[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 117th Congress]
[117th Congress]
[House Document 116-177]
[Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
[Pages 129-343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 129]]


       JEFFERSON'S MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE\1\



                               __________


                 sec. i--importance of adhering to rules


[[Page 130]]

the attempts of power.'' So far the maxim is certainly true, and is 
founded in good sense, that as it is always in the power of the 
majority, by their numbers, to stop any improper measures proposed on 
the part of their opponents, the only weapons by which the minority can 
defend themselves against similar attempts from those in power are the 
forms and rules of proceeding which have been adopted as they were found 
necessary, from time to time, and are become the law of the House, by a 
strict adherence to which the weaker party can only be protected from 
those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to 
check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest 
to large and successful majorities, 2 Hats., 171, 172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sec. 283. Rules as related to the privileges of 
minorities.

  Mr.  Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of the House of 
Commons, used to say, ``It was a maxim he had often heard when he was a 
young man, from old and experienced Members, that nothing tended more to 
throw power into the hands of administration, and those who acted with 
the majority of the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure 
from, the rules of proceeding; that these forms, as instituted by our 
ancestors, operated as a check and control on the actions of the 
majority, and that they were, in many instances, a shelter and 
protection to the minority, against


  \1\Jefferson's Manual was prepared by Thomas Jefferson for 
his own guidance as President of the Senate in the years of his Vice 
Presidency, from 1797 to 1801. In 1837 the House, by rule that still 
exists, provided that the provisions of the Manual should ``govern the 
House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are 
not inconsistent with the Rules and orders of the House.'' Rule XXIX, 
Sec. 1105, infra. In 1880 the committee that revised the Rules of the 
House declared in their report that the Manual, ``compiled as it was for 
the use of the Senate exclusively and made up almost wholly of 
collations of English parliamentary practice and decisions, it was never 
especially valuable as an authority in the House of Representatives, 
even in its early history, and for many years past has been rarely 
quoted in the House'' (V, 6757). This statement, although sanctioned by 
high authority, is extreme, for in certain parts of the Manual are to be 
found the foundations of some of the most important portions of the 
House's practice.



Sec. 284. The Manual as a statement of parliamentary 
law.

    The Manual is regarded by English parliamentarians as the best 
statement of what the law of Parliament was at the time Jefferson wrote 
it. Jefferson himself says, in the preface of the work:



[[Page 131]]

to other authorities in support of a number of common rules of practice, 
to which his plan did not descend. Sometimes each authority cited 
supports the whole passage. Sometimes it rests on all taken together. 
Sometimes the authority goes only to a part of the text, the residue 
being inferred from known rules and principles. For some of the most 
familiar forms no written authority is or can be quoted, no writer 
having supposed it necessary to repeat what all were presumed to know. 
The statement of these must rest on their notoriety.
  ``I could not doubt the necessity of quoting the sources of my 
information, among which Mr. Hatsel's most valuable book is preeminent; 
but as he has only treated some general heads, I have been obliged to 
recur

  ``I am aware that authorities can often be produced in opposition to 
the rules which I lay down as parliamentary. An attention to dates will 
generally remove their weight. The proceedings of Parliament in ancient 
times, and for a long while, were crude, multiform, and embarrassing. 
They have been, however, constantly advancing toward uniformity and 
accuracy, and have now attained a degree of aptitude to their object 
beyond which little is to be desired or expected.

  ``Yet I am far from the presumption of believing that I may not have 
mistaken the parliamentary practice in some cases, and especially in 
those minor forms, which, being practiced daily, are supposed known to 
everybody, and therefore have not been committed to writing. Our 
resources in this quarter of the globe for obtaining information on that 
part of the subject are not perfect. But I have begun a sketch, which 
those who come after me will successively correct and fill up, till a 
code of rules shall be formed for the use of the Senate, the effects of 
which may be accuracy in business, economy of time, order, uniformity, 
and impartiality.''

  Jefferson also says in his preface, as to the source most desirable at 
that time from which to draw principles of procedure:



Sec. 286. Relations of the parliamentary law to the early 
practice of Congress.

    ``But to what system of rules is he to recur, as 
supplementary to those of the Senate? To this there can be but one 
answer: To the system of regulations adopted for the government of some 
one of the parliamentary bodies within these States, or of that which 
has served as a prototype to most of them. This last is the model which 
we have all studied, while we are little acquainted with the 
modifications of it in our several States. It is deposited, too, in 
publications possessed by many, and open to all. Its rules are probably 
as wisely constructed for governing the debates of a deliberative body, 
and obtaining its true sense, as any which can become known to us; and 
the acquiescence of the Senate, hitherto, under the references to them, 
has given them the sanction of the approbation.''


  Those portions of the Manual that refer exclusively to Senate 
procedure or that refer to English practice wholly inapplicable to the 
House have been omitted. Paragraphs from the Constitution of the United 
States have also been omitted, because the Constitution is printed in 
full in this volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 132]]

Whether the House is in order so that a Member may proceed in debate 
is determined by the Chair (Speaker McCormack, Dec. 9, 1963, p. 23831; 
Apr. 23, 2008, pp. 6748, 6749), who may refuse to proceed with business 
in the face of a breach of decorum (Mar. 13, 2014, p. 4393), such as the 
mass presence of Members in the well while not under recognition 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.1). Alleged partiality in making 
such a determination has been renounced (July 31, 2008, p. 17495). The comportment 
of a presiding officer has formed the basis of a question of privilege 
(Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22783).

* * * * *






Sec. 285. Necessity of rules of action.

  And  whether these 
forms be in all cases the most rational or not is really not of so great 
importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go 
by than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding 
in business not subject to the caprice of the Speaker or captiousness of 
the members. It is very material that order, decency, and regularity be 
preserved in a dignified public body. 2 Hats., 149.



                           sec. iii--privilege


[[Page 133]]

traduced. And the period of time covered by privilege, before and after 
the session, with the practice of short prorogations under the 
connivance of the Crown, amounts in fact to a perpetual protection against 
the course of justice. In one instance, indeed, it has been relaxed by the 
10 G. 3, c. 50, which permits judiciary proceedings to go on against them. 
That these privileges must be continually progressive, seems to result 
from their rejecting all definition of them; the doctrine being, that 
``their dignity and independence are preserved by keeping their privileges 
indefinite; and that `the maxims upon which they proceed, together with 
the method of proceeding, rest entirely in their own breast, and are not 
defined and ascertained by any particular stated laws.''' 1 Blackst., 
163, 164.



Sec. 287. Privileges of members of 
Parliament.

  The  privileges of members of Parliament, from small and 
obscure beginnings, have been advancing for centuries with a firm and 
never yielding pace. Claims seem to have been brought forward from time 
to time, and repeated, till some example of their admission enabled them 
to build law on that example. We can only, therefore, state the points 
of progression at which they now are. It is now acknowledged, 1st. That 
they are at all times exempted from question elsewhere, for anything 
said in their own House; that during the time of privilege, 2d. Neither 
a member himself, his, order H. of C. 1663, July 16, wife, nor his 
servants (familiares sui), for any matter of their own, may be, Elsynge, 
217; 1 Hats., 21; 1 Grey's Deb., 133, arrested on mesne process, in any 
civil suit: 3d. Nor be detained under execution, though levied before 
time of privilege: 4th. Nor impleaded, cited, or subpoenaed in any 
court: 5th. Nor summoned as a witness or juror: 6th. Nor may their lands 
or goods be distrained: 7th. Nor their persons assaulted, or characters



  For a modern discussion of privileges of Members of Parliament, see 
Report of Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of the House of 
Commons (H.C. 214-1, Mar. 30, 1999).



[[Page 134]]

place for any speech or debate in either House.'' 
Const. U.S. Art I, Sec. 6. Under the general authority ``to make all laws 
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers given them,'' 
Const. U.S., Art. II, Sec. 8, they may provide by 
law the details which may be necessary for giving full effect to the 
enjoyment of this privilege. No such law being as yet made, it seems to 
stand at present on the following ground: 1. The act of arrest is void, 
ab initio. 2 Stra., 989. 2. The member arrested may be discharged on 
motion, 1 Bl., 166; 2 Stra., 990; or by habeas corpus under the Federal 
or State authority, as the case may be; or by a writ of privilege out of 
the chancery, 2 Stra., 989, in those States which have adopted that part 
of the laws of England. Orders of the House of Commons, 1550, February 
20. 3. The arrest being unlawful, is a trespass for which the officer 
and others concerned are liable to action or indictment in the ordinary 
courts of justice, as in other cases of unauthorized arrest. 4. The 
court before which the process is returnable is bound to act as in other 
cases of unauthorized proceeding, and liable, also, as in other similar 
cases, to have their proceedings stayed or corrected by the superior 
courts.


Sec. 288. Privilege of Members of Congress under the 
Constitution.

  It  was probably from this view of the encroaching character 
of privilege that the framers of our Constitution, in their care to 
provide that the laws shall bind equally on all, and especially that 
those who make them shall not exempt themselves from their operation, 
have only privileged ``Senators and Representatives'' themselves from 
the single act of ``arrest in all cases except treason, felony, and 
breach of the peace, during their attendance at the session of their 
respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same, and from 
being questioned in any other 




[[Page 135]]


emption from arrest, eundo, morando, et redeundo, the House of Commons 
themselves decided that ``a convenient time was to be understood.'' (1580) 
1 Hats., 99, 100. Nor is the law so strict in point of time as to require 
the party to set out immediately on his return, but allows him time to settle 
his private affairs, and to prepare for his journey; and does not even scan 
his road very nicely, nor forfeit his protection for a little deviation from 
that which is most direct; some necessity perhaps constraining him to it. 
2 Stra., 986, 987.


Sec. 289. Privilege as to going and returning.

  The  time 
necessary for going to, and returning from, Congress, not being defined, 
it will, of course, be judged of in every particular case by those who 
will have to decide the case. While privilege was understood in England 
to extend, as it does here, only to ex-





Sec. 290. Privilege of Members as related to rights of 
courts to summon witnesses and jurors.

  This  privilege from arrest, 
privileges, of course, against all process the disobedience to which is 
punishable by an attachment of the person; as a subpoena ad 
respondendum, or testificandum, or a summons on a jury; and with reason, 
because a Member has superior duties to perform in another place. When a 
Representative is withdrawn from his seat by summons, the 40,000 people 
whom he represents lose their voice in debate and vote, as they do on 
his voluntary absence; when a Senator is withdrawn by summons, his State 
loses half its voice in debate and vote, as it does on his voluntary 
absence. The enormous disparity of evil admits no comparison.




[[Page 136]]


p. 2224; Apr. 8, 1948, p. 4264; Apr. 12, 1948, p. 4347; 
Apr. 14, 1948, p. 4461; Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4529; Apr. 28, 1948, p. 5009; 
May 6, 1948, pp. 5433, 5451; Feb. 2, 1950, p. 1399; Apr. 4, 1951, p. 
3320; Apr. 9, 1951, p. 3525; Apr. 12, 1951, pp. 3751, 3752; Apr. 13, 
1951, p. 3915; June 4, 1951, p. 6084; June 22, 1951, p. 7001; Sept. 18, 
1951, p. 11571; Sept. 27, 1951, p. 12292; Mar. 5, 1953, p. 1658; Mar. 18, 
1953, p. 2085; Mar. 11, 1954, p. 3102; July 19, 1954, p. 10904; Apr. 9, 
1956, p. 5970; Apr. 10, 1956, p. 5991). The House, however, has declined 
to make a general rule permitting Members to waive their privilege, 
preferring that the Member in each case should apply for permission 
(III, 2660). Also in maintenance of its privilege the House has refused 
to permit the Clerk or other officers to produce in court, in obedience 
to a summons, an original paper from the files, but has given the court 
facilities for making copies (III, 2664, 2666; Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4552; 
Apr. 29, 1948, pp. 5161, 5162; May 6, 1948, p. 5432; Jan. 18, 1950, p. 565; 
Feb. 8, 1950, p. 1695; Feb. 13, 1950, p. 1765; Sept. 22, 1950, p. 15636; 
Apr. 6, 1951, p. 3403; Apr. 12, 1951, p. 3800; Oct. 20, 1951, p. 13777; 
Jan. 22, 1953, p. 498; May 25, 1953, p. 5523; Jan. 28, 1954, p. 964; 
Feb. 25, 1954, p. 2281; July 1, 1955, p. 9818; Apr. 12, 1956, p. 6258; 
Apr. 24, 1958, p. 7262; Apr. 29, 1958, p. 7636; Sept. 16, 1974, p. 31123; 
Jan. 19, 1977, p. 1728), but on one occasion, in which the circumstances 
warranted such action, the Clerk was permitted to respond and take with 
him certified copies of certain documents described in the subpoena (H. 
Res. 601, Oct. 29, 1969, p. 32005) and on two other occasions, in 
response to a request from the Department of Justice, to provide a copy 
of the audio backup file of a committee deposition made by the Official 
Reporters of Debate to the prosecuting attorney for use in a criminal 
proceeding (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.7; Sept. 12, 2019, p. 
_); and on the rare occasions in which the House has permitted the 
production of an original paper from its files, it has made explicit 
provision for its return (H. Res. 1022, 1023, Jan. 16, 1968, p. 80; H. 
Res. 1429, July 27, 1976, p. 24089). No officer or employee, except by 
authority of the House, should produce before any court a paper from the 
files of the House, nor furnish a copy of any paper except by authority 
of the House or a statute (III, 2663; VI, 587; Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4552; 
Apr. 30, 1948, pp. 5161, 5162; May 6, 1948, p. 5432; Jan. 18, 1950, p. 
565; Feb. 8, 1950, p. 1695; Feb. 13, 1950, p. 1765; Sept. 22, 1950, p. 
15636; Apr. 6, 1951, p. 3403; Apr. 12, 1951, p. 3800; Oct. 20, 1951, p. 
13777; Mar. 10, 1954, p. 3046; Feb. 7, 1955, p. 1215; May 7, 1956, p. 
7588; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 27.3). In the 98th Congress, the 
House adopted a resolution denying compliance with a subpoena issued by 
a Federal Court for the production of records in the possession of the 
Clerk (documents of a select committee from the prior Congress), where 
the Speaker and joint leadership had instructed the Clerk in the 
previous Congress not to produce such records and where the Court 
refused to stay the subpoena or to allow the select committee to 
intervene to protect its interest; the resolution directed the Counsel 
to the Clerk to assert the rights and privileges of the House and 


[[Page 137]]


to take all steps necessary to protect the rights of the House (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.4). On appeal from a subsequent district court 
judgment finding the Clerk in contempt, the Court of Appeals reversed on 
the ground that a subpoena to depose a nonparty witness under the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may only be served in the district (of 
Maryland)where it was issued. In re Guthrie, 733 F.2d 634 (4th Cir. 1984). 
If an official of both Houses of Congress is subpoenaed in his official 
capacity, the concurrence of both Houses by concurrent resolution is 
required to permit compliance (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.8). 
The House has authorized a former committee employee to provide 
testimony in a criminal proceeding, such authorization having been 
provided by the committee in the previous two Congresses (sec. 3(f)(3), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 36).


Sec. 291a. Attitude of the House as to demands of the 
courts.

  The  House has decided that the summons of a court to Members to 
attend and testify constituted a breach of privilege, and directed them 
to disregard the mandate (III, 2661); but in other cases wherein Members 
informed the House that they had been summoned before the District Court 
of the United States for the District of Columbia or other courts, the 
House authorized them to respond (III, 2662; Feb. 23, 1948, p. 1557; 
Mar. 5, 1948, 


  A resolution routinely adopted up to the 95th Congress provided that 
when the House had recessed or adjourned Members, officers, and 
employees were authorized to appear in response to subpoenas duces 
tecum, but were prohibited from producing official papers in response 
thereto; the resolution also provided that when a court found that 
official papers, other than executive session material, were relevant, 
the court could obtain copies thereof through the Clerk of the House 
(see, e.g., H. Res. 12, Jan. 3, 1973, p. 30). In the 95th Congress, the 
House for the first time by resolution permitted this same type of 
general response whether or not the House is in session or in 
adjournment if a court has found that specific documents in possession 
of the House are material and relevant to judicial proceedings. The 
House reserved to itself the right to revoke this general permission in 
any specific case in which the House desires to make a different 
response (H. Res. 10, Jan. 4, 1977, p. 73; H. Res. 10, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 
19). The permission did not apply to executive session material, such as 
a deposition of a witness in executive session of a committee, which 
could be released only by a separate resolution passed by the House (H. 
Res. 296, June 4, 1979, p. 13180). H. Res. 10 of the 96th Congress was 
clarified and revised later in that Congress by H. Res. 722 (Sept. 17, 
1980, pp. 25777-90) and became the basis for rule VIII, added as rule L 
in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98-113, see Sec. 697, 
infra).



[[Page 138]]


to as ``applicable accounts of the House described in clause 1(k)(1) of 
rule X'') of expenses to employ such special counsel (H. Res. 1420, 
Aug. 26, 1976, p. 27858; H. Res. 334, May 9, 1977, pp. 13949-52), 
authorizing the Sergeant-at-Arms to employ a special counsel to represent 
him in a pending action in Federal court in which he was named as a defendant, 
and providing for the payment from the contingent fund of expenses to employ 
such counsel (H. Res. 1497, Sept. 2, 1976, p. 28937), and authorizing 
the chair of the Committee on House Administration to intervene as a 
party in a pending civil action in the U.S. Court of Claims, to defend 
on behalf of the House the constitutional authority to make laws 
necessary and proper for executing its constitutional powers, 
authorizing the employment of special counsel for such purpose, and 
providing for the payment from the contingent fund of expenses to employ 
such counsel (H. Res. 884, Nov. 2, 1977, p. 36661). The House has 
authorized the Speaker to take any steps considered necessary to protect 
the interests of the House before the court (H. Res. 49, Jan. 29, 1981, 
p. 1304) or to submit briefs amicus curiae (H. Res. 639, Mar. 17, 2016, 
pp. 3369, 3370 (see Apr. 18, 2016, p. _ for notification to the House of 
the filing of a brief pursuant to this authorization)). The House has 
authorized the Speaker to initiate or intervene in civil actions 
regarding the failure of the President or any other employee of the 
executive branch to implement a given law and authorized the Office of 
General Counsel to represent the House in such matters and to employ 
outside counsel (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 19.3), which 
authority was continued in the next Congress (sec. 3(f)(2), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 36). The House has also authorized the Speaker to 
intervene in an existing case and appellate proceedings arising 
therefrom, and to intervene or appear in any other similar case in order 
to defend a particular law, and has authorized the Office of General 
Counsel to represent the House in such matters and to employ outside 
counsel (sec. 103(n), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; title III, H. Res. 
6, Jan. 9, 2019, p. _). The House has on occasion adopted privileged 
resolutions, reported from the Committee on Rules, authorizing standing 
or select committees to make applications to courts in connection with 
their investigations (H. Res. 252, Feb. 9, 1977, pp. 3966-75; H. Res. 
760, Sept. 28, 1977, pp. 31329-36; H. Res. 67, Mar. 4, 1981, pp. 3529-
33), including regarding judicial enforcement of committee subpoenas (H. 
Res. 706, June 28, 2012, p. 10512, continued in the next two Congresses 
by sec. 4(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27 and sec. 3(f)(1), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 36). In the 116th Congress the House adopted a 
resolution reported by the Committee on Rules authorizing a standing 
committee to intervene in or initiate judicial proceedings with respect 
to several specified investigations and reaffirming the authority of 
committees to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings with respect 
to any subpoena issued by such committee if authorized to do so by the 
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group pursuant to clause 8(b) of rule II (H. 
Res. 430, June 11, 2019, p. _). The House has also adopted (by special 
rule) an unreported resolution on the same topic (H. Res. 980, Feb.



[[Page 139]]


14, 2008, pp. 2190, 2191, continued and expanded in the next Congress by 
sec. 4(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 10), and in the 116th Congress 
the House adopted (by special rule) an unreported resolution ratifying 
and reaffirming current and future investigations and subpoenas issued 
by committees with respect to certain individuals and subject matters 
(H. Res. 507, July 24, 2019, p. _). In the 115th Congress, the House enabled 
continuing litigation authority by adopting clause 8(c) of rule II (sec. 
2(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _), and amended such clause in the 
117th Congress to clarify that the issuance of subpoenas is included 
under such continuing litigation authority (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 8, Jan. 
4, 2021, p. _). For a discussion of the Office of General Counsel, which 
was established to provide legal assistance and representation to the 
House without regard to political affiliation and in consultation with 
the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, see clause 8 of rule II, 
Sec. Sec. 670, 670a, infra.



Sec. 291b. Judicial appearances on behalf of 
House.

  Although  the statutes provide that the Department of Justice may 
represent any officer of the House or Senate in the event of judicial 
proceedings against such officer in relation to the performance of 
official duties (see 2 U.S.C. 5503), and that the Department of Justice 
shall generally represent the interests of the United States in court 
(28 U.S.C. 517), the House has on occasion authorized special 
appearances on its own behalf by special counsel when the prerogatives 
or powers of the House have been questioned in the courts. The House has 
adopted privileged resolutions authorizing the chair of a subcommittee 
to intervene in any judicial proceeding concerning subpoenas duces tecum 
issued by that committee, authorizing the appointment of a special 
counsel to carry out the purposes of such a resolution, and providing 
for the payment from the contingent fund (now referred 





Sec. 292. Attitude of one House as to demands of the 
other for attendance or papers.

  When  either House desires the attendance of 
a Member of the other to give evidence it is the practice to ask the 
other House that the Member have leave to attend, and the use of a 
subpoena is of doubtful propriety (III, 1794). However, in one case the 
Senate did not consider that its privilege forbade the House to summon 
one of its officers as a witness (III, 1798). But when the Secretary of 
the Senate was subpoenaed to appear before a committee of the House with 
certain papers from the files of the Senate, the Senate discussed the 
question of privilege before empowering him to attend (III, 2665). For 
discussion of the means by which one House may prefer a complaint 
against a Member or officer of the other, see Sec. 373, infra.




[[Page 140]]


be a breach of the privileges of the House; but satisfactory apologies 
and acknowledgments being made, no further proceeding was had. * * *



Sec. 293. Power of the House to punish for contempts.

  So  far 
there will probably be no difference of opinion as to the privileges of 
the two Houses of Congress; but in the following cases it is otherwise. 
In December, 1795, the House of Representatives committed two persons of 
the name of Randall and Whitney for attempting to corrupt the integrity 
of certain Members, which they considered as a contempt and breach of 
the privileges of the House; and the facts being proved, Whitney was 
detained in confinement a fortnight and Randall three weeks, and was 
reprimanded by the Speaker. In March, 1796, the House voted a challenge 
given to a Member of their House to 




Sec. 294. Decision of the court in Anderson's 
case.

  The  cases of Randall and Whitney (II, 1599-1603) were followed in 
1818 by the case of John Anderson, a citizen, who for attempted bribery 
of a Member was arrested, tried, and censured by the House (II, 1606). 
Anderson appealed to the courts and this procedure finally resulted in a 
discussion by the Supreme Court of the United States of the right of the 
House to punish for contempts, and a decision that the House by 
implication has the power to punish, because ``public functionaries must 
be left at liberty to exercise the powers which the people have 
intrusted to them,'' and ``the interests and dignity of those who 
created them require the exertion of the powers indispensable to the 
attainment of the ends of their creation. Nor is a casual conflict with 
the rights of particular individuals any reason to be urged against the 
exercise of such powers'' (II, 1607; Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 
Wheat.) 204, 226, 227 (1821)). In 1828 an assault on the President's 
secretary in the Capitol gave rise to a question of privilege that 
involved a discussion of the inherent power of the House to punish for 
contempt (II, 1615). Again in 1832, when the House censured Samuel 
Houston, a citizen, for assault on a Member for words spoken in debate 
(II, 1616), there was a discussion by the House of the doctrine of 
inherent and implied power as opposed to the other doctrine that the 
House might exercise no authority not expressly conferred on it by the 
Constitution or the laws of the land (II, 1619). In 1865 the House 
arrested and censured a citizen for attempted intimidation and assault 
on a member (II, 1625); in 1866, a citizen who had assaulted the clerk 
of a committee of the House in the Capitol was arrested by order of the 
House, but because there was not time to punish in the few remaining 
days of the session, the Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to turn the 
prisoner over to the civil authorities of the District of Columbia (II, 
1629); and in 1870 Woods, who had assaulted a Member on his way to the 
House, was arrested on warrant of the Speaker, arraigned at the bar, and 
imprisoned for a term extending beyond the adjournment of the session, 
although not beyond the term of the existing House (II, 1626-1628).




[[Page 141]]


to punish the citizen for a contempt of its authority or a breach of its 
privileges can derive no support from the precedents and practices of 
the two Houses of the English Parliament, nor from the adjudged cases in 
which the English courts have upheld these practices. Nor, taking what 
has fallen from the English judges, and especially the later cases on which 
we have just commented, is much aid given to the doctrine, that this power 
exists as one necessary to enable either House of Congress to exercise 
successfully their function of legislation. This latter proposition is one 
that we do not propose to decide in the present case, because we are able 
to decide it without passing upon the existence or nonexistence of such 
a power in aid of the legislative function'' (Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 
U.S. 168, 189 (1880); II, 1611). In 1894, in the case of Chapman, another 
contumacious witness, the Supreme Court affirmed the undoubted right of 
either House of Congress to punish for contempt in cases to which its power 
properly extends under the expressed terms of the Constitution (II, 1614; 
In re Chapman, 1166 U.S. 661 (1897)). The nature of the punishment that 
the House may inflict was discussed by the Court in Anderson's case 
(II, 1607; Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821)).


Sec. 295. Views of the court in Kilbourn's case.

  In  1876 the 
arrest and imprisonment by the House of Hallet Kilbourn, a contumacious 
witness, resulted in a decision by the Supreme Court of the United 
States that the House had no general power to punish for contempt, as in 
a case wherein it was proposing to coerce a witness in an inquiry not 
within the constitutional authority of the House. The Court also 
discussed the doctrine of inherent power to punish, saying in 
conclusion, ``We are of opinion that the right of the Houses of 
Representatives 


  In the case of Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 (1917), the Court 
addressed the following situation:



Sec. 296. Decision of the court in Marshall v. 
Gordon.

    Appellant, while United States Attorney for the Southern 
District of New York, conducted a grand jury investigation that led to 
the indictment of a Member of the House. Acting on charges of 
misfeasance and nonfeasance made by the Member against appellant in part 
before the indictment and renewed with additions afterward, the House by 
resolution directed its Judiciary Committee to make inquiry and report 
concerning appellant's liability to impeachment. Such inquiry being in 
progress through a subcommittee, appellant addressed to the 
subcommittee's chair, and gave to the press, a letter, charging the 
subcommittee with an endeavor to probe into and frustrate the action of 
the grand jury, and couched in terms calculated to arouse the 
indignation of the members of that committee and those of the House 
generally. Thereafter, appellant was arrested in New York by the 
Sergeant-at-Arms pursuant to a resolution of the House whereby the 
letter was characterized as defamatory and insulting and as tending to 
bring that body into public contempt and ridicule, and whereby appellant 
in writing and publishing such letter was adjudged to be in contempt of 
the House in violating its privileges, honor, and dignity. He applied 
for habeas corpus.




[[Page 142]]


  The court held that the proceedings concerning which the alleged 
contempt was committed were not impeachment proceedings; that, whether 
they were impeachment proceedings or not, the House was without power by 
its own action, as distinct from such action as might be taken under 
criminal laws, to arrest or punish for such acts as were committed by 
appellant.

  No express power to punish for contempt was granted to the House save 
the power to deal with contempts committed by its own Members (art. I, 
sec. 5). The possession by Congress of the commingled legislative and 
judicial authority to punish for contempts that was exerted by the House
of Commons is at variance with the view and tendency existing in this 
country when the Constitution was adopted, as evidenced by the manner in 
which the subject was treated in many State constitutions, beginning at 
or about that time and continuing thereafter. Such commingling of powers 
would be destructive of the basic constitutional distinction between 
legislative, executive, and judicial power, and repugnant to limitations 
that the Constitution fixes expressly; hence there is no warrant 
whatever for implying such a dual power in aid of other powers expressly 
granted to Congress. The House has implied power to deal directly with 
contempt so far as is necessary to preserve and exercise the legislative 
authority expressly granted. Being, however, a power of self-
preservation, a means and not an end, the power does not extend to 
infliction of punishment, as such; it is a power to prevent acts that in 
and of themselves inherently prevent or obstruct the discharge of 
legislative duty and to compel the doing of those things that are 
essential to the performance of the legislative functions. As pointed 
out in Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821), this implied 
power in its exercise is limited to imprisonment during the session of 
the body affected by the contempt.

  The authority does not cease when the act complained of has been 
committed, but includes the right to determine in the use of legitimate 
and fair discretion how far from the nature and character of the act 
there is necessity for repression to prevent immediate recurrence, i.e., 
the continued existence of the interference or obstruction to the 
exercise of legislative power. In such case, unless there be manifest an 
absolute disregard of discretion, and a mere exertion of arbitrary power 
coming within the reach of constitutional limitations, the exercise of 
the authority is not subject to judicial interference. The power is the 
same in quantity and quality whether exerted on behalf of the 
impeachment powers or of the others to which it is ancillary. The 
legislative power to provide by criminal laws for the prosecution and 
punishment of wrongful acts is not here involved.

  The Senate may invoke its civil contempt statute (2 U.S.C. 288d) to 
direct the Senate legal counsel to bring an action in Federal court to 
compel a witness to comply with the subpoena of a committee of the 
Senate. The House, in contrast, may either certify such a witness to the 
appropriate United States Attorney for possible indictment under the 
criminal contempt statute (2 U.S.C. 192) or exercise its inherent power 
to commit for contempt by detaining the recalcitrant witness in the 
custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.



[[Page 143]]


  (See also McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); Sinclair v. 
United States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929); Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 
(1935); Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 (1955); Groppi v. Leslie, 
404 U.S. 496 (1972).)



Sec. 297. Jefferson's statement of arguments for 
inherent power to punish for contempt.

  * * *  The editor of the Aurora 
having, in his paper of February 19, 1800, inserted some paragraphs 
defamatory of the Senate, and failed in his appearance, he was ordered 
to be committed. In debating the legality of this order, it was 
insisted, in support of it, that every man, by the law of nature, and 
every body of men, possesses the right of self-defense; that all public 
functionaries are essentially invested with the powers of self-
preservation; that they have an inherent right to do all acts necessary 
to keep themselves in a condition to discharge the trusts confided to 
them; that whenever authorities are given, the means of carrying them 
into execution are given by necessary implication; that thus we see the 
British Parliament exercise the right of punishing contempts; all the 
State Legislatures exercise the same power, and every court does the 
same; that, if we have it not, we sit at the mercy of every intruder who 
may enter our doors or gallery, and, by noise and tumult, render 
proceeding in business impracticable; that if our tranquillity is to be 
perpetually disturbed by newspaper defamation, it will not be possible 
to exercise our functions with the requisite coolness and deliberation; 
and that we must therefore have a power to punish these disturbers of 
our peace and proceedings. * * *



[[Page 144]]

the State Legislatures have equal authority because their powers are 
plenary; they represent their constituents completely, and possess all 
their powers, except such as their constitutions have expressly denied 
them; that the courts of the several States have the same powers by the 
laws of their States, and those of the Federal Government by the same 
State laws adopted in each State, by a law of Congress; that none of 
these bodies, therefore, derive those powers from natural or necessary 
right, but from express law; that Congress have no such natural or 
necessary power, nor any powers but such as are given them by the 
Constitution; that that has given them, directly, exemption from 
personal arrest, exemption from question elsewhere for what is said in 
their House, and power over their own members and proceedings; for these 
no further law is necessary, the Constitution being the law; that, 
moreover, by that article of the Constitution which authorizes them ``to 
make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the 
powers vested by the Constitution in them,'' they may provide by law for 
an undisturbed exercise of their functions, e.g., for the punishment of 
contempts, of affrays or tumult in their presence, &c. but, till the 
law be made, it does not exist; and does not exist, from their own 
neglect; that, in the meantime, however, they are not unprotected, the 
ordinary magistrates and courts of law being open and competent to 
punish all unjustifiable disturbances or defamations, and even their own 
sergeant, who may appoint depu

[[Page 145]]

ties ad libitum to aid him 3 Grey, 59, 147, 255,  is equal to small 
disturbances; that in requiring a previous law, the Constitution had 
regard to the inviolability of the citizen, as well as of the Member; 
as, should one House, in the regular form of a bill, aim at too broad 
privileges, it may be checked by the other, and both by the President; 
and also as, the law being promulgated, the citizen will know how to 
avoid offense. But if one branch may assume its own privileges without 
control, if it may do it on the spur of the occasion, conceal the law in 
its own breast, and, after the fact committed, make its sentence both 
the law and the judgment on that fact; if the offense is to be kept 
undefined and to be declared only ex re nata, and according to the 
passions of the moment, and there be no limitation either in the manner 
or measure of the punishment, the condition of the citizen will be 
perilous indeed. * * *


Sec. 298. Statement of arguments against the inherent 
power to punish for contempts.

  * * *  To this it was answered, that the 
Parliament and courts of England have cognizance of contempts by the 
express provisions of their law; that



[[Page 146]]

the powers vested in them, and thereby hang up a rule for the inspection 
of all, which may direct the conduct of the citizen, and at the same 
time test the judgments they shall themselves pronounce in their own 
case.



Sec. 299. Jefferson's suggestion that a law might define 
procedure in cases of contempt.

  * * *  Which of these doctrines is to 
prevail, time will decide. Where there is no fixed law, the judgment on 
any particular case is the law of that single case only, and dies with 
it. When a new and even a similar case arises, the judgment which is to 
make and at the same time apply to the law, is open to question and 
consideration, as are all new laws. Perhaps Congress in the mean time, 
in their care for the safety of the citizen, as well as that for their 
own protection, may declare by law what is necessary and proper to 
enable them to carry into execution


  In 1837 the House declined to proceed with a bill ``defining the 
offense of a contempt of this House, and to provide for the punishment 
thereof'' (II, 1598). Congress has, however, prescribed that a witness 
summoned to appear before a committee of either House who does not 
respond or who refuses to answer a question pertinent to the subject of 
the inquiry shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor (2 U.S.C. 192).

  A resolution directing the Speaker to certify to the United States 
Attorney the refusal of a witness to respond to a subpoena issued by a 
House committee involves the privileges of the House and may be offered 
from the floor as privileged if offered by direction of the committee 
reporting the resolution (e.g., Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200). A committee 
report to accompany such resolution may therefore be presented to the 
House without regard to the availability requirement for other reports 
(see clause 4 of rule XIII; July 13, 1971, p. 24720). A resolution with 
two resolving clauses separately directing the certification of the 
contemptuous conduct of two individuals is subject to a demand for a 
division of the question as to each individual (contempt proceedings 
against Ralph and Joseph Bernstein, Feb. 27, 1986, p. 3061); as is a 
resolution with one resolving clause certifying contemptuous conduct of 
several individuals (Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200; contrast, Deschler-Brown, 
ch. 30, Sec. 49.1). A contempt resolution may be withdrawn as a matter 
of right before action thereon (Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200). The Speaker 
certifies a contempt case to the United States Attorney (2 U.S.C. 194) 
and informs the House thereof (e.g., Deschler, ch. 15, Sec. 22.3; June 
29, 2012, p. 10769; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 2.1).


[[Page 147]]

to the United States Attorney to the end that contempt proceedings be 
discontinued (see Deschler, ch. 15, Sec. 21). In the 98th Congress, the 
House adopted a privileged resolution directing the Speaker to certify 
to the United States Attorney the refusal of a former official of the 
executive branch to obey a subpoena to testify before a subcommittee (H. 
Res. 200, May 18, 1983, p. 12720). In the 106th Congress the House 
considered a resolution directing the Speaker to certify to the United 
States Attorney the refusal of three individuals to obey a subpoena 
duces tecum and to answer certain questions while appearing under 
subpoena before a subcommittee, which resolution was withdrawn before 
action thereon (H. Res. 657, Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25217). In the 110th 
Congress, the House adopted (by special rule) a resolution directing the 
Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the refusal of White 
House Chief of Staff to produce documents to a committee, and former 
White House Counsel to appear, testify, and produce documents to a 
subcommittee, each as directed by subpoena (H. Res. 979, Feb. 14, 2008, 
pp. 2190, 2191). In the 112th Congress, the House adopted a resolution 
directing the Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the 
refusal of the Attorney General to produce documents to a committee as 
directed by subpoena (H. Res. 711, June 28, 2012, p. 10514). In the 
113th Congress, the House adopted a resolution directing the Speaker to 
certify to the United States Attorney the refusal of the former Director 
of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue Service to produce 
documents to a committee as directed by subpoena (H. Res. 574, May 7, 
2014, p. 7490). In the 116th Congress, the House adopted a resolution 
directing the Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the 
refusal of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Commerce to produce 
documents to a committee as directed by subpoena and authorizing that 
committee to take steps to seek civil enforcement of certain subpoenas 
(H. Res. 497, July 17, 2019, p. _).
  In the 97th Congress, the House adopted a resolution directing the 
Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the failure of an 
official of the executive branch (Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator, 
Environmental Protection Agency) to submit executive branch documents to 
a House subcommittee pursuant to a subcommittee subpoena. This was the 
first occasion on which the House cited an executive official for 
contempt of Congress (Dec. 16, 1982, p. 31754). In the following 
Congress, the House adopted (as a question of privilege) a resolution 
reported from the same committee certifying to the United States 
Attorney the fact that an agreement had been entered into between the 
committee and the executive branch for access by the committee to the 
documents that Anne Gorsuch had failed to submit and that were the 
subject of the contempt citation (where the contempt had not yet been 
prosecuted) (Aug. 3, 1983, p. 22692). In other cases in which compliance 
had subsequently been attained in the same Congress, the House has 
adopted privileged resolutions certifying the facts

  A resolution laying on the table a message from the President 
containing certain averments inveighing disrespect toward Members of 
Congress was considered as a question of the privileges of the House as 
a breach of privilege in a formal communication to the House (VI, 330).-




Sec. 300. Status of Memberelect as to privilege, 
oath, committee service, etc.

  Privilege  from arrest takes place by force of the 
election; and before a return be made a Member elected may be named of a 
committee, and is to every extent a Member except that he cannot vote 
until he is sworn, Memor., 107, 108. D'Ewes, 642, col. 2; 643, col. 1. 
Pet. Miscel. Parl., 119. Lex. Parl., c. 23.2 Hats., 22, 62.



[[Page 148]]

to and returning therefrom. In a case wherein a Member was imprisoned 
during a recess of Congress, he remained in confinement until the House, 
on assembling, liberated him (III, 2676).
  The Constitution of the United States limits the broad Parliamentary 
privilege to the time of attendance on sessions of Congress, and of 
going


  Although a Member may be named to a committee before being sworn, and 
in some cases a Member has not taken the oath until long afterwards (IV, 
4483), in the modern practice a Member-elect is elected to a standing 
committee effective only when sworn (e.g., H. Res. 26, 27; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 1.2). Where a Member-elect participated in 
various committee business before taking the oath of office, the House 
adopted a resolution ratifying his election to and participation in 
proceedings of the committee (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 3.3). In 
one case, when a Member did not appear to take the oath, the Speaker 
with the consent of the House appointed another Member to the committee 
in his place (IV, 4484). The status of a Member-elect under the 
Constitution undoubtedly differs greatly from the status of a Member-
elect under the law of Parliament. In various inquiries by committees of 
the House this question has been examined, with the conclusions that a 
Member-elect becomes a Member from the very beginning of the term to 
which elected (I, 500), that he is as much an officer of the Government 
before taking the oath as afterwards (I, 185), and that his status is 
distinguished from that of a Member who has qualified (I, 183, 184). 
Members-elect may resign or decline before taking the oath (II, 1230-
1233, 1235; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 42). They have been excluded (I, 449, 464, 
474, 550, 551; VI, 56; Mar. 1, 1967, pp. 4997-5038) and in one case a 
Member-elect was expelled (I, 476; II, 1262). The names of Members who 
have not been sworn are not entered on the roll from which the yeas and 
nays are called for entry on the Journal (V, 6048; VIII, 3122), nor are 
such Members-elect permitted to vote or introduce bills (see Sec. 198, 
supra). The House has granted a Member-elect a leave of absence (e.g., 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 1.8; Jan. 6, 2015, p. 63).



Sec. 301. Relations of Members and others to 
privilege.

  Every  man must, at his peril, take notice who are members of 
either House returned of record. Lex. Parl., 23; 4 Inst., 24.


  On Complaint of a breach of privilege, the party may either be 
summoned, or sent for in custody of the sergeant. 1 Grey, 88, 95.


[[Page 149]]

not in effect waive the privilege of the House. 3 Grey, 140, 222.

  The privilege of a Member is the privilege of the House. If the Member 
waive it without leave, it is a ground for punishing him, but can

  Although the privilege of Members of the House is limited by the 
Constitution, these provisions of the Parliamentary law are applicable, 
and persons who have attempted to bribe Members (II, 1599, 1606), 
assault them for words spoken in debate (II, 1617, 1625) or interfere 
with them while on the way to attend the sessions of the House (II, 
1626), have been arrested by order of the House by the Sergeant-at-Arms, 
``Wherever to be found.'' The House has declined to make a general rule 
to permit Members to waive their privilege in certain cases, preferring 
to give or refuse permission in each individual case (III, 2660-2662).


  In United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1979), the Supreme Court 
discussed the ability of either an individual Member or the entire 
Congress to waive the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause. The 
Court found first, that the Member's conduct in testifying before a 
grand jury and voluntarily producing documentary evidence of legislative 
acts protected by the Clause did not waive its protection. Assuming, 
without deciding, that a Member could waive the Clause's protection 
against being prosecuted for a legislative act, the Court said that such 
a waiver could only be found after an explicit and unequivocal 
renunciation of its immunity, which was absent in this case. Second, 
passage of the official bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 201, did not amount 
to an institutional waiver of the Speech or Debate Clause for individual 
Members. Again assuming without deciding whether Congress could 
constitutionally waive the Clause for individual Members, such a waiver 
could be shown only by an explicit and unequivocal expression of 
legislative intent, and there was no evidence of that in the legislative 
history of the statute. The Speech or Debate clause is not an impediment 
to the enforcement within the House of the rule prohibiting 
personalities in debate (clause 1 of rule XVII, May 25, 1995, p. 14436).


[[Page 150]]



Sec. 302. Parliamentary law as to questioning a Member in 
another place for speech or debate.

  For  any speech or debate in either 
House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. Const. U.S., I, 
6; S. P. protest of the Commons to James I, 1621; 2 Rapin, No. 54, pp. 
211, 212. But this is restrained to things done in the House in a 
parliamentary course. 1 Rush, 663. For he is not to have privilege 
contra morem parliamentarium, to exceed the bounds and limits of his 
place and duty. Com. p.




Sec. 303. Relation of the courts to parliamentary 
privilege.

  If  an offense be committed by a member in the House, of which 
the House has cognizance, it is an infringement of their right for any 
person or court to take notice of it till the House has punished the 
offender or referred him to a due course. Lex. Parl., 63.


  Privilege is in the power of the House, and is a restraint to the 
proceeding of inferior courts, but not of the House itself. 2 Nalson, 
450; 2 Grey, 399. For whatever is spoken in the House is subject to the 
censure of the House; and offenses of this kind have been severely 
punished by calling the person to the bar to make submission, committing 
him to the tower, expelling the House, &c. Scob., 72; L. Parl., c. 22.




Sec. 304. Breach of privilege to refuse to put a question 
which is in order.

    It is a breach of order for the Speaker to refuse 
to put a question which is in order. 1 Hats., 175-6; 5 Grey, 133.



  Where the Clerk, presiding during organization of the House, declined 
to put a question, a Member put the question from the floor (I, 67).


[[Page 151]]

under pretenses of treason, &c., to take any man from his service in the 
House, and so, as many, one after another, as would make the House what 
he pleaseth. Dec'l of the Com. on the King's declaring Sir John Hotham a 
traitor. 4 Rushw., 586. So, when a member stood indicted for felony, it 
was adjudged that he ought to remain of the House till conviction; for 
it may be any man's case, who is guiltless, to be accused and indicted 
of felony, or the like crime. 23 El., 1580; D'Ewes, 283, col. 1; Lex. 
Parl., 133.



Sec. 305. Parliamentary law of privilege as related to 
treason, felony, etc.

  And  even in cases of treason, felony, and breach of 
the peace, to which privilege does not extend as to substance, yet in 
Parliament a member is privileged as to the mode of proceeding. The case 
is first to be laid before the House, that it may judge of the fact and 
of the ground of the accusation, and how far forth the manner of the 
trial may concern their privilege; otherwise it would be in the power of 
other branches of the government, and even of every private man,


  Where Members of the House have been arrested by the State authorities 
the cases have not been laid first before the House; but when the House 
has learned of the proceedings, it has investigated to ascertain if the 
crime charged was actually within the exceptions of the Constitution 
(III, 2673), and in one case in which it found a Member imprisoned for 
an offense not within the exceptions it released him by the hands of its 
own officer (III, 2676).


[[Page 152]]



Sec. 306. Practice as to Members indicted or 
convicted.

  The  House has not usually taken action in the infrequent 
instances in which Members have been indicted for felony, and in one or 
two instances Members under indictment or pending appeal on conviction 
have been appointed to committees  (IV,  4479).  The  House  has,  
however, adopted a resolution expressing the sense of the House that 
Members convicted of certain felonies should refrain from participation 
in committee business and from voting in the House until the presumption 
of innocence is reinstated or until re-elected to the House (see H. Res. 
128, Nov. 14, 1973, p. 36944), and that principle has been incorporated 
in the Code of Official Conduct, along with the principle that Members 
indicted for certain felonies should resign from committees and party 
caucus or conference leadership positions until the charges have been 
dismissed or reduced to less than a felony (clause 10 of rule XXIII). A 
Senator after indictment was omitted from committees at his own request 
(IV, 4479), and a Member who had been convicted in one case did not 
appear in the House during the Congress (IV, 4484, footnote). A Senator 
in one case withdrew from the Senate pending his trial (II, 1278). After 
conviction but before the Senator's resignation, and while an appeal for 
rehearing was pending, the Senate continued its investigation (II, 
1282).




Sec. 307. Parliamentary law as to arrest of a 
Member.

  When  it is found necessary for the public service to put a Member 
under arrest, or when, on any public inquiry, matter comes out which may 
lead to affect the person of a member, it is the practice immediately to 
acquaint the House, that they may know the reasons for such a 
proceeding, and take such steps as they think proper. 2 Hats., 259. Of 
which see many examples. Ib., 256, 257, 258. But the communication is 
subsequent to the arrest. 1 Blackst., 167.




Sec. 308. A breach of privilege for one House to encroach 
or interfere as to the other.

  It  is highly expedient, says Hatsel, for 
the due preservation of the privileges of the separate branches of the 
legislature, that neither should encroach on the other, or interfere in 
any matter depending before them, so as to preclude, or even influence, 
that freedom of debate which is essential to a free council. They are, 
therefore, not to take notice of any bills or other matters depending, 
or of votes that have been given, or of speeches which have been held, 
by the members of either of the other branches of the legislature, until 
the same have been communicated to them in the usual parliamentary 
manner. 2 Hats., 252; 4 Inst., 15; Seld. Jud., 53.



[[Page 153]]

and preparation of a bill, were breaches of privilege, 2 Nalson, 743; 
and in 1783, December 17, it was declared a breach of fundamental 
privileges, &c., to report any opinion or pretended opinion of the King 
on any bill or proceeding depending in either House of Parliament, with 
a view to influence the votes of the members, 2 Hats., 251, 6.
* * * * *






Sec. 309. Relations of the Sovereign to the Parliament 
and its Members.

  Thus  the King's taking notice of the bill for suppressing 
soldiers, depending before the House; his proposing a provisional clause 
for a bill before it was presented to him by the two Houses; his 
expressing displeasure against some persons for matters moved in 
Parliament during the debate



* * * * *
                             sec. vi--quorum




Sec. 310. Necessity of a quorum during business, including 
debate.

  In  general the chair is not to be taken till a quorum for 
business is present; unless, after due waiting, such a quorum be 
despaired of, when the chair may be taken and the House adjourned. And 
whenever, during business, it is observed that a quorum is not present, 
any member may call for the House to be counted, and being found 
deficient, business is suspended. 2 Hats., 125, 126.



[[Page 154]]

bers voting or recording their presence by proxy (sec. 3(b), H. Res. 
965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). 
Title III of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2006, amended 
Federal election law to require States to hold special elections for the 
House within 49 days after a vacancy is announced by the Speaker in the 
extraordinary circumstance that vacancies in representation from the 
States exceed 100 (P.L. 109-55; 2 U.S.C. 8).




  In the House the Speaker takes the Chair at the hour to which the 
House stood adjourned and there is no requirement that the House proceed 
immediately to establish a quorum, although the Speaker has the 
authority under clause 7 of rule XX to recognize for a call of the House 
at any time. The question of a quorum is not considered unless properly 
raised (IV, 2733; VI, 624), and it is not in order for the Speaker to 
recognize for a point of no quorum unless the Speaker has put the 
pending question or proposition to a vote. Although it was formerly the 
rule that a quorum was necessary for debate as well as business (IV, 
2935-2949), in the 94th Congress the House restricted the Chair's 
ability to recognize the absence of a quorum (clause 7 of rule XX). 
Clause 5(c) of rule XX permits the House to operate with a ``provisional 
quorum'' where the House is without a quorum due to catastrophic 
circumstances. In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House adopted a 
provision, effective during a designated public health emergency, to 
count for purposes of establishing a quorum all Mem


                       sec. vii--call of the house



Sec. 311. Parliamentary rules for call of the House.

  On  the 
call of the House, each person rises up as he is called, and answereth; 
the absentees are then only noted, but no excuse to be made till the 
House be fully called over. Then the absentees are called a second time, 
and if still absent, excuses are to be heard. Ord. House of Commons, 92.


  They rise that their persons may be recognized; the voice, in such a 
crowd, being an insufficient verification of their presence. But in so 
small a body as the Senate of the United States, the trouble of rising 
cannot be necessary.


  Orders for calls on different days may subsist at the same time. 2 
Hats., 72.





  Rule XX, which provides for a call of the House, does not require 
Members to rise on answering, and quorum calls are normally conducted by 
electronic device (clause 2(a) of rule XX). Clause 5(c) of rule XX 
permits the House to operate with a ``provisional quorum'' where the 
House is without a quorum due to catastrophic circumstances.
* * * * *


* * * * *
                            sec. ix--speaker


[[Page 155]]

bers proposing him conduct him to the chair. But if there be objection, 
or another proposed, a question is put by the Clerk. 2 Hats., 158. As 
are also questions of adjournment. 6 Gray, 406. Where the House debated 
and exchanged messages and answers with the King for a week without a 
Speaker, till they were prorogued. They have done it de die in diem for 
fourteen days. 1 Chand., 331, 335.



Sec. 312. Election of Speaker.

  When  but one person is 
proposed, and no objection made, it has not been usual in Parliament to 
put any question to the House; but without a question the mem


  On October 23, 2000, the House of Commons, pursuant to a Standing 
Order, elected a new Speaker after rejection of twelve other nominees 
offered one at a time as amendments to the question. The amendments were 
offered after refusal of the ``Father of the House of Commons'' to 
entertain a motion to change the Standing Order to require a preliminary 
secret ballot. On March 22, 2001, and on October 29, 2002, the House of 
Commons adopted Standing Order 1B, requiring that the election of a new 
Speaker be by secret ballot (Standing Orders of the House of Commons--
Public Business 2003).


  For a discussion of the election of the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, see Sec. 27, supra.




Sec. 313. Election of President pro tempore of the 
Senate.

  In  the Senate, a President pro tempore, in the absence of the 
Vice-President, is proposed and chosen by ballot. His office is 
understood to be determined on the Vice-President's appearing and taking 
the chair, or at the meeting of the Senate after the first recess.




[[Page 156]]


  In the later practice the President pro tempore has usually been 
chosen by resolution. In 1876 the Senate determined that the tenure of 
the Office of a President pro tempore elected at one session does not 
expire at the meeting of Congress after the first recess, the Vice 
President not having appeared to take the chair; that the death of the 
Vice President does not have the effect of vacating the Office of 
President pro tempore; and that the President pro tempore holds office 
at the pleasure of the Senate (II, 1417). In the 107th Congress the 
Senate elected two Presidents of the Senate pro tempore for different 
periods when the majority of the Senate shifted after inauguration of 
the Vice President (S. Res. 3, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 7).



Sec. 314. Parliamentary law as to choice of Speaker pro 
tempore.

  Where  the Speaker has been ill, other Speakers pro tempore have 
been appointed. Instances of this are 1 H., 4. Sir John Cheyney, and Sir 
William Sturton, and in 15 H., 6. Sir John Tyrrel, in 1656, January 27; 
1658, March 9; 1659, January 13.


