp. 10107, 10108; Feb. 15, 2012, p. 1643). 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.

    968a. Disruption of legislative proceedings.

      9. (a)  A
    Member, Delegate, the Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the
    House may not engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in the Chamber,
    including--

          (1) intentionally obstructing or impeding the passage of others in
    the Chamber;

          (2) the use of an exhibit to impede, disrupt, or disturb the
    proceedings of the House; and

          (3) the denial of legislative instruments to others seeking to
    engage in legislative proceedings.

    Sec. 968b. Standard of conduct.

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

    Secret sessions
      This clause was added in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(a)(3), H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). In the 114th Congress, the Chair stated that the
    mass presence of Members in the well while not under recognition
    constituted a breach of decorum (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.1).

    [[Page 807]]

    969. Secret session of the House.

      10.  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.
    7). This clause was redesignated from clause 9 to clause 10 in the 115th
    Congress (sec. 2(a)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, 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).

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

      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; Precedents
    (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 18.31). 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).

    [[Page 808]]

    to offer a motion that the session be dissolved (July 17, 1979, pp.
    19057-59).
      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

      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).

      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).

      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. 4145). Before commencement of that secret
    session, the Speaker pro tempore (1) read to the House the contents of
    this clause; (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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3,
    Sec. 6.12).

    [[Page 809]]

    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 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

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

      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., Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.14).