[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 118th Congress]
[118th Congress]
[House Document 117-161]
[Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
[Pages 180-206]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       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.


[[Page 181]]

 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.



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,



  This provision has been superseded by clause 1 of rule XVII, which was 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. 37). 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).




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.



  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, Memorials 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.


  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.



  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.




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 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. 
* * *


  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).

  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 of another Member (Mar. 21, 2007, 
p. 7074); (9) labeling the remarks of a Member ``hypocritical and 
dishonest'' (Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045); (9) referring to a Member as anti-
Semitic or suggesting affiliation with a terrorist organization (Dec. 
14, 2021, p. _).

  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).

  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 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).

  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.




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, 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. 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.



  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 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).




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.



  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 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.




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.



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




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).




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 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.



  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.



  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 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).




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 apply also to the President-elect (e.g., Nov. 14, 2016, p. 
14092). 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. _).

  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. 4898), ``vile'' (June 15, 2018, p. _), incapable of ``basic 
human decency'' (Sept. 13, 2018, p. _) or a ``loathsome human'' (Dec. 
14, 2017, p. _); (5) a personal ``dark side'' (Mar. 1, 2017, p. 3243), 
ruthless (May 8, 2019, p. _) or ``sinister'' (Dec. 20, 2018, p. _); (6) 
that such person is deserving of shame (May 24, 2016, p. 6998) or is 
``shameful'' (e.g., Dec. 8, 2016, p. 16331) (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. 11924), 
``infantile'' (June 15, 2016, p. 8771) 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. _), 
``mentally unwell'' (Sept. 29, 2021, p. _), or ``erratic and impetuous'' 
(Jan. 24, 2019, p. _); (15) commenting derogatorily on physical 
attributes (May 24, 2016, p. 6997); (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. _), an ``idiot'' (Dec. 20, 
2017), a ``withering, blundering, failure'' (Feb. 3, 2022, p. _), 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. _); 
(27) suggesting that such person was ``struggling to stay awake'' (June 
24, 2021, 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 misrepresented 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. 3291), 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. 13894), 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. 
4898) 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. 3307); (10) fabricating an 
issue (e.g., July 6, 2004, pp. 14313, 14314), ``gaslighting'' (Dec. 14, 
2022, p. _), engaging in ``scams'' (May 22, 2019, p. _), ``playing the 
American people for fools'' (Oct. 19, 2021, p. _), or intending to 
mislead (e.g., Oct. 6, 2004, p. 21053), such as pushing falsehoods (Aug. 
24, 2021, p. _) or stating ``blatant falsehoods'' (Jan. 30, 2017, p. 
1339); (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. _); (15) a ``lying, dog-faced pony soldier'' (May 10, 2022, 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. 583) 
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. 1183); (4) calling such person ``amoral'' or 
lacking in morality (June 3, 2013, p. 7783; Nov. 16, 2016, p. 14390), or 
accusing such person of having ``no conscience'' (May 21, 2018, p. _); 
(5) referring to such person as having financial conflicts of interest 
(Dec. 11, 2018, 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. 6998); (3) ``crook'' (e.g., Mar. 1, 2017, p. 3241), ``come 
clean'' (Sept. 21, 2016, p. 13243), ``fess up'' (Feb. 6, 2017, p. 1849), 
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. 1698); (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. 5048); (10) ``shredding'' (Apr. 19, 
2016, p. 4563), 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. 8375); (12) alluding to alleged sexual 
misconduct (e.g., May 10, 1994, p. 9697), labeling such person a sexual 
predator (Nov. 16, 2016, p. 14390), 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, 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. _); (19) suggesting that such person 
is ``helping'' drug cartels with ``their human trafficking business'' 
(Apr. 16, 2021, p. _) or aiding and abetting drug cartels (Oct. 22, 
2021, p. _), or calling such person the ``trafficker-in-chief'' (e.g., 
Feb. 2, 2022, p. _).

  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. 8375); (2) having 
made ``racial slurs'' or ``racial epithets'' (e.g., Jan. 9, 2017, p. 
392); (3) telling a ``racist lie'' (e.g., Jan. 9, 2017, p. 392); (4) a 
bigot (e.g., June 9, 2016, p. 8375), 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. 7898); (6) 
having taken a bigoted action (Jan. 30, 2017, p. 1339) 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. 
8363) or a homophobe (Sept. 5, 2018, p. _); (9) having run a prejudiced 
campaign (Jan. 12, 2017, p. 854); (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. _).

  Language impugning the patriotism or loyalty of the President is not 
in order, such as: (1) directly questioning patriotism (Sept. 9, 2016, 
p. 12156); (2) labeling the President as un-American or having an ``un-
American ideology'' (e.g., June 7, 2016, p. 7898) 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), 
choosing terrorists over Americans (Mar. 9, 2022, p. _), 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. _); (9) calling the President a ``threat to national 
security'' (Jan. 26, 2023, 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. 5239); (2) an accusation that the President ``disrespected the 
office'' (Mar. 27, 2017, p. 4898) 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), of having ``tyrannical impulses'' (Oct. 20, 2021, p. _), 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. 
5239).

  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. 4563; 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. 4499; Oct. 24, 2017, 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 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. 1698), 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. _).

  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.''




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 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.


  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).

  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. 1497); (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 a Senator 
of being prejudiced, racist, or of making a racist comment (Jan. 12, 
2017, p. 854) or referring to Senators as ``white nationalists'' (Jan. 
20, 2022, 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. 
_); (16) accusing the Majority Leader and other Senators of ``taking a 
stand against the truth'' (Jan. 12, 2022, p. _).

  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).

  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, 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).

  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 accuse her of supporting domestic 
terrorism (May 20, 2021, p. _); to question the patriotism of a major-
party nominee for the office (Sept. 9, 2016, p. 12156). 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.



  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 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).




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.


  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 
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.




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.



  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 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).




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.


  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.



[[Page 206]]

tary 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).

  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 parliamen




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).