  Sir Job Charlton ill, Seymour chosen,         

                      1673, February 18.      Not merely pro tem. 1 

   Seymour being ill, Sir Robert Sawyer     Chand., 169, 276, 277.


                 chosen, 1678, April 15.<3-ln }>

  Sawyer being ill, Seymour chosen.


  Thorpe in execution, a new Speaker chosen, 31 H. VI, 3 Grey, 11; and 
March 14, 1694, Sir John Trevor chosen. There have been no later 
instances. 2 Hats., 161; 4 Inst., 8; L. Parl., 263.


  The House, by clause 8 of rule I, has provided for appointment and 
election of Speakers pro tempore. Relying on the Act of June 1, 1789 (2 
U.S.C. 25), the Clerk recognized for nominations for Speaker, at the 
convening of a new Congress, as being of higher constitutional privilege 
than a resolution to postpone the election of a Speaker and instead 
provide for the election of a Speaker pro tempore pending the 
disposition of certain ethics charges against the nominee of the 
majority party (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 4.1).




Sec. 315. Removal of the Speaker.

  A  Speaker may be removed 
at the will of the House, and a Speaker pro tempore appointed, 2 Grey, 
186; 5 Grey, 134.



[[Page 157]]

of privilege (I, 284-286; VI, 35). The Speaker may remove the Clerk, 
Sergeant-at-Arms, and Chief Administrative Officer under clause 1 of 
rule II (e.g., Dec. 16, 2016, p. _).




  A resolution declaring the Office of Speaker vacant presents a 
question of constitutional privilege (VI, 35), though the House has 
never removed a Speaker. In the 116th Congress the House adopted clause 
2(a)(3) of rule IX, providing that such a resolution only constitutes a 
question of the privileges of the House if offered by direction of a 
party caucus or conference (sec. 102(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). 
The House has removed or suspended other officers, such as Clerk and 
Doorkeeper (I, 287-290, 292; II, 1417). A resolution for the removal of 
an officer is presented as a matter


* * * * *
                             sec. x--address




Sec. 316. Addresses to the President.

  A  joint address of 
both Houses of Parliament is read by the Speaker of the House of Lords. 
It may be attended by both Houses in a body, or by a Committee from each 
House, or by the two Speakers only. An address of the House of Commons 
only may be presented by the Whole House, or by the Speaker, 9 Grey, 
473; 1 Chandler, 298, 301; or by such particular members as are of the 
privy council. 2 Hats., 278.






  In the first years of Congress the President annually delivered an 
address to the two Houses in joint session, and the House then prepared 
an address, which the Speaker, attended by the House, carried to the 
President. A joint rule of 1789 also provided for the presentation of 
joint addresses of the two Houses to the President (V, 6630). In 1876 
the joint rules of the House were abrogated, including the joint rule 
providing for presentation of the joint addresses of the two Houses to 
the President (V, 6782-6787). In 1801 President Jefferson transmitted a 
message in writing and discontinued the practice of making addresses in 
person. From 1801 to 1913 all messages were sent in writing (V, 6629), 
but President Wilson resumed the custom of making addresses in person on 
April 8, 1913, and, with the exception of President Hoover (VIII, 3333), 
the custom has been followed generally by subsequent Presidents.


                           sec. xi--committees


[[Page 158]]

of courtesy; every committee having a right to elect their own chairman, 
who presides over them, puts questions, and reports their proceedings to 
the House. 4 inst., 11, 12; Scob., 9; 1 Grey, 122.



Sec. 317. Appointment of standing committees; and 
designation and duties of chairs thereof.

  Standing  committees, as of Privileges 
and Elections, &c., are usually appointed at the first meeting, to 
continue through the session. The person first named is generally 
permitted to act as chairman. But this is a matter


  Before the 62d Congress, standing as well as select committees and 
their chairs were appointed by the Speaker, but under the present form 
of rule X, adopted in 1911, continued as a part of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946, and revised under the Committee Reform 
Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), 
standing committees and their respective chairs are elected by the House 
(IV, 4448; VIII, 2178). Owing to their number and size, committees are 
not usually elected immediately, but resolutions providing for such 
elections are presented by the majority and minority parties pursuant to 
clause 5 of rule X as soon as they are able to perfect the lists. A 
committee may order its report to be made by the chair, or by some other 
member (IV, 4669), even by a member of the minority party (IV, 4672, 
4673), or by a Delegate (July 1, 1958, p. 12871 (Burns of Hawaii)); and 
the chair sometimes submits a report in which the chair has not 
concurred (IV, 4670). Clause 2 of rule XIII requires that a report that 
has been approved by the committee must be filed with the House within 
seven calendar days after a written request from a majority of the 
committee is submitted to the committee clerk.



Sec. 318. Parliamentary law as to debate in standing and 
select committees.

  At  these committees the members are to speak standing, 
and not sitting; though there is reason to conjecture it was formerly 
otherwise. D'Ewes, 630, col. 1; 4 Parl. Hist., 440; 2 Hats., 77.





Sec. 319. Secrecy of committee procedure.

  Their  proceedings 
are not to be published, as they are of no force till confirmed by the 
House. Rushw., part 3, vol. 2, 74; 3 Grey, 401; Scob., 39.* * *



[[Page 159]]

a complaint that certain remarks that might be uttered in debate would 
improperly disclose executive-session material of a committee is not 
cognizable as a point of order in the House if the Chair is not aware of 
the executive-session status of the information (Nov. 5, 1997, p. 
24648). On one occasion a Member was permitted to refer to the 
unreported executive session proceedings of a subcommittee to justify 
his point of order that a resolution providing for a select committee to 
inquire into action of the subcommittee was not privileged (June 30, 
1958, p. 12690). In one case the House authorized the clerk of a 
committee to disclose by deposition its proceedings (III, 2604).
  In the House it is entirely within rule and usage for a committee to 
conduct its proceedings in secret (III, 1694, 1732; IV, 4558-4564; see 
also clause 2(g) of rule XI), and the House may not abrogate the secrecy 
of a committee's proceedings except by suspending the rule (IV, 4565). 
The House has no information concerning the proceedings of a committee 
not officially reported by the committee (VII, 1015) and it is not in 
order in debate to refer to executive session proceedings of a committee 
that have not formally been reported to the House (V, 5080-5083; VIII, 
2269, 2485, 2493; June 24, 1958, pp. 12120, 12122; Apr. 5, 1967, p. 
8411). However,

  Under clause 2(g) of rule XI, hearings and business meetings conducted 
by a standing committee (other than the Committee on Ethics) must be 
open to the public except when a committee determines to close the 
meeting or hearing for that day for the reasons stated in that clause. 
In addition, clause 2(k) of rule XI establishes a procedure for closing 
a hearing because of defamatory, degrading, or incriminating testimony.



Sec. 320. Reception of petitions by committees.

    * * * Nor 
can they receive a petition but through the House. 9 Grey, 412.





Sec. 321. Parliamentary law of procedure when a committee 
inquiry involves a Member.

  When  a committee is charged with an inquiry, if 
a Member prove to be involved, they can not proceed against him but must 
make a special report to the House; whereupon the Member is heard in his 
place, or at the bar, or a special authority is given to the committee 
to inquire concerning him. 9 Grey, 523.



[[Page 160]]

might prefer (III, 1845), but reported recommendations for expulsion 
without first seeking the order of the House (II, 1275; III, 1844). In 
1859 and 1892 a similar procedure occurred (III, 1831, 2637). But the 
House, in a case wherein an inquiry had incidentally involved a Member, 
evidently considered the parliamentary law as applicable, because it 
admitted as of privilege and agreed to a resolution directing the 
committee to report the charges (III, 1843). And in cases wherein 
testimony taken before a joint committee incidentally impeached the 
official characters of a Member and a Senator, the facts in each case 
were reported to the House interested (III, 1854). A select committee, 
appointed to report upon the right of a Member-elect to be sworn (H. 
Res. 1, 90th Cong., pp. 14-27, Jan. 10, 1967), invited him to appear, to 
testify, and permitted him to be accompanied by counsel (see H. Rept. 
90-27).


Sec. 322. Practice of House when a committee inquiry 
involves a Member.

  Although  the authority of this principle has not been 
questioned by the House, there have in special instances been deviations 
from it. Thus, in 1832, when a Member had been slain in a duel, and the 
fact was notorious that all the principals and seconds were Members of 
the House, the committee, charged only with investigating the causes and 
whether or not there had been a breach of privilege, reported with their 
findings recommendations for expulsion and censure of the Members found 
to be implicated. There was criticism of this method of procedure as 
deviating from the rule of Jefferson's Manual, but the House did not 
recommit the report (II, 1644). In 1857, when a committee charged with 
inquiring into accusations against Members not named found certain 
Members implicated, they gave them copies of the testimony and 
opportunities to explain to the committee, under oath or otherwise, as 
they individually





Sec. 323. Inquiries involving Members of other 
House.

  And  where one House, by a committee, has found a Member of the 
other implicated, the testimony has been transmitted (II, 1276; III, 
1850, 1852, 1853). Where such testimony was taken in open session of the 
committee, it was not thought necessary that it be under seal when sent 
to the other House (III, 1851).





Sec. 324. Duty of chair of a committee when the House 
sits.

  So  soon as the House sits, and a committee is notified of it, the 
chairman is in duty bound to rise instantly, and the members to attend 
the service of the House. 2 Nals., 319.



  For the current practice, see clauses 2(i) and 2(m)(1) of rule XI.




Sec. 325. Action of joint committees.

  It  appears that on 
joint committees of the Lords and Commons each committee acted 
integrally in the following instances: 7 Grey, 261, 278, 285, 338; 1 
Chandler, 357, 462. In the following instances it does not appear 
whether they did or not: 6 Grey, 129; 7 Grey, 213, 229, 321.



[[Page 161]]

number rather than a majority of the membership of each House (IV, 
4424). The first named of the Senate members acted as chair in one 
notable instance (IV, 4424), and in another the joint committee elected 
its chair (IV, 4447).




  It is the practice in Congress that joint committees shall vote per 
capita, and not as representatives of the two Houses (IV, 4425), 
although the membership from the House is usually, but not always (IV 
4410), larger than that from the Senate (III, 1946; IV, 4426-4431). But 
ordinary committees of conference appointed to settle differences 
between the two Houses are not considered joint committees, and the 
managers of the two Houses vote separately (V, 6336), each House having 
one vote. A quorum of a joint committee seems to have been considered to 
be a majority of the whole


                    sec. xii--committee of the whole




Sec. 326. Parliamentary usage as to Committee of the 
Whole.

  The  speech, messages, and other matters of great concernment are 
usually referred to a Committee of the Whole House (6 Grey, 311), where 
general principles are digested in the form of resolutions, which are 
debated and amended till they get into a shape which meets the 
approbation of a majority. These being reported and confirmed by the 
House are then referred to one or more select committees, according as 
the subject divides itself into one or more bills. Scob., 36, 44. 
Propositions for any charge on the people are especially to be first 
made in a Committee of the Whole. 3 Hats., 127. The sense of the whole 
is better taken in committee, because in all committees everyone speaks 
as often as he pleases. Scob., 49. * * *



[[Page 162]]

tained in the State of the Union Message are referred by the Speaker to 
the various committees having jurisdiction over the subject matter 
therein.
  This provision is largely obsolete, the House having by its rules and 
practice provided specifically for procedure in the Committee of the 
Whole, and having also by its rules for the order of business left no 
privileged status for motions to go into Committee on matters not 
already referred there. The Committee no longer originates resolutions 
or bills, but receives such as have been formulated by standing or 
select committees and referred to it; and when it reports, the House 
usually acts at once on the report without reference to select or other 
committees (IV, 4705). The practice of referring annual messages of the 
President to the Committee, to be there considered and reported with 
recommendations for the reference of various portions to the proper 
standing or select committees (V, 6621, 6622), was discontinued in the 
64th Congress (VIII, 3350). The current practice is to refer the annual 
message to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
and order it printed (Jan. 14, 1969, p. 651). Executive communications 
submitted to implement the proposals con




Sec. 327. Selection of Chair of Committee of the 
Whole.

  * * *  They generally acquiesce in the chairman named by the Speaker; 
but, as well as all other committees, have a right to elect one, some 
member, by consent, putting the question, Scob., 36; 3 Grey, 301. * * *



  The House (by clause 1 of rule XVIII) gives the authority to appoint 
the chair of the Committee of the Whole to the Speaker (IV, 4704).




Sec. 328. Form of going into Committee of the 
Whole.

  * * *  The form of going from the House into committee, is for the 
Speaker, on motion, to put the question that the House do now resolve 
itself into a Committee of the Whole to take into consideration such a 
matter, naming it. If determined in the affirmative, he leaves the chair 
and takes a seat elsewhere, as any other Member; and the person 
appointed chairman seats himself at the Clerk's table. Scob., 36. * * *



  This is the form in the House, except that the chair of the Committee 
of the Whole sits in the Speaker's chair. Clause 1(b) of rule XVIII 
(former rule XXIII) was adopted to authorize the Speaker, and it is the 
modern practice, when no other business is pending, to declare the House 
resolved into the Committee to consider a measure at any time after the 
House has adopted a special order of business providing for 
consideration of such measure (and not require a motion), unless the 
resolution specifies otherwise (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34).


[[Page 163]]

port than to inform the House of the cause of their dissolution. * * *



Sec. 329. Quorum in Committee of the Whole.

  * * *  Their 
quorum is the same as that of the House; and if a defect happens, the 
chairman, on a motion and question, rises, the Speaker resumes the chair 
and the chairman can make no other re



  Until 1890 a quorum of the Committee of the Whole was the same as the 
quorum of the House; but in 1890 the rule (formerly clause 2 of rule 
XXIII, current clause 6 of rule XVIII) fixed it at one hundred (IV, 
2966). Clause 6 of rule XVIII provides the procedure that is followed in 
the Committee in case of failure of a quorum.




Sec. 330. Rising of Committee for reception of 
messages.

  * * *  If a message is announced during a committee, the Speaker 
takes the chair and receives it, because the committee can not. 2 Hats., 
125, 126.



  In the House, the Committee rises informally to receive a message, or 
to enable the Speaker to sign and lay before the House an enrolled bill, 
at the direction of the Chair without a formal motion from the floor 
(IV, 4786, footnote; Jan. 28, 1980, p. 888; Feb. 8, 1995, p. 4112); but 
at this rising the House may not have the message read or transact other 
business except by unanimous consent (IV, 4787-4791). However, it is the 
general custom for the Speaker to decline to entertain a unanimous-
consent request during an informal rising of the Committee (IV, 4789, 
Apr. 6, 2000, p. 4778).


[[Page 164]]

had happened in the grand committee, which was done. 3 Grey, 128.



Sec. 331. Quarrels in Committee of the Whole, and duty of 
the Speaker in relation thereto.

  In  a Committee of the Whole, the tellers 
on a division differing as to numbers, great heats and confusion arose, 
and danger of a decision by the sword. The Speaker took the chair, the 
mace was forcibly laid on the table; whereupon the Members retiring to 
their places, the Speaker told the House ``he has taken the chair 
without an order to bring the House into order.'' Some excepted against 
it; but it was generally approved as the only expedient to suppress the 
disorder. And every Member was required, standing up in his place, to 
engage that he would proceed no further in consequence of what


  In the House the Speaker has on several occasions taken the chair 
``without an order to bring the House into order'' (II, 1648-1653), but 
that being accomplished the Speaker may yield to the chair that the 
committee may rise in due form (II, 1349). In one instance, the Chair, 
having been defied and insulted by a Member, left the chair; and, on the 
chair being taken by the Speaker, he reported the facts to the House 
(II, 1653). In several cases Members who have quarreled have made 
explanation and reconciled their difficulties (II, 1651), or have been 
compelled by the House to apologize ``for violating its privilege and 
offending its dignity'' (II, 1648, 1650).




Sec. 332. Effect of breaking up of Committee of the Whole by 
disorder.

  A  Committee of the Whole being broken up in disorder, and the 
chair resumed by the Speaker without an order, the House was adjourned. 
The next day the committee was considered as thereby dissolved, and the 
subject again before the House; and it was decided in the House, without 
returning into committee. 3 Grey, 130.



  This provision is obsolete, because in the practice of the House there 
is but one Committee of the Whole, which is in its nature a standing 
committee with calendars of business. It is never dissolved, and bills 
remain on its calendar until reported in the regular manner after 
consideration (IV, 4705). After restoring order, the Speaker usually 
leaves the chair, thus permitting the committee later to rise in due 
form (II, 1349).


[[Page 165]]

put on their having leave, and on the time the House will again resolve 
itself into a committee. Scob., 38. But if they have gone through the 
matter <> referred to them, a member moves that the committee may 
rise, and the chairman report their proceedings to the House; which 
being resolved, the chairman rises, the Speaker resumes the chair, the 
chairman informs him that the committee have gone through the business 
referred to them, and that he is ready to make report when the House 
shall think proper to receive it. If the House have time to receive it, 
there is usually a cry of ``now, now,'' whereupon he makes the report; 
but if it be late, the cry is ``to-morrow, to-morrow,'' or ``Monday,'' 
etc., or a motion is made to that effect, and a question put that it be 
received to-morrow, &c. Scob., 38.



Sec. 333. Motions for previous question and to adjourn not 
used in Committee of the Whole.

  No  previous question can be put in a 
committee; nor can this committee adjourn as others may; but if their 
business is unfinished, they rise, on a question, the House is resumed, 
and the chairman reports that the Committee of the Whole have, according 
to order, had under their consideration such a matter, and have made 
progress therein; but not having had time to go through the same, have 
directed him to ask leave to sit again. Whereupon a question is



[[Page 166]]

after the Committee rises (May 19, 2016, p. _). For a further discussion 
of the motion to rise, see Sec. 983, infra.
  In the practice of the House the previous question and motion to 
adjourn are not admitted in the Committee of the Whole (e.g., June 12, 
2019, p. _); but the rules (clause 8 of rule XVIII) provide for closing 
five-minute debate by motion. When the Committee rises without 
concluding a matter the Chair reports that it ``has come to no 
resolution thereon''; but leave to sit again is not asked in the modern 
practice. The permission of the House is not asked when the Chair 
reports a matter concluded in Committee. The report is made and received 
as a matter of course, and is thereupon before the House for action. 
When the House has vested control of general debate in certain Members, 
their control may not be abrogated during general debate by another 
Member moving to rise, unless they yield for that purpose (May 25, 1967, 
p. 14121; June 10, 1999, p. 12471). A Member yielded time in general 
debate may not yield to another for such motion (Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2178; 
May 17, 2000, p. 8200). The motion is privileged during debate under the 
five-minute rule, and may be offered during debate on a pending 
amendment, except where a Member has the floor (Aug. 13, 1986, p. 21215; 
Mar. 22, 1995, p. 8770). The motion may not include restrictions on the 
amendment process or limitations on future debate on amendments (June 6, 
1990, p. 13234), is not debatable (May 17, 2000, p. 8203), may be 
withdrawn only by unanimous consent (June 12, 2019, p. _), and a demand 
for a recorded vote thereon is untimely



Sec. 335. Duties of Speaker and House as to reception of 
reports of Committee of the Whole.

  The  Speaker recognizes only reports 
from the Committee of the Whole made by the chair thereof (V, 6987), and 
a matter alleged to have arisen therein but not reported may not be 
brought to the attention of the House (VIII, 2429, 2430) even on the 
claim that a question of privilege is involved (IV, 4912; V, 6987), but 
the Speaker has responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding events 
occurring during an earlier vote in the Committee of the Whole by 
advising on a general principle of the operation of the electronic 
voting system (May 19, 2016, p. _). In one instance, however, the 
Committee reported with a bill a resolution relating to an alleged 
breach of privilege (V, 6986). When a bill is reported the Speaker must 
assume that it has passed through all the stages necessary for the 
report (IV, 4916). When the Committee reported not only what it had done 
but by whom it had been prevented from doing other things, the Speaker 
held that the House might not amend the report, which stood (IV, 4909). 
When an amendment is reported by the Committee it may not be withdrawn, 
and a question as to its validity is not considered by the Speaker (IV, 
4900). When a Committee, directed by order of the House to consider 
certain bills, reported also certain other bills, the Speaker held that 
so much of the report as related to the latter bills could be received 
only by unanimous consent (IV, 4911). When a report is ruled out as in 
excess of the Committee's power, the accompanying bill stands 
recommitted (IV, 4784, 4907). A former rule prohibited a Committee's 
report from being received in the absence of a quorum (VI, 666; clause 7 
of rule XX).



[[Page 167]]

on a rule (IV, 4904), requires amendments to be reported from the 
Committee in their perfected forms, and this holds good even in the case 
of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which may have been 
amended freely (IV, 4900-4903). If the Committee amends a paragraph and 
subsequently strikes the paragraph as amended, the first amendment 
fails, and is not reported to the House or voted on (IV, 4898; V, 6169; 
VIII, 2421, 2426), and when the Committee adopts two amendments that are 
subsequently deleted by an amendment striking and inserting new text, 
only the latter amendment is reported to the House (June 20, 1967, p. 
16497). Where two amendments proposing inconsistent motions to strike 
and insert a pending section are considered as separate first degree 
amendments (not one as a substitute for the other) before either is 
finally disposed of under a special procedure permitting the Chair to 
postpone requests for a recorded vote, the Chair's order of voting on 
the matter as unfinished business determines which amendment (if both 
were adopted) would be reported to the House (Aug. 6, 1998, pp. 19098-
107). Normally, if the Committee perfects a bill by adopting certain 
amendments and then adopts an amendment striking all after section one 
of the bill and inserting a new text, only the bill, as amended by the 
motion to strike and insert, is reported to the House; but when the bill 
is being considered under a special rule permitting a separate vote in 
the House on any of the amendments adopted in the Committee to the bill 
or to the committee substitute, all amendments adopted in the Committee 
are reported to the House regardless of their consistency (May 26, 1960, 
pp. 11302-04). Where a separate vote is demanded in this type of 
situation in the House only on an amendment striking a section of a 
committee substitute, but not on perfecting amendments that have been 
previously adopted in the Committee of the Whole to that section, 
rejection in the House of the motion to strike the section results in a 
vote on the committee substitute in its original form and not as 
perfected, because the perfecting amendments have been displaced in the 
Committee of the Whole and have not been revived on a separate vote in 
the House (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 13, 1977, pp. 33622-24). But if the 
Committee of the Whole reports a bill to the House with an adopted 
amendment in the nature of a substitute and the special order of 
business in question does not provide for separate House votes on 
amendments thereto, a separate vote may not be demanded on an amendment 
to such amendment, because only one amendment in its perfected form has 
been reported back to the House (Nov. 17, 1983, p. 33463).


Sec. 336. Amendments in Committee of the 
Whole.

  The Committee of the  Whole, like any other committee, may amend a proposition either 
by an ordinary amendment or by a substitute amendment (IV, 4899), but 
these amendments must be reported to the House for action. Amendments 
rejected by the Committee are not reported (IV, 4877). Ordinarily all 
amendments must be disposed of before the Committee may report (IV, 
4752-4758); but sometimes a special order of business requires a report 
at a specified time, in which case pending amendments are reported (IV, 
3225-3228) or not (IV, 4910) as the terms of the order may direct. In 
the 98th Congress, clause 2 of rule XXI was amended to give precedence 
to the motion that the Committee rise and report a general appropriation 
bill at the conclusion of its reading for amendment and before or 
between consideration of amendments proposing certain limitations or 
retrenchments (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). The 104th Congress 
further amended clause 2 to permit only the Majority Leader or a 
designee to offer that motion (sec. 215(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 
468). The 105th Congress elevated the Majority Leader's preferential 
motion in clause 2 to take precedence of any motion to amend at that 
stage (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). The practice of the House, 
based originally



[[Page 168]]

other (IV, 4905); and an entire and distinct amendment may not be 
divided, but must be voted on by the House as a whole (IV, 4883-4892; 
VIII, 2426). It is a frequent practice for the House by unanimous 
consent to act at once on all the amendments to a bill reported from the 
Committee, but it is the right of any Member to demand a separate vote 
on any amendment (IV, 4893, 4894; VIII, 2419) unless a special rule 
mandates that sundry amendments be put en gros (June 24, 2009, p. 
16147). Where a special rule permits en bloc consideration of certain 
amendments in the Committee, those amendments if reported back to the 
House may also be considered en bloc for a separate vote in the House on 
demand of any Member (Speaker O'Neill, Sept. 7, 1978, p. 28425). A 
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on an amendment to a 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole where the bill is being considered under a 
special rule permitting separate votes in the House on any of the 
amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or 
committee amendment (Sept. 30, 1971, p. 34337), but where a special rule 
``self-executes'' an amendment as a modification of an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to be considered as an original bill, that 
modification is not separately voted on upon demand in the House 
(Speaker Foley, Feb. 3, 1993, p. 2043). A Member may withdraw a demand 
for a separate vote in the House on an amendment reported from the 
Committee before the Speaker's putting the question thereon, and 
unanimous consent is not required (May 28, 1987, p. 14030). When demand 
is made for separate votes in the House on several amendments adopted in 
the Committee, the amendments are voted on in the House in the order in 
which they appear in the bill (July 24, 1968, pp. 23093-95; May 28, 
1987, p. 14030; June 11, 1997, p. 10654), except when amendments have 
been considered under a special rule prescribing the order for their 
consideration where the bill is considered as read, in which case they 
are voted on upon demand in the order in which considered in the 
Committee (Mar. 11, 1993, p. 4733; Mar. 25, 1993, pp. 6358, 6359). For 
automatic reconsideration in the House of amendments if the votes of 
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are decisive, see Sec.  985, 
infra.


Sec. 337. Committee of the Whole amendments in the 
House.

  All  amendments to a bill reported from the Committee of the Whole 
stand on an equal footing and must be voted on by the House (IV, 4871) 
in the order in which they are reported, although they may be 
inconsistent, one with another (IV, 4881, 4882), and are subject to 
amendment in the House unless the previous question is ordered (VIII, 
2419). Two amendments being reported as distinct were considered 
independently, although apparently one was a proviso attaching to the



[[Page 169]]

Committee is treated like any other amendment (V, 5341), and if the 
House rejects the substitute the original bill without amendment is 
before the House (VIII, 2426).
  Depending on the will of the House as expressed on the question of 
ordering the previous question (IV, 4895; V, 5794; VIII, 2419), when a 
bill is reported with amendments from the Committee of the Whole, it is 
in order to submit additional amendments after disposition of the 
Committee amendments (IV, 4872-4876). However, in modern practice the 
opportunity to submit amendments is normally foreclosed by the ordering 
of the previous question under a special rule. The fact that a 
proposition has been rejected by the Committee does not prevent it from 
being offered as an amendment when the subject comes up in the House 
(IV, 4878-4880; VIII, 2700). A substitute amendment may be offered to a 
bill reported from the Committee, and then the previous question may be 
ordered on the substitute, on all other amendments, and on the bill to 
final passage (V, 5472). An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
reported from the



Sec. 338. Bills from Committee of the Whole in the 
House.

  Where  a series of bills are reported from Committee of the Whole, the 
House considers them in the order in which they are reported (IV, 4869, 
4870; VIII, 2417). A proposition reported for action has precedence over 
an independent resolution on the same subject offered by a Member from 
the floor (V, 6986), and where a bill and a resolution relating to an 
alleged breach of privilege were reported together the question was put 
first on the bill (V, 6986). A bill read in full and considered in the 
Committee (IV, 3409, 3410), or presumed to have been so read (IV, 4916), 
is not read in full again in the House when reported and acted on. The 
chair of the Committee of the Whole who reports a bill does not become 
entitled to prior recognition for debate in the House (II, 1453); but on 
an adverse report an opponent is recognized to offer a motion for 
disposition of the bill (IV, 4897; VIII, 2430), or for debate (VII, 
2629). The recommendation of the Committee being before the House, the 
motion to carry out the recommendation is usually considered as pending 
without being offered from the floor (IV, 4896), but when a bill was 
reported with a recommendation that it lie on the table, a question was 
raised as to whether or not this motion, which prevents debate, should 
be considered as pending (IV, 4897). The House considers an amendment 
reported from the Committee to the preamble of a Senate joint resolution 
following disposition of amendments to the text and pending third 
reading (May 25, 1993, pp. 11036, 11037).




Sec. 339. Discharge of the Committee of the Whole.

  A  motion 
to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the consideration of a 
matter committed to it is not privileged as against a demand for the 
regular order (IV, 4917). When the Committee is discharged from 
consideration of a bill the House, in lieu of the report of the chair, 
accepts the minutes of the Clerk as evidence of amendments agreed to 
(IV, 4922).





Sec. 340. Application of House rules in Committee of the 
Whole.

    In other things the rules or proceedings are to be the same as 
in the House. Scob., 39.



[[Page 170]]




  The House provides by rule (clause 11 of rule XVIII) that the rules of 
proceeding in the House shall apply in the Committee of the Whole so far 
as they may be applicable.


                   sec. xiii--examination of witnesses




Sec. 341. Common fame as ground for 
investigation.

  Common  fame is a good ground for the House to proceed by 
inquiry, and even to accusation. Resolution House of Commons, 1 Car., 1, 
1625; Rush, L. Parl., 115; Grey, 16-22, 92; 8 Grey, 21, 23, 27, 45.



  In the House common fame has been held sufficient to justify procedure 
for inquiry (III, 2701), as in a case wherein it was stated on the 
authority of common rumor that a Member had been menaced (III, 2678). 
The House also has voted to investigate with a view to impeachment on 
the basis of common fame, as in the cases of Judges Chase (III, 2342), 
Humphreys (III, 2385), and Durell (III, 2506).




Sec. 342. The production of witnesses at an 
inquiry.

    Witnesses are not to be produced but where the House has 
previously instituted an inquiry, 2 Hats., 102, nor then are orders for 
their attendance given blank. 3 Grey, 51.



[[Page 171]]

emergency (sec. 4(f), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. 
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Under section 2954 of title 5, United 
States Code, an executive agency, if so requested by the Committee on 
Government Operations (now Oversight and Reform), or any seven members 
thereof, shall submit any information requested of it relating to any 
matter within the jurisdiction of the committee.

  In the House witnesses are summoned in pursuance and by virtue of the 
authority conferred on a committee by the House to send for persons and 
papers (III, 1750). Even in cases wherein the rules give to certain 
committees the authority to investigate without securing special 
permission, authority must be obtained before the production of 
testimony may be compelled (IV, 4316). Subpoenas issued by order of the 
House are signed by the Speaker (clause 4 of rule I) and attested and 
sealed by the Clerk (clause 2 of rule II). In clause 2(m) of rule XI the 
House has authorized any committee or subcommittee to issue a subpoena 
when authorized by a majority of the members of the committee or 
subcommittee voting, a majority being present. A committee may also 
delegate the authority to issue subpoenas to the chair of a full 
committee. Authorized subpoenas are signed by the chair of the committee 
or by any other member designated by the committee. Sometimes the House 
authorizes issue of subpoenas during a recess of Congress and empowers 
the Speaker to sign them (III, 1806), and in one case the two Houses, by 
concurrent resolution, empowered the Vice President and Speaker to sign 
during a recess (III, 1763). See McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 
(1927); Barry v. U.S. ex rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 (1929); Sinclair 
v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929). During the 116th and 117th 
Congresses, the House authorized electronic signature of subpoenas and 
electronic attestation and affixation of a seal by the Clerk during the 
pendency of a designated public health




Sec. 343. Examination of witnesses in the House and in 
committee.

  When  any person is examined before a committee or at the bar of 
the House, any Member wishing to ask the person a question must address 
it to the Speaker or chairman, who repeats the question to the person, 
or says to him, ``You hear the question--answer it.'' But if the 
propriety of the question be objected to, the Speaker directs the 
witness, counsel, and parties to withdraw; for no question can be moved 
or put or debated while they are there. 2 Hats., 108. Sometimes the 
questions are previously settled in writing before the witness enters. 
Ib., 106, 107; 8 Grey, 64. The questions asked must be entered in the 
Journal. 3 Grey, 81. But the testimony given in answer before the House 
is never written down; but before a committee, it must be, for the 
information of the House, who are not present to hear it. 7 Grey, 52, 
334.



[[Page 172]]

swers of record for report to the House. To sustain a conviction of 
perjury, a quorum of a committee must be in attendance when the 
testimony is given. Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84 (1949). 
Certain criminal statutes make it a felony to give perjurious testimony 
before a congressional committee (18 U.S.C. 1621), to intimidate 
witnesses before committees (18 U.S.C. 1505), or to make false 
statements in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, 
legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States 
(18 U.S.C. 1001).
  The Committee of the Whole of the House was charged with an 
investigation in 1792, but the procedure was wholly exceptional (III, 
1804), although a statute still empowers the chair of the Committee of 
the Whole, as well as the Speaker, chairs of select or standing 
committees, and Members to administer oaths to witnesses (2 U.S.C. 191; 
III, 1769). Most inquiries, in the modern practice, are conducted by 
select or standing committees, and these in each case determine how they 
will conduct examinations (III, 1773, 1775). Clause 2(k) of rule XI, 
contains provisions governing certain procedures at hearings by 
committees (Sec. 803, infra). In one case a committee permitted a Member 
of the House not of the committee to examine a witness (III, 2403) and 
the modern practice is to allow non-committee members to participate by 
unanimous consent. Usually these investigations are reported 
stenographically, thus making the questions and an

  Another provision of the Federal criminal code (18 U.S.C. 6005) 
provides for ``use'' immunity for certain witnesses before either House 
or committees thereof.




Sec. 344. Earlier and later practice as to inquiries at 
the bar of the House.

  The  House, in its earlier years, arraigned and tried 
at its bar persons, not Members, charged with violation of its 
privileges, as in the cases of Randall, Whitney (II, 1599-1603), 
Anderson (II, 1606), and Houston (II, 1616); but in the case of Woods, 
charged with breach of privilege in 1870 (II, 1626-1628), the respondent 
was arraigned before the House, but was heard in his defense by counsel 
and witnesses before a standing committee. At the conclusion of that 
investigation the respondent was brought to the bar of the House while 
the House voted his punishment (II, 1628). The House also has arraigned 
at its bar contumacious witnesses before taking steps to punish by its 
own action or through the courts (III, 1685). In examinations at its bar 
the House has adopted forms of procedure as to questions (II, 1633; III, 
1768), providing that they be asked through the Speaker (II, 1602, 1606) 
or by a committee (II, 1617; III, 1668). And the questions to be asked 
have been drawn up by a committee, even when put by the Speaker (II, 
1633). In the earlier practice the answer of a witness at the bar was 
not written down (IV, 2874); but in the later practice the answers 
appear in the journal (III, 1668). The person at the bar withdraws while 
the House passes on an incidental question (II, 1633; III, 1768). See 
McGrain v. Dougherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); Barry v. U.S. ex rel. 
Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 (1929); Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 
(1935).




Sec. 345. Procuring attendance of a witness in custody of 
the other House.

  If  either House have occasion for the presence of a 
person in custody of the other, they ask the other their leave that he 
may be brought up to them in custody. 3 Hats., 52.




[[Page 173]]




Sec. 346. Members as witnesses.

  A  Member, in his place, 
gives information to the House of what he knows of any matter under 
hearing at the bar. Jour. H. of C., Jan. 22, 1744-5.



  At an examination at the bar of the House in 1795 both the written 
information given by Members and their verbal testimony were required to 
be under oath (II, 1602). In a case not of actual examination at the 
bar, but wherein the House was deliberating on a proposition to order 
investigation, it demanded by resolution that certain Members produce 
papers and information (III, 1726, 1811). Members often give testimony 
before committees of investigation, and in at least one case the Speaker 
has thus appeared (III, 1776). But in a case wherein a committee 
summoned a Member to testify as to a statement made by him in debate he 
protested that it was an invasion of his constitutional privilege (III, 
1777, 1778; see also H. Rept. 67-1372, and Jan. 25, 1923, pp. 2415-23). 
In one instance the chair of an investigating committee administered the 
oath to himself and testified (III, 1821). The House, in an inquiry 
preliminary to an impeachment trial, gave leave to its managers to 
examine Members, and leave to its Members to attend for the purpose 
(III, 2033).




Sec. 347. Method of obtaining testimony of a Member of 
the other House.

  Either  House may request, but not command, the attendance of 
a Member of the other. They are to make the request by message of the 
other House, and to express clearly the purpose of attendance, that no 
improper subject of examination may be tendered to him. The House then 
gives leave to the Member to attend, if he choose it; waiting first to 
know from the Member himself whether he chooses to attend, till which 
they do not take the message into consideration. But when the peers are 
sitting as a court of criminal judicature, they may order attendance, 
unless where it be a case of impeachment by the Commons. There it is to 
be a request. 3 Hats., 17; 9 Grey, 306, 406; 10 Grey, 133.



[[Page 174]]

In one case, after a Senator had neglected to respond either to an 
invitation or a subpoena the House requested of the Senate his 
attendance and the Senate disregarded the request (III, 1794). Where 
Senators have responded to invitations of House committees, their 
testimony has been taken without obtaining consent of the Senate (III, 
1793, 1795, footnote).

  The House and the Senate have observed this rule; but it does not 
appear that they have always made public ascertainment of the 
willingness of the Member to attend (III, 1790, 1791). In one case the 
Senate laid aside pending business in order to comply with the request 
of the House (III, 1791). In several instances House committees, after 
their invitations to Senators to appear and testify had been 
disregarded, have issued subpoenas. In such cases the Senators have 
either disregarded the subpoenas, refused to obey them, or have appeared 
under protest (III, 1792, 1793).




Sec. 348. Admission of counsel.

  Counsel  are to be heard only 
on private, not on public, bills and on such points of law only as the 
House shall direct. 10 Grey, 61.


  In 1804 the House admitted the counsel of certain corporations to 
address the House on pending matters of legislation (V, 7298), and in 
1806 voted that a claimant might be heard at the bar (V, 7299); but in 
1808, after consideration, the House by a large majority declined to 
follow again the precedent of 1804 (V, 7300). In early years counsel in 
election cases were heard at the bar at the discretion of the House (I, 
657, 709, 757, 765); but in 1836, after full discussion, the practice 
was abandoned (I, 660), and, with one exception in 1841 (I, 659), has 
not been revived, even for the case of a contestant who could not speak 
the English language (I, 661). Counsel appear before committees in 
election cases, however. Where witnesses and others have been arraigned 
at the bar of the House for contempt, the House has usually permitted 
counsel (II, 1601, 1616; III, 1667), sometimes under conditions (II, 
1604, 1616); but in a few cases has declined the request (II, 1608; III, 
1666, footnote). In investigations before committees counsel usually 
have been admitted (III, 1741, 1846, 1847), sometimes even to assist a 
witness (III, 1772), and clause 2(k)(3) of rule XI now provides that 
witnesses at hearings may be accompanied by their own counsel for the 
purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights 
(Sec. 803, infra). In examinations preliminary to impeachment counsel 
usually have been admitted (III, 1736, 2470, 2516) unless in cases 
wherein such proceedings were ex parte. During impeachment 
investigations against Presidents Nixon, Clinton, and Trump, the 
Committee on the Judiciary admitted counsel to the President to be 
present, to make presentations and to examine witnesses during 
investigatory hearings (H. Rept. 93-1305, Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219; H. 
Rept. 105-830, Dec. 16, 1998, p. 27819; H. Rept. 116-346, Dec. 15, 2019, 
p. _). Counsel for President Trump did not formally participate during 
the impeachment investigation (H. Rept. 116-346, Dec. 15, 2019, p. _).


[[Page 175]]




  At one time the House required all counsel or agents representing 
persons or corporations before committees to be registered with the 
Clerk (III, 1771). The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 requires all 
lobbyists to register with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of 
the Senate (2 U.S.C. 1603).


                    sec. xiv--arrangement of business



Sec. 349. Advantages of an order of business.

  The  Speaker is 
not precisely bound to any rules as to what bills or other matter shall 
be first taken up; but it is left to his own discretion, unless the 
House on a question decide to take up a particular subject. Hakew., 136.


  A settled order of business is, however, necessary for the government 
of the presiding person, and to restrain individual Members from calling 
up favorite measures, or matters under their special patronage, out of 
their just turn. It is useful also for directing the discretion of the 
House, when they are moved to take up a particular matter, to the 
prejudice of others, having priority of right to their attention in the 
general order of business.
* * * * *


  In this way we do not waste our time in debating what shall be taken 
up. We do one thing at a time; follow up a subject while it is fresh, 
and till it is done with; clear the House of business gradatim as it is 
brought on, and prevent, to a certain degree, its immense accumulation 
toward the close of the session.

  Jefferson gave as a part of his comment on the law of Parliament the 
order of business in the Senate in his time. Both in the House and 
Senate the order of business has been changed to meet the needs of the 
times. The order of business now followed in the House is established by 
rule XIV; and this rule, with the rules supplemental thereto, take away 
to a very large extent the discretion exercised by the Speaker under the 
parliamentary law.


[[Page 176]]

of rules and election of committees a bill of major importance 
(providing relief in the existing national emergency in banking), 
following a message from the President recommending its immediate 
passage (Mar. 9, 1933, pp. 75-84).

  In the House before committees are appointed it is in order to offer a 
bill or resolution for consideration not previously considered by a 
committee (VII, 2103). In the 73d Congress, the House passed before the 
adoption




Sec. 350. Conditions of the old and the modern 
orders of business.

  Arrangement,  however, can only take hold of matters in 
possession of the House. New matter may be moved at any time when no 
question is before the House. Such are original motions and reports on 
bills. Such are bills from the other House, which are received at all 
times, and receive their first reading as soon as the question then 
before the House is disposed of; and bills brought in on leave, which 
are read first whenever presented. So messages from the other House 
respecting amendments to bills are taken up as soon as the House is 
clear of a question, unless they require to be printed, for better 
consideration. Orders of the day may be called for, even when another 
question is before the House.






  In Jefferson's time the principles of this comment would have applied 
to both House and Senate; but in the House the order of business may be 
interrupted at the will of the majority only by certain specified 
matters (see annotations following rule XIV). For matters not thus 
specified, interruption of the order takes place only by unanimous 
consent. For a discussion of the Speaker's policy of conferring 
recognition for such unanimous-consent requests, see Sec. 956, infra.


* * * * *
                             sec. xv--order



[[Page 177]]




Sec. 351. Precedent in Parliament and the 
House.

  In  Parliament, ``instances make order,'' per Speaker Onslow. 2 
Hats., 141. But what is done only by one Parliament, cannot be called 
custom of Parliament, by Prynne. 1 Grey, 52.






  In the House the Clerk is required to note all questions of order and 
the decisions thereon and print the record thereof as an appendix to the 
Journal (clause 2 of rule II). The Parliamentarian has the 
responsibility for compiling and updating the precedents (2 U.S.C. 28). 
The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 gave the Speaker the 
responsibility to prepare an updated compilation of such precedents 
every two years (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The 
Speaker feels constrained in rulings to give precedent its proper 
influence (II, 1317), because the advantage of such a course is 
undeniable (IV, 4045). But decisions of the Speakers on questions of 
order are not like judgments of courts that conclude the rights of 
parties, but may be reexamined and reversed (IV, 4637), except on 
discretionary matters of recognition (II, 1425). It is rare, however, 
that such a reversal occurs.


                    sec. xvi--order respecting papers



Sec. 352. Safekeeping of papers and integrity of 
bills.

  The  Clerk is to let no journals, records, accounts, or papers be 
taken from the table or out of his custody. 2 Hats., 193, 194.


  Mr. Prynne, having at a Committee of the Whole amended a mistake in a 
bill without order or knowledge of the committee, was reprimanded. 1 
Chand., 77.

  A bill being missing, the House resolved that a protestation should be 
made and subscribed by the members ``before Almighty God, and this 
honorable House, that neither myself, nor any other to my knowledge, 
have taken away, or do at this present conceal a bill entitled,'' &c. 5 
Grey, 202.


  After a bill is engrossed, it is put into the Speaker's hands, and he 
is not to let any one have it to look into. Town, col. 209.


[[Page 178]]

bill or resolution which has received the sanction of this body'' (III, 
2598). Alleged abuse of power in the processing and enrollment of bills 
has formed the basis of questions of privilege (Feb. 16, 2006, p. 1948; 
May 22, 2008, p. 10522). Although engrossing papers must be at the desk, 
additional copies of a pending measure are not required (June 26, 2009, 
pp. 16698-700). The Clerk signs engrossments; the Speaker signs 
enrollments (1 U.S.C. 106).




  In the House an alleged improper alteration of a bill was presented as 
a question of privilege and examined by a select committee. It being 
ascertained that the alteration was made to correct a clerical error, 
the committee reported that it was ``highly censurable in any Member or 
officer of the House to make any change, even the most unimportant, in 
any


                       sec. xvii--order in debate




Sec. 353. Decorum of Members as to sitting in their 
places.

    When the Speaker is seated in his chair, every member is to 
sit in his place. Scob., 6; Grey, 403.



  In the House the decorum of Members is regulated by rule XVII; and 
this provision of the parliamentary law is practically obsolete.




Sec. 354. Procedure of the Member in seeking 
recognition.

  When  any Member means to speak, he is to stand up in his 
place, uncovered, and to address himself, not to the House, or any 
particular Member, but to the Speaker, who calls him by his name, that 
the House may take notice who it is that speaks. Scob., 6; D'Ewes, 487, 
col. 1; 2 Hats., 77; 4 Grey, 66; 8 Grey, 108. But Members who are 
indisposed may be indulged to speak sitting. 2 Hats., 75, 77; 1 Grey, 
143.



  This provision has been superseded by clause 1 of rule XVII, which was 
amended in the 115th Congress to remove a requirement that a Member rise 
to seek recognition (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). As long 
ago as 1832, at least, Members were not required to seek recognition 
from their own particular seats (V, 4979, footnote), and seats are no 
longer assigned. In addition, the Speaker calls the Member, not by name, 
but as ``the gentleman or gentlewoman from __,'' (naming the State).



[[Page 179]]




Sec. 355. Conditions under which a Member's right to the 
floor is subjected to the will of the House.

    When a Member stands up 
to speak, no question is to be put, but he is to be heard unless the 
House overrule him. 4 Grey, 390; 5 Grey, 6, 143.



  Except as provided in clause 4 of rule XVII, no question is put as to 
the right of a Member to the floor.



Sec. 356. The parliamentary law as to recognition by the 
Speaker.

  If  two or more rise to speak nearly together, the Speaker 
determines who was first up, and calls him by name, whereupon he 
proceeds, unless he voluntarily sits down and gives way to the other. 
But sometimes the House does not acquiesce in the Speaker's decision, in 
which case the question is put, ``which Member was first up?'' 2 Hats., 
76; Scob., 7; D'Ewes, 434, col. 1, 2.



  In the Senate of the United States the President's decision is without 
appeal.


  In the House recognition by the Chair is governed by clause 2 of rule 
XVII and the practice thereunder. There has been no appeal from a 
decision by the Speaker on a question of recognition since 1881, on 
which occasion Speaker Randall stated that the power of recognition is 
``just as absolute in the Chair as the judgment of the Supreme Court of 
the United States is absolute as to the interpretation of the law'' (II, 
1425-1428), and in the later practice no appeal is permitted (VIII, 
2429, 2646, 2762).



Sec. 357. Right of the Member to be heard a second 
time.

  No  man may speak more than once on the same bill on the same day; 
or even on another day, if the debate be adjourned. But if it be read 
more than once in the same day, he may speak once at every reading. Co., 
12, 115; Hakew., 148; Scob., 58; 2 Hats., 75. Even a change of opinion 
does not give a right to be heard a second time. Smyth's Comw. L., 2, c. 
3; Arcan, Parl., 17.



[[Page 180]]

morials in Hakew., 29; or to the orders of the House, if they be 
transgressed, keeping within that line, and not falling into the matter 
itself. Mem. Hakew., 30, 31.

  But he may be permitted to speak again to clear a matter of fact, 3 
Grey, 357, 416; or merely to explain himself, 2 Hats., 73, in some 
material part of his speech, Ib., 75; or to the manner or words of the 
question, keeping himself to that only, and not traveling into the 
merits of it, Me


  The House has modified the parliamentary law as to a Member's right to 
speak a second time by clause 3 of rule XVII and by permitting a Member 
controlling time in debate to yield to another more than once (Apr. 5, 
2000, p. 4497; Oct. 18, 2007, p. 27575). In ordinary practice rule XVII 
is not rigidly enforced, and Members find little difficulty in making 
such explanations as are contemplated by the parliamentary law. See 
Sec. Sec. 959, 981, infra.




Sec. 358. Participation of the Speaker in debate.

  But  if the 
Speaker rise to speak, the Member standing up ought to sit down, that he 
may be first heard. Town., col. 205; Hale Parl., 133; Mem. in Hakew., 
30, 31. Nevertheless, though the Speaker may of right speak to matters 
of order, and be first heard, he is restrained from speaking on any 
other subject, except where the House have occasion for facts within his 
knowledge; then he may, with their leave, state the matter of fact. 3 
Grey, 38.




[[Page 181]]


  This provision is usually observed in the practice of the House only 
with regard to the conduct of the Speaker when in the chair. In several 
instances the Speaker has been permitted by the House to make a 
statement from the chair, as in a case wherein his past conduct had been 
criticized (II, 1369), in a case wherein there had been unusual 
occurrences in the joint session to count the electoral vote (II, 1372; 
Jan. 6, 2021, p. _), and in a matter relating to a contest for the seat 
of the Speaker as a Member (II, 1360). In rare instances the Speaker has 
made brief explanations from the chair without asking the assent of the 
House (II, 1373, 1374). Speakers have called others to the chair and 
participated in debate, usually without asking consent of the House (II, 
1360, 1367, footnote, 1368, 1371; III, 1950), and in one case a Speaker 
on the floor debated a point of order that the Speaker pro tempore was 
to decide (V, 6097). In rare instances Speakers have left the chair to 
make motions on the floor (II, 1367, footnote). Speakers may participate 
in debate in the Committee of the Whole, although the privilege was 
rarely exercised in early practice (II, 1367, footnote).




Sec. 359. Impertinent, superfluous, or tedious 
speaking.

  No  one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, 
superfluous, or tediously. Scob., 31, 33; 2 Hats., 166, 168; Hale Parl., 
133.



  The House, by clause 1 of rule XVII, provides that remarks must be 
confined to the question under debate, but neither by rule nor practice 
has the House suppressed superfluous or tedious speaking, its hour rule 
(clause 2 of rule XVII) being a sufficient safeguard in this respect.




Sec. 360. Language reflecting on the House.

  No  person is to 
use indecent language against the proceedings of the House; no prior 
determination of which is to be reflected on by any Member, unless he 
means to conclude with a motion to rescind it. 2 Hats., 169, 170; 
Rushw., p. 3, v. 1, fol. 42. But while a proposition under consideration 
is still in fieri, though it has even been reported by a committee, 
reflections on it are no reflections on the House. 9 Grey, 508.



  In the practice of the House it has been held out of order in debate 
to cast reflections on either the House or its membership or its 
decisions, whether present or past (V, 5132-5138). A Member who had used 
offensive words against the character of the House, and who declined to 
explain, was censured (II, 1247). Words impeaching the loyalty of a 
portion of the membership have also been ruled out (V, 5139). Where a 
Member reiterated on the floor certain published charges against the 
House, action was taken, although other business had intervened, the 
question being considered one of privilege (III, 2637). It has been held 
inappropriate and not in order in debate to refer to the proceedings of 
a committee except such as have been formally reported to the House (V, 
5080-5083; VIII, 2269, 2485-2493; June 24, 1958, pp. 12120, 12122), but 
this rule does not apply to the proceedings of a committee of a previous 
Congress (Feb. 2, 1914, p. 2782), and the rationale for this limitation 
on debate is in part obsolete under the modern practice of the House 
insofar as the doctrine is applied to open committee meetings and 
hearings.


[[Page 182]]

House, or who spoke last, or on the other side of the question, &c., 
Mem. in Hakew., 3; Smyth's Comw., L. 2, c. 3; nor to digress from the 
matter to fall upon the person, Scob., 31; Hale Parl., 133; 2 Hats., 
166, by speaking reviling, nipping, or unmannerly words against a 
particular Member. Smyth's Comw., L. 2, c. 3. * * *



Sec. 361. Personalities in debate forbidden.

  No  person, in 
speaking, is to mention a Member then present by his name, but to 
describe him by his seat in the


  In the practice of the House, a Member is not permitted to refer to 
another Member by name (V, 5144; VIII, 2526, 2529, 2536), or to address 
a Member in the second person (V, 5140-5143; VI, 600; VIII, 2529; 
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, p. 2554; Speaker Ryan, June 23, 2017, p. _). The proper 
reference to another Member is ``the gentleman or gentlewoman from __,'' 
(naming the Member's State) (June 14, 1978, p. 17615; July 21, 1982, p. 
17314). A mere reference to a Member's voting record does not form a 
basis for a point of order against those remarks (June 13, 2002, p. 
10226, p. 10232).

  By rule of the House (clause 1 of rule XVII), as well as by 
parliamentary law, personalities are forbidden (V, 4979, 5145, 5163, 
5169), whether against the Member in the Member's capacity as 
Representative or otherwise (V, 5152, 5153), even if the references may 
be relevant to the pending question (Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25778). The 
House has censured a Member for gross personalities (II, 1251). The 
Chair may intervene to prevent improper references if it is evident that 
a particular Member is being described (Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27077).

  The Chair does not rule on the veracity of a statement made by a 
Member in debate (Apr. 9, 1997, p. 4926; Sept. 26, 2008, p. 22085). 
Although accusing another Member of deceit engages in personality, 
merely accusing another Member of making a mistake does not (V, 5157; 
Oct. 26, 2000, p. 24921).


[[Page 183]]

of another Member (Mar. 21, 2007, p. 7074); (9) labeling the remarks of 
a Member ``hypocritical and dishonest'' (Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045).
  Clause 1 of rule XVII has been held to proscribe: (1) referring to an 
identifiable group of sitting Members as having committed a crime (e.g., 
stealing an election or obstructing justice) (Feb. 27, 1985, p. 3898; 
Speaker Wright, Mar. 21, 1989, p. 5016; May 19, 1998, p. 9738; July 15, 
2004, p. 15859); (2) referring in a personally critical manner to the 
political tactics of the Speaker or other Members (June 25, 1981, p. 
14056); (3) referring to a particular Member of the House in a 
derogatory fashion (Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27077); (4) characterizing a Member 
as ``the most impolite Member'' (June 27, 1996, p. 15915) or ``mean-
spirited'' (May 13, 1992, p. 11235); (5) questioning the integrity of a 
Member (July 25, 1996, p. 19170); (6) denouncing the spirit in which a 
Member had spoken (V, 6981); (7) using a Member's surname as though an 
adjective for a word of ridicule (June 13, 2002, p. 10232; May 13, 2008, 
p. 8923); (8) questioning the decency

  A distinction has been drawn between general language, which 
characterizes a measure or the political motivations behind a measure, 
and personalities (V, 5153, 5163, 5169). Although remarks in debate may 
not include personal attacks against a Member or an identifiable group 
of Members, they may address political motivations for legislative 
positions (Jan. 24, 1995, p. 2214; Mar. 8, 1995, pp. 7307, 7308; Nov. 
17, 1995, p. 33832; June 13, 1996, p. 14043; July 16, 2008, p. 15273). 
For example, references to ``down-in-the-dirt gutter politics'' and 
``you people are going to pay'' were held not to be personal references 
(Nov. 14, 1995, p. 32388). Similarly, characterizing a pending measure 
as a ``patently petty political terrorist tactic'' was held in order as 
a reference to the pending measure rather than to the motive or 
character of the measure's proponent (Nov. 9, 1995, p. 31413). The Chair 
also has held in order a general reference that ``big donors'' receive 
``access to leadership power and decisions'' because the reference did 
not identify a specific Member as engaging in an improper quid pro quo 
(Apr. 9, 1997, p. 4926). A general statement seeming to invoke racial 
stereotypes but not in a context so inflammatory as to constitute a 
breach of decorum, was held not unparliamentary (Apr. 9, 2003, p. 9005 
(sustained by tabling of appeal)). Likewise, a general statement linking 
politics with armed conflict in an impersonal way was held not to breach 
decorum (Oct. 18, 2007, p. 27578).

  A Member may not read in debate extraneous material critical of 
another Member that would be improper if spoken in the Member's own 
words (May 25, 1995, pp. 14436, 14437; Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22898). Thus, 
words in a telegram read in debate that repudiated the ``lies and half-
truths'' of a House committee report were ruled out of order as 
reflecting on the integrity of committee members (June 16, 1947, p. 
7065), and unparliamentary references in debate to newspaper accounts 
used in support of a Member's personal criticism of another Member were 
similarly ruled out of order (Feb. 25, 1985, p. 3346).


[[Page 184]]

as a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX does not 
render a resolution ``pending'' and thereby permit references to conduct 
of a Member proposed to be addressed therein (Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23811).
  A Member should refrain from references in debate to the official 
conduct of a Member if such conduct is not the subject then pending 
before the House by way of either a report of the Committee on Ethics or 
another question of the privileges of the House (see, e.g., July 24, 
1990, p. 18917; Mar. 19, 1992, p. 6078; May 25, 1995, pp. 14434-37; 
Sept. 19, 1995, pp. 25454, 25455; Apr. 27, 2005, p. 8049); and, although 
such references are ordinarily enforced by the Chair in response to a 
point of order, the Chair may take the initiative in order to maintain 
proper decorum (Apr. 1, 1992, p. 7899; June 17, 2004, p. 12748). This 
stricture also precludes a Member from reciting news articles discussing 
a Member's conduct (Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24318), reciting the content of a 
previously tabled resolution raising a question of the privileges of the 
House (Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33853; Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23855), or even 
referring to a Member's conduct by mere insinuation (Sept. 12, 1996, p. 
22899). Notice of an intention to offer a resolution

  The stricture against references to a Member's conduct not then 
pending before the House applies to the conduct of all sitting Members 
(Apr. 1, 1992, p. 7899), including conduct that has previously been 
resolved by the Committee on Ethics or the House (Sept. 24, 1996, pp. 
24483, 24485; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.7). This stricture 
does not apply to the conduct of a former Member, provided the reference 
is not made in an attempt to compare the conduct of a former Member with 
the conduct of a sitting Member (Sept. 20, 1995, pp. 25825, 25826; Sept. 
12, 1996, pp. 22900, 22901).

  Debate on a pending privileged resolution recommending disciplinary 
action against a Member may necessarily involve personalities. However, 
clause 1 of rule XVII still prohibits the use of language that is 
personally abusive (see, e.g., July 31, 1979, p. 21584; Jan. 21, 1997, 
p. 393) and the Chair may take the initiative to prevent violations of 
the rule (July 24, 2002, p. 14300). Furthermore, during the actual 
pendency of such a resolution, a Member may discuss a prior case 
reported to the House by the Committee on Ethics for the purpose of 
comparing the severity of the sanction recommended in that case with the 
severity of the sanction recommended in the pending case, provided that 
the Member does not identify, or discuss the details of the past conduct 
of, a sitting Member (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36271).

  In addition to the prohibition against addressing a Member's conduct 
when it is not actually pending before the House, the Speaker has 
advised that Members should refrain from references in debate (1) to the 
motivations of a Member who filed a complaint before the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) (June 15, 1988, p. 14623; 
July 6, 1988, p. 16630; Mar. 22, 1989, p. 5130; May 2, 1989, p. 7735; 
Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27077); (2) to personal criticism of a member of the 
committee (Apr. 1, 1992, p. 7899; Mar. 3, 1995, p. 6715; Sept. 19, 1996, 
p. 23812; Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24317); (3) to an investigation undertaken 
by the committee, including suggestion of a course of action (Mar. 3, 
1995, p. 6715; Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24317; Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25778) or 
advocacy of an interim status report by the committee (Sept. 12, 1996, 
p. 22900; Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25778).

  For precedents applicable to references in debate to the President, 
see Sec. 370, infra, or Members of the Senate, see Sec. 371, infra.


[[Page 185]]

565). In the 104th Congress the Chair reaffirmed that it is not in order 
to speak disrespectfully of the Speaker, and that under the precedents 
the sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary requirements 
for timeliness of challenges (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 552; Jan. 19, 
1995, p. 1599). It is not in order to arraign the personal conduct of 
the Speaker (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.6; Jan. 19, 1995, p. 
1601). For example, it is not in order to charge dishonesty or disregard 
of the rules (July 11, 1985, p. 18550), to reflect on his patriotism by 
accusing him of ``kowtowing'' to persons who would desecrate the flag 
(June 20, 1990, p. 14877), to refer to him as a ``crybaby'' (Nov. 16, 
1995, p. 33394), or to refer to official conduct of the Speaker that has 
previously been resolved by the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct (now Ethics) or the House (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 6.7). The Chair may take the initiative to admonish Members for 
references in debate that disparage the Speaker (June 25, 1981, p. 
14056; Mar. 22, 1996, p. 6077; May 13, 2008, p. 8923). Debate on a 
resolution authorizing the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the 
rules may not engage in personality by discussing the official conduct 
of the Speaker, even if possibly relevant to the question of empowerment 
of the Speaker (Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24485).



Sec. 362. Criticism of the Speaker.

  Complaint  of the conduct 
of the Speaker should be presented directly for the action of the House 
and not by way of debate on other matters (V, 5188). In a case wherein a 
Member used words insulting to the Speaker the House on a subsequent 
day, and after other business had intervened, censured the offender (II, 
1248). In such a case the Speaker would ordinarily leave the chair while 
action should be taken by the House (II, 1366; V, 5188; VI,





Sec. 363. Motives of Members not to be arraigned.

  * * *  The 
consequences of a measure may be reprobated in strong terms; but to 
arraign the motives of those who propose to advocate it is a 
personality, and against order. Qui digreditur a materia ad personam, 
Mr. Speaker ought to suppress. Ord. Com., 1604, Apr. 19.



[[Page 186]]

of its proponent (Nov. 9, 1995, p. 31913). Although in debate the 
assertion of one Member may be declared untrue by another, in so doing 
an intentional misrepresentation must not be implied (V, 5157-5160), and 
if stated or implied is censurable (II, 1305). A Member in debate having 
declared the words of another ``a base lie,'' censure was inflicted by 
the House on the offender (II, 1249).

  The arraignment of the motives of Members is not permitted (V, 5147-
51; Dec. 13, 1973, p. 41270), and Speakers have intervened to prevent 
it, in the earlier practice preventing even mildest imputations (V, 
5161, 5162). However, remarks in debate may address political, but not 
personal, motivations for legislative positions (Jan. 24, 1995, p. 2214; 
Mar. 8, 1995, pp. 7307, 7308; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33832; June 13, 1996, p. 
14043) or for committee membership (July 10, 1995, pp. 18257-59). 
Accusing another Member of hypocrisy has been held not in order (July 
24, 1979, p. 20380; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9675; Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045), and 
characterizing the motivation of a Member in offering an amendment as 
deceptive and hypocritical was ruled out of order (June 12, 1979, p. 
14461). A statement in debate that an amendment could only be demagogic 
or racist because only demagoguery or racism impelled such an amendment 
was ruled out of order as impugning the motives of the Member offering 
the amendment (Dec. 13, 1973, pp. 41270, 41271). However, debate 
characterizing a pending measure as a ``patently petty political 
terrorist tactic'' was held in order as directed at the pending measure 
rather than the motive or the character




Sec. 364. Disorder and interruptions during debate.

  No  one 
is to disturb another in his speech by hissing, coughing, spitting, 6 
Grey, 322; Scob., 8; D'Ewes, 332, col. 1, 640, col. 2, speaking or 
whispering to another, Scob., 6; D'Ewes, 487, col. 1; nor stand up to 
interrupt him, Town, col. 205; Mem. in Hakew., 31; nor to pass between 
the Speaker and the speaking Member, nor to go across the House, Scob., 
6, or to walk up and down it, or to take books or papers from the table, 
or write there, 2 Hats., 171, p. 170.



[[Page 187]]

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). Hissing and jeering is not proper decorum in the 
House (May 21, 1998, p. 10282). In the event of disorder in the well, 
the Chair may ask Members to uphold the dignity and decorum of the House 
so that business can be conducted in an orderly fashion (Speaker Ryan, 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.1) or may order that the well be 
cleared (Speaker McCormack, Dec. 9, 1963, p. 23831). For further 
discussion of interruptions in debate, see Sec. 946, infra.

  The House has, by clause 5 of rule XVII, prescribed certain rules of 
decorum differing somewhat from this provision of the parliamentary law, 
but supplemental to it rather than antagonistic. In one respect, 
however, the practice of the House differs from the apparent intent of 
the parliamentary law. In the House a Member may interrupt by addressing 
the Chair for permission of the Member speaking (V, 5006; VIII, 2465); 
but it is entirely within the discretion of the Member occupying the 
floor to determine when and by whom to be interrupted (V, 5007, 5008; 
VIII, 2463, 2465). There is no rule of the House requiring a Member 
having the floor to yield to another Member referred to during debate 
(Aug. 2, 1984, p. 22241). A Member may ask another to yield from any 
microphone in the Chamber, including those in the well, so long as not 
crossing between the Member having the floor and the Chair (June 5, 
1998, p. 11170). The Chair may take the initiative in preserving order 
when a Member declining to yield in debate continues to be interrupted 
by another Member, may order that the interrupting Member's remarks not 
appear in the Record (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.24), and may 
admonish Members not to converse with a Member attempting to address the 
House (Feb. 21, 1984, p. 2758), because it is not in order to engage in 
disruption while another is delivering remarks in debate (June 27, 1996, 
p. 15915). On the opening day of the 103d Congress, during the customary 
announcement of policies with respect to particular aspects of the 
legislative process, the Chair elaborated on the rules of order in 
debate with a general statement concerning decorum in the House (Jan. 5, 
1993, p. 105). Under this provision, the




Sec. 365. Parliamentary method of silencing a 
tedious Member.

  Nevertheless,  if a Member finds that it is not the inclination of 
the House to hear him, and that by conversation or any other noise they 
endeavor to drown his voice, it is his most prudent way to submit to the 
pleasure of the House, and sit down; for it scarcely ever happens that 
they are guilty of this piece of ill manners without sufficient reason, 
or inattention to a Member who says anything worth their hearing. 2 
Hats., 77, 78.



  In the House, where the previous question and hour rule of debate have 
been used for many years, the parliamentary method of suppressing a 
tedious Member has never been imported into the practice (V, 5445).




Sec. 366. The parliamentary law as to naming a disorderly 
Member.

  If  repeated calls do not produce order, the Speaker may call by 
his name any Member obstinately persisting in irregularity; whereupon 
the House may require the Member to withdraw. He is then to be heard in 
exculpation, and to withdraw. Then the Speaker states the offense 
committed; and the House considers the degree of punishment they will 
inflict. 2 Hats., 167, 7, 8, 172.



[[Page 188]]

lates to the ultimate authority of the House to determine whether a 
Member ignoring repeated calls to order should be permitted to proceed 
in order.

  This provision of parliamentary law should be read in conjunction with 
clause 4 of rule XVII, Sec. Sec. 960-961, infra, particularly as this 
provision re




Sec. 367. Proceedings in cases of assaults and 
affrays.

  For  instances of assaults and affrays in the House of Commons, 
and the proceedings thereon, see 1 Pet. Misc., 82; 3 Grey, 128; 4 Grey, 
328; 5 Grey, 382; 6 Grey, 254; 10 Grey, 8. Whenever warm words or an 
assault have passed between Members, the House, for the protection of 
their Members, requires them to declare in their places not to prosecute 
any quarrel, 3 Grey, 128, 293; 5 Grey, 280; or orders them to attend the 
Speaker, who is to accommodate their differences, and report to the 
House, 3 Grey, 419; and they are put under restraint if they refuse, or 
until they do. 9 Grey, 234, 312.



  In several instances assaults and affrays have occurred on the floor 
of the House. Sometimes the House has allowed these affairs to pass 
without notice, the Members concerned making apologies either personally 
or through other Members (II, 1658-1662). In other cases the House has 
exacted apologies (II, 1646-1651, 1657), or required the offending 
Members to pledge themselves before the House to keep the peace (II, 
1643). In case of an aggravated assault by one Member on another on the 
portico of the Capitol for words spoken in debate, the House censured 
the assailant and three other Members who had been present, armed, to 
prevent interference (II, 1655, 1656). Assaults or affrays in the 
Committee of the Whole are dealt with by the House (II, 1648-1651).


[[Page 189]]

orders the Clerk to take them down, as stated by the objecting Member. 
They are then a part of his minutes, and when read to the offending 
Member, he may deny they were his words, and the House must then decide 
by a question whether they are his words or not. Then the Member may 
justify them, or explain the sense in which he used them, or apologize. 
If the House is satisfied, no further proceeding is necessary. But if 
two Members still insist to take the sense of the House, the Member must 
withdraw before that question is stated, and then the sense of the House 
is to be taken. 2 Hats., 199; 4 Grey, 170; 6 Grey, 59. When any Member 
has spoken, or other business intervened, after offensive words spoken, 
they can not be taken notice of for censure. And this is for the common 
security of all, and to prevent mistakes which must happen if words are 
not taken down immediately. Formerly they might be taken down at any 
time the same day. 2 Hats., 196; Mem. in Hakew., 71; 3 Grey, 48; 9 Grey, 
514.



Sec. 368. Parliamentary law as to taking down 
disorderly words.

  Disorderly  words are not to be noticed till the Member has 
finished his speech. 5 Grey, 356; 6 Grey, 60. Then the person objecting 
to them, and desiring them to be taken down by the Clerk at the table, 
must repeat them. The Speaker then may direct the Clerk to take them 
down in his minutes; but if he thinks them not disorderly, he delays the 
direction. If the call becomes pretty general, he



  The House has, by clause 4 of rule XVII, provided a method of 
procedure in cases of disorderly words. The House permits and requires 
them to be noticed as soon as uttered, and has not insisted that the 
offending Member withdraw while the House is deciding as to its course 
of action.




Sec. 369. Disorderly words taken down and reported 
from Committee of the Whole.

  Disorderly  words spoken in a committee must be 
written down as in the House; but the committee can only report them to 
the House for animadversion. 6 Grey, 46.



[[Page 190]]

XI, which incorporates the provisions of rule XVII where applicable). 
The House has censured a Member for disorderly words spoken in the 
Committee of the Whole and reported therefrom (II, 1259).

  This provision of the parliamentary law has been applied to the 
Committee of the Whole, rather than to select or standing committees, 
which are separately empowered to enforce rules of decorum (clause 1(a) 
of rule




Sec. 370. References in debate to the 
Executive.

  In  Parliament, to speak irreverently or seditiously against 
the King is against order. Smyth's Comw., L. 2, c. 3; 2 Hats., 170.


  This provision of the parliamentary law is manifestly inapplicable to 
the House (V, 5086); and it has been held in order in debate to refer to 
the President of the United States or his opinions, either with approval 
or criticism, provided that such reference be relevant to the subject 
under discussion and otherwise conformable to the Rules of the House (V, 
5087-5091; VIII, 2500). Under this standard the following references are 
in order: (1) a reference to the probable action of the President (V, 
5092); (2) an adjuration to the President to keep his word (although an 
improper form of address) (Dec. 19, 1995, p. 37601); (3) an accusation 
that the President ``frivolously vetoed'' a bill (Nov. 8, 1995, p. 
31785).

  Personal abuse, innuendo, or ridicule of the President is not 
permitted (VIII, 2497; Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21078; Oct. 21, 1987, pp. 
28857, 28858; Sept. 21, 1994, p. 25147; Sept. 7, 2006, pp. 17381, 17382; 
Oct. 24, 2017, p. _). The standards applicable to references regarding 
the President applies also to the President-elect (e.g., Nov. 14, 2016, 
p. _). In the 102d Congress, the Speaker enunciated a minimal standard 
of propriety for all debate concerning nominated candidates for the 
Presidency, based on the traditional proscription against personally 
offensive references to the President even in the capacity as a 
candidate (Speaker Foley, Sept. 24, 1992, p. 27344). This policy has 
been extended to a presumptive major-party nominee for President (e.g., 
Apr. 22, 2004, pp. 7401, 7402) (although references to the past 
statements or views of such nominee are not necessarily unparliamentary 
(May 6, 2004, p. 8554)). The House has adopted a special order of 
business permitting Members to engage in personalities toward the 
President during debate on certain specified measures (sec. 2, H. Res. 
38, Jan. 12, 2021, p. _).


[[Page 191]]

cency'' (Sept. 13, 2018, p. _) or a ``loathsome human'' (Dec. 14, 2017, 
p. _); (5) a personal ``dark side'' (Mar. 1, 2017, p. _), ruthless (May 
8, 2019, p. _) or ``sinister'' (Dec. 20, 2018, p. _); (6) that such 
person is deserving of shame (May 24, 2016, p. _) or is ``shameful'' 
(e.g., Dec. 8, 2016, p. _) (although an accusation of ``shameful 
opposition'' to a legislative proposal is not necessarily out of order 
(Deschler, ch. 29, Sec.  58.7)); (7) not ``a large enough person'' to 
apologize (Mar. 11, 2004, p. 4086); (8) ``arrogant'' (e.g., Jan. 11, 
2007, p. 998); (9) ``mean-spirited'' (e.g., July 15, 2008, p. 15061), 
``mean'' (July 28, 2017, p. _), or vicious (Sept. 25, 2017, p. _); 
vengeful (June 3, 2013, p. 7783), ``cruel'' (e.g., Nov. 15, 2013, p. 
17166), heartless (e.g., July 25, 2017, p. _), callous (e.g., Sept. 27, 
2017, p. _), a ``jerk'' (Nov. 15, 2018, p. _), or accusations of 
demeaning and denigrating others (Oct. 26, 2017, p. _); (10) ill-
tempered or lacking temperament (e.g., Sept. 7, 2016, p. _), 
``infantile'' (June 15, 2016, p. _) or ``petulant'' (e.g., Jan. 18, 
2018, p. _); (11) a ``hissy fit'' (e.g., Oct. 27, 2011, pp. 16239, 
16245) or ``temper tantrum'' (e.g., Mar. 19, 2018, p. _); (12) was 
``rooting against,'' or was turning one's back on, the American people 
(e.g., Mar. 16, 2016, p. 3317), intentionally hurting the public (Oct. 
3, 2013, p. 15069), or ``bilking'' the taxpayer (Apr. 22, 2015, p. 
5374); (13) that such person had engaged in insults (e.g., May 13, 2015, 
p. 6583), ``attacks women'' (July 16, 2018, p. _) or protected classes 
(Oct. 26, 2017, p. _), or ``says ugly things about women'' (Nov. 21, 
2019, p. _); (14) accusing such person of being ``delusional'' (e.g., 
Dec. 9, 2015, pp. 19794, 19795), ``paranoid'' (Dec. 14, 2017, p. _), or 
``erratic and impetuous'' (Jan. 24, 2019, p. _); (15) commenting 
derogatorily on physical attributes (May 24, 2016, p. _); (16) accusing 
such person of engaging in ``character assassination'' or a ``smear 
campaign'' against others (Jan. 10, 2018, p. _); (17) alleging that such 
person mocked disabled individuals (Feb. 14, 2018, p. _); (18) referring 
to such person as a ``moron'' (Mar. 22, 2018, p. _) or an ``idiot'' 
(Dec. 20, 2017), or of doing or saying stupid things (Oct. 26, 2017, p. 
_); (19) referring to such person as ``greedy'' (Apr. 17, 2018, p. _); 
(20) accusing such person of threats against public officials (Apr. 25, 
2018, p. _); (21) questioning such person's ``reckless'' and 
``negligent'' personal conduct (May 24, 2018, p. _), doubting such 
person's faithfulness to a spouse (e.g., June 13, 2018, p. _), accusing 
such person of ``using women'' (June 28, 2018, p. _), or alleging that 
such person has a ``sex tape'' (July 18, 2018, p. _); (22) ``soulless'' 
(June 21, 2018, p. _) or ``immoral'' (e.g., Sept. 25, 2017, p. _); (23) 
a ``drama queen'' (Dec. 20, 2018, p. _); (24) insinuating that such 
person acts according to his ego (Oct. 10, 2017, p. _), has a fragile 
ego (Nov. 29, 2017, p. _), or is ``making the American people suffer for 
the sake of his ego'' (Jan. 9, 2019, p. _); (25) accusing such person of 
``spreading evil'' (Dec. 1, 2017, p. _); (26) accusing such person of 
vanity (July 11, 2019, p. _).
  Under this standard, the following remarks regarding personal conduct, 
demeanor, or attributes have been held out of order as unparliamentary 
references: (1) discussing personal conduct even as a point of reference 
or comparison (July 16, 1998, p. 15784; Sept. 9, 1998, p. 19735); (2) 
``cowardly,'' ``cowardice'' (e.g., Oct. 25, 1989, p. 25817), lacking 
personal courage (Mar. 26, 2014, p. 4875), ``dastardly'' (July 25, 2017, 
p. _), or lacking a backbone (July 16, 2018, p. _); (3) ``a little 
bugger'' (Nov. 18, 1995, p. 33974); (4) ``disgusting'' and 
``despicable'' (Mar. 11, 2004, p. 4033; Jan. 15, 2019, p. _), 
``disgraceful'' (e.g., June 20, 2012, pp. 9462, 9463) or a disgrace 
(e.g., Sept. 25, 2017, p. _), ``disgusting and indecent rhetoric'' (Mar. 
27, 2017, p. _), ``vile'' (June 15, 2018, p. _), incapable of ``basic 
human de


[[Page 192]]

sented the truth, attempted to obstruct justice, and encouraged others 
to perjure themselves (Feb. 25, 1998, p. 2621); (2) dishonesty (e.g., 
July 13, 2004, p. 15275), failing to be honest (Apr. 14, 2011, p. 6198), 
making a ``dishonest argument'' (Sept. 12, 2006, p. 17851), or intent to 
be intellectually dishonest (May 9, 1990, p. 9828) or issue a false 
statement (Dec. 20, 2017, p. _), or stating that many were convinced 
such person had ``not been honest'' (Mar. 5, 1998, p. 2620), or stating 
that such person had ``fallen quite short when it comes to fairness or 
honesty'' (June 12, 2017, p. _); (3) ``raping'' the truth (Apr. 24, 
1996, p. 8807), ``contempt for the truth'' (June 24, 2019, p. _), not 
telling the truth (e.g., Oct. 29, 2003, p. 26363), distorting the truth 
(Sept. 9, 2003, pp. 21570-73), having only a ``nodding acquaintance'' 
with the truth (Mar. 1, 2017, p. _), or asserting that such person's 
``relationship with the truth is complicated at best'' (June 22, 2017, 
p. _); (4) not being ``straight with us'' (e.g., Nov. 19, 2003, p. 
29811) or ``spoke out of the other side of his mouth'' (Jan. 31, 2012, 
p. 525); (5) attributing ``hypocrisy'' (e.g., Sept. 25, 1992, p. 27674); 
(6) ``deceit'' (Nov. 17, 2014, p. 15809), ``deception'' (e.g., Sept. 28, 
2016, p. _), being deceptive (e.g., Mar. 29, 2004, pp. 5523, 5524), 
using ``deceptive rhetoric'' (Oct. 17, 2007, pp. 27534, 27538), or 
engaging in a ``massive campaign of deception'' (July 11, 2018, p. _); 
(7) making promises while having ``no intention of living up to his 
promises'' (Mar. 27, 2017, p. _) or stating that such person went back 
on (Dec. 20, 2018, p. _) or ``personally reneged on'' (Jan. 18, 2018, p. 
_) his word; (8) acting in a ``duplicitous'' manner (June 11, 2015, p. 
9358); (9) acting in a ``disingenuous'' manner (Mar. 1, 2017, p. _); 
(10) fabricating an issue (e.g., July 6, 2004, pp. 14313, 14314), 
engaging in ``scams'' (May 22, 2019, p. _), or intending to mislead 
(e.g., Oct. 6, 2004, p. 21053), such as stating ``blatant falsehoods'' 
(Jan. 30, 2017, p. _); (11) engaging in ``elaborate attempts to conceal 
information'' (Dec. 14, 2017, p. _); (12) engaging in ``defamation'' 
(Dec. 14, 2017, p. _); (13) intentional mischaracterization, although 
mischaracterization without intent to deceive is not necessarily out of 
order (July 19, 2005, p. 16525); (14) cheating in an election (Aug. 22, 
2020, p. _).
  It is not in order to call the President a ``liar'' or accuse such 
person of ``lying'' (e.g., June 26, 1985, p. 17394). Indeed, any 
suggestion of mendacity is out of order, such as: (1) suggesting that 
such person misrepre


[[Page 193]]

having ``no conscience'' (May 21, 2018, p. _); (5) referring to such 
person as having financial conflicts of interest (Dec. 11, 2018, p. _).
  It is not in order to cast aspersions on the ethical behavior of the 
President, including: (1) alluding to unethical behavior or corruption 
(e.g., June 20, 1996, p. 14829), such as implying a cause-and-effect 
relationship between political contributions and his actions as 
President (e.g., May 22, 2001, p. 9028), including an accusation that 
the President had ``lined the pockets'' of his ``political cronies'' and 
filled ``campaign coffers'' (Sept. 14, 2005, pp. 20238, 20239); (2) 
using the Presidency for personal benefit (e.g., Jan. 11, 2017, p. _) or 
``self-enrichment'' (e.g., Apr. 17, 2018, p. _), or accusing the 
President of the ``appearance of wrongdoing'' and of ``profiting 
illegally'' from the office (Mar. 15, 2018, p. _); (3) questioning 
whether the President can ``live up to the ethical requirements'' of the 
office (Jan. 24, 2017, p. _); (4) calling such person ``amoral'' or 
lacking in morality (June 3, 2013, p. 7783; Nov. 16, 2016, p. _), or 
accusing such person of


[[Page 194]]

gangster'' (June 11, 2019, p. _) or a ``mob boss'' (June 11, 2019, p. 
_); (18) accusing such person of blackmailing a foreign leader (Sept. 
24, 2019, p. _).
  Accusations that the President has committed a crime, or even that the 
President has done something illegal, are unparliamentary. The following 
allegations are not in order: (1) ``draft-dodger'' (e.g., Apr. 24, 1996, 
pp. 8807, 8808), unexcused absences from military service (May 5, 2004, 
pp. 8417, 8418), such as being ``A.W.O.L.'' (Sept. 22, 2004, p. 18953), 
dereliction of duty as Commander-in-Chief (e.g., Oct. 22, 2015, pp. 
16385, 16389), or of ``abdication of duty'' (Oct. 12, 2017, p. _); (2) 
discussing ``charges'' leveled at the President or under investigation 
(e.g., Mar. 19, 1998, p. 4094), including alluding to ``fund-raising 
abuses'' (Mar. 14, 2000, p. 2716), speculating that the Vice President 
might someday pardon the President for certain charges (Apr. 12, 2000, 
p. 5419), or invoking a finding of personal liability by a court (May 
24, 2016, p. _); (3) ``crook'' (e.g., Mar. 1, 2017, p. _), ``come 
clean'' (Sept. 21, 2016, p. _), ``fess up'' (Feb. 6, 2017, p. _), or an 
allegation that the President has engaged in a ``coverup'' (May 22, 
2019, p. _); (4) suggesting censure or impeachment (e.g., Feb. 2, 2017, 
p. _); (5) discussing alleged criminal conduct (e.g., Sept. 10, 1998, p. 
19976), including an assertion that the President led a vast criminal 
enterprise for decades (Sept. 5, 2018, p. _); (6) obstruction of justice 
(e.g., May 17, 2017, p. _) or speculation that a hypothetical action by 
the President would constitute obstruction of justice (Jan. 29, 2018, p. 
_); (7) accusations of ``illegal'' activity or actions taken with the 
knowledge that they were not in accordance with the law (e.g., June 20, 
2006, p. 11935); (8) ``above the law'' (e.g., June 18, 2012, p. 9191), 
``lawless'' (e.g., Aug. 1, 2014, p. 14017), violating the law (e.g., 
July 29, 2014, p. 13385), breaking the law (Sept. 9, 2014, p. 14290), 
abusing the law (Feb. 27, 2015, p. 2907), assaulting the rule of law 
(May 16, 2017, p. _), disrespecting the rule of law (Sept. 27, 2018, p. 
_), or ``beyond justice'' (Apr. 11, 2018, p. _); (9) suggesting 
collusion with a foreign country to violate the integrity of a U.S. 
election (Mar. 29, 2017, p. _); (10) ``shredding'' (Apr. 19, 2016, p. 
_), having contempt for (e.g., July 17, 2013, pp. 11608, 11609), having 
disrespect for (Feb. 3, 2014, p. 2389), decimating (Apr. 11, 2018, p. 
_), trampling upon (e.g., Apr. 26, 2018, p. _), or raping (Feb. 26, 
2019, p. _) the Constitution; (11) ``con man'' or ``con artist'' (e.g., 
June 9, 2016, p. _); (12) alluding to alleged sexual misconduct (e.g., 
May 10, 1994, p. 9697), labeling such person a sexual predator (Nov. 16, 
2016, p. _), or accusing such person of bragging about sexual assault 
(May 16, 2018, p. _); (13) referring to such person as a ``grifter'' 
(Apr. 11, 2018, p. _); (14) alleging that such person is holding 
``innocent babies'' hostage and referencing their placement in cages 
(June 19, 2018, p. _) or generally referring to such person's 
``disregard for the well-being of children'' (May 9, 2019, p. _); (15) 
accusing such person of child abuse (July 18, 2018, p. _) or encouraging 
others to commit assault (June 27, 2018, p. _); (16) accusing such 
person of treason (Dec. 14, 2017, p. _) or of potentially ``treasonous'' 
behavior (e.g., July 16, 2018, p. _); (17) referring to such person as a 
``mobster, con man,

  References to racial or other discrimination on the part of the 
President are not in order. As such, remarks may not refer to the 
President as: (1) a racist (e.g., June 9, 2016, p. _); (2) having made 
``racial slurs'' or ``racial epithets'' (e.g., Jan. 9, 2017, p. _); (3) 
telling a ``racist lie'' (e.g., Jan. 9, 2017, p. _); (4) a bigot (e.g., 
June 9, 2016, p. _), including by referring to bigotry emanating from 
the Presidency (e.g., Jan. 16, 2019, p. _); (5) having made a bigoted or 
racist statement (e.g., June 7, 2016, p. _); (6) having taken a bigoted 
action (Jan. 30, 2017, p. _) or ``putting his bigotry into policy'' 
(June 27, 2018, p. _); (7) not caring about black people (Sept. 8, 2005, 
p. 19797); (8) a misogynist (June 9, 2016, p. _) or a homophobe (Sept. 
5, 2018, p. _); (9) having run a prejudiced campaign (Jan. 12, 2017, p. 
_); (10) having engaged in ``racist rhetoric'' (Jan. 17, 2018, p. _), 
racist stereotyping (Oct. 23, 2017, p. _), or a ``racist rant'' (Feb. 6, 
2018, p. _); (11) having ``racist intentions'' (Jan. 17, 2018, p. _) or 
``inciting racism'' (Nov. 8, 2017, p. _); (12) normalizing bigotry (Jan. 
30, 2018, p. _); (13) exhibiting ``hatred for immigrants'' (Feb. 27, 
2018, p. _), demonizing immigrants (e.g., Feb. 8, 2018, p. _), ``hate 
peddling'' (June 21, 2018, p. _) or having engaged in ``hateful 
rhetoric'' (Sept. 6, 2018, p. _), ``hateful policies'' (Feb. 26, 2019, 
p. _), condoning hate groups (June 11, 2019, p. _), ``stoking the 
flames'' of hate (July 24, 2019, p. _), ``inhuman'' behavior (Mar. 7, 
2019, p. _) or fearmongering (Jan. 9, 2019, p. _; Jan. 10, 2019, p. _) 
with respect to immigrants; (14) holding the view that ``crime and the 
skin color of a person are synonymous'' (May 16, 2018, p. _); (15) 
``uniting hatred'' (Sept. 25, 2017, p. _); (16) engaging in ``xenophobic 
threats'' (June 4, 2019, p. _); (17) having a ``white nationalist 
agenda'' (July 22, 2020, p. _).


[[Page 195]]

  Language impugning the patriotism or loyalty of the President is not 
in order, such as: (1) directly questioning patriotism (Sept. 9, 2016, 
p. _); (2) labeling the President as un-American or having an ``un-
American ideology'' (e.g., June 7, 2016, p. _) or ``subverting 
democracy'' (Apr. 17, 2018, p. _); (3) accusing the President of giving 
``aid and comfort to the enemy'' (e.g., Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352), 
``aiding and abetting the enemy'' (Apr. 22, 2004, pp. 7401, 7402), 
``aiding and abetting a terroristic regime'' (Sept. 10, 2015, p. 13976), 
or ``sucking up to dictators'' (June 7, 2018, p. _); (4) accusing the 
President of ``spying'' on Congress (e.g., Jan. 7, 2016, p. 128); (5) 
equating the President's decisions with regard to armed conflict to his 
having ``slaughtered'' thousands (Mar. 8, 2007, p. 5815) or that a 
soldier's death was for his ``amusement'' (Oct. 18, 2007, pp. 27569, 
27570); (6) accusing the President of having ``hurt'' Americans ``out of 
spite'' (July 28, 2017, p. _), of torturing the American people (Jan. 
23, 2019, p. _), or of inflicting harm upon Americans (July 9, 2019, p. 
_); (7) alleging that the President ``puts himself above his country'' 
(July 17, 2018, p. _); (8) referring to the President's ``voter fraud 
playbook'' (Dec. 11, 2018, p. _).

  Personally disparaging the manner in which the President carries out 
the duties of the office can constitute a personality, such as when the 
remarks suggest that the President is an undemocratic leader akin to a 
dictator. Remarks that have been held to be unparliamentary include: (1) 
an accusation of ``abuse of power'' or ``abuse of the office'' (e.g., 
Sept. 9, 2014, p. 14314) or ``abuse of executive privilege'' (Apr. 27, 
2016, p. _); (2) an accusation that the President ``disrespected the 
office'' (Mar. 27, 2017, p. _) or took an action ``beneath the dignity 
of the office'' (May 3, 2017, p. _); (3) an accusation of violating the 
oath of office (e.g., Dec. 3, 2013, p. 18074); (4) likening the 
President to a ``ruler'' (e.g., July 8, 2013, p. 10964), ``king'' (e.g., 
July 17, 2013, p. 11622), ``monarch'' (Jan. 15, 2013, p. 218), 
``emperor'' (Dec. 2, 2014, p. 16380), ``modern-day pharoah'' (Jan. 23, 
2019, p. _), a dictator (e.g., Feb. 6, 2018, p. _), or accusing the 
President of ``quasi-monarchical'' behavior or of ``royal pageantry'' 
(July 11, 2019, p. _); (5) an accusation of ``tyranny'' (Mar. 16, 2016, 
p. 3317) or of admiring tyrants (Feb. 26, 2019, p. _); (6) an accusation 
of ``demagoguery'' or of being a demagogue (e.g., Jan. 23, 1996, p. 
1144); (7) referring to the President as a ``Manchurian President'' 
(July 24, 2017, p. _); (8) an accusation that the President has brought 
shame upon the office (Dec. 1, 2017, p. _) or the nation (Dec. 12, 2017, 
p. _), ``diminished'' the office by turning it into a ``Theatre of the 
Absurd'' (Jan. 19, 2018, p. _), or is a ``reality-show President'' (Jan. 
17, 2019, p. _); (9) an accusation of ``authoritarian'' behavior (Feb. 
14, 2018, p. _); (10) accusing the President of ``boot-licking'' foreign 
leaders (July 18, 2018, p. _); referring to the President as a bully 
(Jan. 15, 2019, p. _) or a ``billionaire bully'' (Jan. 9, 2019, p. _).

  The Chair may admonish Members transgressing this stricture even after 
other debate has intervened (Jan. 23, 1996, p. 1144; Apr. 27, 2016, p. 
_).

  A Member may not read in debate extraneous material personally abusive 
of the President that would be improper if spoken in the Member's own 
words (Mar. 3, 1993, p. 3958; Nov. 15, 1995, p. 32587; May 2, 1996, p. 
10010; Mar. 17, 1998, p. 3799; July 15, 2003, p. 18170; Sept. 16, 2003, 
pp. 22151, 22152; Oct. 17, 2007, p. 27538; Oct. 5, 2013, p. 15297; Sept. 
28, 2015, p. 14945; Apr. 19, 2016, p. _; June 29, 2017, p. _; Jan. 17, 
2018, p. _; July 12, 2018, p. _), such as material labeling the 
President's statement a lie (Sept. 10, 2014, p. 14416). This prohibition 
includes the recitation of another Member's criticism of the President 
made off the floor (even if recited as a rebuttal to such criticism) 
(Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27775; Apr. 18, 2016, p. _; Oct. 24, 2017, p. _).


[[Page 196]]

to evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by the President contained 
in a communication from an independent counsel pending before a House 
committee (Sept. 14, 1998, p. 20171; Sept. 17, 1998, p. 20758), although 
they may refer to the communication, itself, within the confines of 
proper decorum in debate (Oct. 6, 1998, p. 23841), and may not otherwise 
suggest that the President has done something worthy of censure or 
impeachment (e.g., Feb. 2, 2017, p. _), including by reciting the vote 
totals on an impeachment resolution that had been previously laid on the 
table by the House (Dec. 7, 2017, p. _) or by urging the Senate to 
convict the President during a trial following his impeachment by the 
House (Jan. 29, 2020, p. _).
  Although wide latitude is permitted in debate on a proposition to 
impeach the President (V, 5093), Members must abstain from language 
personally offensive (V, 5094; Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829); and Members 
must abstain from comparisons to the personal conduct of sitting Members 
of the House or Senate (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829). Furthermore, when 
impeachment is not the pending business on the floor, Members may not 
refer

  References in debate to former Presidents are not governed by these 
standards (Nov. 15, 1945, p. 10735; June 27, 2002, pp. 11844, 11845), 
nor are references to members of the President's Cabinet (Mar. 14, 2019, 
p. _).

  The Chair has advised that the protections afforded by Jefferson's 
Manual and the precedents against unparliamentary references to the 
President, personally, do not necessarily extend to members of his 
family (Speaker Foley, July 12, 1990, p. 17206).

  For discussion of the stricture against addressing remarks in debate 
to the President, as in the second person, see Sec. 945, infra.

  On January 27, 1909 (VIII, 2497), the House adopted a report of a 
committee appointed to investigate the question, which report in part 
stated:

  ``The freedom of speech in debate in the House should never be denied 
or abridged, but freedom of speech in debate does not mean license to 
indulge in personal abuses or ridicule. The right of Members of the two 
Houses of Congress to criticize the official acts of the President and 
other executive officers is beyond question, but this right is subject 
to proper rules requiring decorum in debate. Such right of criticism is 
inherent upon legislative authority. The right to legislate involves the 
right to consider conditions as they are and to contrast present 
conditions with those of the past or those desired in the future. The 
right to correct abuses by legislation carries the right to consider and 
discuss abuses which exist or which are feared.


  ``It is, however, the duty of the House to require its Members in 
speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the 
House to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without 
unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among its Members or 
antagonism from those other branches of the Government with which the 
House is correlated.''


[[Page 197]]

there; because the opinion of each House should be left to its own 
independency, not to be influenced by the proceedings of the other; and 
the quoting them might beget reflections leading to a misunderstanding 
between the two Houses. 8 Grey, 22.



Sec. 371. References in debate to the other House and its 
Members.

  It  is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been said 
on the same subject in the other House, or the particular votes or 
majorities on it


  Until former clause 1 of rule XIV (currently clause 1 of rule XVII) 
was amended in the 100th and 101st Congresses (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, 
p. 6; H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72), this principle of comity and 
parliamentary law as described by Jefferson governed debate in the House 
to the full extent of its provisions (see generally, V, 5095-5130; VIII, 
2501-21; July 31, 1984, p. 21670; Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 44). From 
the 101st Congress through the 108th Congress, clause 1 of rule XVII 
permitted some factual references that were a matter of public record, 
references to the pendency or sponsorship in the Senate of certain 
measures, factual descriptions concerning a measure under debate in the 
House, and quotations from Senate proceedings relevant to the making of 
legislative history on a pending measure. In the 109th Congress clause 1 
was amended to permit debate to include references to the Senate or its 
Members but within the general stricture that requires Members to avoid 
personality (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Under the new 
standard, remarks may urge the Senate to take a particular action (Mar. 
21, 2010, p. 4105). For a recitation of precedents under the former 
rule, see Sec. 371 of the House Rules and Manual for the 108th Congress 
(H. Doc. 107-284).


[[Page 198]]

a Senator of being prejudiced, racist, or of making a racist comment 
(Jan. 12, 2017, p. _); (14) accusing several Senators of an abuse of 
power (Nov. 2, 2017, p. _); (15) accusing a Senator of criminal conduct 
or harassment (Nov. 16, 2017, p. _); (15) referring to a Senator as a 
``lightweight'' (Dec. 12, 2017, p. _) or an ``idiot'' (Dec. 20, 2017, p. 
_).
  Since the adoption of the new rule, the following references to the 
Senate or its Members have been held unparliamentary: (1) insinuating 
that a Senator or the Majority Leader lied (Dec. 20, 2011, pp. 21444, 
21446; Sept. 28, 2018, p. _); (2) accusing Senate Republicans of 
hypocrisy (May 16, 2005, p. 9757); (3) accusing a Senator of making 
slanderous statements (June 17, 2005, p. 13009; June 21, 2005, p. 
13408); (4) attributing to a Senator a list of offenses under 
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (Oct. 18, 2005, 
p. 22987); (5) accusing a Senator of corruption (Oct. 13, 2009, p. 
24720), taking bribes (Jan. 19, 2010, p. 209), or being unethical (Aug. 
2, 2012, p. 13256); (6) accusing the Republican leadership of 
``hijacking justice'' (Feb. 1, 2017, p. _); (7) accusing a Senator of 
giving ``aid and comfort'' to the enemy (Dec. 13, 2005, p. 28162); (8) 
referring to a Senator as ``disgraceful'' (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14985) or a 
Senate action as a ``disgrace'' (Apr. 18, 2013, p. 5539), or 
sarcastically as ``courageous'' (July 22, 2011, p. 11831-33); (9) 
referring to Senate Democrats (May 18, 2005, p. 10136) or liberals in 
the Senate (July 30, 2011, p. 12531) as ``cowardly''; (10) stating a 
``low opinion'' of the Senate (Apr. 1, 2011, p. 4966); (11) stating that 
the Majority Leader ``has a high opinion of himself'' (Dec. 20, 2011, p. 
21392); (12) accusing a Senator of ``taunting'' (May 22, 2014, p. 8972) 
or of childish behavior (Jan. 24, 2019, p. _); (13) accusing

  It remains the duty of the Chair to call to order a Member who engages 
in personality with respect to a Senator (see Sec. 374, infra), and the 
Chair may admonish a Member for unparliamentary references even after 
intervening recognition (Oct. 12, 1999, p. 24954; Nov. 15, 2001, p. 
22596). Although the Chair is under a duty to caution Members against 
unparliamentary references, the Chair will not advise Members on how to 
construct their remarks to avoid improper references (Feb. 25, 2004, pp. 
2409-15). A Member may not read in debate extraneous material regarding 
a Senator that would be improper if spoken in the Member's own words 
(Nov. 16, 2017, p. _; Dec. 12, 2017, p. _; Sept. 28, 2018, p. _).

  The prohibition against improper references to Senators includes (1) a 
reference not explicitly naming the Senator (VIII, 2512; Feb. 23, 1994, 
p. 2658; June 30, 1995, p. 18153; Feb. 27, 1997, pp. 2768, 2769); (2) 
the reading of a paper making criticisms of a Senator (V, 5127); (3) a 
reference to another person's criticism of a Senator (Aug. 4, 1983, p. 
23145). Similarly, the Chair has consistently held that if references to 
the Senate are appropriate, the Member delivering them is not required 
to use the term ``the other body,'' (Oct. 4, 1984, p. 30047) and, by the 
same token, references to ``the other body'' will not cure 
unparliamentary references directed to the Senate (e.g., Oct. 2, 2002, 
p. 18913; Apr. 2, 2004, pp. 6394, 6395).

  Under the earlier form of the rule, the Chair held that remarks in 
debate during the pendency of an impeachment resolution may not include 
comparisons to the personal conduct of sitting Members of the House or 
Senate (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829) and remarks in debate may not criticize 
words spoken in the Senate by one not a Member of that body in the 
course of an impeachment trial (V, 5106). After examination by a 
committee under the earlier form of the rule, a speech reflecting on the 
character of the Senate was ordered to be stricken from the Record on 
the ground that it tended to create ``unfriendly conditions between the 
two bodies * * * obstructive of wise legislation and little short of a 
public calamity'' (V, 5129). Under the earlier form of the rule, where a 
Member had been assailed in the Senate, he was permitted to explain his 
own conduct and motives without bringing the whole controversy into 
discussion or assailing the Senator (V, 5123-5126). Propositions 
relating to breaches of these principles were entertained as a matter of 
privilege (V, 5129, 6980).

  The precise standard in former clause 1 of rule XIV for references to 
``individual Members of the Senate'' did not apply to references to 
former Senators (Dec. 14, 1995, p. 36968).


[[Page 199]]

Sept. 29, 1988, p. 26683), but references attacking the character or 
integrity of a Senator in that context are not in order (Oct. 30, 1979, 
p. 30150).
  The official policies, actions, and opinions of a Senator who is a 
candidate for President or Vice President (as, in modern practice, with 
one who is not) may be criticized in terms not personally offensive 
(Speaker Wright,

  References in debate to the Vice President (as President of the 
Senate) are governed by the standards of reference permitted toward the 
President, as under the earlier form of the rule. As such, a Member may 
criticize in debate the policies, or candidacy, of the Vice President 
but may not engage in personality (Dec. 14, 1995, p. 36968; July 14, 
1998, p. 15314; Sept. 20, 2000, p. 18639). For example, it is not in 
order to allude to ``wrongdoings [including] fund-raising telephone 
calls by the Vice President'' (Mar. 14, 2000, p. 2716); to attribute to 
him a list of offenses under investigation by a special prosecutor (Oct. 
18, 2005, p. 22987); to suggest that the House should investigate him in 
connection with government contracts awarded to his former employer 
(June 15, 2006, p. 11480); to speculate that he might someday pardon the 
President (Apr. 12, 2000, p. 5419); to accuse him of lying (Sept. 20, 
2000, p. 18639; Sept. 21, 2000, p. 18789; Feb. 16, 2006, p. 1960; Mar. 
6, 2007, p. 5412); to suggest ``he has a problem with the truth'' (Oct. 
5, 2000, p. 21014); to allege ``unethical behavior'' or ``corruption'' 
(see, e.g., Oct. 29, 2003, pp. 26400-402; Nov. 4, 2003, pp. 27070, 
27071), including innuendo suggesting policy choices were made on the 
basis of personal pecuniary gain (July 7, 2004, p. 14582; Sept. 13, 
2005, pp. 20238, 20239) or accusations of abuse of power (July 14, 2004, 
p. 15501); to describe him as ``arrogant'' (June 28, 2007, p. 17926; 
Sept. 25, 2008, p. 21781); to question the patriotism of a major-party 
nominee for the office (Sept. 9, 2016, p. _). The rule also precludes 
the insertion in the Record of a paper making improper references to the 
Vice President (Sept. 19, 2000, p. 18580).


   A Member may not read in debate extraneous material regarding the 
Vice President that would be improper if spoken in the Member's own 
words (Feb. 16, 2006, p. 1960).




Sec. 373. Complaint by one House of conduct of a 
Member of the other.

  Neither  House can exercise any authority over a Member or 
officer of the other, but should complain to the House of which he is, 
and leave the punishment to them.



[[Page 200]]

the vote of a Senator in an impeachment trial, the House declined to 
consider the matter as a breach of privilege (III, 2657). Although on 
one occasion it was held that a resolution offered in the House 
requesting the Senate to expunge from the Record statements in criticism 
of a Member of the House did not constitute a question of privilege, 
being in violation of the rule prohibiting references to the Senate in 
debate (VIII, 2519), a properly drafted resolution referring to language 
published in the Record of Senate proceedings as constituting a breach 
of privilege and requesting the Senate to take appropriate action 
concerning the subject has been held to present a question of the 
privileges of the House (VIII, 2516).

  In a notable instance, wherein a Member of the House had assaulted a 
Senator in the Senate Chamber for words spoken in debate, the Senate 
examined the breach of privilege and transmitted its report to the 
House, which punished the Member (II, 1622). A Senator having assailed a 
House Member in debate, the House messaged to the Senate a resolution 
declaring the language a breach of privilege and requested the Senate to 
take appropriate action (Sept. 27, 1951, p. 12270). The Senator 
subsequently asked unanimous consent to correct his remarks in the 
permanent Congressional Record, but objection was raised (Sept. 28, 
1951, p. 12383). But where certain Members of the House, in a published 
letter, sought to influence




Sec. 374. Duty of the Speaker to prevent expressions 
offensive to the other House.

  * * *  Where the complaint is of words 
disrespectfully spoken by a Member of another House, it is difficult to 
obtain punishment, because of the rules supposed necessary to be 
observed (as to the immediate noting down of words) for the security of 
Members. Therefore it is the duty of the House, and more particularly of 
the Speaker, to interfere immediately, and not to permit expressions to 
go unnoticed which may give a ground of complaint to the other House, 
and introduce proceedings and mutual accusations between the two Houses, 
which can hardly be terminated without difficulty and disorder. 3 Hats., 
51.


  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 in the former clause 1(b) of 
rule XVII) (Sec. 371, supra and Sec. 945, infra). In the 109th Congress 
clause 1 was amended to permit references to the Senate or its Members, 
even critical references, so long as avoiding personality (sec. 2(g), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Nevertheless, it remains the duty of the 
Chair to call to order a Member who violates the rule in debate or 
through an insertion in the Record.


[[Page 201]]

normally takes initiative (Feb. 27, 1997, pp. 2778, 2779). The Chair may 
admonish Members to avoid unparliamentary references to the Senate even 
after intervening recognition (Oct. 12, 1999, p. 24954). Pending 
consideration of a measure relating to the Senate, the Speaker announced 
his intention to strictly enforce this provision of Jefferson's Manual 
prohibiting improper references to the Senate, and to deny recognition 
to Members violating the prohibition, subject to permission of the House 
to proceed in order (Speaker O'Neill, June 16, 1982, p. 13843). Under 
the earlier form of clause 1 of rule XVII, the Chair refused to respond 
to hypothetical questions as to the propriety of possible 
characterizations of Senate actions before their use in debate (Oct. 24, 
1985, p. 28819). For a further discussion of the Speaker's duties 
regarding unparliamentary debate, see Sec. Sec. 960-961, infra.

  The Chair has distinguished between engaging in personality toward 
another Member of the House, as to which the Chair normally awaits a 
point of order from the floor, and improper references to Members of the 
Senate, which violate comity between the Houses, as to which the Chair




Sec. 375. Course of the Member when business concerning 
that Member is under debate.

  No  Member may be present when a bill or any 
business concerning himself is debating; nor is any Member to speak to 
the merits of it till he withdraws. 2 Hats., 219. The rule is that if a 
charge against a Member arise out of a report of a committee, or 
examination of witnesses in the House, as the Member knows from that to 
what points he is to direct his exculpation, he may be heard to those 
points before any question is moved or stated against him. He is then to 
be heard, and withdraw before any question is moved. But if the question 
itself is the charge, as for breach of order or matter arising in the 
debate, then the charge must be stated (that is, the question must be 
moved), himself heard, and then to withdraw. 2 Hats., 121, 122.



[[Page 202]]

not permitted to depute another Member to speak in his behalf (II, 
1273). In modern practice the Member has been permitted to speak in his 
own behalf, both in censure (June 10, 1980, pp. 13802-11) and expulsion 
proceedings (Oct. 2, 1980, pp. 28953-78; July 24, 2002, pp. 14299, 
14309). A Member-elect has been permitted to participate in debate on a 
resolution relating to his right to take the oath (Jan. 10, 1967, p. 
23).

  In 1832, during proceedings for the censure of a Member, the Speaker 
informed the Member that he should withdraw (II, 1366); but this seems 
to be an exceptional instance of the enforcement of the law of 
Parliament. In other cases, after the proposition for censure or 
expulsion has been proposed, Members have been heard in debate, either 
as a matter of right (II, 1286), as a matter of course (II, 1246, 1253), 
by express provision (II, 1273), and in writing (II, 1273), or by 
unanimous consent (II, 1275). A Member against whom a resolution of 
censure was pending was asked by the Speaker if he desired to be heard 
(VI, 236). But a Member was




Sec. 376. Disqualifying personal interest of a 
Member.

  Where  the private interests of a Member are concerned in a bill or 
question he is to withdraw. And where such an interest has appeared, his 
voice has been disallowed, even after a division. In a case so contrary, 
not only to the laws of decency, but to the fundamental principle of the 
social compact, which denies to any man to be a judge in his own cause, 
it is for the honor of the House that this rule of immemorial observance 
should be strictly adhered to. 2 Hats., 119, 121; 6 Grey, 368.



  In the House it has not been usual for the Member to withdraw from 
debate when the Member's private interests are concerned in a pending 
measure, although clause 1 of rule III addresses voting in such a 
contingency. In one instance the Senate disallowed a vote given by a 
Senator on a question relating to his own right to a seat; but the House 
has never had occasion to proceed so far (V, 5959).




Sec. 377. Wearing of hats by Members.

  No  Member is to come 
into the House with his head covered, nor to remove from one place to 
another with his hat on, nor is to put on his hat in coming in or 
removing, until he be set down in his place. Scob., 6.



[[Page 203]]

  In 1837 the parliamentary practice of wearing hats during the session 
was abolished by adoption of current clause 5 of rule XVII. In its 
current form, the rule specifies that religious headdress is not 
prohibited. See Sec. 962, infra. In the 116th Congress, the Speaker 
announced that discretion would be applied in enforcing the prohibition 
with respect to hats or other head coverings worn out of medical 
necessity (Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).




Sec. 378. Adjournment of questions of order.

    A question of 
order may be adjourned to give time to look into precedents. 2 Hats., 
118.



  As described in Sec. Sec. 628 and 628a, infra, the Speaker has 
declined, on a difficult question of order, to rule until taking time 
for examination (III, 2725; VI, 432; VII, 2106; VIII, 2174, 2396, 3475), 
and may take a parliamentary inquiry under advisement, especially if not 
related to the pending proceedings (VIII, 2174; Apr. 7, 1992, p. 8274). 
However, it is conceivable that a case might arise wherein this 
privilege of the Chair would require approval of the majority of the 
House to prevent arbitrary obstruction of the pending business by the 
Chair. The law of Parliament evidently contemplates that the adjournment 
of a question of order shall be controlled by the House. On occasion, 
the Chair has reversed as erroneous a decision previously made (VI, 639; 
VII, 849; VIII, 2794, 3435).




Sec. 379. House's control over question of the Speaker.

    In 
Parliament, all decisions of the Speaker may be controlled by the House. 
3 Grey, 319.






  The Speaker's decision on a question of order is subject to appeal by 
any Member (clause 5 of rule I).


                     sec. xviii--orders of the house



Sec. 380. Keeping of the doors of the House.

  Of  right, the 
door of the House ought not to be shut, but to be kept by porters, or 
Sergeants-at-Arms, assigned for that purpose. Mod ten. Parl., 23.





Sec. 381. Right of the Member to demand execution of the 
subsisting order.

  The  only case where a Member has a right to insist on 
anything, is where he calls for the execution of a subsisting order of 
the House. Here there having been already a resolution, any person has a 
right to insist that the Speaker, or any other whose duty it is, shall 
carry it into execution; and no debate or delay can be had on it.



[[Page 204]]

of the right to object thereto is precluded (Speaker Foley, Nov. 14, 
1991, p. 32129; Nov. 7, 2009, pp. 27189, 27190). Occasionally a Member 
may incorrectly demand the ``regular order'' to assert that remarks are 
not confined to the question under debate. On such an occasion the Chair 
may treat the demand as a point of order requiring a ruling by the Chair 
(May 1, 1996, pp. 9888, 9889).

<> Thus 
any Member has a right to have the House or gallery cleared of 
strangers, an order existing for that purpose; or to have the House told 
when there is not a quorum present. 2 Hats., 87, 129. How far an order 
of the House is binding, see Hakew., 392.

  As a request for unanimous consent to consider a bill is in effect a 
request to suspend the order of business temporarily, a Member has the 
right at any time to demand the ``regular order'' (IV, 3058). If the 
regular order is demanded pending a request for unanimous consent, 
further reservation


  Absent an existing order for that purpose, a Member may not demand 
that the galleries be cleared, because this power resides in the House 
(II, 1353), which has by rule extended the power to the Speaker (clause 
2 of rule I) and the chair of the Committee of the Whole (clause 1 of 
rule XVIII), but not to the individual Member.




Sec. 383. Parliamentary law as to proceeding with orders 
of the day.

  But  where an order is made that any particular matter be taken 
up on a particular day, there a question is to be put, when it is called 
for, whether the House will now proceed to that matter? Where orders of 
the day are on important or interesting matter, they ought not to be 
proceeded on till an hour at which the House is usually full [which in 
Senate is at noon].



  The rule of the House providing for raising the question of 
consideration (clause 3 of rule XVI) has, in connection with the 
practice as to special orders of business, superseded this provision of 
the parliamentary law.




Sec. 384. Orders of the day now obsolete.

  Orders  of the day 
may be discharged at any time, and a new one made for a different day, 3 
Grey, 48, 313.



[[Page 205]]

in clause 1 of rule XIV. The House proceeds under rule XIV unless that 
order is displaced by the use of special orders of business or the 
intervention of privileged business.

  The House found the use of ``Orders of the day'' as a method of 
disposing business impracticable as long ago as 1818, and not long after 
abandoned their use (IV, 3057), although an interesting reference to 
them survives




Sec. 385. Business at the end of a session.

  When  a session 
is drawing to a close and the important bills are all brought in, the 
House, in order to prevent interruption by further unimportant bills, 
sometimes comes to a resolution that no new bill be brought in, except 
it be sent from the other House. 3 Grey, 156.



  This provision is obsolete so far as the practice of the House is 
concerned, because business goes on uninterruptedly until the Congress 
expires (clause 6 of rule XI).




Sec. 386. Effect of end of the session on existing orders, 
especially as to imprisonment.

  All  orders of the House determine with the 
session; and one taken under such an order may, after the session is 
ended, be discharged on a habeas corpus. Raym., 120; Jacob's L. D. by 
Ruffhead; Parliament, 1 Lev., 165, Pitchara's case.



  The House, by clause 6 of rule XI and the practice thereunder, has 
modified the rule of Parliament as to business pending at the end of a 
session that is not at the same time the end of a Congress. Some 
standing orders, however, like those providing for the hour of daily 
meeting of the House (I, 104-109), expire with a session. In 1866 the 
House discussed its power to imprison for a period longer than the 
duration of the existing session (II, 1629), and in 1870, for assaulting 
a Member returning to the House from absence on leave, Patrick Woods was 
committed for a term extending beyond the adjournment of the session, 
but not beyond the term of the existing House (II, 1628).


[[Page 206]]

are sometimes entered in the journals having no relation to these, such 
as acceptances of invitations to attend orations, to take part in 
procession, etc. These must be understood to be merely conventional 
among those who are willing to participate in the ceremony, and are 
therefore, perhaps, improperly placed among the records of the House.



Sec. 387. Jefferson's views as to the constitutional 
power to make rules.

  Where  the Constitution authorizes each House to 
determine the rules of its proceedings it must mean in those cases 
(legislative, executive, or judiciary) submitted to them by the 
Constitution, or in something relating to these, and necessary toward 
their execution. But orders and resolutions




Sec. 388. The House's construction of its power to adopt 
rules.

  The  House has frequently examined its constitutional power to make 
rules, and this power also has been discussed by the Supreme Court (V, 
6755). It has been settled that Congress may not by law interfere with 
the constitutional right of a future House to make its own rules (I, 82; 
V, 6765, 6766), or to determine for itself the order of proceedings in 
effecting its organization (I, 242-245; V, 6765, 6766). It also has been 
determined, after long discussion and trial by practice, that one House 
may not continue its rules in force to and over its successor (I, 187, 
210; V, 6002, 6743-6747; Jan. 22, 1971, p. 132). Congress may bind 
itself in matters of procedure (II, 1341; V, 6767, 6768), but its 
ability to so bind a succeeding Congress has been called into doubt (V, 
6766). In one case the Chair denied the authority of such a law that 
conflicted with a rule of the House (IV, 3579). The theories involved in 
this question have been most carefully examined and decisively 
determined in reference to the law of 1851, which directs the method of 
procedure for the House in its constitutional function of judging the 
elections of its Members; and it has been determined that this law is 
not of absolute binding force on the House, but rather a wholesome rule 
not to be departed from except for cause (I, 597, 713, 726, 833; II, 
1122). In modern practice, existing statutory procedures, including 
provisions of concurrent resolutions, are readopted as Rules of the 
House at the beginning of each Congress (see, e.g., H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 
1995, p. 462). This practice was codified in clause 1 of rule XXVIII 
(current rule XXIX) when the House recodified its rules in the 106th 
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 75, see Sec. 1105, infra). Where 
the House amended a standing rule of general applicability during a 
session and the amended rule did not require prospective application, 
the rule was interpreted to apply retroactively (Sept. 28, 1993, p. 
22719).



[[Page 207]]

1139). The House typically remains in session for the inauguration of 
the President on the portico of the Capitol (Jan. 20, 1969, pp. 1288-92) 
and the mace is carried to the ceremony, but in one instance the House 
adjourned until the day after the inauguration of the President in 
response to increased security concerns related to a recent breach of 
the Capitol building, and the mace was not carried to the ceremony in 
that instance (Jan. 19, 2021, p. _).




  As to the participation on occasions of ceremony, the House has 
entered its orders on its journal; but it rarely attends outside the 
Capitol building as a body (July 25, 2002, p. 14645), usually preferring 
that its Members go individually (V, 7061-7064) or that it be 
represented by a committee (V, 7053-7056) or other delegation (May 28, 
1987, p. 14031). It has discussed, but not settled, its power to compel 
a Member to accompany it outside the Hall on an occasion of combined 
business and ceremony (II,


                           sec. xix--petition




Sec. 389. Petitions, remonstrances, and memorials.

    A 
petition prays something. A remonstrance has no prayer. 1 Grey, 58.



  The Rules of the House make no mention of remonstrances, but do 
mention petitions and memorials (clause 3 of rule XII). Resolutions of 
State legislatures and of primary assemblies of the people are received 
as memorials (IV, 3326, 3327), but papers general or descriptive in form 
may not be presented as memorials (IV, 3325).




Sec. 390. Signing and presentation of 
petitions.

  Petitions  must be subscribed by the petitioners Scob., 87; L. Parl., 
c. 22; 9 Grey, 362, unless they are attending, 1 Grey, 401 or unable to 
sign, and averred by a member, 3 Grey, 418. But a petition not 
subscribed, but which the member presenting it affirmed to be all in the 
handwriting of the petitioner, and his name written in the beginning, 
was on the question (March 14, 1800) received by the Senate. The 
averment of a member, or of somebody without doors, that they know the 
handwriting of the petitioners, is necessary, if it be questioned. 6 
Grey, 36. It must be presented by a member, not by the petitioners, and 
must be opened by him holding it in his hand. 10 Grey, 57.



[[Page 208]]

law. In cases in which a petition set forth serious changes, the 
petitioner was required to have his signature attested by a notary (III, 
2030, footnote).

  In the House petitions have been presented for many years by filing 
with the Clerk (clause 3 of rule XII). Members file them, and 
petitioners do not attend on the House in the sense implied in the 
parliamentary




Sec. 391. Parliamentary law for the reception of 
petitions.

  Regularly  a motion for receiving it must be made and seconded, and a 
question put, whether it shall be received, but a cry from the House of 
``received,'' or even silence, dispenses with the formality of this 
question. It is then to be read at the table and disposed of.






  Before the adoption of the provisions of clause 3 of rule XII, 
petitions were presented from the floor by Members, and questions 
frequently arose as to the reception thereof (IV, 3350-3356). But under 
the present practice such procedure does not occur.


                             sec. xx--motion



Sec. 392. Parliamentary law as to making, withdrawing, and 
reading of motions.

    When a motion has been made, it is not to be put 
to the question or debated until it is seconded. Scob., 21.



  It is then, and not till then, in possession of the House, and can not 
be withdrawn but by leave of the House. It is to be put into writing, if 
the House or Speaker require it, and must be read to the House by the 
Speaker as often as any Member desires it for his information. 2 Hats., 
82.



[[Page 209]]


  The House has long since dispensed with the requirement of a second 
for ordinary motions (clause 1 of rule XVI; V, 5304); and the 
requirement of a second for a motion to suspend the rules was eliminated 
in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). Clause 2 of rule 
XVI provides further that a motion may be withdrawn before decision or 
amendment (see Sec. 904, infra); and clause 1 of the same rule provides 
that the motion shall be reduced to writing on the demand of any Member 
(see Sec. 902, infra). In the practice of the House, when a paper on 
which the House is to vote has been read once, the reading may not be 
required again unless the House shall order it read (V, 5260).




Sec. 393. Interruptions of the Member having the 
floor.

  It  might be asked whether a motion for adjournment or for the 
orders of the day can be made by one Member while another is speaking? 
It can not. When two Members offer to speak, he who rose first is to be 
heard, and it is a breach of order in another to interrupt him, unless 
by calling him to order if he departs from it. And the question of order 
being decided, he is still to be heard through. A call for adjournment, 
or for the order of the day, or for the question, by gentlemen from 
their seats, is <> not a motion. No motion 
can be made without rising and addressing the Chair. Such calls are 
themselves breaches of order, which, though the Member who has risen may 
respect, as an expression of impatience of the House against further 
debate, yet, if he chooses, he has a right to go on.






  The House has modified the principle that the Member who seeks 
recognition first is to be recognized (clause 2 of rule XVII), and, in 
the 115th Congress, removed requirements that a Member rise to seek 
recognition (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _); but in other 
respects the principles of this paragraph are in force.


                          sec. xxi--resolutions



Sec. 395. Orders and resolutions of the House.

  When  the 
House commands, it is by an ``order.'' But fact, principles, and their 
own opinions and purposes, are expressed in the form of resolutions.



[[Page 210]]

to the Senate (i.e., a call for their sense by the President, on account 
of doubt in his mind, according to clause 5 of rule XXII) the decision 
was overruled. Jour., Senate, June 1, 1796. I presume the doubt was, 
whether an allowance of money could be made otherwise than by bill.

  A resolution for an allowance of money to the clerks being moved, it 
was objected to as not in order, and so ruled by the Chair; but on 
appeal



Sec. 396. Concurrent resolutions of the two Houses.

  In   the 
modern practice concurrent resolutions have been developed as a means of 
expressing fact, principles, opinions, and purposes of the two Houses 
(II, 1566, 1567). Joint committees are authorized by resolutions of this 
form (III, 1998, 1999), and they are used in authorizing correction of 
bills agreed to by both Houses (VII, 1042), amendment of enrolled bills 
(VII, 1041), amendment of conference reports (VIII, 3308), requests for 
return of bills sent to the President (VII, 1090, 1091), authorizing the 
printing of certain enrolled bills by hand in the remaining days of a 
session (Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32875), providing for joint session to 
receive a message from the President (VIII, 3335, 3336), authorizing the 
printing of congressional documents (July 1, 1969, p. 17948); and fixing 
time for final adjournment (VIII, 3365). The Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 (P.L. 93-344) provides for the adoption by both Houses of 
concurrent resolutions on the budget that become binding on both Houses 
with respect to congressional budget procedures (see Sec. 1127, infra). 
A concurrent resolution is binding on neither House until agreed to by 
both (IV, 3379), and, because not legislative in nature, is not sent to 
the President for approval (IV, 3483). A concurrent resolution is not a 
bill or joint resolution within the meaning of former clause 5(b) of 
rule XXI (requiring a three-fifths vote for approval of such a measure 
if carrying an increase in a rate of tax on income) (Speaker Gingrich, 
May 18, 1995, p. 13499). In the 106th Congress the Senate neglected to 
adopt a House concurrent resolution vacating signatures of the Presiding 
Officers on an enrolled bill and laying that bill on the table as 
overtaken by another enactment (H. Con. Res. 234, adopted by the House 
on Nov. 18, 1999, p. 30719). The Congress subsequently enacted section 
1401 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act of 2001, which adopted that 
concurrent resolution (as enacted by P.L. 106-554). For a concurrent 
resolution requesting that the Secretary of the Senate return an 
enrolled bill to the House, providing that the Speaker's signature be 
rescinded upon its return, and providing for the subsequent reenrollment 
of the bill with a specified correction, see S. Con. Res. 63, 112th 
Congress, adopted by the House on Dec. 19, 2012, p. 17752.



[[Page 211]]

for approval and have the full force of law. They are used for what may 
be called the incidental, unusual, or inferior purposes of legislating 
(IV, 3372), as extending the national thanks to individuals (IV, 3370), 
the invitation to Lafayette to visit America (V, 7082, footnote), notice 
to a foreign government of the abrogation of a treaty (V, 6270), 
declaration of intervention in Cuba (V, 6321), correction of an error in 
an existing act of legislation (IV, 3519; VII, 1092), enlargement of 
scope of inquiries provided by law (VII, 1040), election of managers for 
National Soldiers' Homes (V, 7336), special appropriations for minor and 
incidental purposes (V, 7319), continuing appropriations (H.J. Res. 790, 
P.L. 91-33), establishing the date for convening of Congress (H.J. Res. 
1041, P.L. 91-182), extending the submission date under law for 
transmittal of a report to Congress by the President (H.J. Res. 635, 
P.L. 97-469), and extending the termination date for a law (H.J. Res. 
864, P.L. 91-59). At one time they were used for purposes of general 
legislation; but the two Houses finally concluded that a bill was the 
proper instrumentality for this purpose (IV, 3370-3373). A joint 
resolution has been changed to a bill by amendment (IV, 3374), but in 
the later practice it has become impracticable to do so.


Sec. 397. Joint resolutions.

  Another  development of the 
modern practice is the joint resolution, which is a bill so far as the 
processes of the Congress in relation to it are concerned (IV, 3375; 
VII, 1036). With the exception of joint resolutions proposing amendments 
to the Constitution (V, 7029), all these resolutions are sent to the 
President






  Where a choice between a concurrent resolution and a joint resolution 
is not dictated by law, the House by its vote on consideration of a 
measure decides which is the appropriate vehicle (and a point of order 
does not lie that a concurrent rather than a joint resolution would be 
more appropriate to express the sense of the Congress on an issue) 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 4.1).
* * * * *


                  sec. xxiii--bills, leave to bring in



[[Page 212]]




Sec. 398. Obsolete provisions as to introduction of 
bills.

  When  a Member desires to bring in a bill on any subject, he states 
to the House in general terms the causes for doing it, and concludes by 
moving for leave to bring in a bill, entitled, &c. Leave being given, on 
the question, a committee is appointed to prepare and bring in the bill. 
The mover and seconder are always appointed of this committee, and one 
or more in addition. Hakew., 132; Scob., 40. It is to be presented 
fairly written, without any erasure or interlineation, or the Speaker 
may refuse it. Scob., 41; 1 Grey, 82, 84.






  This provision is obsolete because rule XII provides an entirely 
different method of introducing bills through the hopper. The 
introduction of bills by leave was gradually dropped by the practice of 
the House, and after 1850 the present system of permitting Members to 
introduce at will bills for printing and reference began to develop (IV, 
3365).


                     sec. xxiv--bills, first reading




Sec. 399. Obsolete requirements as to first reading of 
bills.

  When  a bill is first presented, the Clerk reads it at the table, and 
hands it to the Speaker, who, rising, states to the House the title of 
the bill; that this is the first time of reading it; and the question 
will be, whether it shall be read a second time? then sitting down to 
give an opening for objections. If none be made, he rises again, and 
puts the question, whether it shall be read a second time? Hakew., 137, 
141. A bill cannot be amended on the first reading, 6 Grey, 286; nor is 
it usual for it to be opposed then, but it may be done, and rejected. 
D'Ewes, 335, col. 1; 3 Hats., 198.






  This provision is obsolete, the practice under clause 8 of rule XVI 
now governing the procedure of the House.


                     sec. xxv--bills, second reading


[[Page 213]]

question will be, whether it shall be read a third time? and before he 
has so reported the state of the bill, no one is to speak to it. Hakew., 
143, 146.


Sec. 400. Obsolete parliamentary law as to second 
reading.

  The  second reading must regularly be on another day. Hakew., 143. 
It is done by the Clerk at the table, who then hands it to the Speaker. 
The Speaker, rising, states to the House the title of the bill; that 
this is the second time of reading it; and that the question will be, 
whether it shall be committed, or engrossed and read a third time? But 
if the bill came from the other House, as it always comes engrossed, he 
states that the



  In the Senate of the United States, the President reports the title of 
the bill; that this is the second time of reading it; that it is now to 
be considered as in a Committee of the Whole; and the question will be, 
whether it shall be read a third time? or that it may be referred to a 
special committee?





  The provisions of this paragraph are to a large extent obsolete, the 
practice under clause 8 of rule XVI now governing.


                      sec. xxvi--bills, commitment




Sec. 401. Parliamentary law (largely obsolete) as to 
reference of bills to committees.

  If  on motion and question it be decided 
that the bill shall be committed, it may then be moved to be referred to 
Committee of the Whole House, or to a special committee. If the latter, 
the Speaker proceeds to name the committee. Any member also may name a 
single person, and Clerk is to write him down as of the committee. But 
the House have a controlling power over the names and number, if a 
question be moved against any one; and may in any case put in and put 
out whom they please.



[[Page 214]]

  This paragraph is to a large extent obsolete. Bills are referred in 
the first instance by the Speaker to committees as prescribed by the 
rules (rule XII), and references of reported bills to the proper 
calendar of the House are also made under direction of the Speaker 
(clause 2 of rule XIII). Reference of a matter under consideration is 
made by a motion to refer that specifies the committee and may provide 
for a select committee of a specified number of persons (IV, 4402). But 
such committee is appointed only by the Speaker (clause 11 of rule I).


  Clause 2 of rule XIX provides that the Speaker may entertain a motion 
to commit to a standing or select committee with or without instructions 
pending or following the ordering of the previous question.




Sec. 402. Obsolete provisions as to constitution of 
committees.

  Those  who take exceptions to some particulars in the bill are to 
be of the committee, but none who speak directly against the body of the 
bill; for he that would totally destroy will not amend it, Hakew., 146; 
Town., col., 208; D'Ewes, 634, col. 2; Scob., 47; or as is said, 5 Grey, 
145, the child is not to be put to a nurse that cares not for it, 6 
Grey, 373. It is therefore a constant rule ``that no man is to be 
employed in any matter who has declared himself against it.'' And when 
any member who is against the bill hears himself named of its committee 
he ought to ask to be excused. Thus, March 7, 1806, Mr. Hadley was, on 
the question being put, excused from being of a committee, declaring 
himself to be against the matter itself. Scob., 46.



  This provision is inapplicable in the House because committees have 
majority and minority representation (IV, 4467, 4477, footnote).




Sec. 403. Delivery of bills to committees.

  The  Clerk may 
deliver the bill to any member of the committee, Town, col. 138; but it 
is usual to deliver it to him who is first named.




[[Page 215]]


  Following introduction, reference, and numbering, bills are sent to 
the Government Publishing Office for printing. Printed copies of all 
bills are distributed in accordance with law (44 U.S.C. 706) and copies 
are made available to the committee to which referred.




Sec. 404. Obsolete provision for ordering a committee to 
withdraw and bring back a bill.

  In  some cases the House has ordered a 
committee to withdraw immediately into the committee chamber and act on 
and bring back the bill, sitting the House. Scob., 48. * * *


  This procedure is rarely followed in the House, because the order of 
business does not provide for such a motion.



Sec. 405. Commital with directions to report 
forthwith.

  When  a bill is under consideration, however, the House may on 
motion commit it with instructions to report forthwith with certain 
specified amendment (V, 5548, 5549), in which case the chair of the 
committee reports at once without awaiting action of the committee (V, 
5545-5547; VIII, 2730, 2732) and the bill is in order for immediate 
consideration (V, 5550; VIII, 2735).





Sec. 406. Discharge of a committee.

  The  motion to discharge 
a committee from the consideration of an ordinary legislative 
proposition is not privileged under the rules (IV, 3533, 4693; VIII, 
2316), but if a matter involves a question of privilege (III, 2585, 
2709; VIII, 2316), or is privileged under the rule relating to 
resolutions of inquiry (clause 7 of rule XIII; III, 1871; IV, 4695) or 
is provided privilege under statutes enacted under the rulemaking power 
of the House (see Sec. 1130, infra), the motion to discharge is 
admitted. The motion is not debatable (III, 1868; IV, 4695), except as 
follows: (1) under statutory procedures; (2) under clause 2 of rule XV; 
and (3) under modern practice of the House, a motion to discharge a 
vetoed bill (Mar. 7, 1990, p. 3620; Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23815). The 
motion may be laid on the table (V, 5407; VI, 415), but the question of 
consideration may not be demanded against it (V, 4977).





Sec. 407. Meetings and action of committees.

  * * *  A 
committee meet when and where they please, if the House has not ordered 
time and place for them, 6 Grey, 370; but they can only act when 
together, and not by separate consultation and consent--nothing being 
the report of the committee but what has been agreed to in committee 
actually assembled.



[[Page 216]]

  For discussion of committee procedure generally, see Sec. 792, infra. 
In the House the standing committees usually meet in their committee 
rooms, but there is no rule requiring them to meet there, and in the 
absence of direction by the House, committees designate the time and 
place of their meetings (VIII, 2214).

  Standing committees fix regular meeting days for the transaction of 
business (not less frequently than monthly, under clause 2(b) of rule 
XI), and additional meetings may be called by the chair as noticed 
(clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI) or by a majority of the committee in certain 
circumstances (clause 2(c) of rule XI). On a fixed date of meeting, a 
quorum of the committee may convene and transact business regardless of 
the absence of the chair (VIII, 2214), though as of the 113th Congress 
such regular meeting is held only if properly noticed by the chair (sec. 
2(f)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). A committee meeting being 
adjourned for lack of a quorum, a majority of the members of the 
committee may not, without the consent of the chair and notice pursuant 
to clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI, call a meeting of the committee on the 
same day (VIII, 2213). For restrictions on committee action during a 
joint meeting or joint session, see clause 2(i) of rule XI.



Sec. 408. Authorization of reports of committees.

  The  House 
has adhered to the principle that a report must be authorized by a 
committee acting together, and a paper signed by a majority of the 
committee acting separately has been ruled out (IV, 4584; VIII, 2210-
2212, 2220; see also clause 2(h) of rule XI).


   No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any committee 
unless a majority of the committee were actually present (clause 2(h) of 
rule XI). A report is sometimes authorized by less than a majority of 
the whole committee, some members being silent or absent (II, 985, 986). 
In a rare instance a majority of a committee agreed to a report, but 
disagreed on the facts necessary to sustain the report (I, 819). In the 
situation in which a committee finds itself unable to agree to a 
positive recommendation, being equally divided, it may report the fact 
to the House (I, 347; IV, 4665, 4666) and may include evidence, majority 
and minority views (III, 2403), minority views alone (II, 945), or 
propositions representing the opposing contentions (III, 2497; IV, 
4664).

  For each record vote in committee on amending or reporting a public 
measure or matter, the report to the House must disclose the total 
number of votes cast for and against and the names of those voting for 
and against (clause 3 of rule XIII). A resolution alleging that a 
committee report on a bill contained descriptions of recorded votes on 
certain amendments as prescribed by clause 3(b) of rule XIII that 
deliberately mischaracterized the amendments, and directing the chair of 
the committee to file a supplemental report to change those 
descriptions, qualified as a question of the privileges of the House 
(May 3, 2005, p. 8417).


[[Page 217]]

  It is the duty of the chair of each committee to report or cause to be 
reported promptly any measure approved by the committee and to take or 
cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote (clause 
2 of rule XIII); and a report must be filed within seven days following 
the submission of a written request, signed by a majority of the 
committee members, directing such filing (clause 2 of rule XIII).

  It is not essential that the report of a committee be signed (II, 
1274; VIII, 2229), but the minority or other separate views are signed 
by those concurring in them (IV, 4671; VIII, 2229).

  Objection being made that a report had not been authorized by a 
committee and there being doubt as to the validity of the authorization, 
the question as to the reception of the report is submitted to the House 
(IV, 4588-4591). But the Speaker may decide the question if satisfied of 
the validity or of the invalidity of the authorization (IV, 4584, 4592, 
4593; VIII, 2211, 2212, 2222-2224). And in a case wherein it was shown 
that a majority of a committee had met and authorized a report the 
Speaker did not heed the fact that the meeting was not regularly called 
(IV, 4594). A bill improperly reported is not entitled to its place on 
the calendar (IV, 3117); but the validity of a report may not be 
questioned after the House has voted to consider it (IV, 4598), or after 
actual consideration has begun (IV, 4599; VIII, 2223, 2225).


  Where a question was raised regarding a chair's alteration of a 
committee amendment, the Speaker indicated that the proper time to raise 
a point of order was when the unprivileged report was called up for 
consideration (or when before the Committee on Rules for a special order 
of business) and not when filed in the hopper (May 16, 1989, p. 9356). A 
resolution including an allegation that the chair deliberately and 
improperly refused to recognize a legitimate and timely objection by a 
member of the committee to dispense with the reading of an amendment and 
resolving that the House disapproves of the manner in which the chair 
conducted the markup and finding that the bill considered at that markup 
was not validly ordered reported was held to constitute a question of 
the privileges of the House (July 18, 2003, pp. 18698; July 23, 2003, p. 
19171, 19172).




Sec. 409. The quorum of a select or standing committee.

    A 
majority of the committee constitutes a quorum for business. Elsynge's 
Method of Passing Bills, 11.



[[Page 218]]

during a designated public health emergency, to count for purposes of 
establishing a quorum in committee proceedings all Members participating 
remotely (sec. 4(a)(4), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. 
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
  A majority quorum is required in certain circumstances, such as 
reporting a measure or recommendation (clause 2(h) of rule XI); 
authorizing a subpoena (clause 2(m) of rule XI); closing a meeting or 
hearing under clauses 2(a) and 2(g) of rule XI (except as provided under 
clause 2(g)(2)(A) with respect to certain hearing procedures); 
requesting immunity for a witness (18 U.S.C. 6005); releasing executive-
session material (clause 2(k)(7) of rule XI); and proceeding in open 
session after an assertion under clause 2(k)(5) of rule XI. Each 
committee may fix the number of its members, but not less than two, to 
constitute a quorum for taking testimony and receiving evidence; and 
except for the Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and Ways and 
Means, a committee may fix the number of members to constitute a quorum, 
which shall be not less than one-third of its members, for taking 
certain other actions (clause 2(h) of rule XI). In the 116th and 117th 
Congresses the House adopted a provision, effective


  A quorum of a committee may transact business and a majority of the 
quorum, even though it be a minority of the whole committee, may 
authorize a report (IV, 4586), but an actual quorum of a committee must 
be present to make action taken valid (VIII, 2212, 2222), unless the 
House authorizes less than a quorum to act (IV, 4553, 4554). A quorum of 
a committee must be present when alleged perjurious testimony is given 
in order to support a charge of perjury. Christoffel v. United States, 
338 U.S. 84 (1949). The absence of a quorum of a committee at the time a 
witness willfully fails to produce subpoenaed documents is not a valid 
defense in a prosecution for contempt if the witness failed to raise 
that objection before the committee. United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 
323 (1950); United States v. Fleischman, 339 U.S. 349 (1950).




Sec. 410. Presence of a Member of the House in a select 
committee.

  Any  Member of the House may be present at any select committee, 
but cannot vote, and must give place to all of the committee, and sit 
below them. Elsynge, 12; Scob., 49.



  In the 95th Congress, clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI was amended to 
prohibit the exclusion of noncommittee members from nonparticipatory 
attendance in any closed hearing, except in the Committee on Ethics, 
unless the House by majority vote authorizes a committee or subcommittee 
to close its hearings to noncommittee members (H. Res. 5, 95th Cong., 
Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70). Formerly, a committee could close its doors in 
executive session meetings to persons not invited or required, including 
Members of the House who were not members of the committee (III, 1694; 
IV, 4558-4565; see discussion at IV, 4540).




Sec. 411. Power of committees over the body and title of a 
bill.

  The  committee have full power over the bill or other paper committed 
to them, except that they cannot change the title or subject. 8 Grey, 
228.




[[Page 219]]


  In the House committees may recommend amendments to the body of a bill 
or to the title but may not otherwise change the text.



[[Page 220]]




Sec. 412. Parliamentary law governing consideration of 
bills, etc., in committees.

  The  paper before a committee, whether select 
or of the whole, may be a bill, resolutions, draught of an address, &c., 
and it may either originate with them or be referred to them. In every 
case the whole paper is read first by the Clerk, and then by the 
chairman, by paragraphs, Scob., 49, pausing at the end of each 
paragraph, and putting questions for amending, if proposed. In the case 
of resolutions or distinct subjects, originating with themselves, a 
question is put on each separately, as amended or unamended, and no 
final question on the whole, 3 Hats., 276; but if they relate to the 
same subject, a question is put on the whole. If it be a bill, draught 
of an address, or other paper originating with them, they proceed by 
paragraphs, putting questions for amending, either by insertion or 
striking out, if proposed; but no question on agreeing to the paragraphs 
separately; this is reserved to the close, when a question is put on the 
whole, for agreeing to it as amended or unamended. But if it be a paper 
referred to them, they proceed to put questions of amendment, if 
proposed, but no final question on the whole; because all parts of the 
paper, having been adopted by the House, stand, of course, unless 
altered or struck out by a vote. Even if they are opposed to the whole 
paper, and think it cannot be made good by amendments, they cannot 
reject it, but must report it back to the House without amendments, and 
there make their opposition.



  In the House it has generally been held that a select or standing 
committee may not report a bill unless the subject matter has been 
referred to it (IV, 4355-4360), except that under the modern practice 
reports filed as privileged pursuant to clause 5 of rule XIII have been 
permitted on bills and resolutions originating in certain committees and 
not formally referred thereto. Pursuant to this paragraph some 
committees have originated drafts of bills for consideration and 
amendment before the introduction and referral of a numbered bill to 
committee(s). In the older practice the Committee of the Whole 
originated resolutions and bills (IV, 4705); but the later development 
of the rules governing the order of business would prevent the offering 
of a motion to go into Committee of the Whole for such a purpose, except 
by unanimous consent.




Sec. 413. Order of amending bills in the House.

  The  natural 
order in considering and amending any paper is, to begin at the 
beginning, and proceed through it by paragraphs; and this order is so 
strictly adhered to in Parliament, that when a latter part has been 
amended, you cannot recur back and make an alteration in a former part. 
2 Hats., 90. In numerous assemblies this restraint is doubtless 
important. But in the Senate of the United States, though in the main we 
consider and amend the paragraphs in their natural order, yet 
recurrences are indulged; and they seem, on the whole, in that small 
body, to produce advantages overweighing their inconveniences.




[[Page 221]]


  In the House, amendments to House bills are made before the previous 
question is ordered, pending the engrossment and third reading (IV, 
3392; V, 5781; VII, 1051), and to Senate bills before the third reading 
(IV, 3393). Amendments may be offered to any part of the bill without 
proceeding consecutively section by section or paragraph by paragraph 
(IV, 3392). In the Committee of the Whole, bills are read section by 
section or paragraph by paragraph and after a section or paragraph has 
been passed it is no longer subject to amendment (clause 5 of rule 
XVIII; Sec. 980, infra; July 12, 1961, p. 12405).



Sec. 414. Preamble amended after the body of the bill or 
resolution has been considered.

  To  this natural order of beginning at the 
beginning there is a single exception found in parliamentary usage. When 
a bill is taken up in committee, or on its second reading, they postpone 
the preamble till the other parts of the bill are gone through. The 
reason is, that on consideration of the body of the bill such 
alterations may therein be made as may also occasion the alteration of 
the preamble. Scob., 50; 7 Grey, 431.



[[Page 222]]

mains in his breast, and may be withheld. The Rules of the House can 
only operate on what is before them. The practice of the Senate, too, 
allows recurrences backward and forward for the purpose of amendment, 
not permitting amendments in a subsequent to preclude those in a prior 
part, or e converso.

  On this head the following case occurred in the Senate, March 6, 1800: 
A resolution which had no preamble having been already amended by the 
House so that a few words only of the original remained in it, a motion 
was made to prefix a preamble, which having an aspect very different 
from the resolution, the mover intimated that he should afterwards 
propose a correspondent amendment in the body of the resolution. It was 
objected that a preamble could not be taken up till the body of the 
resolution is done with; but the preamble was received, because we are 
in fact through the body of the resolution; we have amended that as far 
as amendments have been offered, and, indeed, till little of the 
original is left. It is the proper time, therefore, to consider a 
preamble; and whether the one offered be consistent with the resolution 
is for the House to determine. The mover, indeed, has intimated that he 
shall offer a subsequent proposition for the body of the resolution; but 
the House is not in possession of it; it re


  In the practice of the House the preamble of a joint resolution is 
amended after the engrossment and before the third reading (IV, 3414; V, 
5469, 5470; VII, 1064), but the preamble of the joint resolution is not 
voted on separately in the later practice even if amended, because the 
question on passage covers the preamble as well as the resolving clause 
(V, 6147, 6148; Oct. 29, 1975, p. 34283). After an amendment to the 
preamble has been considered it is too late to propose amendments to the 
text of the joint resolution (VII, 1065). In the Committee of the Whole, 
amendments to the preamble of a joint resolution are considered 
following disposition of any amendments to the resolving clause (Mar. 9, 
1967, pp. 6032-34; Mar. 22, 1967, pp. 7679-83; May 25, 1993, p. 11036). 
Where a simple resolution of the House has a preamble, the preamble may 
be laid on the table without affecting the status of the accompanying 
resolution (V, 5430). Amendments to the preamble of a concurrent or 
simple resolution are considered in the House following the adoption of 
the resolution (Dec. 4, 1973, p. 39337; June 8, 1970, pp. 18668-71). The 
House considers an amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole to 
the preamble of a Senate joint resolution following disposition of 
amendment to the text and pending third reading (May 25, 1993, p. 
11036).




Sec. 415. Directions of a committee for making of its 
report.

  When  the committee is through the whole, a Member moves that the 
committee may rise, and the chairman report the paper to the House, with 
or without amendments, as the case may be. 2 Hats., 289, 292; Scob., 53; 
2 Hats., 290; 8 Scob., 50.



[[Page 223]]

the procedures of clause 2 of rule XIII. In the House a committee may 
order its report to be made by the chair (IV, 4669), or by any other 
member of the committee (IV, 4526), even one from the minority party 
(IV, 4672, 4673; VIII, 2314). A committee report may be filed by a 
Delegate (July 1, 1958, p. 12870). Only the chair makes a report for the 
Committee of the Whole (V, 6987).

  Clause 2 of rule XIII provides that it shall be the duty of the chair 
of each committee to report or cause to be reported promptly any measure 
approved by the committee and to take or cause to be taken necessary 
steps to bring the matter to a vote; and in any event, the report of a 
committee must be filed within seven calendar days (exclusive of days 
when the House is not in session) after a majority of the committee has 
invoked




Sec. 416. As to reconsideration of a vote in 
committee.

  When  a vote is once passed in a committee it cannot be altered 
but by the House, their votes being binding on themselves. 1607, June 4.



  This provision of the parliamentary law has been held to prevent the 
use of the motion to reconsider in the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4716-
4718; VIII, 2324, 2325) but it is in order in the House as in the 
Committee of the Whole (VIII, 2793). The early practice seems to have 
inclined against the use of the motion in a standing or select committee 
(IV, 4570, 4596), but there is a precedent that authorized the use of 
the motion (IV, 4570, 4596), and on June 1, 1922, the Committee on Rules 
rescinded previous action taken by the committee authorizing a report. 
In the later practice the motion to reconsider is in order in committee 
so long as the measure remains in possession of the committee and the 
motion is not prevented by subsequent actions of the committee on the 
measure, and may be entered on the same day as action to be reconsidered 
or on the next day on which the committee convenes with a quorum present 
to consider the same class of business (VIII, 2213), but a session 
adjourned without having secured a quorum is a dies non and not to be 
counted in determining the admissibility of a motion to reconsider 
(VIII, 2213). This provision does not prevent a committee from reporting 
a bill similar to one previously reported by such committee (VIII, 
2311).




Sec. 417. Method of noting amendments to a bill in 
committee.

  The  committee may not erase, interline, or blot the bill 
itself; but must, in a paper by itself set down the amendments, stating 
the words which are to be inserted or omitted, Scob., 50, and where, by 
references to page, line, and word of the bill. Scob., 50.



[[Page 224]]

amendments. In the official papers (signed engrossed copies), the 
engrossed House amendments to a Senate bill would still be shown as a 
separate message attached to the Senate engrossed bill when returned to 
the Senate.




  This practice is still in force as to Senate bills of which the 
engrossed copies cannot be in any way interlined or altered by House 
committees. Original copies of House bills are not referred to 
committees but are maintained indefinitely by the Clerk. Both House and 
Senate bills are now printed as referred, and committees may thus report 
either with proposed


                     sec. xxvii--report of committee




Sec. 418. Parliamentary method of submitting 
reports.

  The  chairman of the committee, standing in his place, informs the 
House that the committee to whom was referred such a bill, have, 
according to order, had the same under consideration, and have directed 
him to report the same without any amendment, or with sundry amendments 
(as the case may be), which he is ready to do when the House pleases to 
receive it. And he or any other may move that it be now received; but 
the cry of ``now, now,'' from the House, generally dispenses with the 
formality of a motion and question. He then reads the amendments, with 
the coherence in the bill, and opens the alterations and the reasons of 
the committee for such amendments, until he has gone through the whole. 
He then delivers it at the Clerk's table, where the amendments reported 
are read by the Clerk without the coherence; whereupon the papers lie 
upon the table till the House, at its convenience, shall take up the 
report. Scob., 52; Hakew., 148.



[[Page 225]]

ability requirements under clause 4 and timing considerations under 
clause 6 of rule XIII, all reports privileged under clause 5 of rule 
XIII may be called up for consideration immediately after being filed 
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34406). For a discussion of 
the layover rule, see Sec. 850, infra.

  This provision is to a large extent obsolete so far as the practice of 
the House is concerned. Most of the reports of committees are made by 
filing them with the Clerk without reading (clause 2 of rule XIII), and 
only the reports of committees having leave to report at any time are 
made by the chair or other member of the committee from the floor 
(clause 5 of rule XIII). Except as provided in clause 2(c) of rule XIII, 
committee reports must be submitted while the House is in session; and 
this requirement may be waived by only by order of the House (by rule, 
suspension, or unanimous consent but not by motion) (Dec. 17, 1982, p. 
31951). Subject to avail




Sec. 419. Reports; dissolution and revival of select 
committees.

  The  report being made, the committee is dissolved and can act 
no more without a new power. Scob. 51. But it may be revived by a vote, 
and the same matter recommitted to them. 4 Grey, 361.






  This provision does not apply now to the Committees of the Whole or to 
the standing committees. It does apply to select committees, which 
expire when they report finally, but may be revived by the action of the 
House in referring in open House a new matter (IV, 4404, 4405). The 
provision does not preclude a standing committee from reporting a bill 
similar to one previously reported by such committee (VIII, 2311).


                     sec. xxviii--bill, recommitment



Sec. 420. Recommittal of a bill to a committee.

  After  a bill 
has been committed and reported, it ought not, in any ordinary course, 
to be recommitted; but in cases of importance, and for special reasons, 
it is sometimes recommitted, and usually to the same committee. Hakew, 
151. If a report be recommitted before agreed to in the House, what has 
passed in committee is of no validity; the whole question is again 
before the committee, and a new resolution must be again moved, as if 
nothing had passed. 3 Hats., 131--note.



  In Senate, January, 1800, the salvage bill was recommitted three times 
after the commitment.


[[Page 226]]

Committee of the Whole as the indirect result of the action of the House 
(clause 9 of rule XVIII; IV, 4784) or directly on motion either with or 
without instructions (V, 5552, 5553).

  Before the motion to recommit with instructions was eliminated, where 
a matter was recommitted with instructions, the committee had to confine 
itself within the instructions (IV, 4404), and if the instructions 
related to a certain portion only of a bill, other portions could not be 
reviewed (V, 5526). When a report has been disposed of adversely a 
motion to recommit it is not in order (V, 5559). Bills are sometimes 
recommitted to the




Sec. 421. Division of matters for reference to 
committees.

  A  particular clause of a bill may be committed without the 
whole bill, 3 Hats., 131; or so much of a paper to one and so much to 
another committee.






  In the usage of the House before the rules provided that petitions 
should be filed with the Clerk instead of being referred from the floor, 
it was the practice to refer a portion of a petition to one committee 
and the remainder to another when the subject matter called for such 
division (IV, 3359). Clause 2 of rule XII now permits the Speaker to 
refer bills, and resolutions, with or without time limitations, either 
(1) simultaneously to two or more committees for concurrent 
consideration, while indicating one committee of primary jurisdiction 
(except under extraordinary circumstances), (2) sequentially to 
appropriate committees after the report of the committee or committees 
initially considering the matter, (3) to divide the matter for referral, 
(4) to appoint an ad hoc committee with the approval of the House, or 
(5) to make other appropriate provisions, in order to assure that to the 
maximum extent feasible each committee with subject matter jurisdiction 
over provisions in that measure may consider and report to the House 
with respect thereto. Under former precedents a bill, resolution, or 
communication could not be divided for reference (IV, 4372, 4376).


                    sec. xxix--bill, reports taken up




Sec. 422. Consideration and action on reports.

  When  the 
report of a paper originating with a committee is taken up by the House, 
they proceed exactly as in committee. Here, as in committee, when the 
paragraphs have, on distinct questions, been agreed to seriatim, 5 Grey, 
366; 6 Grey, 368; 8 Grey, 47, 104, 360; 1 Torbuck's Deb., 125; 3 Hats., 
348, no question needs be put on the whole report. 5 Grey, 381.



[[Page 227]]

House or in the Committee of the Whole for unanimous consent to amend 
the accompanying committee report in a specified manner, because the 
House should not change the substance of a committee report upon which 
it is not called to vote (Apr. 2, 1985, p. 7209; Nov. 7, 1989, p. 
27762). In rare instances, however, committees submit merely written 
reports without propositions for action. Such reports being before the 
House may be debated before any specific motion has been made (V, 4987, 
4988), and are in such case read to the House (IV, 4663) and after being 
considered the question is taken on agreeing. In such cases the report 
appears in full on the Journal (II, 1364; IV, 4675; V, 7177). When 
reports are acted on in this way it has not been the practice of the 
House to consider them by paragraphs, but the question has been put on 
the whole report (II, 1364).

  In the House, bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, and 
simple resolutions come before the House for action although the written 
reports accompanying them, which are always printed, do not (IV, 4674), 
and even the reading of the reports is in order only in the time of 
debate (V, 5292). The Chair will not recognize a Member during debate on 
a bill in the




Sec. 423. Action by the House on amendments recommended by 
committees.

  On  taking up a bill reported with amendments the amendments 
only are read by the Clerk. The Speaker then reads the first, and puts 
it to the question, and so on till the whole are adopted or rejected, 
before any other amendment be admitted, except it be an amendment to an 
amendment. Elsynge's Mem., 53. When through the amendments of the 
committee, the Speaker pauses, and gives time for amendments to be 
proposed in the House to the body of the bill; as he does also if it has 
been reported without amendments; putting no questions but on amendments 
proposed; and when through the whole, he puts the question whether the 
bill shall be read a third time?



[[Page 228]]

is of such nature that it does not go to Committee of the Whole, it 
comes before the House from the House Calendar, on which it has been 
placed on being reported from the standing or select committee or 
pursuant to a special order of business. On being taken from the House 
Calendar the bill is read through and then the amendments proposed by 
the committee are read. In modern practice the House may adopt a special 
order ``self-executing'' the adoption of the reported committee 
amendments in the House, and may permit further amendment to the amended 
text (e.g., H. Res. 245, 106th Cong., July 15, 1999, p. 16216).




  The procedure outlined by this provision of the parliamentary law 
applies to bills when reported from the Committee of the Whole; but in 
practice it is usual to vote on the amendments en gros unless a Member 
demands a separate vote (see Sec. 337, supra). The principle that the 
committee amendments should be voted on before amendments proposed by 
individual Members is recognized (IV, 4872-4876; V, 5773; VIII, 2862, 
2863), except when it is proposed to amend a committee amendment. The 
Clerk reads the amendments and the Speaker does not again read them. 
Frequently the House orders the previous question on the committee 
amendments and the bill to final passage, thus preventing further 
amendment. When a bill


                        sec. xxx--quasi-committee



Sec. 424. Procedure ``in the House as in Committee of the 
Whole.''

  If  on motion and question the bill be not committed, or if no 
proposition for commitment be made, then the proceedings in the Senate 
of the United States and in Parliament are totally different. The former 
shall be first stated.




[[Page 229]]


  The proceeding of the Senate as in a Committee of the Whole, or in 
quasi-committee, is precisely as in a real Committee of the Whole, 
taking no question but on amendments. When through the whole, they 
consider the quasi-committee as risen, the House resumed without any 
motion, question, or resolution to that effect, and the President 
reports that ``the House, acting as in a Committee of the Whole, have 
had under their consideration the bill entitled, &c., and have made 
sundry amendments, which he will now report to the House.'' The bill is 
then before them, as it would have been if reported from a committee, 
and the questions are regularly to be put again on every amendment; 
which being gone through, the President pauses to give time to the House 
to propose amendments to the body of the bill, and, when through, puts 
the question whether it shall be read a third time?

  The House may proceed ``in the House as in Committee of the Whole'' 
only by unanimous consent (IV, 4923) or special rule (Dec. 18, 1974, p. 
40858). If the House grants unanimous consent for the immediate 
consideration of a bill on the Union Calendar, or which would belong on 
the Union Calendar if reported, the bill is considered in the House as 
in the Committee of the Whole (Apr. 6, 1966, p. 7749; Aug. 3, 1970, p. 
26918; Deschler, ch. 22, Sec. 2.2). In the modern practice of the House 
an order for this procedure means merely that the bill will be 
considered as having been read for amendment and will be open for 
amendment and debate under the five-minute rule (Aug. 10, 1970, p. 
28050; clause 5 of rule XVIII), without general debate (IV, 4924, 4925; 
VI, 639; VIII, 2431, 2432). The Speaker remains in the chair and, when 
the previous question is moved, makes no report but puts the question on 
ordering the previous question and then on engrossment and third reading 
and on passage.


  For further description of the procedures applicable to the House as 
in the Committee of the Whole, and the application of those procedures 
to committees of the House, see Sec. 427, infra.



Sec. 425. Motion to refer admitted ``in the House as in 
Committee of the Whole.''

  After  progress in amending the bill in quasi-
committee, a motion may be made to refer it to a special committee. If 
the motion prevails, it is equivalent in effect to the several votes, 
that the committee rise, the House resume itself, discharge the 
Committee of the Whole, and refer the bill to a special committee. In 
that case, the amendments already made fall. But if the motion fails, 
the quasi-committee stands in status quo.-



[[Page 230]]

reported to the House. 3. A committee, even of the whole, cannot refer 
any matter to another committee. 4. In a committee no previous question 
can be taken; the only means to avoid an improper discussion is to move 
that the committee rise; and if it be apprehended that the same 
discussion will be attempted on returning into committee, the House can 
discharge them, and proceed itself on the business, keeping down the 
improper discussion by the previous question. 5. A committee cannot 
punish a breach of order in the House or in the gallery. 9 Grey, 113. It 
can only rise and report it to the House, who may proceed to punish. The 
first and second of these peculiarities attach to the quasi-committee of 
the Senate, as every day's practice proves, and it seems to be the only 
ones to which the XXVIIIth rule meant to subject them; for it continues 
to be a House, and, therefore, though it acts in some respects as a 
committee, in others it preserves its character as a House. Thus (3) it 
is in the daily habit of referring its business to a special committee. 
4. It admits of the previous question. If it did not, it would have no 
means of preventing an improper discussion; not being able, as a 
committee is, to avoid it by returning into the House, for the moment it 
would resume the same subject there, the XXVIIIth rule declares it again 
a quasi-committee. 5. It would doubtless exercise its powers as a House 
on any breach of order. 6. It takes a question by yea and nay, as the 
House does. 7. It receives messages from the President and the other 
House. 8.

[[Page 231]]

In the midst of a debate it receives a motion to adjourn, and adjourns 
as a House, not as a committee.



Sec. 426. Motions and procedure in quasicommittee in 
Jefferson's time.

  How  far does this XXVIIIth rule [of the Senate] subject 
the House, when in quasi-committee, to the laws which regulate the 
proceedings of Committees of the Whole? The particulars in which these 
differ from proceedings in the House are the following: 1. In a 
committee every member may speak as often as he pleases. 2. The votes of 
a committee may be rejected or altered when




Sec. 427. Motions and procedure ``in the House as in 
Committee of the Whole.''

  In  the modern practice of the House, the rule 
of Jefferson's Manual is followed to the extent that the House, while 
acting ``in the House as in Committee of the Whole,'' may deal with 
disorder, take the yeas and nays, adjourn, refer to a committee even 
though the reading by sections may not have begun (IV, 4931, 4932), 
admit the motion to reconsider (VIII, 2793), receive messages (IV, 
4923), and use the previous question (VI, 369; Procedure, ch. 23, 
Sec. 6.3) (which differs from the previous question of Jefferson's 
time). The previous question may not be moved on a single section of a 
bill (IV, 4930), but it may be demanded on the bill while Members yet 
desire to offer amendments (IV, 4926-4929; VI, 639). Formerly a motion 
to close debate on the pending section of a bill being read by section 
for amendment in the House as in the Committee of the Whole was in order 
(IV, 4935), but under current practice a bill considered ``in the House 
as in Committee of the Whole'' is considered as read and open for 
amendment at any point (Aug. 10, 1970, p. 28050), and a motion is in 
order ``in the House as in Committee of the Whole'' to close debate on 
the bill or on an amendment (June 26, 1973, p. 21314). An amendment may 
be withdrawn at any time before action has been had on it (IV, 4935; 
June 26, 1973, p. 21305). An amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
in order after perfecting amendments have been considered (IV, 4933, 
4934; V, 5788). The title also is amended after the bill has been 
considered (IV, 3416). A quorum of the House (and not of the Committee 
of the Whole) is required in the House as in the Committee of the Whole 
(VI, 639).






  The procedures applicable in the House as in the Committee of the 
Whole generally apply to proceedings in committees of the House, except 
that a measure considered in committee must be read (by section) for 
amendment (see Sec. 413, supra). Therefore, in committee a motion to 
limit debate under the five-minute rule must be confined to the portion 
of the measure then pending.


              sec. xxxi--bill, second reading in the house


[[Page 232]]

on amendments proposed; but when through the whole, he puts the question 
whether it shall be read a third time, if it came from the other house, 
or, if originating with themselves, whether it shall be engrossed and 
read a third time. The speaker reads sitting, but rises to put 
questions. The clerk stands while he reads.


Sec. 428. Manner of reading a bill the second 
time.

  In  Parliament, after the bill has been read a second time, if on 
the motion and question it be not committed, or if no proposition for 
commitment be made, the speaker reads it by paragraphs, pausing between 
each, but putting no question but



  But the Senate of the United States is so much in the habit of making 
many and material amendments at the third reading that it has become the 
practice not to engross a bill till it has passed--an irregular and 
dangerous practice, because in this way the paper which passes the 
Senate is not that which goes to the other House, and that which goes to 
the other House as the act of the Senate has never been seen in the 
Senate. In reducing numerous, difficult, and illegible amendments into 
the text the Secretary may, with the most innocent intentions, commit 
errors which can never again be corrected.


  In the House the Clerk and not the Speaker or chair of the Committee 
of the Whole reads bills on second reading. After the second reading, 
which is by paragraph or section in the Committee of the Whole, the bill 
is open to amendment (see Sec. 980, infra). Clause 8 of rule XVI, as 
explained in Sec. 942, infra, governs first and second readings of bills 
in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The requirement for the 
Speaker to rise when putting a question was removed from clause 6 of 
rule I in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _).


[[Page 233]]

go on to its perfect state, to take time to examine it themselves and to 
hear what can be said for it, knowing that after all they will have 
sufficient opportunities of giving it their veto. Its two last stages, 
therefore, are reserved for this--that is to say, on the question 
whether it shall be engrossed and read a third time, and, lastly, 
whether it shall pass. The first of these is usually the most 
interesting contest, because then the whole subject is new and engaging, 
and the minds of the Members having not yet been declared by any trying 
vote the issue is the more doubtful. In this stage, therefore, is the 
main trial of strength between its friends and opponents, and it 
behooves everyone to make up his mind decisively for this question, or 
he loses the main battle; and accident and management may, and often do, 
prevent a successful rallying on the next and last question, whether it 
shall pass.



Sec. 429. Test of strength on engrossment after 
amendment.

  The  bill being now as perfect as its friends can make it, this 
is the proper stage for those fundamentally opposed to make their first 
attack. All attempts at earlier periods are with disjointed efforts, 
because many who do not expect to be in favor of the bill ultimately, 
are willing to let it





Sec. 430. Test of strength on a bill before amending.

  In  the 
House there are two other means of testing strength: raising the 
question of consideration when the bill first comes up (clause 3 of rule 
XVI), and moving to strike the enacting words when it is first open to 
amendment (clause 9 of rule XVIII). By these methods an adverse opinion 
may be expressed without permitting the bill to consume the time of the 
House.





Sec. 431. Endorsement of the title on an engrossed 
bill.

    When the bill is engrossed the title is to be indorsed on the 
back, and not within the bill. Hakew, 250.



[[Page 234]]




  In the practice of the House and the Senate the title appears in its 
proper place in the engrossed bill, and also is endorsed, with the 
number, on the back.


                       sec. xxxii--reading papers




Sec. 432. Parliamentary law as to the reading of 
papers.

  Where  papers are laid before the House or referred to a committee 
every Member has a right to have them once read at the table before he 
can be compelled to vote on them; but it is a great though common error 
to suppose that he has a right, toties quoties, to have acts, journals, 
accounts, or papers on the table read independently of the will of the 
House. The delay and interruption which this might be made to produce 
evince the impossibility of the existence of such a right. There is, 
indeed, so manifest a propriety of permitting every Member to have as 
much information as possible on every question on which he is to vote, 
that when he desires the reading, if it be seen that it is really for 
information and not for delay, the Speaker directs it to be read without 
putting a question, if no one objects; but if objected to, a question 
must be put. 2 Hats., 117, 118.



  Until the 103d Congress the House, by former rule XXX, had a provision 
regarding the reading a paper other than that on which the House is 
called to give a final vote (see Sec. Sec. 964, 965, infra).


[[Page 235]]



Sec. 433. Papers not necessarily to be read on plea of 
privilege.

  It  is equally an error to suppose that any Member has a right, 
without a question put, to lay a book or paper on the table, and have it 
read, on suggesting that it contains matter infringing on the privileges 
of the House. Ib.




Sec. 434. Member not always privileged to read a paper in 
his place.

  For  the same reason a Member has not a right to read a paper in 
his place, if it be objected to, without leave of the House. But this 
rigor is never exercised but where there is an intentional or gross 
abuse of the time and patience of the House.


  A Member has not a right even to read his own speech, committed to 
writing, without leave. This also is to prevent an abuse of time, and 
therefore is not refused but where that is intended. 2 Grey, 227.




Sec. 435. Reports of committees not read except on order or 
in debate.

  A  report of a committee of the Senate on a bill from the 
House of Representatives being under consideration: on motion that the 
report of the committee of the House of Representatives on the same bill 
be read in the Senate, it passed in the negative. Feb. 28, 1793.



  In the House ordinary reports are read only in time of debate (V, 
5292). But in a few cases, in which a report does not accompany a bill 
or other proposition of action, but presents facts and conclusions, it 
is read to the House if acted on (II, 1364; IV, 4663).




Sec. 436. Reading of papers on reference.

  Formerly,  when 
papers were referred to a committee, they used to be first read; but of 
late only the titles, unless a Member insists they shall be read, and 
then nobody can oppose it. 2 Hats., 117.



[[Page 236]]






  Under the rules, petitions, memorials, and communications are referred 
through the Clerk's desk, so that there is no opportunity for reading 
before reference, though messages from the President are read (clauses 1 
and 3 of rule XII; clause 2 of rule XIV). end segment .003 
deg. segment .004 -- Jefferson from sec. xxxiii  deg.


                    sec. xxxiii--privileged questions



Sec. 437. Possession of a bill by the 
House.

  It is no  possession of a bill unless it be delivered to the Clerk to 
read, or the Speaker reads the title. Lex. Parl., 274; Elysynge Mem., 
85; Ord. House of Commons, 64.





Sec. 438. Theory as to privileged questions.

  It is a  general 
rule that the question first moved and seconded shall be first put. 
Scob., 28, 22; 2 Hats., 81. But this rule gives way to what may be 
called privileged questions; and the privileged questions are of 
different grades among themselves.



  In the House, by rule and practice, the system of privileged motions 
and privileged questions has been highly developed (rule IX, clause 5 of 
rule XIII, clause 1 of rule XIV, and clause 4 of rule XVI).




Sec. 439. Precedence of the motion to adjourn.

  A motion  to 
adjourn simply takes place of all others; for otherwise the House might 
be kept sitting against its will, and indefinitely. Yet this motion can 
not be received after another question is actually put and while the 
House is engaged in voting.



[[Page 237]]

  The rules and practice of the House have prescribed comprehensively 
the privilege and status of the motion to adjourn (clause 4 of rule 
XVI). The motion intervenes between the putting of the question and the 
voting, and also between the different methods of voting, as between a 
vote by division and a vote by yeas and nays, as after the yeas and nays 
are ordered and before the roll call begins (V, 5366). But after the 
roll call begins it may not be interrupted (V, 6053). Clause 4 of rule 
XVI was amended in the 93d Congress to provide that a motion that when 
the House adjourns on that day it stand adjourned to meet at a day and 
time certain is of equal privilege with the motion to adjourn, if the 
Speaker recognizes for that purpose (H. Res. 6, p. 26). In the 102d 
Congress the motion to authorize the Speaker to declare a recess was 
given an equal privilege (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39).




Sec. 440. Obsolete parliamentary law governing 
orders of the day.

  Orders of  the day take place of all other questions, except 
for adjournment--that is to say, the question which is the subject of an 
order is made a privileged one, pro hac vice. The order is a repeal of 
the general rule as to this special case. When any Member moves, 
therefore, for the order of the day to be read, no further debate is 
permitted on the question which was before the House; for if the debate 
might proceed it might continue through the day and defeat the order. 
This motion, to entitle it to precedence, must be for the orders 
generally, and not for any particular one; and if it be carried on the 
question, ``Whether the House will now proceed to the orders of the 
day?'' they must be read and proceeded on in the course in which they 
stand, 2 Hats., 83; for priority of order gives priority of right, which 
cannot be taken away but by another special order of business.


  ``Orders of the day'' were part of the regular and daily order of 
business (IV, 3056). Although a mention of them has survived in clause 1 
of rule XIV, they have disappeared from the practice of the House (IV, 
3057).



Sec. 441. Jefferson's discussion of certain privileged 
motions.

  After  these there are other privileged questions, which will 
require considerable explanation.



[[Page 238]]

6. To amend. The proper occasion for each of these questions should be 
understood.

  It is proper that every parliamentary assembly should have certain 
forms of questions, so adapted as to enable them fitly to dispose of 
every proposition which can be made to them. Such are: 1. The previous 
question. 2. To postpone indefinitely. 3. To adjourn a question to a 
definite day. 4. To lie on the table. 5. To commit.


  The House by clause 4 of rule XVI has established the priority and 
other conditions of motions of this kind.




Sec. 442. Obsolete use of the previous 
question.

  1. When a  proposition is moved which it is useless or inexpedient now 
to express or discuss, the previous question has been introduced for 
suppressing for that time the motion and its discussion. 3 Hats., 188, 
189.



  The previous question of the parliamentary law has been changed by the 
House into an instrument of entirely different use (V, 5445; clause 1 of 
rule XIX).




Sec. 443. The motion to postpone indefinitely.

  2. But as  the 
previous question gets rid of it only for that day, and the same 
proposition may recur the next day, if they wish to suppress it for the 
whole of that session, they postpone it indefinitely. 3 Hats., 183. This 
quashes the proposition for that session, as an indefinite adjournment 
is a dissolution, or the continuance of a suit sine die is a 
discontinuance of it.



  As already explained, in the House the previous question is no longer 
used as a method of postponement (V, 5445) but a means to bring the 
pending matter to an immediate vote. The House does use the motion to 
postpone indefinitely, and in clause 4 of rule XVI and the practice 
thereunder, has defined the nature and use of the motion.


[[Page 239]]

may not speak again when the adjourned debate is resumed. 2 Hats., 73. 
Sometimes, however, this has been abusively used by adjourning it to a 
day beyond the session, to get rid of it altogether as would be done by 
an indefinite postponement.



Sec. 444. Postponement to a day certain.

  3. When a  motion is 
made which it will be proper to act on, but information is wanted, or 
something more pressing claims the present time, the question or debate 
is adjourned to such a day within the session as will answer the views 
of the House. 2 Hats., 81. And those who have spoken before



  The House does not use the motion to adjourn a debate. But it 
accomplishes the purpose of such a procedure by the motion to postpone 
to a day certain, which applies, not to a debate, but to the bill or 
other proposition before the House. Of course, if a bill that is under 
debate is postponed, the effect is to postpone the debate. The 
conditions and use of the motion are treated under clause 4 of rule XVI.




Sec. 445. Motion to lay on the table.

  4. When the  House has 
something else which claims its present attention, but would be willing 
to reserve in their power to take up a proposition whenever it shall 
suit them, they order it to lie on their table. It may then be called 
for at any time.



  This is the use of the motion to lay on the table that is established 
in the general parliamentary law, and was followed in the early practice 
of the House. But by an interesting evolution in the House the motion 
has now come to serve an entirely new purpose, being used for the final, 
adverse disposition of a matter (clause 4 of rule XVI; V, 5389). And a 
matter once laid on the table may be taken therefrom only by suspension 
of the rules (V, 6288) or similar process, unless it be a matter of 
privilege (V, 5438, 5439) such as bills vetoed by the President (IV, 
3549; V, 5439). A proposition to impeach having been laid on the table, 
a similar or identical proposition may be again brought up (III, 2049; 
VI, 541).



Sec. 446. Delegation of consideration to 
committee.

  5. If the  proposition will want more amendment and digestion than the 
formalities of the House will conveniently admit, they refer it to a 
committee.



[[Page 240]]

they then proceed to consider and amend it themselves.

  6. But if the proposition be well digested, and may need but few and 
simple amendments, and especially if these be of leading consequence,


  In the House it is the general rule that business goes to committees 
before receiving consideration in the House itself. Occasionally a 
question of privilege or other matter is presented and considered at 
once by the House.







Sec. 447. Privileged motions in the Senate and in 
Parliament.

  The Senate,  in their practice, vary from this regular graduation of 
forms. Their practice comparatively with that of Parliament stands thus:



                 For The Parliamentary: The Senate Uses:

                                            Postponement to a day beyond 
Postponement indefinite,                E   the session.

                                            Postponement to a day within 
Adjournment,                            E   the session.


                                            Postponement indefinite. 
Lying on table,                         E   Lying on the table.


  In their eighth rule, therefore, which declares that while a question 
is before the Senate no motion shall be received, unless it be for the 
previous question, or to postpone, commit, or amend the main question, 
the term postponement must be understood according to their broad use of 
it, and not in its parliamentary sense. Their rule, then, establishes as 
privileged questions the previous question, postponement, commitment, 
and amendment.



[[Page 241]]


  The House governs these motions by clause 4 of rule XVI.



Sec. 448. Obsolete provision as to priority of 
privileged motions.

  But it may  be asked: Have these questions any privilege among 
themselves? or are they so equal that the common principle of the 
``first moved first put'' takes place among them? This will need 
explanation. Their competitions may be as follows:
1. Previous question and postpone             


                    commit              <3-l  }>

                    amend                   In the first, second, and 
2. Postpone and previous question           third classes, and the first 

                    commit                  member of the fourth class, 

                    amend                   the rule ``first moved first 
3. Commit and previous question         <3-lput'' takes place.

                    postpone

                    amend
4. Amend and previous question

                    postpone





                    commit              <3-ln }>



                                        <3-ln }>


[[Page 242]]

main question, and consequently there is nothing before them to postpone 
or commit. So that neither voting for nor against the previous question 
will enable the advocates for postponing or committing to get at their 
object. Whether it may be amended shall be examined hereafter.

  In the first class, where the previous question is first moved, the 
effect is peculiar; for it not only prevents the after motion to 
postpone or commit from being put to question before it, but also from 
being put after it; for if the previous question be decided 
affirmatively, to wit, that the main question shall now be put, it would 
of course be against the decision to postpone or commit; and if it be 
decided negatively, to wit, that the main question shall not now be put, 
this puts the House out of possession of the


  Although clause 4 of rule XVI now governs the priority of motions, 
these provisions of the Manual remain of interest because of the 
parliamentary theory they present.




Sec. 449. General principles of priority of 
motions.

  Second class.  If postponement be decided affirmatively, the proposition is 
removed from before the House, and consequently there is no ground for 
the previous question, commitment or amendment; but if decided 
negatively (that it shall not be postponed), the main question may then 
be suppressed by the previous question, or may be committed, or amended.



  The previous question is used now for bringing a vote on the main 
question and not for suppressing it.

  The third class is subject to the same observations as the second.


  The fourth class. Amendment of the main question first moved, and 
afterwards the previous question, the question of amendment shall be 
first put.


  In present practice of the House the question on the previous question 
would be put first, and being decided affirmatively would force a vote 
on the amendment and then on the main question.


[[Page 243]]

tion for amendment is not suppressed by postponing or adjourning the 
main question, but remains before the House whenever the main question 
is resumed; and it might be that the occasion for other urgent business 
might go by, and be lost by length of debate on the amendment, if the 
House had it not in their power to postpone the whole subject.
  Amendment and postponement competing, postponement is first put, as 
the equivalent proposition to adjourn the main question would be in 
Parliament. The reason is that the ques


  Amendment and commitment. The question for committing, though last 
moved shall be first put; because, in truth, it facilitates and 
befriends the motion to amend. Scobell is express: ``On motion to amend 
a bill, anyone may notwithstanding move to commit it, and the question 
for commitment shall be first put.'' Scob., 46.


  These principles of priority of privileged motions are recognized in 
the House, and are provided for by clause 4 of rule XVI.



Sec. 450. Applications of the previous question to 
debatable secondary and privileged motions.

  We have  hitherto considered the 
case of two or more of the privileged questions contending for privilege 
between themselves, when both are moved on the original or main 
question; but now let us suppose one of them to be moved, not on the 
original primary question, but on the secondary one, e.g.:



[[Page 244]]

simple way--by deciding against the postponement, commitment, or 
amendment. 2. Hats., 81, 2, 3, 4.

  Suppose a motion to postpone, commit, or amend the main question, and 
that it be moved to suppress that motion by putting a previous question 
on it. This is not allowed, because it would embarrass questions too 
much to allow them to be piled on one another several stories high; and 
the same result may be had in a more


  Although the general principle that one secondary or privileged motion 
should not be applied to another is generally recognized in the House, 
the entire change in the nature of the previous question (V, 5445) from 
a means of postponing a matter to a means of compelling an immediate 
vote, makes obsolete the parliamentary rule. Because the motions to 
postpone, commit, and amend are all debatable, the modern previous 
question of course applies to them (clause 1 of rule XIX).


[[Page 245]]



Sec. 451. Motion to postpone not applicable to other 
secondary motions.

  Suppose a  motion for the previous question, or commitment or 
amendment of the main question, and that it be then moved to postpone 
the motion for the previous question, or for commitment or amendment of 
the main question. 1. It would be absurd to postpone the previous 
question, commitment, or amendment, alone, and thus separate the 
appendage from its principal; yet it must be postponed separately from 
its original, if at all; because the eighth rule of the Senate says that 
when a main question is before the House no motion shall be received but 
to commit, amend, or pre-question the original question, which is the 
parliamentary doctrine also. Therefore the motion to postpone the 
secondary motion for the previous question, or for committing or 
amending, can not be received. 2. This is a piling of questions one on 
another; which, to avoid embarrassment, is not allowed. 3. The same 
result may be had more simply by voting against the previous question, 
commitment, or amendment.



  Suppose a commitment moved of a motion for the previous question, or 
to postpone or amend. The first, second, and third reasons, before 
stated, all hold against this.


  The principles of this paragraph are in harmony with the practice of 
the House, which provides further that a motion to suspend the rules may 
not be postponed (V, 5322).



Sec. 452. The motion to amend not applicable to the 
previous question.

  Suppose an  amendment moved to a motion for the previous 
question. Answer: The previous question can not be amended. 
Parliamentary usage, as well as the ninth rule of the Senate, has fixed 
its form to be, ``Shall the main question be now put?''--i.e., at this 
instant; and as the present instant is but one, it can admit of no 
modification. To change it to to-morrow, or any other moment, is without 
example and without utility. * * *



  Although the nature of the previous question has entirely changed, the 
principle of the parliamentary law applies to the new form.



Sec. 453. Motion to amend applicable to 
motions to postpone or refer.

  * * * But suppose a  motion to amend a motion for 
postponement, as to one day instead of another, or to a special instead 
of an indefinite time. The useful character of amendment gives it a 
privilege of attaching itself to a secondary and privileged motion; that 
is, we may amend a postponement of a main question. So, we may amend a 
commitment of a main question, as by adding, for example, ``with 
instructions to inquire,'' &c. * * *




[[Page 246]]


  This principle is recognized in the practice of the House (V, 5521).




Sec. 454. Amendment in the third degree not in 
order.

  * * * In like  manner, if an amendment be moved to an amendment, it is 
admitted; but it would not be admitted in another degree, to wit, to 
amend an amendment to an amendment of a main question. This would lead 
to too much embarrassment. The line must be drawn somewhere, and usage 
has drawn it after the amendment to the amendment. The same result must 
be sought by deciding against the amendment to the amendment, and then 
moving it again as it was wished to be amended. In this form it becomes 
only an amendment to an amendment.



  This rule of the parliamentary law is considered fundamental in the 
House (clause 6 of rule XVI).


[[Page 247]]

day the session shall be closed by adjournment, on what day the next 
shall commence, when an act shall commence or the terminus a quo in any 
other case where the question must begin a minimo; the object being not 
to begin at that extreme which, and more, being within every man's wish, 
no one could negative it, and yet, if he should vote in the affirmative, 
every question for more would be precluded; but at that extreme which 
would unite few, and then to advance or recede till you get to a number 
which will unite a bare majority. 3 Grey, 376, 384, 385. ``The fair 
question in this case is not that to which, and more, all will agree, 
but whether there shall be addition to the question.'' 1 Grey, 365.



Sec. 455. Filling blanks; and amendment to 
numbers.

  [In filling  a blank with a sum, the largest sum shall be first put to the 
question, by the thirteenth rule of the Senate, contrary to the rule of 
Parliament, which privileges the smallest sum and longest time. 5 Grey, 
179; 2 Hats., 8, 83; 3 Hats., 132, 133.] And this is considered to be 
not in the form of an amendment to the question, but as alternative or 
successive originals. In all cases of time or number, we must consider 
whether the larger comprehends the lesser, as in a question to what day 
a postponement shall be, the number of a committee, amount of a fine, 
term of an imprisonment, term of irredeemability of a loan, or the 
terminus in quem in any other case; then the question must begin a 
maximo. Or whether the lesser includes the greater, as in questions on 
the limitation of the rate of interest, on what




[[Page 248]]


  The thirteenth rule of the Senate has been dropped. The House has no 
rule on the subject other than this provision of the parliamentary law. 
It is very rare for the House to fill blanks for numbers. When a number 
in pending text is to be changed by amendment, the practice of the House 
permits to be pending: the alternative number proposed in the amendment 
to the text; a second alternative number as an amendment to the 
amendment; a third as a substitute; and a fourth as an amendment to the 
substitute. Thus, if the pending text itself states a number, then five 
alternative numbers may be pending simultaneously. With respect to a 
concurrent resolution on the budget (which is considered as read and 
open to amendment at any point and to which amendments must be 
mathematically consistent under clause 10 of rule XVIII), adoption of a 
perfecting amendment changing several figures precludes further 
amendment merely changing those figures, but does not preclude more 
comprehensive amendments changing other portions of the resolution that 
have not been amended as well (Apr. 27, 1977, p. 12485). In recent 
practice an amount in an appropriation bill has been changed by 
inserting a parenthetical ``increased by'' or ``decreased by'' after the 
amount rather than by directly changing the number.




Sec. 456. Priority of amendments over motions to 
strike or agree.

  Another  exception to the rule of priority is when a motion 
has been made to strike out, or agree to, a paragraph. Motions to amend 
it are to be put to the question before a vote is taken on striking out 
or agreeing to the whole paragraph.



  In the House the principle that a text should be perfected before a 
question is taken on striking it, and that an amendment should be 
perfected before agreeing to it, is well established. But in considering 
bills, even by paragraphs, the House does not agree to the paragraphs 
severally; but after amending one passes to the next, and the question 
on agreeing is taken only on the whole bill by the several votes on 
engrossment and passage.




Sec. 457. Incidental questions, like points of 
order, that intervene during consideration of the main question.

  But there  are 
several questions which, being incidental to every one, will take place 
of every one, privileged or not; to wit, a question of order arising out 
of any other question must be decided before that question. 2 Hats., 88.


  This principle governs the procedure of the House, but a question of 
order arising after a motion for the previous question must be decided 
without debate (clause 1 of rule XIX).




Sec. 458. Matters of privilege as intervening 
questions.

  A matter of  privilege arising out of any question, or from a quarrel 
between two Members, or any other cause, supersedes the consideration of 
the original question, and must be first disposed of. 2 Hats., 88.


  Rule IX and the practice thereunder confirm and amplify the principles 
of this provision of the parliamentary law.



[[Page 249]]




Sec. 459. Intervention of questions relating to reading of 
papers.

    Reading papers relative to the question before the House. This 
question must be put before the principal one. 2 Hats., 88.



  This provision formerly applied in the House to the reading of papers 
other than those on which the House was to vote. That was under an 
earlier form of clause 6 of rule XVII, which now applies only to the use 
of exhibits in debate. For a history of the former rule on reading 
papers and an explanation of the earlier practice, see Sec. Sec. 963-
965, infra.




Sec. 460. Withdrawal of motions.

  Leave asked  to withdraw a 
motion. The rule of Parliament being that a motion made and seconded is 
in the possession of the House, and can not be withdrawn without leave, 
the very terms of the rule imply that leave may be given, and, 
consequently, may be asked and put to the question.






  The House does not vote on the withdrawal of motions, but provides by 
clause 2 of rule XVI and clause 5 of rule XVIII the conditions under 
which a Member may of right withdraw a motion.


                    sec. xxxiv--the previous question



Sec. 461. The previous question of 
Parliament.

  When any  question is before the House, any Member may move a 
previous question, ``Whether that question (called the main question) 
shall now be put?'' If it pass in the affirmative, then the main 
question is to be put immediately, and no man may speak anything further 
to it, either to add or alter. Memor. in Hakew., 28; 4 Grey, 27.





Sec. 462. Manner of putting the previous 
question.

  The previous  question being moved and seconded, the question from the 
Chair shall be, ``Shall the main question be now put?'' and if the nays 
prevail, the main question shall not then be put.



[[Page 250]]

Grey, 384. When the question was put in this form, ``Shall the main 
question be put?'' a determination in the negative suppressed the main 
question during the session; but since the words ``now put'' are used, 
they exclude it for the present only; formerly, indeed, only till the 
present debate was over, 4 Grey, 43, but now for that day and no longer. 
2 Grey, 113, 114.


Sec. 463. History, use, etc., of the previous 
question of Parliament.

  This kind of  question is understood by Mr. Hatsell to have 
been introduced in 1604. 2 Hats., 80. Sir Henry Vane introduced it. 2 
Grey, 113, 114; 3


  Before the question ``Whether the main question shall now be put?'' 
any person might formerly have spoken to the main question, because 
otherwise he would be precluded from speaking to it at all. Mem. in 
Hakew., 28.


  The proper occasion for the previous question is when a subject is 
brought forward of a delicate nature as to high personages, &c., or the 
discussion of which may call forth observations which might be of 
injurious consequences. Then the previous question is proposed, and in 
the modern usage the discussion of the main question is suspended and 
the debate confined to the previous question. The use of it has been 
extended abusively to other cases, but in these it has been an 
embarrassing procedure. Its uses would be as well answered by other more 
simple parliamentary forms, and therefore it should not be favored, but 
restricted within as narrow limits as possible.


[[Page 251]]




  As explained in connection with clause 1 of rule XIX, the House has 
changed entirely the old use of the previous question (V, 5445).


                          sec. xxxv--amendments




Sec. 465. Right of the Member who has spoken to the main 
question to speak to an amendment.

    On an amendment being moved, a 
Member who had spoken to the main question may speak again to the 
amendment. Scob., 23.



  This parliamentary rule applies in the House, where the hour rule of 
debate (clause 2 of rule XVII) has been in force since 1841. A Member 
who has spoken an hour to the main question may speak another hour to an 
amendment (V, 4994; VIII, 2449).




Sec. 466. The Speaker not to decide as to consistency of 
a proposed amendment with one already agreed to.

  If an  amendment be proposed 
inconsistent with one already agreed to, it is a fit ground for its 
rejection by the House, but not within the competence of the Speaker to 
suppress as if it were against order. For were he permitted to draw 
questions of consistence within the vortex or order, he might usurp a 
negative on important modifications, and suppress, instead of 
subserving, the legislative will.


  The practice of the House follows and extends the principle set forth 
by Jefferson. Thus it has been held that the fact that a proposed 
amendment is inconsistent with the text or embodies a proposition 
already voted (II, 1328-1336; VIII, 2834), or would in effect change a 
provision of text to which both Houses have agreed (II, 1335; V, 6183-
6185), or is contained in substance in a later portion of the bill (II, 
1327), is a matter to be passed on by the House rather than by the 
Speaker. It is for the House rather than the Speaker to decide on the 
legislative or legal effect of a proposition (II, 1323, 1324; VI, 254; 
VII, 2112; VIII, 2280, 2841), and the change of a single word in the 
text of a proposition may be sufficient to prevent the Speaker from 
ruling it out of order as one already disposed of by the House (II, 
1274). The principle has been the subject of conflicting decisions, from 
which may be deduced the rule that the Chair may not rule out the 
proposition unless it presents a substantially identical proposition 
(VI, 256; VIII, 2834, 2835, 2838, 2840, 2842, 2850, 2856).


[[Page 252]]

an amendment consisting of two sections does not preclude one of those 
sections being subsequently offered as a separate amendment (July 15, 
1981, p. 15898), and the rejection of several amendments considered en 
bloc does not preclude their being offered separately at a subsequent 
time (Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 35.15; Nov. 4, 1991, p. 29932). A point of 
order against an amendment to a substitute does not lie merely because 
its adoption would have the same effect as the adoption of a pending 
amendment to the original amendment and would render the substitute as 
amended identical to the original amendment as amended (May 4, 1983, p. 
11059).

  A perfecting amendment offered to an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute may be offered again as an amendment to the original bill if 
the amendment is first rejected or if the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as perfected is rejected (Sept. 28, 1976, p. 33075). 
Rejection of




Sec. 467. The parliamentary law and the Rules 
of the House as to germane amendments.

  Amendments may  be made so as totally to alter 
the nature of the proposition; and it is a way of getting rid of a 
proposition by making it bear a sense different from what it was 
intended by the movers, so that they vote against it themselves. 2 
Hats., 79; 4, 82, 84. A new bill may be ingrafted, by way of amendment, 
on the words, ``Be it enacted,'' etc. 1 Grey, 190, 192.



  This was the rule of Parliament, which did not require an amendment to 
be germane (V, 5802, 5825). But the House from its first organization, 
has by rule required that an amendment should be germane to the pending 
proposition (clause 7 of rule XVI).




Sec. 468. The amendment to strike certain words of a 
bill.

  If it be  proposed to amend by leaving out certain words, it may be moved, 
as an amendment to this amendment, to leave out a part of the words of 
the amendment, which is equivalent to leaving them in the bill. 2 Hats., 
80, 9. The parliamentary question is, always, whether the words shall 
stand part of the bill.



[[Page 253]]

it is in order to offer, as a perfecting amendment to that title, a 
motion to strike a lesser portion thereof, and the perfecting amendment 
is voted on first (June 11, 1975, p. 18435). And when a motion to strike 
certain words is disagreed to, it is in order to move to strike a 
portion of those words (V, 5769); but when it is proposed to strike 
certain words in a paragraph, it is not in order to amend those words by 
including with them other words of the paragraph (V, 5768; VIII, 2848; 
June 2, 1976, pp. 16208-10). It is in order to insert by way of 
amendment a paragraph similar (but not actually identical) to one 
already stricken by amendment (V, 5760; VIII, 2839; Sept. 2, 1976, pp. 
28939-58).

  In the House the question herein described is never put, but is always 
whether the words shall be stricken; and if there is a desire that 
certain of the words included in the amendment remain part of the bill, 
it is expressed, not by amending the amendment, but by a preferential 
perfecting amendment to strike from the specified words in the text of 
the bill a portion of them. If this is carried that portion of the 
specified words is stricken from the bill and the vote then recurs on 
the original amendment (V, 5770). Where a motion to strike an entire 
title of a bill is pending,




Sec. 469. Principles as to perfecting before 
inserting or striking.

  When it is  proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph, or 
part of one, the friends of the paragraph may make it as perfect as they 
can by amendments before the question is put for inserting it. If it be 
received, it cannot be amended afterward in the same stage, because the 
House has, on a vote, agreed to it in that form. In like manner, if it 
is proposed to amend by striking out a paragraph, the friends of the 
paragraph are first to make it as perfect as they can by amendments, 
before the question is put for striking it out. If on the question it be 
retained, it cannot be amended afterward, because a vote against 
striking out is equivalent to a vote agreeing to it in that form.



[[Page 254]]

that has been adopted to an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) 
may not be further amended, another amendment adding language at the end 
of the amendment may still be offered (June 10, 1976, pp. 17368-75, 
17381; May 16, 1984, pp. 12566, 12567), and the Chair will not rule on 
the consistency of that language with the adopted amendment (June 10, 
1976, p. 17381).
  These principles are recognized as in force in the House, with the 
exception that clause 5(c) of rule XVI specifically provides that the 
rejection of a motion to strike shall preclude neither amendment nor 
motion to strike and insert. However, after an amendment to insert has 
been agreed to, the matter inserted ordinarily may not then be amended 
(V, 5761-5763; VIII, 2852) in any way that would change its text. Where 
a special order of business provides that an amendment inserting a 
provision in the bill be considered as adopted, an amendment to strike 
that provision is not in order (May 23, 2002, pp. 8920-24). However, an 
amendment may be added at the end (V, 5759, 5764, 5765; Dec. 14, 1973, 
p. 41740; Oct. 1, 1974, p. 33364), even if the perfecting amendment that 
was adopted struck out all after the short title of the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute and inserted a new text (May 16, 1979, p. 11420). 
Although an amendment

  Although it may be in order to offer an amendment to the pending 
portion of the bill that not only changes a provision already amended 
but also changes an unamended pending portion of the bill, it is not in 
order merely to amend portions of the bill that have been changed by 
amendment (Mar. 11, 1999, p. 4335), or to amend unamended portions that 
have been passed in the reading and are no longer open to amendment 
(July 12, 1983, p. 18771), or to amend a figure already amended 
(Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 33.2; July 17, 1995, p. 19186), even if also 
changing other matter not already amended, where drafted as though the 
earlier amendment had not been adopted (Mar. 15, 1995, p. 8025; Mar. 16, 
1995, p. 8110; Mar. 16, 1995, p. 8112; July 17, 1995, p. 19196). A point 
of order that a pending amendment proposes to change portions of the 
bill that have been changed by earlier amendment may be made after a 
unanimous-consent request to modify the amendment has been disposed of 
but before debate has begun (Mar. 11, 1999, p. 4335). Where the vote on 
an amendment to strike a section and insert new language is postponed by 
the chair of the Committee of the Whole, an amendment to strike the same 
section and insert different language is in order; and if both 
amendments are adopted, the second amendment adopted supersedes the 
first and is the only one reported to the House (Aug. 6, 1998, p. 
19125).


[[Page 255]]

strike must fall, because it would not be in order to strike exactly 
what has been just inserted (V, 5792; VIII, 2854; July 12, 1951, p. 
8090; Sept. 23, 1975, p. 29835; Aug. 5, 1986, p. 19059; May 18, 1988, p. 
11404; Apr. 24, 1996, p. 8781). A motion to strike and insert a portion 
of a pending section is not in order as a substitute for a motion to 
strike the section, but may be offered as a perfecting amendment to the 
section and is voted on first, subject to being eliminated by subsequent 
adoption of the motion to strike (July 16, 1981, p. 16057).

  When it is proposed to perfect a paragraph, a motion to strike it, if 
already pending, must remain in abeyance until the amendments to perfect 
have been moved and voted on (V, 5758; VIII, 2860; May 5, 1992, p. 
10110; Oct. 12, 1995, p. 27816; July 27, 1999, p. 18074). If further 
proceedings are postponed on the perfecting amendment, debate may 
continue on the underlying motion to strike (July 27, 1999). While 
amendments are pending to a section, a motion to strike it may not be 
offered (V, 5771; VIII, 2861; Sept. 23, 1982, p. 24963; July 25, 1995, 
p. 20299). The motion to strike may be voted on (if already pending) or 
subsequently offered after disposition of the perfecting amendment, so 
long as the provision sought to be stricken has not been rewritten 
entirely (Sept. 23, 1982, p. 24963; July 25, 1995, p. 20299). While a 
motion to strike is pending, it is in order to offer an amendment to 
perfect the language proposed to be stricken (Apr. 24, 1996, p. 8777); 
such an amendment, which is in the first degree, may be amended by a 
substitute, and amendments to the substitute are also in order (Oct. 19, 
1983, p. 28283), and such perfecting amendment, if agreed to when voted 
on first, remains part of the bill if the motion to strike is then 
rejected (Sept. 18, 1986, p. 28123). When a motion to strike a paragraph 
is pending and the paragraph is perfected by an amendment striking and 
inserting an entire new text, the pending motion to




Sec. 470. Reading the motion and putting the 
question on a motion to strike and insert.

  When it is  moved to amend by striking 
out certain words and inserting others, the manner of stating the 
question is first to read the whole passage to be amended as it stands 
at present, then the words proposed to be struck out, next those to be 
inserted, and lastly the whole passage as it will be when amended. And 
the question, if desired, is then to be divided, and put first on 
striking out. If carried, it is next on inserting the words proposed. If 
that be lost, it may be moved to insert others. 2 Hats., 80, 7.



  Clause 5(c) of rule XVI provides that the motion to strike and insert 
is not divisible. As to the manner of stating the question, the Clerk 
reads only the words to be stricken and the words to be inserted.


[[Page 256]]

And the rejection of one proposition does not preclude the offering a 
different one. Nor would it change the case were the first motion 
divided by putting the question first on striking out, and that 
negatived; for, as putting the whole motion to the question at once 
would not have precluded, the putting the half of it cannot do it.



Sec. 471. Conditions of repetition of motions to 
strike and insert.

  A motion  is made to amend by striking out certain words and 
inserting others in their place, which is negatived. Then it is moved to 
strike out the same words, and to insert others of a tenor entirely 
different from those first proposed. It is negatived. Then it is moved 
to strike out the same words and insert nothing, which is agreed to. All 
this is admissible, because to strike out and insert A is one 
proposition. To strike out and insert B is a different proposition. And 
to strike out and insert nothing is still different.


  As to Jefferson's supposition that the principle would hold good in 
case of division of the motion to strike and insert it is not necessary 
to inquire, because clause 5(c) of rule XVI forbids division of that 
motion. In a footnote Jefferson expressed himself as follows: ``In the 
case of a division of the question, and a decision against striking out, 
I advanced doubtingly the opinion here expressed. I find no authority 
either way, and I know it may be viewed under a different aspect. It may 
be thought that, having decided separately not to strike the passage, 
the same question for striking out cannot be put over again, though with 
a view to a different insertion. Still I think it more reasonable and 
convenient to consider the striking out and insertion as forming one 
proposition, but should readily yield to any evidence that the contrary 
is the practice in Parliament.'' Where two amendments proposing 
inconsistent motions to strike and insert a pending section are 
considered as separate first degree amendments (not one as a substitute 
for the other) before either is finally disposed of under a special 
procedure permitting the Chair to postpone requests for a recorded vote, 
the Chair's order of voting on the matter as unfinished business 
determines which amendment (if both were adopted) would be reported to 
the House (Aug. 6, 1998, pp. 19098-107).




Sec. 472. Application of the motion to 
strike.

  The principle  set forth by Jefferson as to repetition of the motion to 
strike prevails in the House, where it has been held in order, after the 
failure of a motion to strike certain words, to move to strike a portion 
of those words (V, 5769; VIII, 2858). When a bill is under consideration 
by paragraphs, a motion to strike can apply only to the paragraph under 
consideration (V, 5774).



[[Page 257]]

move to insert B; in which case those who preferred it would join in 
rejecting A.



Sec. 473. Effect of affirmative vote on motion to 
strike and insert.

  But if  it had been carried affirmatively to strike out the 
words and to insert A, it could not afterward be permitted to strike out 
A and insert B. The mover of B should have notified, while the insertion 
of A was under debate, that he would



  This principle controls the practice of the House (July 17, 1985, p. 
19444; July 18, 1985, p. 19649; Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 31.14).




Sec. 474. Conditions of striking an amendment already 
agreed to.

  After A  is inserted, however, it may be moved to strike out a 
portion of the original paragraph, comprehending A, provided the 
coherence to be struck out be so substantial as to make this effectively 
a different proposition; for then it is resolved into the common case of 
striking out a paragraph after amending it. Nor does anything forbid a 
new insertion, instead of A and its coherence.



  Although it is not in order to move to strike a provision inserted by 
amendment (Oct. 9, 1985, p. 26957), a motion to strike more than that 
provision inserted would be in order (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11536). But an 
amendment to strike the pending title of a bill and re-insert all 
sections of that title except one is not in order if that section has 
previously been amended in its entirety (Aug. 1, 1975, p. 26946).


[[Page 258]]

as any other part of the motion; and when struck out, a motion may be 
received to insert any other. In fact, it is not until they are struck 
out, and a blank for the time thereby produced, that the rule can begin 
to operate, by receiving all the propositions for different times, and 
putting the questions successively on the longest. Otherwise it would be 
in the power of the mover by inserting originally a short time, to 
preclude the possibility of a longer; for till the short time is struck 
out, you cannot insert a longer; and if, after it is struck out, you 
cannot do it, then it cannot be done at all. Suppose the first motion 
had been made to amend by striking out ``the second Tuesday in 
February,'' and inserting instead thereof ``the first of June,'' it 
would have been regular, then, to divide the question, by proposing 
first the question to strike out, and then that to insert. Now, this is 
precisely the effect of the present proceeding; only, instead of one 
motion and two questions, there are two motions and two questions to 
effect it--the motion being divided as well as the question.



Sec. 475. Amendments filling blanks as to 
time.

  In Senate,  January 25, 1798, a motion to postpone until the second Tuesday 
in February some amendments proposed to the Constitution; the words 
``until the second Tuesday in February'' were struck out by way of 
amendment. Then it was moved to add, ``until the first day of June.'' 
Objected that it was not in order, as the question should be first put 
on the longest time; therefore, after a shorter time decided against, a 
longer cannot be put to question. It was answered that this rule takes 
place only in filling blanks for time. But when a specific time stands 
part of a motion, that may be struck out as well


  The principles of this paragraph have been followed in the House (V, 
5763; Aug. 16, 1961, p. 16059), but in one case wherein words embodying 
a distinct substantive proposition had been agreed to as an amendment to 
a paragraph, it was held not in order to strike a part of the words of 
this amendment with other words of the paragraph (V, 5766).


  The motion to strike and insert may not be divided in the House 
(clause 5(c) of rule XVI).


[[Page 259]]

ment. So if the matter of one bill would be better distributed into two, 
any part may be struck out by way of amendment, and put into a new bill. 
* * *



Sec. 476. Joining and dividing bills.

  When the  matter 
contained in two bills might be better put into one, the manner is to 
reject the one and incorporate its matter into another bill by way of 
amend



  In the modern practice each bill comes before the House by itself; and 
if it were proposed to join one bill to another it would be done by 
offering the text of the one as an amendment to the other, without 
disturbing the first bill in its place on the calendar. The Committee on 
Rules may report a special order providing for separate consideration of 
two or more bills and, after passage of each, ``linking'' them by adding 
the text of the subsequent bills to the engrossment of the first, 
sometimes tabling the separate versions of the subsequent bills (e.g., 
June 16, 1999, p. 13080).




Sec. 477. Transposition of the sections of a 
bill.

  * * * If a  section is to be transposed, a question must be put on striking 
it out where it stands and another for inserting it in the place 
desired.



  This principle is followed in the practice of the House (V, 5775, 
5776).



Sec. 478. Filling blanks left by the other 
House.

  A bill  passed by the one House with blanks. These may be filled up by 
the other by way of amendments, returned to the first as such, and 
passed 3 Hats., 83.





Sec. 479. Clerk amends the section numbers of a 
bill.

  The number  prefixed to the section of a bill, be merely a marginal 
indication, and no part of the text of the bill, the Clerk regulates 
that--the House or committee is only to amend the text.



[[Page 260]]




  In the modern practice of the House, section numbers and other 
internal references are considered as part of the text that may be 
altered by amendment. The House sometimes authorizes the Clerk to make 
appropriate changes in section numbers, paragraphs and punctuation, and 
cross references when preparing the engrossment of the bill. Such a 
request is properly made in the House, following passage of the bill 
(Apr. 29, 1969, p. 10753).


                  sec. xxxvi--division of the question




Sec. 480. Parliamentary law for division of the 
question.

  If a question  contain more parts than one, it may be divided into two or 
more questions. Mem. in Hakew., 29. But not as the right of an 
individual member, but with the consent of the House. For who is to 
decide whether a question is complicated or not--where it is 
complicated--into how many propositions it may be divided? The fact is, 
that the only mode of separating a complicated question is by moving 
amendments to it; and these must be decided by the House, on a question, 
unless the House orders it to be divided; as, on the question, December 
2, 1640, making void the election of the knights for Worcester, on a 
motion it was resolved to make two questions of it, to wit, one on each 
knight. 2 Hats., 85, 86. So, wherever there are several names in a 
question, they may be divided and put one by one. 9 Grey, 444. So, 1729, 
April 17, on an objection that a question was complicated, it was 
separated by amendment. 2 Hats., 79.



  The House, by clause 5 of rule XVI and the practice thereunder, has 
entitled a procedure differing materially from that above set forth. 
Although a resolution electing Members to committees is not divisible 
(clause 5 of rule XVI), other types of resolutions containing several 
names may be divided for voting (Mar. 19, 1975, p. 7344).


[[Page 261]]



Sec. 481. Jefferson's discussion of division of 
the question.

  The soundness  of these observations will be evident from the 
embarrassments produced by the XVIIIth rule of the Senate, which says, 
``if the question in debate contains several points, any member may have 
the same divided.''


  1798, May 30, the alien bill in quasi-committee. To a section and 
proviso in the original, had been added two new provisos by way of 
amendment. On a motion to strike out the section as amended, the 
question was desired to be divided. To do this it must be put first on 
striking out either the former proviso, or some distinct member of the 
section. But when nothing remains but the last member of the section and 
the provisos, they cannot be divided so as to put the last member to 
question by itself, for the provisos might thus be left standing alone 
as exceptions to a rule when the rule is taken away; or the new provisos 
might be left to a second question, after having been decided on once 
before at the same reading, which is contrary to rule. But the question 
must be on striking out the last member of the section as amended. This 
sweeps away the exceptions with the rule, and relieves from 
inconsistence. A question to be divisible must comprehend points so 
distinct and entire that one of them being taken away, the other may 
stand entire. But a proviso or exception, without an enacting clause, 
does not contain an entire point or proposition.


[[Page 262]]

was divided into four parts, the 4th taking in the words ``conforming 
himself,'' &c. It was objected that the words ``any alien merchant,'' 
could not be separated from their modifying words, ``conforming,'' &c., 
because these words, if left by themselves, contain no substantive idea, 
will make no sense. But admitting that the divisions of a paragraph into 
separate questions must be so made as that each part may stand by 
itself, yet the House having, on the question, retained the two first 
divisions, the words ``any alien merchant'' may be struck out, and their 
modifying words will then attach themselves to the preceding description 
of persons, and become a modification of that description.
  May 31.--The same bill being before the Senate. There was a proviso 
that the bill should not extend--1. To any foreign minister; nor, 2. To 
any person to whom the President should give a passport; nor, 3. To any 
alien merchant conforming himself to such regulations as the President 
shall prescribe; and a division of the question into its simplest 
elements was called for. It




Sec. 482. Division of question as related to debate or 
amendment.

  When a  question is divided, after the question on the 1st member, 
the 2d is open to debate and amendment; because it is a known rule that 
a person may rise and speak at any time before the question has been 
completely decided, by putting the negative as well as the affirmative 
side. But the question is not completely put when the vote has been 
taken on the first member only. One-half the question, both affirmative 
and negative, remains still to be put. See Execut. Jour., June 25, 1795. 
The same decision by President Adams.



[[Page 263]]




  Where a division of the question is demanded on a portion of an 
amendment, the Chair puts the question first on the remaining portions 
of the amendment, and that portion on which the division is demanded 
remains open for further debate and amendment (Oct. 21, 1981, p. 24785). 
However, where neither portion of a divided question remains open to 
further debate or amendment, the question may be put first on the 
portion identified by the demand for division and then on the remainder 
(June 8, 1995, p. 15302).


                    sec. xxxvii--coexisting questions




Sec. 483. Fundamental principles as to coexisting 
questions.

  It may be  asked whether the House can be in possession of two motions 
or propositions at the same time? so that, one of them being decided, 
the other goes to question without being moved anew? The answer must be 
special. When a question is interrupted by a vote of adjournment, it is 
thereby removed from before the House, and does not stand ipso facto 
before them at their next meeting, but must come forward in the usual 
way. So, when it is interrupted by the order of the day. Such other 
privileged questions also as dispose of the main question (e.g., the 
previous question, postponement, or commitment), remove it from before 
the House. But it is only suspended by a motion to amend, to withdraw, 
to read papers, or by a question of order or privilege, and stands again 
before the House when these are decided. None but the class of 
privileged questions can be brought forward while there is another 
question before the House, the rule being that when a motion has been 
made and seconded, no other can be received except it be a privileged 
one.



[[Page 264]]




  The principles of this provision must, of course, be viewed in the 
light of a more highly perfected order of business than existed in 
Jefferson's time (rule XIV). The motion to withdraw is not known in the 
practice of the House, not being among the motions enumerated in clause 
4 of rule XVI, but a motion before the House may be withdrawn by the 
mover thereof before a decision is reached (clause 2 of rule XVI).


                   sec. xxxviii--equivalent questions




Sec. 484. Former practice as to rejection and second 
reading of bills.

  If, on a  question for rejection, a bill be retained, it 
passes, of course, to its next reading. Hakew., 141; Scob., 42. And a 
question for a second reading, determined negatively, is a rejection 
without further question. 4 Grey, 149. And see Elsynge's Memor., 42, in 
what case questions are to be taken for rejection.



  The House has abandoned the question ``Shall the bill be rejected?'' 
(IV, 3391), and the question is now taken in accordance with clause 8 of 
rule XVI. A vote is not taken on the second reading, the first test 
coming in the modern practice of the House on the engrossment and third 
reading.




Sec. 485. Equivalent questions in 
general.

  Where questions  are perfectly equivalent, so that the negative of the one 
amounts to the affirmative of the other, and leaves no other 
alternative, the decision of the one concludes necessarily the other. 4 
Grey, 157. Thus the negative of striking out amounts to the affirmative 
of agreeing; and therefore to put a question on agreeing after that on 
striking out, would be to put the same question in effect twice over. 
Not so in questions of amendments between the two Houses. A motion to 
recede being negatived, does not amount to a positive vote to insist, 
because there is another alternative, to wit, to adhere.




[[Page 265]]


  The principles set forth in this paragraph are recognized by the 
practice of the House; but Jefferson's use of the motion to strike as an 
illustration is no longer justified, because the practice of the House 
under clause 5(c) of rule XVI does not permit the negative of the motion 
to strike to be equivalent to the affirmative of agreeing.




Sec. 486. Equivalent questions on amendments between 
the Houses.

  A bill  originating in one House is passed by the other with an 
amendment. A motion in the originating House to agree to the amendment 
is negatived. Does there result from this a vote of disagreement, or 
must the question on disagreement be expressly voted? The question 
respecting amendments from another House are--1st, to agree; 2d, 
disagree; 3d, recede; 4th, insist; 5th, adhere.



  In the House and the Senate the order of precedence of motions is as 
given in the parliamentary law, and the motions take precedence in that 
order without regard to the order in which they are moved (V, 6270, 
6324). But a motion to amend an amendment of the other House has 
precedence of the motion to agree or disagree either before the stage of 
disagreement has been reached or after the House has receded from its 
disagreement (V, 6164, 6169-6171; VIII, 3203) even after the previous 
question has been ordered on both motions before the question is divided 
(Feb. 12, 1923, p. 3512). See also the discussion in Sec. 525, infra. 
But it has been held that when the previous question has been demanded 
or ordered on a motion to concur, a motion to amend is not in order (V, 
5488). The motion to refer also takes precedence of the motions to agree 
or disagree (V, 6172-6174), but the demanding or ordering of the 
previous question does not prevent a motion to refer (V, 5575). The 
motion to refer takes precedence of the motions to agree or disagree 
and, under clause 2 of rule XIX is in order pending a demand for or 
after the ordering of the previous question, before the stage of 
disagreement has been reached (V, 5575, 6172-6174), but not after the 
stage of disagreement when the most preferential motion tending to bring 
the two Houses together is already pending (Speaker Albert, Sept. 16, 
1976, p. 30887).


[[Page 266]]

to propose amendments, and to make it as perfect as they can, before the 
question of disagreeing is put.


Sec. 487. The motions to agree and disagree as related 
to motions to amend.

  1st. To  agree; 2d. To disagree.--Either of these 
concludes the other necessarily, for the positive of either is exactly 
the equivalent to the negative of the other, and no other alternative 
remains. On either motion amendments to the amendment may be proposed; 
e.g., if it be moved to disagree, those who are for the amendment have a 
right




Sec. 488. No equivalent questions on 
motions to recede, insist, and adhere.

  3d. To recede.--You  may then either insist or 
adhere.                         4th. To insist.--You may then either 
recede or adhere.


  5th. To adhere.--You may then either recede or insist.


  Consequently the negative of these is not equivalent to a positive 
vote the other way. It does not raise so necessary an implication as may 
authorize the Secretary by inference to enter another vote; for two 
alternatives still remain, either of which may be adopted by the House.





  Under the earlier practice in the House it was held that voting down 
the motion to recede and concur was tantamount to insistence but not the 
equivalent of adherence (Speaker Clark, July 2, 1918, p. 8648). But the 
more recent practice is that when the House disagrees to a motion to 
recede and concur in a Senate amendment some further action must be 
taken to dispose of the amendment (Speaker Bankhead, July 9, 1937, p. 
7007; Speaker McCormack, Sept. 19, 1962, p. 19945) and the question may 
recur on a pending motion to insist or such a motion is then entertained 
from the floor (Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 7.21; Speaker Albert, June 
25, 1973, p. 21172).


                        sec. xxxix--the question




Sec. 489. Putting the question.

    The question is to be put 
first on the affirmative, and then on the negative side.



  Clause 6 of rule I provides more fully for putting the question.


[[Page 267]]

negative be put; because it is no full question till the negative part 
be put. Scob., 23; 2 Hats., 73.



Sec. 490. Effect of putting the question in ending 
debate.

  After the  Speaker has put the affirmative part of the question, any 
Member who has not spoken before to the question may rise and speak 
before the



  After the Chair has put the affirmative part of the question, any 
Member who seeks to debate the matter or offer a motion may be 
recognized (V, 5925; June 22, 2006, pp. 12298, 12299), and such 
recognition is not subject to appeal (June 22, 2006, p. 12299). On one 
occasion, the Chair refused to entertain a motion to lay on the table 
after putting the affirmative part of the pending question where the 
Chair had affirmed the admissibility of that motion before putting the 
main question, and that motion nevertheless was not then offered (Sept. 
20, 1979, p. 25512). Where not pertinent to the pending parliamentary 
situation, a parliamentary inquiry regarding whether the Chair heard the 
ayes on a prematurely-commenced vote by voice was not entertained (June 
22, 2006, p. 12299).







Sec. 491. Informal putting of the question.

  But in  small 
matters, and which are of course, such as receiving petitions, reports, 
withdrawing motions, reading papers, &c., the Speaker most commonly 
supposes the consent of the House where no objection is expressed, and 
does not give them the trouble of putting the question formally. Scob., 
22; 2 Hats., 79, 2, 87; 5 Grey, 129; 9 Grey, 301.



                      sec. xl--bills, third reading



Sec. 492. Obsolete requirements as to reading and 
passage of bills.

  To prevent  bills from being passed by surprise, the House, by a 
standing order, directs that they shall not be put on their passage 
before a fixed hour, naming one at which the house is commonly full. 
Hakew., 153.


  The usage of the Senate is not to put bills on their passage till 
noon.


[[Page 268]]

  A bill reported and passed to the third reading, cannot on that day be 
read the third time and passed; because this would be to pass on two 
readings in the same day.



Sec. 493. Obsolete parliamentary law as to third 
reading.

  At the  third reading the Clerk reads the bill and delivers it to the 
Speaker, who states the title, that it is the third time of reading the 
bill, and that the question will be whether it shall pass. Formerly the 
Speaker, or those who prepared a bill, prepared also a breviate or 
summary statement of its contents, which the Speaker read when he 
declared the state of the bill, at the several readings. Sometimes, 
however, he read the bill itself, especially on its passage. Hakew., 
136, 137, 153; Coke, 22, 115. Latterly, instead of this, he, at the 
third reading, states the whole contents of the bill verbatim, only, 
instead of reading the formal parts, ``Be it enacted,'' &c., he states 
that ``preamble recites so and so--the 1st section enacts that, &c. the 
2d section enacts,'' &c.



  But in the Senate of the United States, both of these formalities are 
dispensed with; the breviate presenting but an imperfect view of the 
bill, and being capable of being made to present a false one; and the 
full statement being a useless waste of time, immediately after a full 
reading by the Clerk, and especially as every member has a printed copy 
in his hand.


  These restrictions are not in effect in the modern practice of the 
House and therefore a bill may be read a third time and passed on the 
same day. Clause 8 of rule XVI provides for the third reading by title 
and not by the presentation of an abbreviated summary.


[[Page 269]]

fered, but as a thing very unusual. Hakew., 156. Thus, 27 El., 1584, a 
bill was committed on the third reading, having been formerly committed 
on the second, but is declared not usual. D'Ewes, 337, col. 2; 414, col. 
2.



Sec. 494. Committal of a bill on third 
reading.

  A bill on  the third reading is not to be committed for the matter or 
body thereof, but to receive some particular clause or proviso, it hath 
been sometimes suf



  In the House it is in order to commit a bill after the engrossment and 
third reading if the previous question is not ordered (V, 5562); and by 
clause 2 of rule XIX the House has preserved this opportunity to commit 
even after the previous question has been ordered.




Sec. 495. Obsolete parliamentary practice as to 
riders.

  When an  essential provision has been omitted, rather than erase the 
bill and render it suspicious, they add a clause on a separate paper, 
engrossed and called a rider, which is read and put to the question 
three times. Elsynge's Memo., 59; 6 Grey, 335; 1 Blackst., 183. For 
examples of riders, see 3 Hats., 121, 122, 124, 156. Every one is at 
liberty to bring in a rider without asking leave. 10 Grey, 52.



  This practice is never followed in the House.




Sec. 496. Obsolete requirements as to reading of 
amendments.

  It is  laid down, as a general rule, that amendments proposed at 
the second reading shall be twice read, and those proposed at the third 
reading thrice read; as also all amendments from the other House. Town., 
col. 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.



  In the practice of the House, amendments, whether offered in the House 
or coming from the other House, do not come under the rule requiring 
different readings.


[[Page 270]]

times a proviso has been cut off from a bill; sometimes erased. 9 Grey, 
513.


Sec. 497. Amendments before the third reading.

  It is  with 
great and almost invincible reluctance that amendments are admitted at 
this reading, which occasion erasures or interlineations. Some



  This is the proper stage for filling up blanks; for if filled up 
before, and now altered by erasure, it would be peculiarly unsafe.


  In the House bills are amended after the second reading (IV, 3392), 
and before the engrossment and third reading (V, 5781; VII, 1051, 1052) 
but not afterwards. Under modern practice of the House, readings are 
governed by clause 8 of rule XVI and clause 5 of rule XVIII.



Sec. 498. Debate in relation to the third 
reading.

  At this  reading the bill is debated afresh, and for the most part is 
more spoken to at this time than on any of the former readings. Hakew., 
153.



  The debate on the question whether it should be read a third time, has 
discovered to its friends and opponents the arguments on which each side 
relies, and which of these appear to have influence with the House; they 
have had time to meet them with new arguments, and to put their old ones 
into new shapes. The former vote has tried the strength of the first 
opinion, and furnished grounds to estimate the issue; and the question 
now offered for its passage is the last occasion which is ever to be 
offered for carrying or rejecting it.


  In the House it is usual to debate a bill before and not after the 
engrossment and third reading, probably because of the frequent use of 
the previous question, which prevents all debate after it is ordered. 
When the previous question is not ordered, debate may occur pending the 
vote on passage.


[[Page 271]]

opinion that this bill shall pass, say aye;'' and after the answer of 
the ayes, ``All those of the contrary opinion, say no.'' Hakew., 154.



Sec. 499. Putting the question on the passage of a 
bill.

  When the  debate is ended, the Speaker, holding the bill in his hand, puts 
the question for its passage, by saying, ``Gentlemen, all you who are of



  In the House the bill is usually in the custody of the Clerk. The 
Speaker states that ``The question is on the passage of the bill,'' and 
puts the question in the form prescribed by clause 6 of rule I.




Sec. 500. Bills not altered after their passage.

    After the 
bill is passed, there can be no further alteration of it in any point. 
Hakew., 159.






  This principle controls the practice of the House. However, a bill may 
be changed if the votes on passage, engrossment, and ordering the 
previous question have been reconsidered. In addition, the Clerk may be 
authorized to make changes in the engrossed copy by unanimous consent or 
by special order of business. Title amendments are transacted following 
passage (Sec. 512, infra).


                     sec. xli--division of the house




Sec. 501. Division of the House after 
determination by sound.

  The affirmative and  negative of the question having been both put 
and answered, the Speaker declares whether the yeas or nays have it by 
the sound, if he be himself satisfied, and it stands as the judgment of 
the House. But if he be not himself satisfied which voice is the 
greater, or if before any other Member comes into the House, or before 
any new motion made (for it is too late after that), any Member shall 
arise and declare himself dissatisfied with the Speaker's decision, then 
the Speaker is to divide the House. Scob., 24; 2 Hats., 140.




[[Page 272]]


  This practice is provided for in different language by clause 6 of 
rule I.



Sec. 502. Parliamentary provisions as to division, 
not applicable in the House.

  When the  House of Commons is divided, the one 
party goes forth, and the other remains in the House. This has made it 
important which go forth and which remain; because the latter gain all 
the indolent, the indifferent, and inattentive. Their general rule, 
therefore, is that those who give their vote for the preservation of the 
orders of the House shall stay in, and those who are for introducing any 
new matter or alteration, or proceeding contrary to the established 
course, are to go out. But this rule is subject to many exceptions and 
modifications. 2 Hats., 134; 1 Rush., p. 3, fol. 92; Scob., 43, 52; Co., 
12, 116; D'Ewes, 505, col. 1; Mem. in Hakew., 25, 29.



  The one party being gone forth, the Speaker names two tellers from the 
affirmative and two from the negative side, who first count those 
sitting in the House and report the number to the Speaker. Then they 
place themselves within the door, two on each side, and count those who 
went forth as they come in and report the number to the Speaker. Mem. in 
Hakew., 26.



[[Page 273]]


  In modern practice in the House of Commons, once the Chair determines 
a sufficient request for a ``division,'' all Members leave the Chamber 
and are recorded in the yes and no division lobbies. In the House of 
Representatives, the provision in former clause 5 of rule I that 
provided for teller votes was repealed by the 103d Congress. Under the 
former procedure tellers took their place at the rear of the center 
aisle when named by the Chair, and Members passed between them to be 
counted but not recorded by name. Clause 1(b) of rule XX provides for 
taking a recorded vote by means of the electronic voting system when 
supported by one-fifth of a quorum.



Sec. 503. Correction of a vote by tellers after the 
report.

    A mistake in the report of the tellers may be rectified after 
the report made. 2 Hats., 145, note.
* * * * *





Sec. 504. Voting by yeas and nays.

  When it  is proposed to 
take the vote by yeas and nays, the President or Speaker states that 
``the question is whether, e.g., the bill shall pass--that it is 
proposed that the yeas and nays shall be entered on the journal. Those, 
therefore, who desire it will rise.'' If he finds and declares that one-
fifth have risen, he then states that ``those who are of opinion that 
the bill shall pass are to answer in the affirmative; those of the 
contrary opinion in the negative.'' The Clerk then calls over the names 
alphabetically, notes the yea or nay of each, and gives the list to the 
President or Speaker, who declares the result. In the Senate if there be 
an equal division the Secretary calls on the Vice-President and notes 
his affirmative or negative, which becomes the decision of the House.



  In the House tellers were sometimes, though rarely, ordered to 
determine whether one-fifth joined in the demand for the yeas and nays 
(V, 6045) but in the later practice the Speaker's count is not subject 
to verification (VIII, 3114-3118), and it is not in order to demand a 
count of those opposed to ordering the yeas and nays (VIII, 3112, 3113). 
Clause 1 of rule XX provides the method for taking the yeas and nays in 
the modern practice; but under clause 2 of that rule both the yeas and 
nays and calls of the House are taken by means of the electronic voting 
system unless the Speaker discretionarily orders the utilization of 
other prescribed procedures.


[[Page 274]]

is in the House when the question is put, nor is anyone to be told in 
the division who was not in when the question was put. 2 Hats., 140.


Sec. 505. Parliamentary law as to giving of 
votes.

  In the  House of Commons every member must give his vote the one way or 
the other, Scob., 24, as it is not permitted to anyone to withdraw who



  This last position is always true when the vote is by yeas and nays; 
where the negative as well as affirmative of the question is stated by 
the President at the same time, and the vote of both sides begins and 
proceeds pari passu. It is true also when the question is put in the 
usual way, if the negative also has been put; but if it has not, the 
member entering, or any other member may speak, and even propose 
amendments, by which the debate may be opened again, and the question be 
greatly deferred. And as some who have answered aye may have been 
changed by the new arguments, the affirmative must be put over gain. If, 
then, the member entering may, by speaking a few words, occasion a 
repetition of a question, it would be useless to deny it on his simple 
call for it.


  Clause 1 of rule III requires Members to vote; but no rule excludes 
from voting those not present at the putting of the question, and this 
requirement of the parliamentary law is not observed in the House. No 
attempt is made to prevent Members from withdrawing after a question is 
put, unless there be a question as to a quorum, when the House proceeds 
under clauses 5 and 6 of rule XX.




Sec. 506. Movements of Members during 
voting.

  While the  House is telling, no member may speak or move out of his 
place, for if any mistake be suspected it must be told again. Mem. in 
Hakew., 26; 2 Hats., 143.




[[Page 275]]


  This rule applies in the House on a vote by division, where the 
Speaker counts; but did not apply to the former vote by tellers, where 
Members passed between tellers at the rear of the center aisle to be 
counted.




Sec. 507. Decisions of points of order during a 
division.

  If any  difficulty arises in point of order during the division, the 
Speaker is to decide peremptorily, subject to the future censure of the 
House if irregular. He sometimes permits old experienced members to 
assist him with their advice, which they do sitting in their seats, 
covered, to avoid the appearance of debate; but this can only be with 
the Speaker's leave, else the division might last several hours. 2 
Hats., 143.





Sec. 508. Decision by voice of majority; and tie 
votes.

  The voice  of the majority decides; for the lex majoris partis is the law 
of all councils, elections, &c., where not otherwise expressly provided. 
Hakew., 93. But if the House be equally divided, semper presuamtur pro 
negante; that is, the former law is not to be changed but by a majority. 
Towns., col. 134.


  The House provides also by rule (clause 1 of rule XX) that in the case 
of a tie vote the question shall be lost.-



Sec. 509. Twothirds votes.

  The House,  however, requires a 
two-thirds vote on a motion to suspend the rules (clause 1 of rule XV), 
on a motion to dispense with the call of the Private Calendar (clause 5 
of rule XV), and to consider a special rule immediately (clause 6 of 
rule XIII), and the Constitution of the United States requires two-
thirds votes for the expulsion of a Member, passing vetoed bills, 
removing political disabilities, and passing joint resolutions proposing 
amendments to the Constitution.-





Sec. 509a. Former threefifths votes.

  The standing  rules 
formerly required a three-fifths vote for passage or adoption of a bill, 
a joint resolution, an amendment thereto, or a conference report 
thereon, if carrying a Federal income tax rate increase (see Sec. 1067, 
infra).



[[Page 276]]

before the division, and must be resumed at that point on any future 
day. 2 Hats., 126.



Sec. 510. Business suspended by the failure of a 
quorum.

  When from  counting the House on a division it appears that there is not 
a quorum, the matter continues exactly in the state in which it was



  Although under the rules first adopted in the 95th Congress it is not 
in order to make or entertain a point of no quorum unless the question 
has been put on the pending motion or proposition, if a quorum in fact 
does not respond on a call of the House or on a vote, even the most 
highly privileged business must terminate (IV, 2934; VI, 662) and even 
debate must stop until a quorum is established (see IV, 2935-2949). No 
motion is entertained in the absence of a quorum other than a motion 
relating to the call of the House or to adjourn (IV, 2950; VI, 680). 
Even in the closing hours of a Congress business has been stopped by the 
failure of a quorum (V, 6309; Oct. 18, 1972, p. 37199).




Sec. 511. Change of a vote.

  1606, May 1,  on a question 
whether a Member having said yea may afterwards sit and change his 
opinion, a precedent was remembered by the Speaker, of Mr. Morris, 
attorney of the wards, in 39 Eliz., who in like case changed his 
opinion. Mem. in Hakew., 27.






  The House is governed in this respect by the practice under clause 2 
of rule XX.


                            sec. xlii--titles




Sec. 512. Amendments to the title of a bill.

  After the  bill 
has passed, and not before, the title may be amended, and is to be fixed 
by a question; and the bill is then sent to the other House.






  The House by clause 6 of rule XVI embodies this principle with an 
additional provision as to debate.


                       sec. xliii--reconsideration


[[Page 277]]

tive and negative quantities in equation, destroy one another, and are 
as if they were expunged from the journals. Consequently the bill is 
open for amendment, just so far as it was the moment preceding the 
question for the third reading; that is to say, all parts of the bill 
are open for amendment except those on which votes have been already 
taken in its present stage. So, also, it may be recommitted.


Sec. 513. Early Senate practice as to 
reconsideration.

  1798, Jan.  A bill on its second reading being amended, and on 
the question whether it shall be read a third time negatived, was 
restored by a decision to reconsider that question. Here the votes of 
negative and reconsideration, like posi



  The rule permitting a reconsideration of a question affixing it to no 
limitation of time or circumstance, it may be asked whether there is no 
limitation? If, after the vote, the paper on which it is passed has been 
parted with, there can be no reconsideration, as if a vote has been for 
the passage of a bill and the bill has been sent to the other House. But 
where the paper remains, as on a bill rejected, when or under what 
circumstances does it cease to be susceptible of reconsideration? This 
remains to be settled, unless a sense that the right of reconsideration 
is a right to waste the time of the House in repeated agitations of the 
same question, so that it shall never know when a question is done with, 
should induce them to reform this anomalous proceeding.


  The House provides for reconsideration by clause 3 of rule XIX.


[[Page 278]]



Sec. 514. Parliamentary law as to 
reconsideration.

  In Parliament  a question once carried can not be questioned again 
at the same session, but must stand as the judgment of the House. 
Towns., col. 67; Mem. in Hakew., 33. * * *





Sec. 515. A bill once rejected not to be brought 
up again at the same session.

  * * * And a  bill once rejected, another of the same 
substance can not be brought in again the same session. Hakew., 158; 6 
Grey, 392. But this does not extend to prevent putting the same question 
in different stages of a bill, because every stage of a bill submits the 
whole and every part of it to the opinion of the House as open for 
amendment, either by insertion or omission, though the same amendment 
has been accepted or rejected in a former stage. So in reports of 
committees, e.g., report of an address, the same question is before the 
House, and open for free discussion. Towns., col. 26; 2 Hats., 98, 100, 
101. So orders of the House or instructions to committees may be 
discharged. So a bill, begun in one House and sent to the other and 
there rejected, may be renewed again in that other, passed, and sent 
back. Ib., 92; 3 Hats., 161. Or if, instead of being rejected, they read 
it once and lay it aside or amend it and put it off a month, they may 
order in another to the same effect, with the same or a different title. 
Hakew., 97, 98.




[[Page 279]]


  In the House, with its rule for reconsideration, there is rarely an 
attempt to bring forward a bill once rejected at the same session. One 
instance is recorded (IV, 3384), but the House has declined to consider 
a bill brought forward after a rejection (IV, 3384; Mar. 9, 1910, p. 
2966). The Committee on Rules may report as privileged a resolution 
making in order the consideration of a measure of the same substance as 
one previously rejected and to rescind or vacate the action whereby the 
House had rejected a measure (VIII, 3391; Mar. 17, 1976, p. 6776); and a 
special order of business nearly identical to one previously rejected by 
the House, but providing a different scheme for general debate, was held 
not to violate this section (July 27, 1993, p. 17115).



Sec. 516. Expedients for changing the effect 
of bills once passed.

  Divers expedients  are used to correct the effects of this rule, 
as, by passing an explanatory act, if anything has been omitted or ill 
expressed, 3 Hats., 278, or an act to enforce and make more effectual an 
act, &c., or to rectify mistakes in an act, &c., or a committee on one 
bill may be instructed to receive a clause to rectify the mistakes of 
another. Thus, June 24, 1685, a clause was inserted in a bill for 
rectifying a mistake committed by a clerk in engrossing a bill of 
supply. 2 Hats., 194, 6. Or the session may be closed for one, two, 
three, or more days and a new one commenced. But then all matters 
depending must be finished, or they fall, and are to begin de novo. 2 
Hats., 94, 98. Or a part of the subject may be taken up by another bill 
or taken up in a different way. 6 Grey, 304, 316.



[[Page 280]]



Sec. 517. Exceptions to the rule against bringing up a 
matter once rejected.

  And in  cases of the last magnitude this rule has not 
been so strictly and verbally observed as to stop indispensable 
proceedings altogether. 2 Hats., 92, 98. Thus when the address on the 
preliminaries of peace in 1782 had been lost by a majority of one, on 
account of the importance of the question and smallness of the majority, 
the same question in substance, though with some words not in the first, 
and which might change the opinion of some Members, was brought on again 
and carried, as the motives for it were thought to outweigh the 
objection of form. 2 Hats, 99, 100.





Sec. 518. Passage of supplementary bills.

  A second  bill may 
be passed to continue an act of the same session or to enlarge the time 
limited for its execution. 2 Hats., 95, 98. This is not in contradiction 
to the first act.






  The House has by a joint resolution corrected an error in a bill that 
had gone to the President (IV, 3519).


                sec. xliv--bills sent to the other house




Sec. 519. Laying on the table bills from the other House.

    A 
bill from the other House is sometimes ordered to lie on the table. 2 
Hats., 97.



  This principle is recognized in the practice of the House, both as to 
Senate bills (IV, 3418, 3419; V, 5437), and as to House bills returned 
with Senate amendments (V, 5424, 6201-6203). The motion to lay on the 
table Senate amendments to a House bill does not take precedence over 
the motion to recede and concur, because the motion would table the 
entire bill (Speaker Longworth, Jan. 24, 1927, p. 2165), but the motion 
to lay on the table a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment 
does not carry the amendment and bill to the table, and other motions 
are in order to dispose of the Senate amendment (Feb. 22, 1978, p. 
4072).




Sec. 520. Requests for information from the other 
House.

  When bills  passed in one House and sent to the other are ground on special 
facts requiring proof, it is usual, either by message or at a 
conference, to ask the grounds and evidence, and this evidence, whether 
arising out of papers or from the examination of witnesses, is 
immediately communicated. 3 Hats., 48.



[[Page 281]]




  The Houses of Congress transmit with bills accompanying papers, which 
are returned when the bills pass or at final adjournment (V, 7259, 
footnote). Sometimes one House has asked, by resolution, for papers from 
the files of the other (V, 7263, 7264). Testimony is also requested 
(III, 1855).


                 sec. xlv--amendments between the houses



[[Page 282]]




Sec. 521. Parliamentary principles as to 
disagreeing, insisting, and adhering.

  When either  House, e.g., the House of 
Commons, send a bill to the other, the other may pass it with 
amendments. The regular progression in this case is, that the Commons 
disagree to the amendment; the Lords insist on it; the Commons insist on 
their disagreement; the Lords adhere to their amendment; the Commons 
adhere to their disagreement. The term of insisting may be repeated as 
often as they choose to keep the question open. But the first adherence 
by either renders it necessary for the other to recede or adhere also; 
when the matter is usually suffered to fall. 10 Grey, 148. Latterly, 
however, there are instances of their having gone to a second adherence. 
There must be an absolute conclusion of the subject somewhere, or 
otherwise transactions between the Houses would become endless. 3 Hats., 
268, 270. The term of insisting, we are told by Sir John Trevor, was 
then (1679) newly introduced into parliamentary usage by the Lords. 7 
Grey, 94. It was certainly a happy innovation, as it multiplies the 
opportunities of trying modifications which may bring the Houses to a 
concurrence. Either House, however, is free to pass over the term of 
insisting, and to adhere in the first instance; 10 Grey, 146; but it is 
not respectful to the other. In the ordinary parliamentary course there 
are two free conferences, at least, before an adherence. 10 Grey, 147.


  The House and the Senate follow the principles set forth in this 
paragraph of the parliamentary law, and sometimes dispose of differences 
without resorting to conferences (V, 6165).




Sec. 522. Insisting and adhering in the practice of 
the House.

  If both  Houses insist and neither ask a conference nor recede, the 
bill fails (V, 6228). If both Houses adhere, the bill fails (V, 6163, 
6313, 6324, 6325) even though the difference may be over a very slight 
amendment (V, 6233-6240). In rare instances in Congress there have been 
immediate adherences on the first disagreement (V, 6303); but this does 
not preclude the granting of the request of the other House for a 
conference (V, 6241-6244). Sometimes the House recedes from its 
disagreement as to certain amendments and adheres as to others (V, 
6229). A House having adhered may at the next stage vote to further 
adhere (V, 6251). Sometimes the House has receded from adherence (V, 
6252, 6401) or reconsidered its action of adherence (V, 6253), after 
which it has agreed to the amendment with or without amendment (V, 6253, 
6401).





Sec. 523. Parliamentary law as to receding.

  Either House  may 
recede from its amendment and agree to the bill; or recede from their 
disagreement to the amendment, and agree to the same absolutely, or with 
an amendment; for here the disagreement and receding destroy one 
another, and the subject stands as before the disagreement. Elysnge, 23, 
27; 9 Grey, 476.



[[Page 283]]



Sec. 524. Practice of the House as to receding from its 
own amendment to a bill of the other House.

  In the  practice of the two Houses 
of Congress the motion is to recede from the amendment without at the 
same time agreeing to the bill, for the bill has already been passed 
with the amendment, and receding from the amendment leaves the bill 
passed (V, 6312). But where the House has previously concurred in a 
Senate amendment with an amendment, the House does not by receding from 
its amendment agree to the Senate amendment, because the House may then 
(1) concur in the Senate amendment or (2) concur in the Senate amendment 
with another amendment (VIII, 3199; Oct. 12, 1977, pp. 33448-54). The 
House may not through one motion, however, recede from its amendment 
with an amendment (V, 6212; see Sec. 526, infra). A motion in the House 
to recede from a House amendment to a Senate amendment, and concur in 
the Senate amendment, is divisible (VIII, 3199). One House has receded 
from its own amendment after the other House had returned it concurred 
in with an amendment (V, 6226). However, this has been held insufficient 
to pass the bill without further action by the House that concurred with 
an amendment (VIII, 3177; June 26, 1984, p. 18733).


  Where one House has receded from an amendment, it may not at a 
subsequent stage recall its action in order to form a new basis for a 
conference (V, 6251). Sometimes one House has receded from its amendment 
although it previously had insisted and asked a conference, which had 
been agreed to (V, 6319). After the Senate has amended a House amendment 
it is not proper for the House to recede from its amendment directly, 
but the Senate may recede from its amendment and then the House recede 
from its amendment (Speaker Reed, June 12, 1890, p. 5981). The motion to 
recede takes precedence over the motion to insist and ask a conference 
(V, 6270).



Sec. 525. Practice of the House as to receding 
from disagreement to amendment of the other House.

  By receding  from its 
disagreement to an amendment of the Senate the House does not thereby 
agree to it (V, 6215); but the Senate amendment is then open to 
amendment precisely as before the original disagreement (V, 6212-6214). 
The stage of disagreement having been reached, the motion to recede and 
concur takes precedence of the motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment (V, 6219-6223; VIII, 3198, 3200, 3202); but a motion to recede 
and concur is divisible (VIII, 3199) and being divided and the House 
having receded, a motion to amend has precedence of the motion to concur 
(V, 6209-6211; VIII, 3198), even after the previous question is ordered 
on both motions before being divided (Feb. 12, 1923, p. 3512).



  The motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an 
amendment takes precedence of a motion to insist further on the House's 
disagreement to the Senate amendment (V, 6224; VIII, 3204), and a motion 
to lay certain amendments on the table (Speaker Longworth, Jan. 24, 
1927, p. 2165). It has been held that after the previous question has 
been moved on a motion to adhere, a motion to recede may not be made (V, 
6310); and after the previous question is demanded or ordered on a 
motion to concur, a motion to amend is not in order (V, 5488); but where 
the previous question has been demanded on a motion to insist, a motion 
to recede and concur has been admitted (V, 6208, 6321a).


[[Page 284]]

form. 9 Grey, 363; 10 Grey, 240. In Senate, March 29, 1798. Nor where 
one House has adhered to their amendment, and the other agrees with an 
amendment, can the first House depart from the form which they have 
fixed by an adherence.


Sec. 526. One House not to recede from its own 
amendment with an amendment; or depart from form fixed by 
adherence.

  But the  House can not recede from or insist on its own amendment, 
with an amendment; for the same reason that it can not send to the other 
House an amendment to its own act after it has passed the act. They may 
modify an amendment from the other House by ingrafting an amendment on 
it, because they have never assented to it; but they can not amend their 
own amendment, because they have, on the question, passed it in that



  In the case of a money bill, the Lord's proposed amendments become, by 
delay, confessedly necessary. The Commons, however, refused them as 
infringing on their privilege as to money bills; but they offered 
themselves to add to the bill a proviso to the same effect, which had no 
coherence with the Lords' amendments; and urged that it was an expedient 
warranted by precedent, and not unparliamentary in a case become 
impracticable, and irremediable in any other way. 3 Hats., 256, 266, 
270, 271. But the Lords refused, and the bill was lost. 1 Chand., 288. A 
like case, 1 Chand., 311. * * *


  In the House it is a recognized principle that the House may not 
recede from its own amendments with an amendment (V, 6216-6218). The 
House may not amend its own amendment to a Senate amendment to a House 
bill (Mar. 16, 1934, p. 4685). However, the stage of disagreement having 
been reached on a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House 
proposition, the House may first recede from its amendment and, having 
receded, may then concur in the Senate amendment with a different 
amendment without violating this paragraph (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 12, 
1977, pp. 33448-54). The House has by special order of business before 
the stage of disagreement receded from its amendment and concurred in a 
Senate amendment with an amendment (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, 
Sec. 6.14; Dec. 12, 2013, p. 19064).



[[Page 285]]




Sec. 527. Text to which both Houses have agreed 
not to be changed.

  * * * So the  Commons resolved that it is unparliamentary to 
strike out, at a conference, anything in a bill which hath been agreed 
and passed by both Houses, 6 Grey, 274; 1 Chand., 312.


  The practice of the two Houses has confirmed this principle of the 
parliamentary law and established the rule that managers of a conference 
may not change the text to which both Houses have agreed (V, 6417, 6418, 
6420; VIII, 3257; see clause 9 of rule XXII), and neither House, alone, 
may empower the managers by instruction to make such a change (V, 6388). 
In the earlier practice, when it was necessary to change text already 
agreed to, the managers appended a supplementary paragraph to their 
report, and this was agreed to by unanimous consent in the two Houses 
(V, 6433-6436); or the two Houses agreed to a concurrent resolution 
giving the managers the necessary powers (V, 6437-6439; Dec. 17, 1974, 
p. 40472). Under the current practice the House considers a conference 
report that changes text already agreed to by unanimous consent, under 
suspension of the rules, or by report from the Committee on Rules 
waiving clause 9 of rule XXII.

  To change text finally agreed to by both Houses, each House may adopt 
a concurrent resolution directing the Clerk of the House or the 
Secretary of the Senate to correct the enrollment.


  The further principle has been established in practice of the House 
that it may not, even by unanimous consent (V, 6179), change in the 
slightest particular (V, 6181) the text to which both Houses have agreed 
(V, 6180; VIII, 3257). And this prohibition extends, also, to a case 
wherein it is proposed to add a new section at the end of a bill that 
has passed both Houses (V, 6182).




Sec. 528. Consideration of Senate and House amendments; 
precedence of motions.

    A motion to amend an amendment from the other 
House takes precedence of a motion to agree or disagree.


  This is the rule of the House if the stage of disagreement has not 
been reached (V, 6164, 6169-71; VIII, 3202), or if the House has receded 
from its disagreement to the amendment in question (VIII, 3196, 3197, 
3203). The following discussion summarizes the precedence and 
consideration of motions to dispose of Senate or House amendments in 
contemporary practice.


[[Page 286]]

3149, 3150; VI, 756; VIII, 3185, 3194). The stage of disagreement is not 
reached until the House has either disagreed to Senate amendments or has 
insisted on its own amendments to a Senate bill, and has notified the 
Senate. Further House action can only occur when the House has received 
the papers back from the Senate (Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868).


Sec. 528a. Consideration of Senate or House 
amendments.

  When Senate  amendments are before the House for the first time, or 
when the Senate has returned a bill with House amendments to which it 
has disagreed (and on which the House has not insisted), no privileged 
motion is in order in the House except a motion pursuant to clause 1 of 
rule XXII, made by direction of the committee with subject-matter 
jurisdiction, to disagree to the Senate amendments or insist on the 
House amendment and request or agree to a conference with the Senate 
(see Oct. 11, 1984, p. 32308). Other motions to dispose of amendments 
between the Houses are not privileged until the stage of disagreement 
has been reached on a bill with amendments of the other House (clause 4 
of rule XXII; IV,


  Before the stage of disagreement, an amendment to a Senate amendment 
to a House-passed measure on the Speaker's table is not in order until 
an order is entered for consideration of the Senate amendment in the 
House (Speaker O'Neill, June 19, 1986, pp. 14638-40).

  If the House does agree to consider a bill with Senate amendment 
before the stage of disagreement has been reached, by unanimous consent 
or special order of business, a motion to amend takes precedence over 
the motion to agree. However, the usual practice in such a situation is 
to consider a request, either by unanimous consent, suspension of the 
rules, or special order of business reported by the Committee on Rules, 
simultaneously providing for consideration and disposition of the Senate 
amendment (thus precluding the consideration of other requests to 
dispose of the amendment (see Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 5)).

  It should be noted that a small category of Senate amendments, those 
not requiring consideration in the Committee of the Whole, may be taken 
from the Speaker's table and disposed of by motion pursuant to clause 2 
of rule XXII before the stage of disagreement has been reached, but the 
vast majority of legislation does affect the Treasury (as described in 
clause 1 of rule XIII) and requires consideration in the Committee of 
the Whole.



Sec. 528b. Precedence of motions before the stage 
of disagreement.

  Should the  House consider Senate amendments before the stage of 
disagreement, the precedence of nonprivileged motions is as follows 
(disregarding the privileged motion to disagree and send to conference 
by direction of the committee): (1) to concur with amendment; (2) to 
concur; (3) to disagree and request or agree to a conference; and (4) to 
disagree. With respect to consideration of House amendments before the 
stage of disagreement, the precedence of motions is (1) to recede; (2) 
to insist and request or agree to a conference; and (3) to insist. 
Although the House may adhere, adherence is seldom utilized (because it 
precludes a conference unless receded from) and is extremely rare on 
first disagreement (see Sec. 522, supra; see also the discussion of 
adherence in Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 12). A motion to adhere is the 
least privileged motion.



[[Page 287]]

  It was formerly held that a motion to send to conference yielded to 
the simple motion to disagree, or to insist (see Cannon's Procedure in 
the House of Representatives, p. 120). In current practice, however, the 
compound motion to disagree to Senate amendments and request or agree to 
a conference, or to insist on House amendments and request or agree to a 
conference, has replaced the two-step procedure for getting to 
conference and, because it brings the two Houses together, takes 
precedence over simple motions to insist or disagree (or to adhere).

  Notwithstanding the foregoing precedence of motions, the ordinary 
motions applicable to any question that is under debate--to table, to 
postpone to a day certain, and to refer--remain available under clause 4 
of rule XVI. A motion to table Senate amendments brings the bill to the 
table (V, 5424, 6201-6203; Sept. 28, 1978, p. 32334). It has been held 
that before the stage of disagreement, the motion to table a Senate 
amendment (V, 6201-6203) or the motion to refer a Senate amendment (V, 
5301, 6172, 6174) take precedence (in that order) over motions to amend, 
agree, or disagree. And if the previous question has been ordered on 
another motion to dispose of the Senate amendment, a motion to refer is 
in order (V, 5575). In the Senate, the adoption of a motion to table a 
House amendment is messaged to the House as disagreement to said 
amendment (Sept. 30, 2013, p. 14705, p. 14736) and the adoption of a 
motion to table a House request for a conference is messaged to the 
House as disagreement to said request (Oct. 1, 2013, p. 14862; Mar. 3, 
2015, pp. 3114, 3115).

  A Senate amendment is read in full when taken from the Speaker's desk 
(VIII, 2400). Before consideration of any motions to dispose of Senate 
amendments, the Speaker has the discretionary authority, under clause 2 
of rule XIV, to refer such amendments to the appropriate committee, with 
or without a time limitation.



Sec. 528c. Reaching the stage of disagreement.

  The House  has 
reached the stage of disagreement on a bill when it is again in 
possession of the papers thereon, having previously disagreed to Senate 
amendments or insisted on House amendments (with or without requesting 
or agreeing to a conference) (Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868), and not merely 
where the other House has returned a bill with an amendment (Dec. 7, 
1977, p. 38728). Only previous insistence or disagreement by the House 
itself places the House in disagreement (and not merely disagreement, 
insistence, or amendment by the Senate). For example, if the House has 
concurred in a Senate amendment to a House bill with an amendment, 
insisted on the House amendment and requested a conference, and the 
Senate has then concurred in the House amendment with a further 
amendment, the matter is privileged for further disposition in the House 
because the House has communicated to the Senate its insistence and 
request for a conference (Speaker Albert, Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868). Of 
course, if the Senate has agreed to a House request for a conference, 
the bill is committed to conference and motions are not in order for its 
disposition until after the conferees have reported (the House may 
unilaterally discharge its conferees and consider the bill, if in 
possession of the papers, only by unanimous consent, special order, or 
suspension of the rules, and not by motion).



[[Page 288]]

therefore, for motions to be privileged because the House is in 
disagreement on the bill, but for the House to have receded from its 
disagreement or insistence on a particular amendment or to have received 
a new Senate amendment for the first time. In those cases motions remain 
privileged, but the precedence of motions on the amendment in question 
reverts to the precedence of motions before the stage of disagreement, 
as set forth in Sec. 528b, supra (see discussion below of the effect of 
the House's receding). The two Houses having permitted the amendment 
process to go beyond the second degree, a motion to concur in a Senate 
amendment (in the 4th degree), the stage of disagreement having been 
reached, is privileged but is subject to the motion to lay on the table 
(Mar. 18, 1986, p. 5217).
  Once the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill with 
amendments, the House remains in the stage of disagreement until the 
matter is finally disposed of and motions for its disposition are 
privileged whenever the House is in possession of the papers. This 
principle applies both where the stage of disagreement is reached 
without a conference, and where matters remain in disagreement after 
conferees have reported. It is possible,

  Where the House by special order of business limited the availability 
of privileged motions under clause 4 of rule XXII to the Majority Leader 
or a designee (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 6.14; July 31, 2014, p. 
13727), the Chair declined to recognize another Member for such a motion 
(Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14981; Oct. 12, 2013, p. 15782, p. 15791).



Sec. 528d. Precedence of motions after the 
stage of disagreement.

  Generally, after  the stage of disagreement has been reached on a 
Senate amendment, the precedence of motions is as follows: (1) to recede 
and concur; (2) to recede and concur with an amendment or amendments; 
(3) to insist on disagreement and request a (further) conference; (4) to 
insist on disagreement; and (5) to adhere. The Chair may examine the 
substance of a pending motion to determine the precedence thereof in 
relation to another motion, even though in form it may appear 
preferential. Thus, a proper motion to concur with an amendment to a 
Senate amendment reported from conference in disagreement (the House 
having receded) has been offered and voted on before a pending motion 
drafted as one to concur with an amendment but in actual effect a motion 
to insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment, because simply 
reinserting the original House text without change (Deschler-Brown, ch. 
31, Sec. 8.12).



[[Page 289]]

with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment (if such 
instructions are permitted under the standing rules) may not be offered 
after the previous question has been ordered on a motion to recede and 
concur, a motion of higher privilege (see Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, 
Sec. 7.5). However, after the House has receded from disagreement to a 
Senate amendment, a motion to amend is preferential over a motion to 
agree, and thus after the previous question is ordered on a motion to 
concur, the House having already receded, a motion to recommit with 
instructions to amend would be in order (VIII, 2744). Motions to 
postpone, either to a day certain or indefinitely, have the lowest 
privilege with respect to a Senate amendment after the stage of 
disagreement has been reached. For old examples in which the House 
postponed indefinitely consideration of Senate amendments, see V, 6199, 
6200 (in the latter case the Senate had adhered). Clause 8(b)(3) of rule 
XXII makes preferential and separately debatable a motion to insist on 
disagreement to a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill, if: 
(1) the Senate amendment has been reported from conference in 
disagreement; (2) the original motion to dispose of the Senate amendment 
proposes to change existing law; and (3) the motion to insist is timely 
offered by the chair of a committee of jurisdiction or a designee.
  A Senate amendment is read in full when taken from the Speaker's desk 
(VIII, 3232; Mar. 3, 2015, p. 3103). The ordinary motion to table under 
clause 4 of rule XVI may be applied to a Senate amendment, is 
preferential to a motion to dispose of the Senate amendment (Deschler-
Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 7.22; Mar. 3, 2015, p. 3099), but carries the bill 
to the table (Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 7.22). When applied to a 
motion to dispose of a Senate amendment, the motion to table carries to 
the table only the motion to dispose and not the amendment or bill (see 
Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 7.27). With respect to the motion to refer 
(or recommit), a simple motion to refer or recommit only takes 
precedence over a motion to adhere, after the stage of disagreement has 
been reached on the bill. After the previous question is ordered on a 
pending motion to dispose of a Senate amendment, a motion to recommit 
(pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIX) may only be offered if it 
constitutes, in effect, a motion that takes precedence over the pending 
motion to dispose of a Senate amendment. Thus, after the stage of 
disagreement has been reached on a Senate amendment, a motion to 
recommit

  Where the matter in question is a House amendment or amendments after 
the stage of disagreement has been reached, the precedence of motions is 
(1) to recede; (2) to further insist on the amendment and request a 
(further) conference; and (3) to adhere. For discussion of possible 
options of the House, having receded from its amendment or amendments, 
see Sec. 524, supra, and Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 7. If the House 
recedes from its amendment to a Senate bill, the bill is passed unless 
otherwise specified. If the House recedes from its amendment to a Senate 
amendment, the bill is not passed unless the House takes another step, 
either to concur in the Senate amendment or amend it. The House having 
receded from its amendment to a Senate amendment, it is no longer in 
disagreement on the amendment (although it is on the bill if the stage 
of disagreement has previously been reached), and the motion to amend 
the Senate amendment takes precedence over the motion to concur therein. 
Until the House recedes, however, a motion to recede from the House 
amendment and concur in the Senate amendment is preferential. A 
conference report held to violate clause 9 of rule XXII was vitiated, 
after which a privileged motion to recede and concur in a Senate 
amendment with an amendment incorporating by reference the text of an 
introduced House bill was offered (Nov. 14, 2002, p. 22409).


[[Page 290]]

33698-701). If the House agrees to recede, a motion to concur with an 
amendment then takes precedence over the motion to concur, is considered 
as pending if part of the original motion, and is voted on first (Sept. 
30, 1988, pp. 27265-74; Oct. 11, 1989, p. 24097). As indicated in 
Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 8.2, a Member offering a preferential 
motion does not thereby gain control of the debate, which remains in the 
control of the floor manager recognized to offer the original motion to 
dispose of amendments between the Houses. In the modern practice, clause 
8(d) of rule XXII has been interpreted to apply to any motion to dispose 
of an amendment between the Houses after the stage of disagreement and 
the Chair will divide the time equally between the majority and minority 
floor managers (see Sec. 1086, infra). Where both floor managers support 
such a motion, however, a Member opposed may claim one-third of the 
time, and the Chair will recognize for closing debate in the reverse 
order of opening (Mar. 3, 2015, pp. 3114, 3115).
  The same principle as to the precedence of motions after a division of 
the question applies to a motion to recede and concur in a Senate 
amendment, the stage of disagreement having been reached. Although the 
motion to recede and concur takes precedence over the motion to recede 
and concur with an amendment, the former motion may be divided on the 
demand of any Member and each portion may be separately debatable (Oct. 
5, 1978,


  Recognition to offer a preferential motion goes to the senior 
committee member seeking the floor who is not the offeror of a displaced 
motion of lesser privilege (Nov. 16, 1989, p. 29565). Although the 
manager of a conference report is entitled to prior recognition to offer 
motions to dispose of amendments in disagreement, the manager should not 
be entitled to offer two motions, one preferential to the other, to be 
pending at the same time. However, where the manager's first motion to 
insist on disagreement has been superseded by the House's voting to 
recede from disagreement, then the initial motion is no longer pending; 
and the manager may be recognized to offer another motion to concur with 
an amendment, which would be preferential to the remaining portion of 
another Member's divided motion to concur (Deschler-Brown, ch 32, 
Sec. 8.2). This is to be contrasted with the situation in which the bill 
manager offers a motion to dispose of a Senate amendment that is 
rejected by the House, in which case recognition to offer a subsequent 
motion to dispose of the pending Senate amendment shifts to another 
Member who led the opposition to the rejected motion (see Sec. 954, 
infra).


[[Page 291]]

amendment to that text by the originating House therefore is only in the 
1st degree, and the amendment to that again by the amending House is 
only in the 2d, to wit, an amendment to an amendment, and so admissible. 
Just so, when, on a bill from the originating House, the other, at its 
second reading, makes an amendment; on the third reading this amendment 
is become the text of the bill, and if an amendment to it be moved an 
amendment to that amendment may also be moved, as being only in the 2d 
degree.



Sec. 529. Degree of amendments between the 
Houses.

  A bill  originating in one House is passed by the other with an 
amendment.    The originating House agrees to their amendment with an 
amendment. The other may agree to their amendment with an amendment, 
that being only in the 2d and not the 3d degree; for, as to the amending 
House, the first amendment with which they passed the bill is a part of 
its text. It is the only text they have agreed to. The






  This principle is followed in the practice of the House (V, 6176-
6178). For a discussion of the attitude of the Senate on this topic, see 
October 31, 1991, p. 29494.


                         sec. xlvi--conferences




Sec. 530. Parliamentary law as to asking 
conferences.

  It is on the  occasion of amendments between the Houses that 
conferences are usually asked; but they may be asked in all cases of 
difference of opinion between the two Houses on matters depending 
between them. The request of a conference, however, must always be by 
the House which is possessed of the papers. 3 Hats., 31; 1 Grey, 425.



[[Page 292]]

  The House follows the principles set forth in this paragraph of the 
parliamentary law. A conference may be asked on only a portion of the 
amendments in disagreement, leaving the differences as to the remainder 
to be settled by the action of the two Houses themselves (V, 6401). In 
very rare instances conferences have been asked by one House after the 
other has absolutely rejected a main proposition (IV, 3442; V, 6258). A 
difference over an amendment to a proposed constitutional amendment may 
be committed to a conference (V, 7037).



Sec. 531. Conferences over matters other 
than differences as to amendments.

  Although conferences  between the two Houses of Congress 
are usually held over differences as to amendments to bills, 
occasionally differences arise as to the respective prerogatives of the 
Houses (II, 1485-1495) or as to matters of procedures (V, 6401), as in 
impeachment proceedings (III, 2304), which are referred to conference. 
In early and exceptional instances conferences have been asked as to 
legislative matters when no propositions relating thereto were pending 
(V, 6255-6257).




Sec. 532. Conferences by means of select 
committees.

  In very  rare cases, also, the Houses interchange views and come to 
conclusions by means of select committees appointed on the part of each 
House (I, 3). Thus, in 1821, a joint committee was chosen to consider 
and report to the two Houses whether or not it was expedient to provide 
for the admission of Missouri into the Union (IV, 4471), and in 1877 
similar committees were appointed to devise a method for counting the 
electoral vote (III, 1953).




Sec. 533. Requests for conferences.

  The  parliamentary law 
provides that the request for a conference must always be by the House 
that is in possession of the papers (V, 8254). It was formerly the more 
regular practice for the House disagreeing to amendments of the other to 
leave the asking of a conference to that other House if it should decide 
to insist (V, 6278-6285, 6324); but it is so usual in the later practice 
for the House disagreeing to an amendment of the other to ask a 
conference that an omission to do so has even raised a question (V, 
6273). Yet it cannot be said that the practice requires a request for a 
conference to be made by the House disagreeing to the amendments of the 
other (V, 6274-6277). One House having asked a conference at one 
session, the other House may agree to the conference at the next session 
of the same Congress (V, 6286).




Sec. 534. Requests for conferences declined or 
neglected.

  In rare  instances one House has declined the request of the other 
for a conference (V, 6313-6315; Mar. 20, 1951, p. 2683; Oct. 1, 2013, p. 
14862; Mar. 3, 2015, p. 3103), sometimes accompanying it by adherence 
(V, 6313, 6315). In one instance, in which the Senate declined a 
conference, it transmitted, by message, its reasons for so doing (V, 
6313). Sometimes, also, one House disregards the request of the other 
for a conference and recedes from its disagreement, thereby rendering a 
conference unnecessary (V, 6316-6318). And in one case, in which one 
House has asked a conference to which the other has assented, the asking 
House receded before the conference took place (V, 6319). Also, a bill 
returned to the House with a request for a conference has been postponed 
indefinitely (V, 6199).



[[Page 293]]

are considered as preferential (V, 6269, 6270). Where a motion to 
request a conference at this stage has been rejected, its repetition at 
the same stage of the proceedings, no other motion to dispose of the 
matter in disagreement having been considered, has not been permitted 
(V, 6325). Where a conference results in disagreement, a motion to 
request a new conference is privileged (V, 6586). Sometimes 
disagreements are voted on by the House and conferences asked through 
the medium of special orders of business (IV, 3242-3249).


Sec. 535. Motions to request conferences.

  After the  stage of 
disagreement has been reached, a motion to ask a conference is 
considered as distinct from motions to agree or disagree to amendments 
of the other House (V, 6268) and the motions to agree, recede, or insist


  Before the stage of disagreement, any motion with respect to 
amendments between the two Houses is without privilege, except for 
motions with respect to the limited number of amendments that qualify 
under clause 2 of rule XXII or motions under clause 1 of rule XXII, to 
disagree to Senate amendments (or insist on House amendments) and to 
request or agree to an initial conference if the motion is authorized by 
the primary committee and all reporting committees of initial referral 
and if the Speaker chooses to recognize for that purpose. Under clause 
2(a)(3) of rule XI, a committee may adopt a rule providing that the 
chair be directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII. A 
motion under the latter clause may be repeated, if again authorized by 
the relevant committees, and if the Speaker again agrees to recognize 
for that purpose, even though the House has once rejected a motion to 
send the same matter to conference (Speaker Albert, Oct. 3, 1972, p. 
33502).


[[Page 294]]

were to confer (Speaker Albert, Nov. 30, 1971, p. 43422). In appointing 
conferees on the general appropriation bill for fiscal year 1951, 
Speaker Rayburn appointed a set of managers for each chapter of the bill 
and four Members to sit on all chapters (Aug. 7, 1950, p. 11894). 
Although the appointment of conferees, both as to their number and 
composition, is within the discretion of the Chair (Speaker Garner, June 
24, 1932, p. 13876; Speaker Martin, July 8, 1947, p. 8469), and although 
a point of order will not lie against the exercise of this discretion 
(VIII, 2193, 3221), the Speaker normally takes into consideration the 
attitude of the majority and minority of the House on the disagreements 
in issue (V, 6336-6338; VIII, 3223), the varying views of the Members of 
the House (V, 6339, 6340), and does not necessarily confine the 
appointments to members of the committee in charge of the bill (V, 
6370). In one case, in which the prerogatives of the House were 
involved, all of the managers were appointed to represent the majority 
opinion (V, 6338). See also Sec. 637, infra.


Sec. 536. Managers of conferences.

  Although usual,  it is not 
essential that one House, in asking a conference, transmit the names of 
its managers at the same time, and the Senate has moved to agree to a 
conference asked by the House before the appointment of House managers 
(V, 6405; Feb. 27, 2015, p. 2892). The managers, properly so called (V, 
6335), constitute practically two distinct committees, each of which 
acts by a majority (V, 6334). The Speaker appoints the managers on the 
part of the House (clause 11 of rule I) and has discretion as to the 
number to serve on a given bill (V, 6336; VIII, 2193) but must appoint 
(1) a majority of Members who generally support the House position, as 
determined by the Speaker; (2) Members who are primarily responsible for 
the legislation; and (3) to the fullest extent feasible the principal 
proponents of the major provisions of the bill as it passed the House 
(clause 11 of rule I). Although the practice used to be to appoint three 
managers from each house (V, 6336), in the absence of joint rules each 
House may appoint whatever number it sees fit (V, 6328-6330). The two 
Houses have frequently appointed a disparate number of managers (V, 
6331-6333; VIII, 3221); and where the Senate appointed nine and the 
House but three, a motion to instruct the Speaker to appoint a greater 
number of managers on the part of the House was held out of order (VII, 
2193). In appointing managers the Speaker usually consults the Member in 
charge of the bill (V, 6336); and where an amendment in disagreement 
falls within the jurisdiction of two committees of the House, the 
Speaker has named Members from both committees and specified the 
respective areas on which they




Sec. 537. Reappointment of, at second and 
subsequent conferences.

  Where there  were several conferences on a bill, it was the 
early practice to change the managers at each conference (V, 6288-6291, 
6324), and so fixed was this practice that their reappointment had a 
special significance, indicating an unyielding temper (V, 6352-6368); 
but in the later practice it is the rule to reappoint managers (V, 6341-
6344) unless a change be necessary to enable the sentiment of the House 
to be represented (V, 6369).





Sec. 538. Vacancies, etc., in managers of 
conferences.

  Managers of  a conference are excused from service either by authority 
of the House (V, 6373-6376; VIII, 3224, 3227) or, since the 103d 
Congress, by removal by the Speaker (clause 11 of rule I). The absence 
of a manager may cause a vacancy, which the Speaker fills by appointment 
(V, 6372; VIII, 3228). If one House makes a change in its managers, it 
informs the other House, by message (V, 6377, 6378). According to the 
later practice the powers of managers who have not reported do not 
expire at the termination of a session, unless it be the last session 
(V, 6260-6262).



[[Page 295]]

ject of the last conference, where they read and deliver, in like 
manner, written answer to those reasons. 3 Grey, 183. They are meant 
chiefly to record the justification of each House to the nation at large 
and to posterity and in proof that the miscarriage of a necessary 
measure is not imputable to them. 3 Grey, 255. At free conferences the 
managers discuss, viva voce and freely, and interchange propositions for 
such modifications as may be made in a parliamentary way, and may bring 
the sense of the two Houses together. * * *



Sec. 539. Parliamentary law as to free and simple 
conferences.

  Conferences  may be either simple or free. At a conference simply, 
written reasons are prepared by the House asking it, and they are read 
and delivered, without debate, to the managers of the other House at the 
conference, but are not then to be answered. 4 Grey, 144. The other 
House then, if satisfied, vote the reasons satisfactory, or say nothing; 
if not satisfied they resolve then not satisfactory and ask a conference 
on the sub




Sec. 540. Free and simple conferences in modern 
practice.

  This provision  of the parliamentary law bears little relation to the modern 
practice of the two Houses of Congress, and that practice has evolved a 
new definition: ``A free conference is that which leaves the committee 
of conference entirely free to pass upon any subject where the two 
branches have disagreed in their votes, not, however, including any 
action upon any subject where there has been a concurrent vote of both 
branches. A simple conference--perhaps it should more properly be termed 
a strict or a specific conference, though the parliamentary term is 
`simple'--is that which confines the committee of conference to the 
specific instructions of the body appointing it'' (V, 6403). And where 
the House had asked a free conference it was held not in order to 
instruct the managers (V, 6384). But it is very rare for the House in 
asking a conference to specify whether it shall be free or simple.



[[Page 296]]

propriety of doing so at a first conference has been questioned (V, 
6388, footnote). And in rare instances in which a free conference is 
asked instruction is not in order (V, 6384). At a new conference the 
instructions of a former conference are not in force (V, 6383; VIII, 
3240). And instructions may not direct the managers to do that which 
they might not otherwise do (V, 6386, 6387; VIII, 3235, 3244), as to 
effect a change in part of a bill not in disagreement (V, 6391-6394) or 
change the text to which both Houses have agreed (V, 6388). Although 
managers may disregard instructions, their report may not for that 
reason be ruled out of order (V, 6395; VIII, 3246; June 8, 1972, p. 
20282), and when a conference report was recommitted with instructions 
the managers were not confined to the instructions alone (VIII, 3247).


Sec. 541. Instruction of managers of a 
conference.

  In their practices  as to the instruction of managers of a conference, the 
House and the Senate do not agree. Only in rare instances has the Senate 
instructed (V, 6398), and these instances are at variance with its 
declaration, made after full consideration, that managers may not be 
instructed (V, 6397). And where the House has instructed its managers, 
the Senate sometimes has declined to participate and asked a free 
conference (V, 6402-6404). In the later practice the House does not 
inform the Senate when it instructs its managers (V, 6399), the Senate 
having objected to the transmittal of instructions by message (V, 6400, 
6401). In one instance in which the Senate learned indirectly that the 
House had instructed its managers, it declared that the conference 
should be full and free, and instructed its own managers to withdraw if 
they should find the freedom of the conference impaired (V, 6406). But 
the House holds to the opinion that the House may instruct its managers 
(V, 6379-6382), although the


  The motion to instruct managers should be offered after the vote to 
ask for or agree to a conference and before the managers are appointed 
(V, 6379-6382; VIII, 3233, 3240, 3256). The motion to instruct may be 
amended unless the previous question is ordered (V, 6525; VIII, 3231, 
3240); thus a motion to instruct House conferees to agree to a numbered 
Senate amendment with an amendment may be amended, upon rejection of the 
previous question, to instruct the conferees to agree to the Senate 
amendment (June 9, 1982, pp. 13027, 13028, 13039, 13049). A Member may 
not be recognized for a unanimous-consent request to modify a pending 
motion to instruct unless yielded to for that purpose by the proponent 
(Mar. 29, 2006, p. 4377). The motion to instruct may be laid on the 
table without carrying the bill to the table (VIII, 2658). The motion is 
debatable (see clause 7(b) of rule XXII) unless the previous question is 
ordered (VIII, 2675, 3240), which the proponent may not move until those 
allotted time under clause 7(b) have yielded back (Oct. 3, 1989, p. 
22842). After a motion to ask or agree to a conference is agreed to, 
only one valid motion to instruct is in order (VIII, 3236; Speaker 
Wright, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 11.1); and the ruling out of 
such a motion does not preclude the offering of a proper motion (VIII, 
3235; Dec. 7, 2005, p. 27706); but one motion having been considered and 
disposed of, further motions are not in order (VIII, 3236). The 
restriction on further motions does not apply to a motion to instruct 
under clause 7(c) of rule XXII (Aug. 22, 1935, pp. 14162-64).



[[Page 297]]


  A member of the minority is first entitled to recognition for a motion 
to instruct conferees (Speaker Bankhead, Oct. 31, 1939, pp. 1103-05; 
Speaker Albert, Oct. 19, 1971, pp. 36832-35), and if two minority 
members of the reporting committee seek recognition to offer a motion to 
instruct conferees before their appointment, the Chair will recognize 
the senior minority member of the committee (Oct. 10, 1986, p. 30181; 
Speaker Wright, Feb. 17, 1988, p. 1583).




Sec. 542. Parliamentary law as to reports of 
managers of a conference.

  * * * And each  party report in writing to their respective 
Houses the substance of what is said on both sides, and it is entered in 
their journals. 9 Grey, 220; 3 Hats; 280. This report can not be amended 
or altered, as that of a committee may be. Journal Senate, May 24, 1796.




Sec. 543. Forms of conference reports.

  In the two  Houses of 
Congress conference reports were originally merely suggestions for 
action and were neither identical in the two Houses nor acted on as a 
whole (V, 6468-6471). In the House clause 7(a) of rule XXII provides 
that conference reports may be received at any time, except when the 
Journal is being read, while the roll is being called, or the House is 
dividing. They are privileged on or after the third calendar day 
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays) after they have been 
filed and printed in the Record, together with the accompanying 
statement (clause 8 of rule XXII). The early reports were not signed by 
the managers (IV, 3905); but in the later practice the signatures of the 
majority of the managers of each House is required (V, 6497-6502; VIII, 
3295). Sometimes a manager indorses the report with a conditional 
approval or dissent (V, 6489-6496, 6538; Nov. 18, 1991, p. 32575). 
Traditionally, however, signatures with conditions are not counted 
toward a majority (cf. VIII, 3302) and in the modern practice are not 
printed in the report. Supplemental reports or minority views may not be 
filed in connection with conference reports (VIII, 3302). The name of an 
absent manager may not be affixed, but the two Houses by concurrent 
action may authorize the manager to sign the report after it has been 
acted on (V, 6488). The minority portion of the managers of a conference 
have no authority to make either a written or verbal report concerning 
the conference (V, 6406). In the later practice reports of managers are 
identical, and made in duplicate for the two Houses, the House managers 
signing first the report for their House and the Senate managers signing 
the other report first (V, 6323, 6426, 6499, 6500, 6504). Under certain 
circumstances managers may report an entirely new bill on a subject in 
disagreement, but this bill is acted on as part of the report (V, 6465-
6467; see also clause 9 of rule XXII). A quorum among the managers on 
the part of the House at a committee of conference is established by 
their signatures on the conference report and joint explanatory 
statement (Oct. 4, 1994, p. 27662).



[[Page 298]]

the House adopted the report, and, by unanimous consent, insisted on its 
disagreement to the putatively reported amendment and agreed to a 
concurrent resolution that deemed the conference report to have 
``resolved all disagreements'' (Oct. 10, 2002, p. 20333).


Sec. 544. Partial conference reports.

  Managers may  report an 
agreement as to a portion of the numbered amendments in disagreement, 
leaving the remainder to be disposed of by subsequent action (V, 6460-
6464). Where a Senate amendment to the title of a House bill was in 
conference, but inadvertently omitted from the conference report,




Sec. 545. Reports of inability to agree.

  Where managers  of a 
conference are unable to agree, or where a report is disagreed to in 
either House, another conference is usually asked (V, 6288-6291). When 
managers report that they have been unable to agree, the report is not 
acted on by the House (V, 6562; VIII, 3329; Aug. 23, 1957, p. 15816). 
Although under the earlier practice, when conferees reported in complete 
disagreement, the amendments in disagreement were considered available 
for immediate disposition (VIII, 3299, 3332), the current practice (as a 
result of the amendments to clause 8(a) of rule XXII in the 93d and 
116th Congresses) is to require the matter to lay over for 72 hours 
after the report in disagreement is filed and printed in the Record. In 
the earlier practice reports of inability to agree were made verbally or 
by unsigned written reports (V, 6563-6567); but in later practice they 
are written, in identical form, and signed by the managers of the two 
Houses (V, 6568, 6569).




Sec. 546. Managers restricted to the 
disagreements of the two Houses.

  The managers  of a conference must confine 
themselves to the differences committed to them (V, 6417, 6418; VIII, 
3252, 3255, 3282), and may not include subjects not within the 
disagreements (V, 6407, 6408; VIII, 3253-3255, 3260, 3282, 3284), even 
though germane to a question in issue (V, 6419; VIII, 3256; Speaker 
Albert, Dec. 20, 1974, p. 41849). But they may perfect amendments 
committed to them if they do not in so doing go beyond the differences 
(V, 6409, 6413). Thus, where an amendment providing an appropriation to 
construct a road had been disagreed to, it was held in order to report a 
provision to provide for a survey for the road (V, 6425). Managers may 
not change the text to which both Houses have agreed (V, 6417, 6418, 
6420, 6433-6436). But if the amendment in issue strikes all of the bill 
after the enacting clause and substitutes a new text, the managers have 
the whole subject before them and may exercise a broad discretion as to 
details (V, 6424; VIII, 3266), and may even report an entirely new bill 
on the subject (V, 6421, 6423; VIII, 3248, 3263, 3265, 3276; Sec. 1088, 
infra). If the amendment in disagreement proposes a substitute differing 
greatly from the House provision they may eliminate the entire subject 
matter (Speaker Gillett, Sept. 14, 1922, p. 12598).



[[Page 299]]

comes too late after the report has been agreed to (V, 6442); and in 
case the statement is read in lieu of the report the point of order must 
be made or reserved before the statement is read (VIII, 3256, 3265, 
3285, 3288, 3289). Where clause 8(c) of rule XXII applies, points of 
order must be made before debate begins on the report (Nov. 14, 2002, p. 
22408).


Sec. 547. Remedy where managers exceed their 
authority.

  In the  House the Speaker may rule out a conference report if it be 
shown that the managers have exceeded their authority (V, 6409-6416; 
VIII, 3256; Oct. 4, 1962, p. 22332; Nov. 14, 2002, pp. 22408, 22409). In 
the House points of order against reports are made or reserved after the 
report is read and before the reading of the statement (V, 6424, 6441; 
VIII, 3282, 3284, 3285, 3287), or consideration begins (V, 6903-6905; 
VIII, 3286), and


  A conference report held to violate clause 9 of rule XXII was 
vitiated, after which a privileged motion to recede and concur in a 
Senate amendment with an amendment incorporating by reference the text 
of an introduced House bill was offered (Nov. 14, 2002, p. 22409).

  Under the former practice of the Senate, the Chair did not rule out 
conference reports, but the Senate itself expressed its opinion on the 
vote to agree to the report (V, 6426-6432). However, on March 8, 1918, 
the Senate adopted a ``scope'' rule providing for a point of order 
against conferees inserting matter not committed to them or changing the 
text agreed to by both Houses. This rule of the Senate was strictly 
construed (VIII, 3273, 3275) until the 104th Congress when the Senate 
overturned on appeal a ruling of its presiding officer that the 
inclusion of a special labor-law provision in a conference report 
exceeded the scope of conference (Oct. 3, 1996, pp. 27147-51). The Chair 
interpreted that action as tantamount to a change in the Senate rules 
until the 107th Congress. Public Law 106-553 provided that at the 
beginning of the 107th Congress the Presiding Officer of the Senate 
would apply precedents under Senate rule XXVIII as in effect at the end 
of the 103d Congress. Public Law 110-81 amended it to provide a new 
procedure (see, e.g., Nov. 7, 2007, pp. 30270, 30271, 30282).


[[Page 300]]



Sec. 548. Meeting and action of managers.

  The  managers of a 
conference may not report before the other House is notified of their 
appointment and a meeting is held (V, 6458). Conferences are generally 
held in the Capitol, and formerly with closed doors, although in rare 
instances Members and others were admitted to make arguments (V, 6254, 
footnote, 6263). Clause 12 of rule XXII now provides for at least one 
open conference meeting except if the House determines by the yeas and 
nays that all or part of the meeting may be closed to the public. The 
same rule now provides for a point of order in the House against the 
report and for an automatic request for a new conference if the House 
managers fail to meet in open session following appointment of the 
Senate conferees (Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32896). For a discussion of open 
conference meetings, see Sec. 1093, infra. Rarely, also, papers in the 
nature of petitions have been referred to managers (V, 6263). The 
managers of the two Houses vote separately (V, 6336). Clause 12(a)(3) of 
rule XXII provides additional statements on the meetings, discussions, 
and signatures of House managers. Clause 13 of rule XXII provides a 
point of order against consideration of a conference report that differs 
in a non-clerical manner from the version placed before the House 
managers for signature.




Sec. 549. Action on a conference report in the 
two Houses.

  The report of  the managers of a conference goes first to one House and 
then to the other, neither House acting until it is in possession of the 
papers, which means the original bill and amendments, as well as the 
report (V, 6322, 6518-6522, 6586; VIII, 3301). The report must be acted 
on as a whole, being agreed to or disagreed to as an entirety (V, 6472-
6480, 6530-6533; VIII, 3304, 3305; Speaker Bankhead, Aug. 22, 1940, p. 
10763; Speaker Albert, Nov. 10, 1971, p. 40481); and until the report 
has been acted on no motion to deal with the individual amendments is in 
order (V, 6323, 6389, 6390; Speaker Rayburn, Mar. 16, 1942, pp. 2502-
04). Under a special order of business recommended by the Committee on 
Rules, the House has considered a single, indivisible motion to adopt 
not only a conference report but also sundry motions to dispose of 
amendments reported from conference in disagreement (June 18, 1992, p. 
15453). Although ordinarily reports are agreed to by majority vote, a 
two-thirds vote is required on a report relating to a constitutional 
amendment (V, 7036). Conference reports must be acted on in both Houses 
and, in a case in which the Senate had adopted a report recommending 
that it recede from its amendments to a House bill, the House rejected 
the report and then agreed to the Senate amendments (Mar. 21, 1956, p. 
5278). A conference report being made up but not acted on at the 
expiration of a Congress, the bill is lost (V, 6309). One House has, by 
message, reminded the other of its neglect to act on a conference 
report; but this was an occasion of criticism (V, 6309).




Sec. 550. Motions in order during action on a 
conference report.

  When a  conference report is presented, the question on 
agreeing is regarded as pending (V, 6517; VIII, 3300), and as the 
negative of it is equivalent to disagreement, the motion to disagree is 
not admitted (II, 1473; V, 6517; VIII, 3300). The reading of the 
amendments to which the report relates is not in order during its 
consideration (V, 5298). The report may not be amended on motion made in 
either House alone (V, 6534, 6535; VIII, 3306), but amendment is 
sometimes made by concurrent action of the two Houses (V, 6536, 6537; 
VIII, 3308). A motion to refer to a standing committee (V, 6558) or to 
lay on the table is not entertained in the House (V, 6538-6544); and a 
conference report may not be sent to Committee of the Whole on 
suggestion that it contains matter ordinarily requiring consideration in 
that committee (V, 6559-6561). It is in order on motion to recommit a 
conference report if the other body, by action on the report, have not 
discharged their managers (V, 6545-6553, 6609; VIII, 3310), and by 
concurrent resolution a report may be recommitted to conference after 
each House has acted thereon (VIII, 3316), but such a proposition would 
not be privileged in the House (V, 6554-6557; VIII, 3309).



[[Page 301]]

recommit a conference report under the former version of the rule could 
not instruct House managers to exceed the scope of conference 
(Sec. 1088, infra); and, under clause 7(d) of rule XXII, a motion to 
instruct may not contain argument (Sec. 1079, infra).
  A bill being recommitted to the committee of conference, no further 
action is taken by the House until it is again reported by the managers 
(VIII, 3326, 3327), and when reported is subject to another motion to 
recommit (VIII, 3325). Adoption of a motion to recommit opens to further 
negotiation all issues committed to conference (Apr. 21, 1988, p. 8198). 
A motion to




Sec. 551. Effect of disagreement to a conference 
report.

  When either  House disagrees to a conference report the matter is left in 
the position it was in before the conference was asked (V, 6525), and 
the amendments in disagreement come up for further action (II, 1473), 
but do not return to the state they were in before disagreement, so that 
they need not be considered in the Committee of the Whole (V, 6589). 
Motions for disposition of Senate amendments, sending to conference and 
instruction of conferees, are again in order (VIII, 3303). However, if a 
conference report is considered as rejected pursuant to the provisions 
of clause 10 of rule XXII because of the inclusion of nongermane matter, 
the pending question is as specified in that clause and, depending on 
the nature of the text in disagreement, may be to recede and concur with 
an amendment, to insist on the House position, or to insist on 
disagreement (see Sec. Sec. 1089, 1090, infra).





Sec. 552. Custody of papers when a conference is asked 
before disagreement.

  A  conference may be asked, before the House asking 
it has come to a resolution of disagreement, insisting or adhering. 3 
Hats., 269, 341. In which case the papers are not left with the other 
conferees, but are brought back to the foundation of the vote to be 
given. And this is the most reasonable and respectful proceeding; for, 
as was urged by the Lords on a particular occasion, ``it is held vain, 
and below the wisdom of Parliament, to reason or argue against fixed 
resolutions, and upon terms of impossibility to persuade.'' 3 Hats., 
226. * * *



  In the Houses of Congress conferences are sometimes asked before a 
disagreement, and while the rule as to retention of the papers 
undoubtedly holds good, neglect to observe it has not been questioned 
(V, 6585).


[[Page 302]]

Lords made it an objection that the Commons had asked a free conference 
after they had made resolutions of adhering. It was then affirmed, 
however, on the part of the Commons that nothing was more parliamentary 
than to proceed with free conferences after adhering, 3 Hats., 269, and 
we do in fact see instances of conference, or of free conference, asked 
after the resolution of disagreeing, 3 Hats., 251, 253, 260, 286, 291, 
316, 349; of insisting, ib., 280, 290, 299, 319, 322, 355; of adhering, 
269, 270, 283, 300; and even of a second or final adherence. 3 Hats., 
270. * * *



Sec. 553. Relations of adherence and conference 
under the parliamentary law.

  * * * So the  Commons say, ``an adherence is never 
delivered at a free conference, which implies debate.'' 10 Grey, 137. 
And on another occasion the





Sec. 554. Relations of adherence and conference 
under the practice of the two Houses of Congress.

  The two Houses  not observing the 
parliamentary distinctions as to free and other conferences, their 
practice in case of adherence is also different. Conferences are not 
asked after an adherence by both Houses, but have often been asked and 
granted where only one House has adhered (V, 6241-6244). A vote to 
adhere may not be accompanied by a request for a conference (V, 6303; 
VIII, 3208), because the House that votes to adhere does not ask a 
conference (V, 6304-6308). The request for a conference in such a case 
is properly accompanied by a motion to insist (V, 6308). And the House 
that has adhered may insist on its adherence when it agrees to the 
conference (V, 6251). But it is not considered necessary either to 
recede or insist before agreeing to the conference (V, 6242, 6244, 6310, 
6311).





Sec. 555. Custody of the papers after an 
effective conference.

  * * * And in  all cases of conference asked after a vote of 
disagreement, &c., the conferees of the House asking it are to leave the 
papers with the conferees of the other; and in one case where they 
refused to receive them they were left on the table in the conference 
chamber. Ib., 271, 317, 323, 354; 10 Grey, 146.



[[Page 303]]

1981, p. 18884). If conferees of House agreeing to conference surrender 
papers to House asking conference, the report can be received first by 
House asking the conference (VIII, 3330). In the 101st Congress, where a 
report following a successful conference was filed in both Houses, an 
objection to a unanimous-consent request in the Senate prevented the 
release of papers held at the Senate desk to the House, where the Senate 
in the normal course of events was scheduled to act first on the report 
(June 28, 1990, p. 16249).
  This principle of the parliamentary law is recognized in both Houses, 
and is customarily followed in cases wherein the managers of the 
conference come to an agreement on which a report may be based (July 31,




Sec. 556. Custody of papers when managers of a 
conference fail to agree.

  Where a  conference breaks up without reaching any 
agreement the managers for the House that requested the conference, who 
have the papers by right, are justified in retaining them and carrying 
them back to the House (IV, 3905, footnote; V, 6246, 6254, 6571-6584; 
VIII, 3332). And in one case wherein under such circumstances the papers 
were taken back to the Senate, which was the body agreeing to the 
conference, the Senate after consideration sent them to the House, 
because it seemed proper for the asking House to take the first action 
(V, 6573). But sometimes managers have brought the papers to the 
agreeing House without question (V, 6239, footnote; July 14, 1988, p. 
18411).




Sec. 557. Free or instructed conferences.

  After a  free 
conference the usage is to proceed with free conferences and not to 
return again to a conference. 3 Hats., 270; 9 Grey, 229.



  After a conference denied a free conference may be asked. 1 Grey, 45.


  The House instructs its managers whenever it sees fit, without regard 
to whether or not the preceding conference has been free or instructed.


[[Page 304]]

liament are thought by the one House to have been departed from by the 
other a conference is asked to come to a right understanding thereon. 10 
Grey, 148. So when an unparliamentary message has been sent, instead of 
answering it they ask a conference. 3 Grey, 155. Formerly an address or 
articles of impeachment or a bill, with amendments, or a vote of the 
House, or concurrence in a vote, or a message from the King were 
sometimes communicated by way of conference. 6 Grey, 128, 300, 387; 7 
Grey, 80; 8 Grey, 210, 255; 1 Torbuck's Deb., 278; 10 Grey, 293; 1 
Chandler, 49, 287. But this is not the modern practice. 8 Grey, 255.


Sec. 558. Parliamentary law as to purposes for which 
conferences may be held.

  When a  conference is asked, the subject of it must 
be expressed or the conference not agreed to. Ord. H. Com., 89; 1 Grey, 
425; 7 Grey, 31. They are sometimes asked to inquire concerning an 
offense or default of a member of the other House. 6 Grey, 181; 1 
Chand., 304. Or the failure of the other House to present to the King a 
bill passed by both Houses. 8 Grey, 302. Or on information received and 
relating to the safety of the nation. 10 Grey, 171. Or when the methods 
of Par





Sec. 559. Obsolete provision as to conference on first 
reading.

    A conference has been asked after the first reading of a 
bill. 1 Grey, 194. This is a singular instance.






  The House has no procedure conforming to this provision.


                          sec. xlvii--messages




Sec. 560. Messages sent only when both Houses are 
sitting.

    Messages between the Houses are to be sent only while both 
Houses are sitting. 3 Hats., 15. * * *



  Formerly this rule was observed (V, 6603, 6604), but since the 62d 
Congress messages have been received by the House when the Senate was 
not in session (VIII, 3338). Clause 2 of rule II was added in the 97th 
Congress, and amended in the 111th Congress, to authorize the Clerk to 
receive messages at any time that the House is not in session (H. Res. 
5, Jan. 5, 1981, p. 98) or in recess (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 9).



[[Page 305]]




Sec. 561. Messages received during debate.

    * * * They are 
received during a debate without adjourning the debate. 3 Hats., 22.



  In the House messages are received during debate, the Member having 
the floor yielding on request of the Speaker.




Sec. 562. Reception of messages during voting, in 
absence of a quorum, etc.

  In Senate  the messengers are introduced in any state 
of business, except: 1. While a question is being put. 2. While the yeas 
and nays are being called. 3. While the ballots are being counted. The 
first case is short; the second and third are cases where any 
interruption might occasion errors difficult to be corrected. So 
arranged June 15, 1798.



  In the House messages are not received while a question is being put 
or during a vote by division. However, they are received during the call 
of the yeas and nays, during consideration of a question of privilege 
(V, 6640-6642), during a call of the House (V, 6600), during debate on a 
motion to approve the Journal (Sept. 13, 1965, p. 23607), and before the 
organization of the House (V, 6647-6649). But the Speaker exercises 
discretion about interrupting the pending business (V, 6602).



Sec. 563. Informal rising of Committee of the Whole to 
receive a message.

  In the  House, as in Parliament, if the House be in 
committee when a messenger attends, the Speaker takes the chair to 
receive the message, and then quits it to return into committee without 
any question or interruption. 4 Grey, 226.





Sec. 564. Salutation of messengers by the 
Speaker.

    Messengers are not saluted by the Members, but by the Speaker 
for the House. 2 Grey, 253, 274.



  The practice of the House as to reception of messages is founded on 
this paragraph of the parliamentary law and on the former joint rules 
(V, 6591-6595). The Speaker, with a slight inclination, addresses the 
messenger, by title, after the messenger, with an inclination, has 
addressed the Speaker (V, 6591).


[[Page 306]]

sage. 4 Grey, 41. Accordingly, March 13, 1800, the Senate having made 
two amendments to a bill from the House, their Secretary, by mistake, 
delivered one only, which being inadmissible by itself, that House 
disagreed, and notified the Senate of their disagreement. This produced 
a discovery of the mistake. The Secretary was sent to the other House to 
correct his mistake, the correction was received, and the two amendments 
acted on de novo.



Sec. 565. Correction and return of messages.

  If  messengers 
commit an error in delivering their message, they may be admitted or 
called in to correct their mes



[[Page 307]]

the engrossment failed to properly depict the action of the Senate (July 
14, 2005, p. 15932; Mar. 13, 2018, p. _).
  A request of one House for the return of a bill messaged to the other, 
or the request of one House to correct an error in its message to the 
other, may qualify as privileged in the House or may be disposed of by 
unanimous consent (III, 2613; V, 6605; Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 2; 
Oct. 1, 1982, p. 27172; May 20, 1996, p. 11809). For example: (1) the 
House by unanimous consent agreed to a request from the Senate for the 
return of a Senate bill to the end that the Senate effect a specified 
(substantive) change in its text (May 7, 1998, p. 8386) or to the end 
that the bill be recommitted to committee (July 15, 2004, p. 15890); (2) 
the House by unanimous consent directed its Clerk to correct an error in 
a message to the Senate (V, 6607); (3) the House, upon receipt of a 
request by the Senate to return a bill during consideration of the 
conference report accompanying that bill, laid the conference report 
aside and agreed to the Senate request (V, 6609); (4) the House 
requested the return of a message indicating passage of a Senate joint 
resolution after learning that both Houses had previously passed an 
identical House Joint Resolution, so that it could indefinitely postpone 
action thereon (Nov. 16, 1989, p. 29587); (5) the Speaker laid before 
the House as privileged a message from the Senate requesting the return 
of a message where it had erroneously appointed conferees to a bill 
after the papers had been messaged to the House, so that the message 
could be changed to reflect the appointment of Senate conferees (May 20, 
1996, p. 11809); (6) the Speaker laid before the House as privileged a 
message from the Senate requesting the return of a Senate bill that 
included provisions intruding on the constitutional prerogative of the 
House to originate revenue measures (Oct. 19, 1999, p. 25901; Sept. 28, 
2004, p. 19724; Sept. 30, 2004, p. 20045); (7) where the engrossment 
failed to depict certain action of the House, the House considered and 
agreed to a privileged resolution requesting the Senate to return the 
engrossment of a House bill (July 15, 2004, p. 15890) and a House-passed 
Senate bill (Oct. 8, 2004, p. 22630); (8) the Speaker laid before the 
House as privileged a message from the Senate requesting the return of 
Senate amendments to a House bill where


  The House by unanimous consent authorized the Clerk to produce a 
duplicate copy of a specified engrossment after the Senate was unable to 
locate the official papers (Sept. 17, 2020, p. _).




Sec. 566. Disposal of messages after reception.

  As soon  as 
the messenger who has brought bills from the other House has retired, 
the Speaker holds the bills in his hand; and acquaints the House ``that 
the other House have by their messenger sent certain bills,'' and then 
reads their titles, and delivers them to the Clerk to be safely kept 
till they shall be called for to be read. Hakew., 178.



  In the House the message goes to the Speaker's table for disposition 
under clause 2 of rule XIV. The Speaker does not acquaint the House, 
because it has already heard the message.




Sec. 567. Information by message as to bills 
passed.

  It is not  the usage for one House to inform the other by what numbers a 
bill is passed. 10 Grey, 150. Yet they have sometimes recommended a 
bill, as of great importance, to the consideration of the House to which 
it is sent. 3 Hats., 25. * * *



  The Houses of Congress do not communicate by what numbers a bill is 
passed, or otherwise recommend their bills.



Sec. 568. Information by message as to 
rejection of bills.

  * * * Nor when  they have rejected a bill from the other House, do 
they give notice of it; but it passes sub silentio, to prevent 
unbecoming altercations. 1 Blackst., 183.



  But in Congress the rejection is notified by message to the House in 
which the bill originated.


[[Page 308]]

although the joint rule requiring it has disappeared (IV, 3422; V, 
6601). And in a case wherein the House had stricken the enacting words 
of a Senate bill, the Senate was notified that the bill had been 
rejected (IV, 3423; VII, 2638; Oct. 4, 1972, pp. 33785-87).

  In the two Houses of Congress the fact of the rejection of a bill is 
messaged to the House in which the bill originated, as in the days of 
Jefferson,




Sec. 569. Questions asked by conference, not by 
message.

  A question  is never asked by the one House of the other by way of 
message, but only at a conference; for this is an interrogatory, not a 
message. 3 Grey, 151, 181.



  In 1798 the House asked of the Senate a question by way of conference, 
but this appears to be the only instance (V, 6256).




Sec. 570. Messages as to neglected bills.

  When a  bill is 
sent by one House to the other, and is neglected, they may send a 
message to remind them of it. 3 Hats., 25; 5 Grey, 154. But if it be 
mere inattention, it is better to have it done informally by 
communication between the Speakers or Members of the two Houses.



  It does not appear that either House of Congress has by message 
reminded the other of a neglected bill.



Sec. 571. Messages from the President to the two 
Houses.

  Where the  subject of a message is of a nature that it can properly be 
communicated to both Houses of Parliament, it is expected that this 
communication should be made to both on the same day. But where a 
message was accompanied with an original declaration, signed by the 
party to which the message referred, its being sent to one House was not 
noticed by the other, because the declaration being original, could not 
possibly be sent to both Houses at the same time. 2 Hats., 260, 261, 
262.



[[Page 309]]

turned, that he may communicate them to the Lords. 1 Chandler, 303.

  The King having sent original letters to the Commons afterward desires 
they may be re





  A message of the President of the United States is usually 
communicated to both Houses on the same day when its nature permits (V, 
6590); but an original document accompanying can, of course, be sent to 
but one House (V, 6616, 6617). The President having by inadvertence 
included certain papers in a message, was allowed to withdraw them (V, 
6651). In the House the Speaker has the discretion, which is rarely 
exercised, to suspend a roll call in order to receive a message from the 
President.


                           sec. xlviii--assent




Sec. 572. Parliamentary law as to presenting a bill for 
the King's assent.

  The  House which has received a bill and passed it may 
present it for the King's assent, and ought to do it, though they have 
not by message notified to the other their passage of it. Yet the 
notifying by message is a form which ought to be observed between the 
two Houses from motives of respect and good understanding. 2 Hats., 242. 
Were the bill to be withheld from being presented to the King, it would 
be an infringement of the rules of Parliament. Ib.



  In the House it was held that where there had been no unreasonable 
delay in transmitting an enrolled bill to the President, a resolution 
relating thereto did not present a question of privilege (III, 2601), 
but a resolution seeking such a determination may be privileged (Oct. 8, 
1991, p. 25761).


[[Page 310]]

tween the paragraphs may not give room for forgery. 9 Grey, 143. * * *



Sec. 573. Parliamentary law as to enrollment of 
bills.

  When a  bill has passed both Houses of Congress, the House last acting 
on it notifies its passage to the other, and delivers the bill to the 
Joint Committee on Enrollment, who sees that it is truly enrolled in 
parchment. When the bill is enrolled it is not to be written in 
paragraphs, but solidly, and all of a piece, that the blanks be





Sec. 574. Practice of the two Houses of Congress 
as to enrollment of bills.

  Formerly the  enrollment in the House and the Senate was 
in writing (IV, 3436, 3437); but in 1893 the two Houses, by concurrent 
resolution, provided that bills should be enrolled on parchment by 
printing instead of by writing, and also that the engrossment of bills 
before sending them to the other House for action should be in printing 
(IV, 3433), and in 1895 this concurrent resolution was approved by 
statute (IV, 3435; 1 U.S.C. 106). In the last six days of a session of 
Congress the two Houses, by concurrent resolution, may permit the 
enrolling and engrossing to be done by hand (IV, 3435, 3438; Dec. 20, 
1982, p. 32875; Oct. 11, 1984, p. 32149), and such a concurrent 
resolution is privileged for consideration in the House during the last 
six days of the session (Jan. 1, 2013, p. 18571; see 1 U.S.C. 106 for 
authority to waive ordinary printing requirements at the end of a 
session), but before the last six days, a joint resolution waiving the 
law to permit hand enrollments is required and may be considered in the 
House by unanimous consent (Dec. 10, 1985, p. 35741) or by special order 
of business (Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24735). The two Houses have by joint 
resolution authorized not only a ``hand enrollment'' of a time-sensitive 
bill but also a parchment enrollment of the same measure, to be prepared 
at a later time for deposit in the National Archives with the original 
(P.L. 100-199, Dec. 21, 1987; P.L. 100-454, Sept. 29, 1988). Where an 
enrolled bill enacts another numbered bill by reference, that same law 
may require the Archivist to include as an appendix to that law the text 
of the referenced bill (see, e.g., P.L. 106-554). Only in a very 
exceptional case have the two Houses waived the requirement that bills 
shall be enrolled (IV, 3442). The enrolling clerk should make no change, 
however unimportant, in the text of a bill to which the House has agreed 
(III, 2598); but the two Houses may by concurrent resolution authorize 
the correction of an error when enrollment is made (IV, 3446-3450), and 
this seems a better practice than earlier methods by authority of the 
Committee on Enrolled Bills (IV, 3444, 3445).




[[Page 311]]




Sec. 575. Signing of enrolled bills for 
presentation to the President.

  * * * It is  then put into the hands of the Clerk of 
the House to have it signed by the Speaker. The Clerk then brings it by 
way of message to the Senate to be signed by their President. The 
Secretary of the Senate returns it to the Committee of Enrollment, who 
present it to the President of the United States. * * *


  The practice of the two Houses of Congress for the signing of enrolled 
bills was formerly governed by joint rules, and has continued since 
those rules were abrogated in 1876 (IV, 3430). The bills are signed 
first by the Speaker, then by the President of the Senate (IV, 3429). 
The two Houses by concurrent action may authorize the cancellation of 
signatures and reenrollment in case of error (see Sec. 625, infra) or a 
bill prematurely enrolled (IV, 3454).



Sec. 576. Authority of pro tempore presiding 
officers to sign enrolled bills.

  A Speaker pro  tempore elected by the House (II, 
1401), or whose designation has received the approval of the House (II, 
1404; VI, 277; clause 8 of rule I), signs enrolled bills (see clause 4 
of rule I); but a Member merely called to the chair during the day (II, 
1399, 1400; VI, 276), or designated in writing by the Speaker, does not 
exercise this function (II, 1401).


  The Senate, by rule, has empowered a presiding officer by written 
designation to sign enrolled bills (II, 1403).







Sec. 577. Presentation of enrolled bills to the 
President.

  In early  days a joint committee took enrolled bills to the President 
(IV, 3432); but in the later practice the chair of the committee in each 
House that had responsibility for the enrollment of bills also had the 
responsibility of presenting the bills from that House, and submitted 
from his committee daily a report of the bills presented for entry in 
the Journal (IV, 3431). In the 107th Congress the responsibility in the 
House for enrolled bills was transferred from the Committee on House 
Administration to the Clerk (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). 
Enrolled bills pending at the close of a session have, at the next 
session of the same Congress, been ordered to be treated as if no 
adjournment had taken place (IV, 3487-3488). Enrolled bills signed by 
the presiding officers at one session have been sent to the President 
and approved at the next session of the same Congress (IV, 3486). 
Enrollments presented at the close of one Congress have been signed by 
the President after the convening of the next Congress (see Sec. 111, 
supra).



* * * * *
                           sec. xlix--journals


[[Page 312]]

order to introduce and make intelligible the second. 2 Hats., 83.



Sec. 578. Obsolete provisions as to entry of motions in 
the journal.

  If a  question is interrupted by a vote to adjourn, or to 
proceed to the orders of the day, the original question is never printed 
in the journal, it never having been a vote, nor introductory to any 
vote; but when suppressed by the previous question, the first question 
must be stated, in


  This provision of the parliamentary law is superseded by clause 1 of 
rule XVI, which requires every motion entertained by the Speaker to be 
entered on the Journal.




Sec. 579. Journal entries of questions postponed or 
laid on the table.

  So also  when a question is postponed, adjourned, or laid on 
the table, the original question, though not yet a vote, must be 
expressed in the journals, because it makes part of the vote of 
postponement, adjourning, or laying it on the table.



  In the House a question is not adjourned, except in the sense that it 
may be left to go over as unfinished business by reason of a vote to 
adjourn.




Sec. 580. Entry of amendments in the 
Journal.

  Where  amendments are made to a question, those amendments are not 
printed in the journals, separated from the question; but only the 
question as finally agreed to by the House. The rule of entering in the 
journals only what the House has agreed to, is founded in great prudence 
and good sense, as there may be many questions proposed which it may be 
improper to publish to the world in the form in which they are made. 2 
Hats., 85.


  In the practice of the House a motion to amend is entered on the 
Journal as any other motion, under clause 1 of rule XVI.
* * * * *



Sec. 581. Entry of votes in journal of the House of 
Commons.

    The first order for printing the votes of the House of 
Commons was October 30, 1685. 1 Chandler, 387.



[[Page 313]]

brances. But this is not law. Hob., 110, 111; Lex. Parl., 114, 115; 
Jour. H. C., Mar. 17, 1592; Hale, Parl., 105. For the Lords in their 
House have power of judicature, the Commons in their House have power of 
judicature, and both Houses together have power of judicature; and the 
book of the Clerk of the House of Commons is a record, as is affirmed by 
act of Parl., 6 H. 8, c. 16; 4 Inst., 23, 24; and every member of the 
House of Commons hath a judicial place. 4 Inst., 15. As records they are 
open to every person, and a printed vote of either House is sufficient 
ground for the other to notice it. Either may appoint a committee to 
inspect the journals of the other, and report what has been done by the 
other in any particular case. 2 Hats., 261; 3 Hats., 27-30. Every member 
has a right to see the journals and to take and publish votes from them. 
Being a record, every one may see and publish them. 6 Grey, 118, 119.



Sec. 582. The Journal as an official record.

  Some  judges 
have been of opinion that the journals of the House of Commons are no 
records, but only remem



  The Journal of the House is the official record of the proceedings of 
the House (IV, 2727), and certified copies are admitted as evidence in 
the courts of the United States (IV, 2810; 28 U.S.C. 1736). A Senate 
committee concluded that the Journal entries of a legislative body were 
conclusive as to all the proceedings had, and might not be contradicted 
by ex parte evidence (I, 563).


[[Page 314]]






Sec. 583. Correction of the Journal through a 
committee.

  On  information of a misentry or omission of an entry in the 
journal, a committee may be appointed to examine and rectify it, and 
report it to the House. 2 Hats., 194, 195.



                           sec. l--adjournment



Sec. 584. Parliamentary law as to adjournment of the 
Commons and Lords.

  The two  Houses of Parliament have the sole, separate, and 
independent power of adjourning each their respective Houses. The King 
has no authority to adjourn them; he can only signify his desire, and it 
is in the wisdom and prudence of either House to comply with his 
requisition, or not, as they see fitting. 2 Hats., 232; 1 Blackst., 186; 
5 Grey, 122.
* * * * *





Sec. 585. Motion to adjourn not to be amended.

  A motion  to 
adjourn, simply cannot be amended, as by adding ``to a particular day;'' 
but must be put simply ``that this House do now adjourn;'' and if 
carried in the affirmative, it is adjourned to the next sitting day, 
unless it has come to a previous resolution, ``that at its rising it 
will adjourn to a particular day,'' and then the House is adjourned to 
that day. 2 Hats., 82.



  The modern practice of the House adheres to this principle 
(Sec. Sec. 912, 913, infra). Clause 4 of rule XVI admits at the 
discretion of the Speaker a separate motion of equal privilege that when 
the House adjourns on that day it stand adjourned to a day and time 
certain (consistent with article I, section 5, clause 4 of the 
Constitution, not in excess of three days).




Sec. 586. Motion for a recess.

  Where it is  convenient that 
the business of the House be suspended for a short time, as for a 
conference presently to be held, &c., it adjourns during pleasure; 2 
Hats., 305; or for a quarter of an hour. 4 Grey, 331.



[[Page 315]]

of a quorum (IV, 2955-2957). When the hour previously fixed for a recess 
arrives, the Chair declares the House in recess even in the midst of a 
division or when a quorum is not present (V, 6665, 6666; VI, 664); but a 
roll call is not in this way interrupted (V, 6054, 6055). Where a 
special order requires a recess at a certain hour of a certain day, the 
recess is not taken if the encroachment of a prior legislative day 
prevents the existence of said certain day as a legislative day (IV, 
3192). And an adjournment at a time before the hour fixed for a recess 
vacates the recess (IV, 3283). A motion for a recess must, when 
entertained, be voted on, even though the taking of the vote may have 
been prevented until after the hour specified for the conclusion of the 
proposed recess (V, 6667). A Committee of the Whole takes a recess only 
by permission of the House (V, 6669-6671; VIII, 3362). The motion for a 
recess is not privileged (V, 4302, 5301, 6740), in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole (June 26, 1981, p. 14356) against a demand that 
business proceed in the regular order (V, 6663; VIII, 3354-3356). 
However, beginning in the 102d Congress a motion to authorize the 
Speaker to declare a recess was given a privilege equal to that of the 
motion to adjourn (clause 4 of rule XVI); and beginning in the 103d 
Congress the Speaker was authorized to declare a recess ``for a short 
time when no question is pending'' (clause 12 of rule I). For the 
Speaker's authority to declare an emergency recess when notified of an 
imminent threat to the safety of the House, see Sec. 639, infra.

  An adjournment during pleasure is effected in the House by a motion 
for a recess. A recess may not be taken by less than a quorum (IV, 2958-
2960), and consequently the motion for it is not in order in the absence







Sec. 587. Adjournment pronounced by the 
Speaker.

  If a  question be put for adjournment, it is no adjournment till 
the Speaker pronounces it. 5 Grey, 137. And from courtesy and respect, 
no member leaves his place till the Speaker has passed on.



                           sec. li--a session


[[Page 316]]

themselves, is no more than a continuance of the session from one day to 
another, of for a fortnight, a month, &c., ad libitum. All matters 
depending remain in statu quo, and when they meet again, be the term 
ever so distant, are resumed, without any fresh commencement, at the 
point at which they were left. 1 Lev., 165; Lex. Parl., c. 2; 1 Ro. 
Rep., 29; 4 Inst., 7, 27, 28; Hutt., 61; 1 Mod., 252; Ruffh. Jac., L. 
Dict. Parliament; 1 Blackst., 186. Their whole session is considered in 
law but as one day, and has relation to the first day thereof. Bro. Abr. 
Parliament, 86.


Sec. 588. Sessions of Parliament.

  Parliament have  three 
modes of separation, to wit: by adjournment, by prorogation or 
dissolution by the King, or by the efflux of the term for which they 
were elected. Prorogation or dissolution constitutes there what is 
called a session; provided some act was passed. In this case all matters 
depending before them are discontinued, and at their next meeting are to 
be taken up de novo, if taken up at all. 1 Blackst., 186. Adjournment, 
which is by





Sec. 589. Sitting of committees in recesses 
and creation of commissions to sit after Congress adjourns.

  Committees may be  appointed 
to sit during a recess by adjournment, but not by prorogation. 5 Grey, 
374; 9 Grey, 350; 1 Chandler, 50. Neither House can continue any portion 
of itself in any parliamentary function beyond the end of the session 
without the consent of the other two branches. When done, it is by a 
bill constituting them commissioners for the particular purpose.




[[Page 317]]


  The House may empower a committee to sit during a recess that is 
within the constitutional term of the House (IV, 4541-4543), but not 
thereafter (IV, 4545). A commission created by law may operate beyond 
the term of the Congress in which it was created (IV, 4545). Under 
clause 2(m)(1)(A) of rule XI, all committees are authorized to sit and 
act anywhere within the United States, and to issue subpoenas, whether 
the House is in session or has adjourned to a date certain or adjourned 
sine die, even after the second regular session of a Congress until the 
end of the constitutional term. Under clause 1(b)(4) and clause 1(d)(3) 
of rule XI, all committees are authorized to file investigative reports 
and activities reports following adjournment sine die.




Sec. 590. Sessions and recesses of 
Congress.

  Congress separate  in two ways only, to wit, by adjournment, or dissolution by 
the efflux of their time. What, then, constitutes a session with them? A 
dissolution certainly closes one session, and the meeting of the new 
Congress begins another. The Constitution authorizes the President, ``on 
extraordinary occasions to convene both Houses, or either of them.'' I. 
3. If convened by the President's proclamation, this must begin a new 
session, and of course determine the preceding one to have been a 
session. So if it meets under the clause of the Constitution which says, 
``the Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such 
meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by 
law appoint a different day.'' I. 4. This must begin a new session; for 
even if the last adjournment was to this day the act of adjournment is 
merged in the higher authority of the Constitution, and the meeting will 
be under that, and not under their adjournment. So far we have fixed 
landmarks for determining sessions. * * *



[[Page 318]]

such adjournments to a day certain, within the session, do not terminate 
the session (V, 6676, 6677). In one instance the two Houses by 
concurrent resolution provided for adjournment to a day certain with the 
provision that if there be no quorum present on that day the session 
should terminate (V, 6686). Before the adoption of the twentieth 
amendment it had become established practice that a meeting of Congress 
once within the year did not make uncertain the constitutional mandate 
to meet on the first Monday of December (I, 10, 11). And where a special 
session continued until the time prescribed by the Constitution for the 
annual meeting without an appreciable intervening time (V, 6690, 6692), 
a question arose as to whether there had actually been a recess of 
Congress (V, 6687, 6693), with the conclusion that a recess was a real 
and not an imaginary time (V, 6687).

  The twentieth amendment to the Constitution, clause 2, now provides 
that the Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, at noon on 
the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. 
Section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812, 
as amended by section 461 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 
84 Stat. 1140, provides that except in time of war the two Houses shall 
adjourn sine die not later than the last day of July (Sundays excepted) 
unless otherwise provided by the Congress. (For form of resolution used 
to continue in session past July 31, see H. Con. Res. 648, 92d Cong., 
July 25, 1972, p. 25145.) The same section contemplates an adjournment 
of Congress from the thirtieth day before to the second day following 
Labor Day in the first session of a Congress (each odd-numbered year) in 
lieu of an adjournment sine die. See Sec. 1106, infra. Congress is 
adjourned for more than three days by a concurrent resolution (IV, 4031, 
footnote), and




Sec. 591. Manner of closing a session by action 
of the two Houses.

  * * * In other  cases it is declared by the joint vote authorizing 
the President of the Senate and the Speaker to close the session on a 
fixed day, which is usually in the following form: ``Resolved by the 
Senate and House of Representatives, that the President of the Senate 
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be authorized to close 
the present session by adjourning their respective Houses on the __ day 
of __.''



  In the modern practice the resolving clause of the concurrent 
resolution is in form different from that given by Jefferson. For a 
history and chronology of adjournment resolutions, see Sec. 84, supra.



Sec. 592. Parliamentary law as to business at the 
termination of a session.

  When it was  said above that all matters depending before 
Parliament were discontinued by the determination of the session, it was 
not meant for judiciary cases depending before the House of Lords, such 
as impeachments, appeals, and writs of error. These stand continued, of 
course, to the next session. Raym., 120, 381; Ruffh. Fac., L. D., 
Parliament.




[[Page 319]]


  Impeachments stand, in like manner, continued before the Senate of the 
United States.





  For a discussion of continuance of impeachments, see Sec. 620, infra.


* * * * *
                           sec. lii--treaties



Sec. 593. General nature of 
treaties.

  Treaties are  legislative acts. A treaty is the law of the land. It 
differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign 
nation, being but a contract with respect to that nation. In all 
countries, I believe, except England, treaties are made by the 
legislative power; and there, also, if they touch the laws of the land 
they must be approved by Parliament. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dallas's Rep., 
223. It is acknowledged, for instance, that the King of Great Britain 
cannot by a treaty make a citizen of an alien. Vattel, b. 1, c. 19, sec. 
214. An act of Parliament was necessary to validate the American treaty 
of 1783. And abundant examples of such acts can be cited. In the case of 
the treaty of Utrecht, in 1712, the commercial articles required the 
concurrence of Parliament; but a bill brought in for that purpose was 
rejected. France, the other contracting party, suffered these articles, 
in practice, to be not insisted on, and adhered to the rest of the 
treaty. 4 Russell's Hist. Mod. Europe, 457; 2 Smollet, 242, 246.



[[Page 320]]

defined in detail by the Constitution; nor are we entirely agreed among 
ourselves. 1. It is admitted that it must concern the foreign nation 
party to the contract, or it would be a mere nullity, res inter alias 
acta. 2. By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must 
have intended to comprehend only those subjects which are usually 
regulated by treaty, and can not be otherwise regulated. 3. It must have 
meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the States; for 
surely the President and Senate can not do by treaty what the whole 
Government is interdicted from doing in any way. 4. And also to except 
those subjects of legislation in which it gave a participation to the 
House. This last exception is denied by some on the ground that it would 
leave very little matter for the treaty power to work on. The less the 
better, say others. The Constitution thought it wise to restrain the 
executive and Senate from entangling and embroiling our affairs with 
those of Europe. Besides, as the negotiations are carried on by the 
executive alone, the subjecting to the ratification of the 
representatives such articles as are within their participation is no 
more inconvenient than to the Senate. But the ground of this exception 
is denied as unfounded. For examine, e.g., the treaty of commerce with 
France, and it will be found that, out of thirty-one articles, there are 
not more than small portions of two or three of them which would not 
still remain as subjects of treaties, untouched by these exceptions.


[[Page 321]]




Sec. 594. Jefferson's discussion of treaties under the 
Constitution.

  By the  Constitution of the United States this department of 
legislation is confined to two branches only of the ordinary 
legislature--the President originating and the Senate having a negative. 
To what subjects this power extends has not been




Sec. 595. General action of the House as to 
treaties.

  The  participation of the House in the treaty-making power has 
been often examined since Jefferson's Manual was written. The House has 
in several instances taken action in carrying into effect, terminating, 
enforcing, and suggesting treaties (II, 1502-1505, 1520-1522), although 
sometimes the propriety of requesting the executive to negotiate a 
treaty has been questioned (II, 1514-1517).




Sec. 596. Authority of the House as to treaties in 
general.

  The exact  authority of the House in the making of general treaties has 
been the subject of differences of opinion. In 1796 the House affirmed 
that, when a treaty related to subjects within the power of Congress, it 
was the constitutional duty of the House to deliberate on the expediency 
of carrying such treaty into effect (II, 1509); and in 1816, after a 
discussion with the Senate, the House maintained its position that a 
treaty must depend on a law of Congress for its execution as to such 
stipulations as relate to subjects constitutionally entrusted to 
Congress (II, 1506). In 1868 the House's assertion of right to a voice 
in carrying out the stipulations of certain treaties was conceded in a 
modified form (II, 1508). Again, in 1871, the House asserted its 
prerogative (II, 1523). In 1820 and 1868 there were discussions of the 
House's functions as to treaties ceding or acquiring foreign territory 
(II, 1507, 1508), and at various other times there have been discussions 
of the general subject (II, 1509, 1546, 1547; VI, 324-326).




Sec. 597. Authority of the House as to revenue 
treaties.

  After long and  careful consideration the Judiciary Committee of the House 
decided, in 1887, that the executive branch of the Government might not 
conclude a treaty affecting the revenue without the assent of the House 
(II, 1528-1530), and a Senate committee after examination concluded that 
duties were more properly regulated with the publicity of congressional 
action than by treaties negotiated by the President and ratified by the 
Senate in secrecy (II, 1532). In practice the House has acted on revenue 
treaties (II, 1531, 1533); and in 1880 it declared the negotiation of a 
revenue treaty an invasion of its prerogatives (II, 1524). At other 
times the subject has been discussed (II, 1525-1528, 1531, 1533).




Sec. 598. House approves Indian 
treaties.

  After long  discussion the House, in 1871, successfully asserted its 
right to a voice in approving Indian treaties (II, 1535, 1536), although 
in earlier times this prerogative had been jealously guarded by the 
executive (II, 1534).



  There have been various conflicts with the executive over requests of 
the House for papers relating to treaties (II, 1509-1513, 1518, 1519, 
1561).


[[Page 322]]

cordingly the process adopted in the case of France in 1798.



Sec. 599. Treaties abrogated by 
law.

  Treaties being  declared, equally with the laws of the United States, to be the 
supreme law of the land, it is understood that an act of the legislature 
alone can declare them infringed and rescinded. This was ac



  Notice to a foreign government of the abrogation of a treaty is 
authorized by a joint resolution (V, 6270). A resolution alleging an 
unconstitutional abrogation of a treaty by the President, and calling on 
the President to seek the approval of Congress before such abrogation, 
does not constitute a question of the privileges of the House under rule 
IX (June 6, 2002, pp. 9492-98 (sustained by tabling of appeal)).



Sec. 600. Procedure of the Senate as to 
treaties.

  It has  been the usage for the Executive, when it communicates a 
treaty to the Senate for their ratification, to communicate also the 
correspondence of the negotiators. This having been omitted in the case 
of the Prussian treaty, was asked by a vote of the House of February 12, 
1800, and was obtained. And in December, 1800, the convention of that 
year between the United States and France, with the report of the 
negotiations by the envoys, but not their instructions, being laid 
before the Senate, the instructions were asked for and communicated by 
the President.



  The mode of voting on questions of ratification is by nominal call.





  The Senate now has rules governing its procedure on treaties.


* * * * *
                         sec. liii--impeachment



Sec. 601. Jurisdiction of Lords and Commons as 
to impeachments.

  These are the  provisions of the Constitution of the United States 
on the subject of impeachments. The following is a sketch of some of the 
principles and practices of England on the same subject:



[[Page 323]]

cause they are the judges. Seld. Judic. in Parl., 12, 63. Nor can they 
proceed against a commoner but on complaint of the Commons. Ib., 84. The 
Lords may not, by the law, try a commoner for a capital offense, on the 
information of the King or a private person, because the accused is 
entitled to a trial by his peers generally; but on accusation by the 
House of Commons, they may proceed against the delinquent, of whatsoever 
degree, and whatsoever be the nature of the offense; for there they do 
not assume to themselves trial at common law. The Commons are then 
instead of a jury, and the judgment is given on their demand, which is 
instead of a verdict. So the Lords do only judge, but not try the 
delinquent. Ib., 6, 7. But Wooddeson denies that a commoner can now be 
charged capitally before the Lords, even by the Commons; and cites 
Fitzharris's case, 1681, impeached of high treason, where the Lords 
remitted the prosecution to the inferior court. 8 Grey's Deb., 325-7; 2 
Wooddeson, 576, 601; 3 Seld., 1604, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1641; 4 Blackst., 
25; 9 Seld., 1656; 73 Seld., 1604-18.
  Jurisdiction. The Lords can not impeach any to themselves, nor join in 
the accusation, be


[[Page 324]]

the articles will be exhibited, and desires that the delinquent may be 
sequestered from his seat, or be committed, or that the peers will take 
order for his appearance. Sachev. Trial, 325; 2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords' 
Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616; 6 Grey, 324.



Sec. 602. Parliamentary law as to accusation 
in impeachment.

  Accusation. The  Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation, becomes 
suitors for penal justice. 2 Wood., 597; 6 Grey, 356. The general course 
is to pass a resolution containing a criminal charge against the 
supposed delinquent, and then to direct some member to impeach him by 
oral accusation, at the bar of the House of Lords, in the name of the 
Commons. The person signifies that



[[Page 325]]

ant to a special order of business only several days after the 
underlying conduct occurred (Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).


Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the 
House.

  In the  House various events have been credited with setting an 
impeachment in motion: charges made on the floor on the responsibility 
of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 
528, 535, 536); charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually 
referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 
2499, 2515; VI, 543); a resolution introduced by a Member and referred 
to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); a 
message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); charges 
transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or territory 
(III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or facts developed and 
reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444). 
In the 93d Congress, the Vice President sought to initiate an 
investigation by the House of charges against him of possibly 
impeachable offenses. The Speaker and the House took no action on the 
request because the matter was pending in the courts and the offenses 
did not relate to activities during the Vice President's term of office 
(Sept. 25, 1973, p. 31368; III, 2510 (wherein the Committee on the 
Judiciary, to which the matter had been referred by privileged 
resolution, reported that the Vice President could not be impeached for 
acts or omissions committed before his term of office)). On the other 
hand, in 1826 the Vice President's request that the House investigate 
charges against his prior official conduct as Secretary of War was 
referred, on motion, to a select committee (III, 1736). On September 9, 
1998, an independent counsel transmitted to the House under 28 U.S.C. 
595(c) a communication containing evidence of alleged impeachable 
offenses by the President. The House adopted a privileged resolution 
reported by the Committee on Rules referring the communication to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, restricting Members' access to the 
communication, and restricting access to committee meetings and hearings 
on the communication (H. Res. 525, Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). Later, the 
House adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee on the 
Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee (H. Res. 
581, Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24679). In the first impeachment of President 
Trump, the House adopted a privileged resolution reported from the 
Committee on Rules directing sundry committees to continue their ongoing 
investigations as part of an existing inquiry into potential grounds for 
impeachment (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _). In the second 
impeachment of President Trump, the House considered an unreported 
resolution containing a single article of impeachment pursu


  A resolution disapproving of the conduct of the Speaker with respect 
to the initiation of an impeachment inquiry constitues a question of the 
privileges of the House (Sept. 25, 2019, p. _; Sept. 27, 2019, p. _).



Sec. 604. A proposition to impeach a question of 
privilege.

  A direct  proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in 
the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the 
rules governing the order of business (III, 2045-2048, 2051, 2398; VI, 
468, 469; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, 
p. 8814; Sept. 23, 1998, pp. 21560-62; Nov. 6, 2007, p. 29817; June 10, 
2008, p. 12053; July 15, 2008, pp. 15084, 15086; Dec. 6, 2016, p. _; 
Dec. 6, 2017, p. _; Jan. 19, 2018, p. _; July 17, 2019, p. _); see 
Deschler, ch. 14, Sec. 8). It may not even be superseded by an election 
case, which is also a matter of high privilege (III, 2581). It does not 
lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been 
made at a previous time during the same session of Congress (III, 2408; 
July 15, 2008, pp. 15084, 15086 (see June 10, 2008, p. 12053)), previous 
action of the House not affecting it (III, 2053). As such, a report of 
the Committee on the Judiciary accompanying an impeachment resolution is 
filed as privileged (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27819; Dec. 15, 2019, p. _). A 
proposition to impeach may be called up as privileged (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 
27828) or considered pursuant to a special order of business reported by 
the Committee on Rules (Dec. 18, 2019, p. _; Jan. 13, 2021, p. _). The 
addition of new articles of impeachment offered by the managers but not 
reported by committee is also privileged (III, 2418), as is a 
proposition to refer to committee the papers and testimony in an 
impeachment of the preceding Congress (V, 7261). After having recognized 
an impeachment resolution as a question of the privileges of the House, 
the Chair refused to respond to an inquiry regarding the substance of 
the resolution, that being a matter for the House by its disposition of 
the matter (Dec. 6, 2016, p. _). To a privileged resolution of 
impeachment, an amendment proposing instead censure, which is not 
privileged, was held not germane (Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28107). On several 
occasions the Committee on the Judiciary, having been referred a 
question of impeachment, reported a recommendation that impeachment was 
not warranted and, thereafter, called up the report as a question of 
privilege (Deschler, ch. 14, Sec. 1.3). Under an expired provision of 
law an independent counsel appointed to investigate the President was 
subject to impeachment (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21560). A resolution 
impeaching the United States Ambassador to the United Nations (July 13, 
1978, p. 20606) or the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service 
(Dec. 6, 2016, p. _) constitutes a question of the privileges of the 
House under rule IX.



[[Page 326]]

abatement of impeachment proceedings (VI, 514), reappointing managers 
for impeachment proceedings continued in the Senate from the previous 
Congress (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2), 
empowering managers to hire special legal and clerical personnel and 
providing for their pay, and to carry out other responsibilities (Jan. 
3, 1989, p. 84; Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 240), and 
replacing an excused manager (Feb. 7, 1989, p. 1726); but a resolution 
simply proposing an investigation, even though impeachment may be a 
possible consequence, is not privileged (III, 2050, 2546; VI, 468). The 
House has adopted special orders of business: (1) providing for the 
consideration of a specified proposition relating to an impeachment once 
made and denying privilege to any other such proposition (sec. 3, H. 
Res. 767, Dec. 18, 2019, p. _); and (2) providing for the adoption of a 
specified proposition relating to an impeachment upon adoption of an 
article of impeachment and denying privilege to any other such 
proposition (sec. 3, H. Res. 41, Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).
  Propositions relating to an impeachment already made also are 
privileged (III, 2400, 2402, 2410; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Dec. 2, 
1987, p. 33720; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206), such as resolutions providing 
for selection of managers of an impeachment (VI, 517; Dec. 19, 1998, p. 
28112), proposing

  Where a resolution of investigation positively proposes impeachment or 
suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege (III, 2051, 
2052, 2401, 2402), such as a resolution reported by the Committee on the 
Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee and 
investing the committee with special investigative authorities to 
facilitate the inquiry (III, 2029; VI, 498, 528, 549; Deschler, ch. 14, 
Sec. Sec. 5.8, 6.2; H. Res. 581, Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24679). A committee to 
which has been referred privileged resolutions for the impeachment of an 
officer may call up as privileged resolutions incidental to 
consideration of the impeachment question, including conferral of 
subpoena authority and funding of the investigation from the contingent 
fund (now referred to as ``applicable accounts of the House described in 
clause 1(k)(1) of rule X'') (VI, 549; Feb. 6, 1974, p. 2349). Similarly, 
a resolution authorizing depositions by committee counsel in an 
impeachment inquiry is privileged under rule IX as incidental to 
impeachment (Speaker Wright, Oct. 3, 1988, p. 27781).


[[Page 327]]

under 28 U.S.C. 595(c) a communication containing evidence of alleged 
impeachable offenses by the President, the House adopted a resolution 
reported by the Committee on Rules referring the communication to the 
Committee on the Judiciary to conduct a review (H. Res. 525, 106th 
Cong., Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). Later, the House adopted a privileged 
resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary authorizing an 
impeachment inquiry by that committee (H. Res. 581, Oct. 8, 1998, pp. 
24679, 24735) The House has adopted a privileged resolution reported by 
the Committee on Rules directing sundry committees to continue ``ongoing 
investigations'' as part of an ``existing'' impeachment inquiry (H. Res. 
660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _). In the second impeachment of President Trump, 
the House did not pursue any formal committee investigation or 
impeachment inquiry.


Sec. 605. Investigation of impeachment 
charges.

  The impeachment  having been made on the floor by a Member (III, 2342, 2400; 
VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536), or charges suggesting impeachment having 
been made by memorial (III, 2495, 2516, 2520; VI, 552), or even 
appearing through common fame (III, 2385, 2506), the House has at times 
ordered an investigation at once. At other times it has refrained from 
ordering investigation until the charges had been examined by a 
committee (III, 2364, 2488, 2491, 2492, 2494, 2504, 2513) or has 
referred to committee an impeachment resolution raised as a question of 
privilege (Nov. 6, 2007, p. 29820; June 10, 2008, p. 12072 and June 11, 
2008, p. 12218). Under the later practice, resolutions introduced 
through the hopper that directly call for the impeachment of an officer 
have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but resolutions 
calling for an investigation by that committee or by a select committee 
with a view toward impeachment have been referred to the Committee on 
Rules (Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873). Upon receipt of a communication from an 
independent counsel transmitting to the House




Sec. 606. Procedure of committee in 
investigating.

  The House has  almost always examined the charges by its own committee 
before it has voted to impeach (III, 2294, 2487, 2501). This committee 
has sometimes been a select committee (III, 2342, 2487, 2494), sometimes 
a standing committee (III, 2400, 2409). In some instances the committee 
has made its inquiry ex parte (III, 2319, 2343, 2366, 2385, 2403, 2496, 
2511); but in the later practice the sentiment of committees has been in 
favor of permitting the accused to explain, present witnesses, cross-
examine (III, 2445, 2471, 2518), and be represented by counsel (III, 
2470, 2501, 2511, 2516; 93d Cong., Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219; H. Rept. 
105-830, Dec. 16, 1998; H. Rept. 116-346, Dec. 15, 2019, p. _). The 
Committee on the Judiciary having been directed by the House to 
investigate whether sufficient grounds existed for the impeachment of 
President Nixon, and the President having resigned following the 
decision of that committee to recommend his impeachment to the House, 
the chair of the committee submitted from the floor as privileged the 
committee's report containing the articles of impeachment approved by 
the committee but without an accompanying resolution of impeachment. The 
House thereupon adopted a resolution (1) taking notice of the 
committee's action on a resolution and Articles of Impeachment and of 
the President's resignation; (2) accepting the report and authorizing 
its printing, with additional views; and (3) commending the chair and 
members of the committee for their efforts (Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29361). In 
the first impeachment of President Trump, the House adopted a privileged 
resolution reported by the Committee on Rules directing sundry 
committees to continue ongoing investigations, and directed the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to conduct specified 
investigatory proceedings and to transmit a report of its findings to 
the Committee on the Judiciary for use in the second phase of the 
impeachment inquiry (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _).



[[Page 328]]

or Senate (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829). A resolution setting forth separate 
articles of impeachment may be divided among the articles (e.g., Dec. 
19, 1998, p. 28110; Mar. 11, 2010, p. 3153; Dec. 18, 2019, p. _).


Sec. 606a. Procedure of House in 
considering.

  During the  pendency of an impeachment resolution, remarks in debate 
may include references to personal misconduct on the part of the 
President but may not include language generally abusive toward the 
President and may not include comparisons to the personal conduct of 
sitting Members of the House




Sec. 607. Impeachment carried to the 
Senate.

  Its committee  on investigation having reported, the House may vote the 
impeachment (III, 2367, 2412; VI, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3067-91), 
and, after having notified the Senate by message (III, 2413, 2446), may 
direct the impeachment to be presented at the bar of the Senate by a 
single Member (III, 2294), or by two (III, 2319, 2343, 2367), five (III, 
2445), seven (III, 2448, 2475; Jan. 15, 2020, p. _), nine (July 22, 
1986, p. 17306; Jan. 13, 2021, p. _), 11 (III, 2300, 2323), or 13 (Dec. 
19, 1998, p. 28112). These Members in several notable cases represented 
the majority party alone (e.g., Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112), but ordinarily 
include representation of the minority party (III, 2445, 2472, 2505). 
Under early practice the House elected managers by ballot (III, 2300, 
2323, 2345, 2368, 2417). In two instances the Speaker appointed the 
managers on behalf of the House pursuant to an order of the House (III, 
2388, 2475). Since 1912 the House has adopted a resolution appointing 
managers. In the later practice the House considers together the 
resolution and articles of impeachment (VI, 499, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936, 
pp. 3067-91) and following their adoption adopts resolutions electing 
managers to present the articles before the Senate, notifying the Senate 
of the adoption of articles and election of managers, and authorizing 
the managers to prepare for and to conduct the trial in the Senate (VI, 
500, 514, 517; Mar. 6, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394; July 22, 1986, p. 17306; 
Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206). These privileged incidental resolutions may be 
merged into a single, indivisible privileged resolution (H. Res. 614, 
Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2; H. Res. 
798, Jan. 15, 2020, p. _; H. Res. 40, Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).





Sec. 608. Impeachment process in the 
Senate.

  Process. If the  party do not appear, proclamations are to be issued, giving 
him a day to appear. On their return they are strictly examined. If any 
error be found in them, a new proclamation issues, giving a short day. 
If he appear not, his goods may be arrested, and they may proceed. Seld. 
Jud. 98, 99.



[[Page 329]]



Sec. 608a. First Senate impeachment proceedings against 
President Trump.

  Under  an order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate 
informed the House and the Chief Justice that it was ready to receive 
the House managers for the purpose of exhibiting articles of impeachment 
against President Trump (Jan. 15, 2020, p. _). The House managers 
presented the articles of impeachment by reading two resolutions as 
follows: (1) the appointment of managers (H. Res. 798, Jan. 16, 2020, p. 
_); and (2) the two articles of impeachment (H. Res. 755, Jan. 16, 2020, 
p. _).


  The Senate adopted a resolution governing the initial impeachment 
trial proceedings of President Trump following the tabling of multiple 
amendments to that resolution (S. Res. 483, Jan. 21, 2020, p. _). The 
resolution addressed: (1) the composition of the evidentiary record; (2) 
a timetable for motions, arguments, and presentations by House managers 
and President's counsel; (3) a time period for Senators to question the 
parties; (4) a separate time period on the question of whether the 
Senate would subpoena witnesses or documents; and (5) a process for 
deposing subpoenaed witnesses and determining whether they should 
testify at the trial. During debate on that resolution, the Chief 
Justice admonished the House managers and the President's counsel for 
breaches of decorum, citing in part a similar admonishment in the 1905 
impeachment trial of Judge Swayne for use of the term ``pettifogging'' 
(Jan. 21, 2020, p. _; III, 2169). Upon an announcement by the Chief 
Justice pursuant to the terms of the governing resolution, a classified 
document identified by House managers was made available at the trial 
but was not made public or printed (Jan. 22, 2020, p. _). The Senate 
trial of President Trump featured a historical and legal argument from 
the independent counsel who had led the investigation of President 
Clinton which formed the basis for his impeachment in 1998 (Jan. 27, 
2020, p. _). The trial also featured questions from Senators and 
argument on the validity of House subpoenas issued before the House had 
adopted a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry (Jan. 29, 2020, 
p. _; Jan. 30, 2020, p. _). The Chief Justice refused to read a question 
from a Senator that revealed the name of a whistleblower involved in the 
impeachment charges (Jan. 30, 2020, p. _). The Senate rejected a motion 
to allow for subpoenas of witnesses and documents (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _).



[[Page 330]]


  The Senate adopted a second resolution governing the remaining 
impeachment trial proceedings (S. Res. 488, Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Such 
resolution: (1) closed the evidentiary record; (2) provided for final 
arguments; (3) provided for the adjournment of the Court of Impeachment; 
and (4) provided for a vote on the articles of impeachment. The Chief 
Justice responded to a parliamentary inquiry by advising that after 
reviewing the precedents he did not view it as appropriate for a Chief 
Justice, an unelected official from another branch of government, to 
break a tie and change the result of a vote of the elected Members of 
the Senate (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Counsel for the President in closing 
arguments alleged that the House Committee on the Judiciary had violated 
the rules of the House in not providing for a minority day of hearing 
(Feb. 3, 2020, p. _). Following closing arguments, the Senate Clerk read 
each article and each Senator voted ``guilty'' or ``not guilty'' on each 
article (Feb. 5, 2020, p. _). The Senate adjudged President Trump not 
guilty by a vote of 48-52 on the first article and 47-53 on the second 
article (Feb. 5, 2020, p. _). By order of the Senate, the Secretary of 
the Senate communicated the judgment of the Senate to the House (Feb. 5, 
2020, p. _).



Sec. 608b. Second Senate impeachment proceedings against 
President Trump.

  Under  an order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate 
informed the House that it was ready to receive the House managers for 
the purpose of exhibiting the article of impeachment against former 
President Trump (Jan. 21, 2021, p. p. _). The House managers presented 
the article of impeachment by reading two resolutions as follows: (1) 
the appointment of managers (H. Res. 40, Jan. 25, 2021, p. _); and (2) 
the article of impeachment (H. Res. 24, Jan. 25, 2021, p. _).


  The President pro tempore of the Senate presided over the impeachment 
trial (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The Senate tabled a threshold point of 
order that the impeachment trial of a former President was 
unconstitutional after the President pro tempore presented the question 
directly to the body (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The Senate then adopted a 
resolution governing the initial impeachment trial proceedings (S. Res. 
16, Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The resolution: (1) set the timing of the 
impeachment trial for two weeks hence; (2) set a timetable for various 
trial briefs by House managers and President's counsel; (3) directed 
that any trial briefs include argument on the jurisdiction of the 
Senate's ability to sit as a Court of Impeachment with respect to the 
trial of a former President for acts committed as President; and (4) 
directed parties to prepare to address the question of jurisdiction at 
the outset of the trial proceedings. Prior to the start of the trial, 
the Senate adopted a second resolution governing the trial proceedings 
(S. Res. 47, Feb. 9, 2021, p. _). That resolution addressed: (1) the 
composition of the evidentiary record; (2) initial argument on the 
question of whether the former President was subject to the jurisdiction 
of the Senate as a Court of Impeachment for conduct while President, 
with an automatic vote at the end of such argument and immediate 
dismissal of the article of impeachment upon a determination, by 
majority vote with a quorum present, that the Senate had no 
jurisdiction; (3) a timetable for motions, arguments, and presentations 
by House managers and President's counsel in the case of a vote in favor 
of jurisdiction; (4) a time period for Senators to question the parties; 
(5) a separate time period on the question of whether the Senate would 
subpoena witnesses or documents; (6) a process for deposing subpoenaed 
witnesses and determining whether they should testify at the trial; (7) 
a motion by the House managers to admit additional materials into the 
evidentiary record; (8) a time period for final arguments; (9) convening 
on a specified Sunday if the trial was not yet resolved; and (10) the 
provision of a vote on the article of impeachment.


[[Page 331]]

invoked a newspaper article referencing a call placed to a sitting 
Senator, causing that Senator to attempt to move that the remarks of the 
managers be stricken from the Record (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _). The 
President pro tempore responded by ruling that the managers' 
presentation was not limited to the evidentiary record already provided, 
which was appealed by the moving Senator (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _). 
Following a quorum call, the Senator withdrew his appeal and the House 
managers agreed to withdraw the relevant portion of the presentation 
without prejudice to raise the issue at a later time (Feb. 10, 2021, p. 
_).
  By a vote of 56-44 the Senate determined that it had jurisdiction to 
sit as a Court of Impeachment with respect to former President Trump 
following arguments from the House managers relying in large part on the 
precedent of William Belknap (see Sec. 174, supra), and the President 
pro tempore announced that the trial would proceed (Feb. 9, 2021, p. _). 
The House managers relied on numerous video presentations of the attack 
on the Capitol building on January 6, 2021, in their initial 
presentation (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _). As part of their presentation, the 
House managers


  Following the initial presentations, the Senate agreed by unanimous 
consent to structure the question response periods (Feb. 12, 2021, p. 
_). During the questioning period, the President pro tempore took the 
initiative to remind Senators of the admonition of Chief Justice Roberts 
from the first impeachment trial of President Trump regarding civility 
in debate (Feb. 12, 2021, p. _; see Sec. 608a, supra). Following the 
question period, the House managers offered a motion to subpoena a 
current Member of the House as a witness following reports of a phone 
call on the day of the violent attack on the Capitol that was 
purportedly relevant to the House managers' case (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). 
Following debate regarding the viability of virtual depositions and a 
call for order from the President pro tempore, the Senate voted 55-45 to 
allow a motion to subpoena witnesses or documents under the rules of 
impeachment (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). After a short recess, the Senate 
returned and, in exchange for the entry into evidence of a statement 
from the current Member of the House regarding the phone call in 
question, the House managers agreed to forego any motions to subpoena 
witnesses, and the parties proceeded to closing arguments (Feb. 13, 
2021, p. _). During the House managers' closing argument, the phone call 
involving the sitting Senator was again raised. The Senator attempted to 
engage in debate, and then appealed the ruling of the President pro 
tempore that debate was not in order (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). He 
eventually withdrew his appeal and the President pro tempore directed 
that the remarks be stricken from the record on the grounds that the 
evidentiary record was closed and that new evidence could not be raised 
during the closing argument (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). Following closing 
arguments, the Senate Clerk read the article and each Senator voted 
``guilty'' or ``not guilty'' thereon (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). The Senate 
adjudged President Trump not guilty on the charge of incitement of 
insurrection by a vote of 57-43 in favor of conviction (less than two-
thirds) (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). By order of the Senate, the Secretary of 
the Senate communicated the judgment of the Senate to the House (Feb. 
13, 2021, p. _).


[[Page 332]]



Sec. 608c. Senate impeachment proceedings against 
President Clinton.

  In the  impeachment trial of President Clinton, the Senate 
adjudged President Clinton not guilty by a vote of 45-55 on the first 
article and a vote of 50-50 on the second article (Feb. 12, 1999, p. 
2375). For a procedural history of that trial, see Sec. 608a of the 
House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).



  See S. Doc. 93-102, ``Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials 
in the United States Senate,'' for precedents relating to the conduct of 
Senate impeachments.




Sec. 609. Exhibition and form of 
articles.

  Articles. The accusation  (articles) of the Commons is substituted in place of an 
indictment. Thus, by the usage of Parliament, in impeachment for writing 
or speaking, the particular words need not be specified. Sach. Tr., 325; 
2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords' Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616.


  Having delivered the impeachment, the committee returns to the House 
and reports verbally (III, 2413, 2446; VI, 501). Formerly, the House 
exhibited its articles after the impeachment had been carried to the bar 
of the Senate; in the later practice, the resolution and articles of 
impeachment have been considered together and exhibited simultaneously 
in the Senate by the managers (VI, 501, 515; Mar. 10, 1936, pp. 3485-88; 
Oct. 7, 1986, p. 29126; Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272). The managers, who are 
elected by the House (III, 2300, 2345, 2417, 2448; VI, 500, 514, 517; 
Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394) or appointed by the Speaker (III, 2388, 
2475), carry the articles in obedience to a resolution of the House 
(III, 2417, 2419, 2448) to the bar of the Senate (III, 2420, 2449, 
2476), the House having previously informed the Senate (III, 2419, 2448) 
and received a message informing them of the readiness of the latter 
body to receive the articles (III, 2078, 2325, 2345; Aug. 6, 1986, p. 
19335; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 240). Having exhibited the articles the managers 
return and report verbally to the House (III, 2449, 2476).

  The articles in the Belknap impeachment were held sufficient, although 
attacked for not describing the respondent as one subject to impeachment 
(III, 2123). In the proceedings against Judge Ritter, objections to the 
articles of impeachment, on the ground that they duplicated and 
accumulated separate offenses, were overruled (Apr. 3, 1936, p. 4898; 
Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606). These articles are signed by the Speaker and 
attested by the Clerk (III, 2302, 2449), and in form approved by the 
practice of the House (III, 2420, 2449, 2476).

  Articles of impeachment that have been exhibited to the Senate may be 
subsequently modified or amended by the House (VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936, 
pp. 4597-99), and a resolution proposing to amend articles of 
impeachment previously adopted by the House is privileged for 
consideration when reported by the managers on the part of the House 
(VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936, p. 4597).


[[Page 333]]

of the House managers in support of the impeachments of President Trump, 
and related matters, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a discussion of 
the same with respect to the impeachment of President Clinton, see 
Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 
115-177).

  For discussion of substantive charges contained in articles of 
impeachment and the constitutional grounds for impeachment, see 
Sec. 175, supra (accompanying Const., art. II, sec. 4). For a discussion 
of the presentation




Sec. 610. Parliamentary law as to appearance 
of respondent.

  Appearance. If he  appear, and the case be capital, he answers in custody; 
though not if the accusation be general. He is not to be committed but 
on special accusations. If it be for a misdemeanor only, he answers, a 
lord in his place, a commoner at the bar, and not in custody, unless, on 
the answer, the Lords find cause to commit him, till he finds sureties 
to attend, and lest he should fly. Seld. Jud., 98, 99. A copy of the 
articles is given him, and a day fixed for his answer. T. Ray.; 1 
Rushw., 268; Fost., 232; 1 Clar. Hist. of the Reb., 379. On a 
misdemeanor, his appearance may be in person, or he may answer in 
writing, or by attorney. Seld. Jud., 100. The general rule on accusation 
for a misdemeanor is, that in such a state of liberty or restraint as 
the party is when the Commons complain of him, in such he is to answer. 
Ib., 101. If previously committed by the commons, he answers as a 
prisoner. But this may be called in some sort judicium parium suorum. 
Ib. In misdemeanors the party has a right to counsel by the common law, 
but not in capital cases. Seld. Jud., 102, 105.



[[Page 334]]

compelled to appear (III, 2308), but the trial proceeds as on a plea of 
``not guilty.'' The writ of summons to the accused recites the articles 
and notifies the accused to appear at a fixed time and place and file an 
answer (III, 2127). In all cases respondent may appear by counsel (III, 
2129), and in one trial, when a petition set forth that respondent was 
insane, the counsel of his son was admitted to be heard and present 
evidence in support of the petition, but not to make argument (III, 
2333). For a discussion of answers, arguments, and presentations of the 
respondent in the Trump impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 608a-
608b, supra. For a discussion of the same with respect to the Clinton 
impeachment proceedings, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for 
the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).


Sec. 611. Requirements of the Senate as to 
appearance of respondent.

  This paragraph  of the parliamentary law is largely obsolete 
so far as the practice of the House and the Senate are concerned. The 
accused may appear in person or by attorney (III, 2127, 2349, 2424), and 
take the stand (VI, 511, 524; Apr. 11, 1936, pp. 5370-86; Oct. 7, 1986, 
p. 29149), or may not appear at all (III, 2307, 2333, 2393). In case the 
accused does not appear the House does not ask that the accused be



  The chair of the committee impeaches at the bar of the Senate by oral 
accusation (III, 2413, 2446, 2473), and the managers for the House 
attend in the Senate after the articles have been exhibited and demand 
that process issue for the attendance of respondent (III, 2451, 2478), 
after which they return and report verbally to the House (III, 2423, 
2451; VI, 501). The Senate thereupon issue a writ of summons, fixing the 
day of return (III, 2423, 2451; S. Res. 16, Jan. 8, 1999, p. 349); and 
in a case wherein the respondent did not appear by person or attorney 
the Senate published a proclamation for him to appear (III, 2393). But 
the respondent's goods were not attached. In only one case has the 
parliamentary law as to sequestration and committal been followed (III, 
2118, 2296), later inquiry resulting in the conclusion that the Senate 
had no power to take into custody the body of the accused (III, 2324, 
2367).




Sec. 612. Answer of respondent.

  Answer. The  answer need not 
observe great strictness of the form. He may plead guilty as to part, 
and defend as to the residue; or, saving all exceptions, deny the whole 
or give a particular answer to each article separately. 1 Rush., 274; 2 
Rush., 1374; 12 Parl. Hist., 442; 3 Lords' Journ., 13 Nov., 1643; 2 
Wood., 607. But he cannot plead a pardon in bar to the impeachment. 2 
Wood., 615; 2 St. Tr., 735.



[[Page 335]]

but denying that they set forth impeachable offenses (Jan. 14, 1999, pp. 
359-361). Blount and Belknap demurred to the charges on the ground that 
they were not civil officers within the meaning of the Constitution 
(III, 2310, 2453), and Swayne also raised questions as to the 
jurisdiction of the Senate (III, 2481). The answer is part of the 
pleadings, and exhibits in the nature of evidence may not properly be 
attached thereto (III, 2124). The answer of the respondent in 
impeachment proceedings is messaged to the House and subsequently 
referred to the managers on the part of the House (VI, 506; Apr. 6, 
1936, p. 5020; Sept. 9, 1986, p. 22317).
  In the Senate proceedings of the impeachment of President Andrew 
Johnson, the answer of the President took up the articles one by one, 
denying some of the charges, admitting others but denying that they set 
forth impeachable offenses, and excepting to the sufficiency of others 
(III, 2428). The form of this answer was commented on during preparation 
of the replication in the House (III, 2431). In the Senate proceedings 
on the impeachment of President Clinton, the answer of the President 
also took up the articles one by one, denying some of the charges and 
admitting others


  For a chronology of arguments and presentations of the respondent in 
the Trump impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a 
chronology of the same with respect to the Clinton impeachment 
proceedings, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for the 116th 
Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).




Sec. 613. Other pleadings.

  Replication, rejoinder,  &c. There 
may be a replication, rejoinder, &c. Sel. Jud., 114; 8 Grey's Deb., 233; 
Sach. Tr., 15; Journ. H. of Commons, 6 March, 1640-1.


  A replication is always filed (for the form of replication in modern 
practice, see Sept. 26, 1988, p. 25357), and in one instance the 
pleadings proceeded to a rejoinder, surrejoinder, and similiter (III, 
2455). A respondent also has filed a protest instead of pleading on the 
merits (III, 2461), but there was objection to this and the Senate 
barely permitted it. In another case respondent interposed a plea as to 
jurisdiction of offenses charged in certain articles, but declined to 
admit that it was a demurrer with the admissions pertinent thereto (III, 
2125, 2431). In the Belknap trial the House was sustained in averring in 
pleadings as to jurisdiction matters not averred in the articles (III, 
2123). The right of the House to allege in the replication matters not 
touched in the articles has been discussed (III, 2457). In the 
Louderback (VI, 522) and Ritter (Apr. 6, 1936, p. 4971) impeachment 
proceedings, the managers on the part of the House prepared and 
submitted the replication to the Senate without its consideration by the 
House, contrary to former practice (VI, 506). The Senate may consider in 
closed session various preliminary motions made by respondent (e.g., to 
declare the Senate rule on appointment of a committee to receive 
evidence to be unconstitutional, to declare beyond a reasonable doubt as 
the standard of proof in an impeachment trial, and to postpone the 
impeachment trial) before voting in open session to dispose of those 
motions (Oct. 7, 8, 1986, pp. 29151, 29412).



[[Page 336]]


  For a chronology of disposition of motions in the Senate under its 
impeachment rules during the impeachment of President Trump, see 
Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a chronology of the same with respect to 
the impeachment of President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules 
and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).




Sec. 614. Examination of witnesses.

  Witnesses. The  practice 
is to swear the witnesses in open House, and then examine them there; or 
a committee may be named, who shall examine them in committee, either on 
interrogatories agreed on in the House, or such as the committee in 
their discretion shall demand. Seld. Jud., 120, 123.


  In trials before the Senate witnesses have always been examined in 
open Senate, although examination by a committee has been suggested 
(III, 2217) and utilized (S. Res. 38, 101st Cong., Mar. 16, 1989, p. 
4533). In the 74th Congress, the Senate amended its rules for 
impeachment trials to allow the presiding officer, upon the order of the 
Senate, to appoint a committee to receive evidence and take testimony in 
the trial of any impeachment (May 28, 1935, p. 8309). In the trial of 
Judge Claiborne the Senate directed the appointment of a committee of 
twelve Senators to take evidence and testimony pursuant to rule XI of 
the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on 
Impeachment Trials (S. Res. 481, Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22035); and in Nixon 
v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the Supreme Court refused to 
declare unconstitutional the appointment of such a committee to take 
evidence and testimony.


  For a chronology of motions to subpoena witnesses during the Senate 
impeachment proceedings against President Trump, see Sec. Sec. 608a-
608b, supra. For a chronology of the same with respect to Senate 
impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the 
House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).


[[Page 337]]

linquent doth put himself on the trial of his country, a jury ought to 
be impaneled, and he adds that it is not so on impeachment by the 
Commons, for they are in loco proprio, and there no jury ought to be 
impaneled. Id., 124. The Ld. Berkeley, 6 E., 3, was arraigned for the 
murder of L. 2, on an information on the part of the King, and not on 
impeachment of the Commons; for then they had been patria sua. He waived 
his peerage, and was tried by a jury of Gloucestershire and 
Warwickshire. Id., 126. In 1 H., 7, the Commons protest that they are 
not to be considered as parties to any judgment given, or hereafter to 
be given in Parliament. Id., 133. They have been generally and more 
justly considered, as is before stated, as the grand jury; for the 
conceit of Selden is certainly not accurate, that they are the patria 
sua of the accused, and that the Lords do only judge, but not try. It is 
undeniable that they do try; for they examine witnesses as to the facts, 
and acquit or condemn, according to their own belief of them. And Lord 
Hale says, ``the peers are judges of law as well as of fact;'' 2 Hale, 
P. C., 275; Consequently of fact as well as of law.



Sec. 615. Relation of jury trial to 
impeachment.

  Jury. In the  case of Alice Pierce, 1 R., 2, a jury was impaneled for 
her trial before a committee. Seld. Jud., 123. But this was on a 
complaint, not on impeachment by the Commons. Seld. Jud., 163. It must 
also have been for a misdemeanor only, as the Lords spiritual sat in the 
case, which they do on misdemeanors, but not in capital cases. Id., 148. 
The judgment was a forfeiture of all her lands and goods. Id., 188. 
This, Selden says, is the only jury he finds recorded in Parliament for 
misdemeanors; but he makes no doubt, if the de



[[Page 338]]

were directed to refrain from referring to the Senators as ``jurors'' 
(Jan. 15, 1999, p. 580).
  No jury is possible as part of an impeachment trial under the 
Constitution (III, 2313). In 1868, after mature consideration, the 
Senate overruled the old view of its functions (III, 2057), and decided 
that it sat for impeachment trials as the Senate and not as a court 
(III, 2057), and eliminated from its rules all mention of itself as a 
``high court of impeachment'' (III, 2079, 2082). However, the modern 
view of the Senate as a court was evident during the impeachment trial 
of President Clinton. There the Senate convened as a ``Court of 
Impeachment'' (see, e.g., Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272). In response to an 
objection raised by a Senator, the Chief Justice held that the Senate 
was not sitting as a ``jury'' but was sitting as a ``court'' during the 
impeachment trial of President Clinton. As such, the House managers



Sec. 615a. The presiding officer.

  An anxiety lest  the Chief 
Justice might have a vote in the approaching trial of the President 
seems to have prompted this earlier action (III, 2057). There was 
examination of the question of the Chief Justice's power to vote (III, 
2098); but the Senate declined to declare his incapacity to vote, and he 
did in fact give a casting vote on incidental questions (III, 2067) 
though in a later trial, the Chief Justice advised that he did not 
believe it appropriate for the Chief Justice to cast a vote that would 
change the result of the vote of the Senate (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Under 
the earlier practice, the Senate declined to require that the Chief 
Justice be sworn when about to preside (III, 2080); but the Chief 
Justice had the oath administered by an associate justice (III, 2422). 
The President pro tempore of the Senate, pursuant to an earlier order of 
the Senate, appointed a committee to escort the Chief Justice into the 
Senate chamber to preside over the impeachment trial of President 
Clinton (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272).


  In impeachments for officers other than the President of the United 
States the presiding officer of the Senate presides, whether being Vice 
President, the regular President pro tempore (III, 2309, footnote, 2337, 
2394) or a special President pro tempore chosen to preside at the trial 
only (III, 2089, 2477). The President pro tempore presided over the 
impeachment trial of a former President who was still President at the 
time of his impeachment (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _).




Sec. 615b. Oath and quorum.

  Senators elected after  the 
beginning of an impeachment trial are sworn as in the case of other 
Senators (III, 2375). The quorum of the Senate sitting for an 
impeachment trial is a quorum of the Senate itself, and not merely a 
quorum of the Senators sworn for the trial (III, 2063). The vote 
required for conviction is two-thirds of those Senators present and 
voting (Oct. 20, 1989, p. 25335). In 1868, when certain States were 
without representation, the Senate declined to question its competency 
to try an impeachment case (III, 2060). The President pro tempore of the 
Senate administered the oath to the Chief Justice presiding over the 
impeachment trial of President Clinton, and the Chief Justice in turn 
administered the oath to the Senators (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272).



[[Page 339]]

1709-10; 2 Wood., 614. And judgment is not to be given till they demand 
it. Seld. Jud., 124. But they are not to be present on impeachment when 
the Lords consider of the answer or proofs and determine of their 
judgment. Their presence, however, is necessary at the answer and 
judgment in case capital Id., 58, 158, as well as not capital; 162. * * 
*.



Sec. 616. Attendance of the Commons.

  Presence of  Commons. 
The Commons are to be present at the examination of witnesses. Seld. 
Jud., 124. Indeed, they are to attend throughout, either as a committee 
of the whole House, or otherwise, at discretion, appoint managers to 
conduct the proofs. Rushw. Tr. of Straff., 37; Com. Journ., 4 Feb.,





Sec. 617. Attendance of the House of 
Representatives.

  The  House has consulted its own inclination and 
convenience about attending its managers at an impeachment. It did not 
attend at all in the trials of Blount, Swayne, Archbald, Louderback, and 
Ritter (III, 2318, 2483; VI, 504, 516); and after attending at the 
answer of Belknap, decided that it would be represented for the 
remainder of the trial by its managers alone (III, 2453). At the trial 
of President Johnson the House, in Committee of the Whole, attended 
throughout the trial (III, 2427), but this is exceptional. In the Peck 
trial the House discussed the subject (III, 2377) and reconsidered its 
decision to attend the trial daily (III, 2028). While the Senate is 
deliberating the House does not attend (III, 2435); but when the Senate 
votes on the charges, as at the other open proceedings of the trial, it 
may attend (III, 2383, 2388, 2440). Although it has frequently attended 
in Committee of the Whole, it may attend as a House (III, 2338).





Sec. 618. Voting on the articles in an impeachment 
trial.

  * * * The  Lords debate the judgment among themselves. Then the vote is 
first taken on the question of guilty or not guilty; and if they 
convict, the question, or particular sentence, is out of that which 
seemeth to be most generally agreed on. Seld. Jud., 167; 2 Wood., 612.



[[Page 340]]

and adjourned without day after voting on three of the eleven articles 
(III, 2443). In other impeachments, the Senate has adopted an order to 
provide the method of voting and putting the question separately and 
successively on each article (VI, 524; Apr. 16, 1936, p. 5558). For a 
discussion of the vote of the Senate on each article of impeachment with 
respect to the impeachments of President Trump, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, 
supra. For a discussion of the same with respect to articles of 
impeachment against President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules 
and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).

  The question in judgment in an impeachment trial has occasioned 
contention in the Senate (III, 2339, 2340), and in the trial of 
President Johnson the form was left to the Chief Justice (III, 2438, 
2439). In the Belknap trial there was much deliberation over this 
subject (III, 2466). In the Chase trial the Senate modified its former 
rule as to form of final question (III, 2363). The yeas and nays are 
taken on each article separately (III, 2098, 2339) in the form 
``Senators, how say you? is the respondent guilty or not guilty?'' (Oct. 
9, 1986, p. 29871). But in the trial of President Johnson the Senate, by 
order, voted on the articles in an order differing from the numerical 
order (III, 2440), adjourned after voting on one article (III, 2441),



[[Page 341]]




Sec. 619. Judgment in 
impeachments.

  Judgment. Judgments in  Parliament, for death have been strictly guided per 
legem terrae, which they can not alter; and not at all according to 
their discretion. They can neither omit any part of the legal judgment 
nor add to it. Their sentence must be secundum non ultra legem. Seld. 
Jud., 168, 171. This trial, though it varies in external ceremony, yet 
differs not in essentials from criminal prosecutions before inferior 
courts. The same rules of evidence, the same legal notions of crimes and 
punishments, prevailed; for impeachments are not framed to alter the 
law, but to carry it into more effectual execution against too powerful 
delinquents. The judgment, therefore, is to be such as is warranted by 
legal principles or precedents. 6 Sta. Tr., 14; 2 Wood., 611. The 
Chancellor gives judgment in misdemeanors; the Lord High Steward 
formerly in cases of life and death. Seld. Jud., 180. But now the 
Steward is deemed not necessary. Fost., 144; 2 Wood., 613. In 
misdemeanors the greatest corporal punishment hath been imprisonment. 
Seld. Jud., 184. The King's assent is necessary to capital judgments 
(but 2 Wood., 614, contra), but not in misdemeanors, Seld. Jud., 136.



  The Constitution of the United States (art. I, sec. 3, cl. 7) limits 
the judgment to removal and disqualification. The order of judgment 
following conviction in an impeachment trial is divisible for a separate 
vote if it contains both removal and disqualification (III, 2397; VI, 
512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606), and an order of judgment (such as 
disqualification) requires a majority vote (VI, 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 
5607). Under earlier practice, after a conviction the Senate voted 
separately on the question of disqualification (III, 2339, 2397), but no 
vote is required by the Senate on judgment of removal from office 
following conviction, because removal follows automatically from 
conviction under article II, section 4 of the Constitution (Apr. 17, 
1936, p. 5607). Thus, the presiding officer directs judgment of removal 
from office to be entered and the respondent removed from office without 
separate action by the Senate where disqualification is not contemplated 
(Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29873). A resolution impeaching the President may 
provide for only removal from office (H. Res. 1333, 93d Cong., Aug. 20, 
1974, p. 29361) or for both removal and disqualification from holding 
any future office (H. Res. 611, 105th Cong., Dec. 19, 1998, p. 27828; H. 
Res. 755, 116th Cong., Dec. 18, 2019, p. _; H. Res. 24, 117th Cong., 
Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).




Sec. 620. Impeachment not interrupted by 
adjournments.

  Continuance. An  impeachment is not discontinued by the dissolution of 
Parliament, but may be resumed by the new Parliament. T. Ray 383; 4 Com.
Journ., 23 Dec., 1790; Lord's Jour., May 15, 1791; 2 Wood., 618.



[[Page 342]]

1, Sec. 8.1). Although impeachment proceedings may continue from one 
Congress to the next, the authority of the managers appointed by the 
House expires at the end of a Congress; and the managers must be 
reappointed when a new Congress convenes (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, 
Sec. 8.2). end segment .004  deg. segment .005 -- rule 
I through rule III  deg.

[[Page 343]]

  In Congress impeachment proceedings are not discontinued by a recess 
(III, 2299, 2304, 2344, 2375, 2407, 2505, see also Sec. 592, supra). The 
following impeachment proceedings extended from one Congress to the 
next: (1) the impeachment of Judge Pickering was presented in the Senate 
on the last day of the Seventh Congress (III, 2320), and the Senate 
conducted the trial in the Eighth Congress (III, 2321); (2) the 
impeachment of Judge Louderback was presented in the Senate on the last 
day of the 72d Congress (VI, 515), and the Senate conducted the trial in 
the 73d Congress (VI, 516); (3) the impeachment of Judge Hastings was 
presented in the Senate during the second session of the 100th Congress 
(Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20223) and the trial in the Senate continued into the 
101st Congress (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84); (4) the impeachment of President 
Clinton was presented to the Senate after the Senate had adjourned sine 
die for the 105th Congress (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2), and 
the Senate conducted the trial in the 106th Congress (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 
272); (5) the impeachment inquiry of Judge Porteous was authorized in 
the 110th Congress (Sept. 17, 2008) and continued in the next Congress 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch.