[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 118th Congress]
[118th Congress]
[House Document 117-161]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 786-819]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


 
                                Rule XVII


Decorum
                           decorum and debate



945. Obtaining the floor for debate; and relevancy and 
decorum therein.

  1. (a)  A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who 
desires to speak or deliver a matter to the House shall respectfully 
address the Speaker and, on being recognized, may address the House from 
any place on the floor. When invited by the Chair, a Member, Delegate, 
or Resident Commissioner may speak from the Clerk's desk.



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

  This clause (formerly clause 1 of rule XIV) was adopted in 1880, but 
was made up, in its main provisions, of older rules, which dated from 
1789 and 1811 (V, 4979). A rule of comity prohibiting most references in 
debate to the Senate was first enunciated in Jefferson's Manual and was 
strictly enforced in the House through the 108th Congress (albeit with 
certain exceptions adopted in the 100th and 101st Congresses outlined in 
former paragraph (b)) (Sec. 371, supra; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6; 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72). In the 109th Congress the exceptions 
were deleted and the parenthetical in paragraph (b) was inserted (sec. 
2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). A gender-based reference was 
eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 
7) and a mobility-based reference was eliminated in the 115th Congress 
(sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37). Before the House recodified 
its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former 
clause 1 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This clause, and 
rulings of the Chair with respect to references in debate to the Senate, 
are discussed in Sec. Sec. 361, 371, supra.

  The Speaker, who has a responsibility under rule I to maintain and 
enforce decorum in debate, and the chair of the Committee of the Whole, 
who enforces decorum in debate under rule XVIII, have reminded and 
advised Members of the following: (1) clause 1 requires Members seeking 
recognition to do so properly and to address themselves to the question 
under debate, avoiding personality; (2) Members should address their 
remarks to the Chair only and not to other entities such as the press or 
the viewing audience, and the Chair takes the initiative to enforce this 
rule (see, e.g., Nov. 8, 1979, p. 31519; Sept. 29, 1983, p. 26501; Dec. 
17, 1987, p. 36139; Oct. 17, 2005, p. 22907); (3) Members should not 
refer to or address any occupant of the galleries; (4) Members should 
refer to other Members in debate only in the third person, by State 
designation (Speaker O'Neill, June 14, 1978, p. 17615; Oct. 2, 1984, p. 
28520; Mar. 7, 1985, p. 5028) and may not direct remarks to a former 
Member present on the floor (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.9); (5) 
Members should refrain from using profanity or vulgarity in debate (Mar. 
5, 1991, p. 5036; Feb. 18, 1993, p. 2973; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33744; July 
23, 1998, p. 17032; Oct. 11, 2000, p. 22189; Oct. 2, 2003, pp. 23949, 
23950; Mar. 10, 2004, p. 3849; May 21, 2014, pp. 8821, 8822; June 10, 
2016, p. 8522; Mar. 16, 2017, p. 4294); (6) the Chair may interrupt a 
Member engaging in personalities with respect to another Member of the 
House, as the Chair does with respect to such references to the Senate 
or the President (Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551); (7) Members should refrain from 
discussing the President's personal character (May 10, 1994, p. 9697); 
(8) Members should heed the gavel (see, e.g., Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081; 
Oct. 2, 2003, p. 23950; May 19, 2004, pp. 10107, 10108) because ignoring 
the gavel is not an act of civil disobedience but rather an act of stark 
incivility (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.2), and remarks uttered 
in debate while not under recognition do not appear in the Congressional 
Record (e.g., May 22, 2003, p. 12965; Oct. 2, 2003, p. 23950; May 19, 
2004, pp. 10107, 10108); (9) Members may not use audio devices during 
debate (May 24, 2005, p. 11008; June 22, 2018, p. _). The Speaker has 
deplored the tendency to address remarks directly to the President (or 
others not in the Chamber) in the second person, and cautions Members on 
the Chair's own initiative (see, e.g., Oct. 16, 1989, p. 24715; Oct. 17, 
1989, p. 24764; Jan. 24, 1990, p. 426; Oct. 9, 1991, p. 25999; Speaker 
Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 26, 2013, p. 1680; 
Oct. 8, 2013, p. 15429; Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p. 4783; Speaker 
Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, p. 2554; Speaker Ryan, June 23, 2017, p. _). 
Even when referring in debate to the Speaker, Members direct their 
remarks to the occupant of the Chair (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 6.3; May 22, 2018, p. _).

  Members should refrain from speaking disrespectfully of the Speaker or 
arraigning the personal conduct of the Speaker, and under the precedents 
the sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary requirements 
for timeliness of challenges (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.6; Jan. 19, 1995, p. 1599). Engaging in 
personalities with respect to the Speaker's conduct is not in order even 
though possibly relevant to a pending resolution granting him certain 
authority (Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24485).

  This clause has been interpreted to proscribe the wearing of badges by 
Members to communicate a message, because Members must address the 
Speaker to deliver any matter to the House (Speaker O'Neill, Apr. 15, 
1986, p. 7525; Feb. 22, 1995, p. 5435; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9662; Oct. 19, 
1995, pp. 28522, 28540, 28646; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 5435; Mar. 7, 1996, p. 
4083; Sept. 26, 1996, p. 25117; July 24, 1998, p. 17157; Sept. 28, 2000, 
p. 19940; Sept. 22, 2004, p. 18967; May 22, 2013, p. 7845; Jan. 31, 
2017, p. 1427). A Member may not address the House in debate where not 
recognized by the Chair for such purpose (Jan. 6, 2011, p. 140; Jan. 31, 
2017, pp. 1474-75). A Member's comportment may constitute a breach of 
decorum even though the content of that Member's speech is not, itself, 
unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Under this standard the Chair 
may deny recognition to a Member who has engaged in unparliamentary 
debate and ignored repeated admonitions by the Chair to proceed in 
order, subject to the will of the House on the question of proceeding in 
order (Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535).

  For further discussion of personalities in debate with respect to 
references to the official conduct of a Member, see Sec. Sec. 361-363, 
supra; with respect to references to the President, see Sec. 370, supra; 
and with respect to references to the Senate, see Sec. Sec. 371-374, 
supra.

  Aside from ``special-order,'' ``morning-hour,'' or ``one-minute'' 
debate, where no question is pending and recognition is by unanimous 
consent or leadership listings, it is a general rule that a motion must 
be made before a Member may proceed in debate (V, 4984, 4985), and this 
motion must be reduced to writing upon demand (V, 4986). A motion must 
also be stated by the Speaker or read by the Clerk before debate may 
begin (V, 4982, 4983, 5304). The withdrawal of a motion precludes 
further debate on it (V, 4989). But sometimes when a communication or a 
report has been before the House it has been debated before any specific 
motion has been made in relation to it (V, 4987, 4988). In a few cases, 
such as conference reports and reports from the Committee of the Whole, 
the motion to agree is considered as pending without being offered from 
the floor (IV, 4896; V, 6517).



Sec. 946. Interruption of a Member in debate.

  A  Member 
having the floor may not be deprived of it by an ordinary motion, even 
the highly privileged motion to adjourn (V, 5369, 5370; VIII, 2646), or 
the motion to table (Mar. 18, 1992, p. 6022), a parliamentary inquiry 
(VIII, 2455-2458), a question of privilege (V, 5002; VIII, 2459), a 
motion that the Committee rise (VIII, 2325), or a demand for the 
previous question (VIII, 2609; Mar. 18, 1992, p. 6022), but may be 
interrupted for a conference report (V, 6451; VIII, 3294) or by a point 
of order (e.g., June 24, 2008, pp. 13499, 13500). It is a custom also 
for the Speaker to request a Member to yield for the reception of a 
message. A Member may yield the floor for a motion to adjourn or that 
the Committee of the Whole rise without losing the right to continue 
when the subject is again continued (V, 5009-5013), but if the House has 
by resolution vested control of general debate in the Committee of the 
Whole in designated Members, their control of general debate may not be 
abrogated by another Member moving to rise, unless they yield for that 
purpose (May 25, 1967, p. 14121; June 10, 1999, p. 12471). A Member may 
also be seated while a paper is being read on the Member's time without 
losing the right to the floor (V, 5015). A Member who, having the floor, 
moved the previous question was permitted to resume the floor on 
withdrawing the motion (V, 5474). But a Member may not yield to another 
Member to offer an amendment without losing the floor (V, 5021, 5030, 
5031; VIII, 2476), and a Member may not offer an amendment (VIII, 2474, 
2475), a motion to adjourn (Mar. 8, 2017, p. 3950), or a motion that the 
Committee of the Whole rise (Sept. 9, 1997, pp. 18183, 18184) in time 
secured for debate only, or request unanimous consent to offer an 
amendment unless yielded to for that purpose by the Member controlling 
the floor (Sept. 24, 1986, p. 25589; May 11, 2006, p. 7877). A Member 
recognized under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole may 
not yield to another Member to offer an amendment, because it is within 
the power of the Chair to recognize Members to offer amendments (Apr. 
19, 1973, p. 13240; Dec. 12, 1973, p. 41171). A Member desiring to 
interrupt another in debate should address the Chair for permission of 
the Member speaking (V, 5006; VI, 193), but the latter may exercise 
discretion as to whether or not to yield (V, 5007, 5008; VI, 193; VIII, 
2463, 2465). It is not in order to disrupt a Member's remarks in debate 
by repeatedly interrupting to ask whether the Member will yield after 
having declined to do so (Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040; Nov. 13, 1997, p. 
26533; Apr. 2, 2009, pp. 9692, 9693). If a Member interrupts another 
during debate without being yielded to or otherwise recognized (as on a 
point of order), such remarks are not printed in the Record (Speaker 
O'Neill, Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2229; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.25; 
July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Members should not engage in disruption while 
another is speaking (Dec. 20, 1995, p. 37878; June 27, 1996, p. 15915).




Sec. 947. Speaker in debate.

  The  Speaker may of right speak 
from the Chair on questions of order and be first heard (II, 1367), but 
with this exception may speak from the Chair only by leave of the House 
and on questions of fact (II, 1367-1372). On occasions comparatively 
rare Speakers have called Members to the Chair and participated in 
debate on questions of order or matters relating to their own conduct or 
rights, usually without asking consent of the House (II, 1367, 1368, 
1371; III, 1950; V, 6097). In more recent years, Speakers have 
frequently entered into debate from the floor on substantive legislative 
issues before the House for decision. The right to participate in debate 
in the Committee of the Whole is without question (see, e.g., Apr. 30, 
1987, p. 10811).




Sec. 948. Remarks must be confined to the subject.

  It  has 
always been held, and generally quite strictly, that in the House 
remarks must be confined to the subject under debate (V, 5043-5048; VI, 
576; VIII, 2481, 2534). The Chair normally does not take initiative but 
waits for the question of relevancy of debate to be raised (Sept. 27, 
1990, p. 26226; Mar. 23, 1995, p. 8986; Nov. 14, 1995, pp. 32354-57, 
32374; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37118; Mar. 12, 1996, p. 4448; Mar. 20, 2002, 
p. 3663), which is untimely after intervening debate (July 31, 2007, p. 
21963).


  During debate on a bill, a Member under recognition must confine 
remarks to the pending legislation; that is, remarks must not dwell on 
another measure not before the House (Nov. 4, 1999, p. 28524; July 31, 
2007, p. 21970), but rather must maintain a constant nexus between 
debate and the subject of the bill (Nov. 14, 1995, pp. 32354-57; Mar. 
12, 1996, p. 4450; Mar. 20, 2002, pp. 3663-64; June 3, 2003, p. 13483, 
p. 13486). Although remarks comparing a pending question to a broader 
policy concern may be relevant, discussion of the broader policy concern 
may not stray from its nexus to the pending question (July 31, 2007, p. 
21965, p. 21966, p. 21967). Debate on a motion to amend must be confined 
to the amendment (or the second-degree amendment, as the case may be 
(July 31, 2007, p. 21966, p. 21969)), and may neither include the 
general merits of the bill (V, 5049-5051), nor range to the merits of a 
proposition not included in the underlying resolution (Jan. 31, 1995, p. 
3032). Similarly, debate on a motion to recommit with instructions under 
the former version of clause 2 of rule XIX had to be confined to the 
subject of the motion rather than dwelling on the general merits of the 
bill (Mar. 7, 1996, p. 4092). However, the Chair has accorded Members 
latitude in debating a series of amendments in the nature of a 
substitute to a concurrent resolution on the budget (Mar. 25, 1999, p. 
5734). On a motion to suspend the rules, debate is confined to the 
object of the motion and may not range to the merits of a bill not 
scheduled for such consideration (Nov. 23, 1991, p. 34189; June 11, 
2002, p. 9997). Debate on a special order providing for the 
consideration of a bill may range to the merits of the bill to be made 
in order (Sept. 26, 1989, p. 21532; Oct. 16, 1990, p. 29668; Oct. 1, 
1991, p. 24836), because the question of consideration of the bill is 
involved, but should not range to the merits of a measure not to be 
considered under that special order (Sept. 27, 1990, p. 26226; July 25, 
1995, p. 20323; Sept. 20, 1995, p. 15838; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37118; May 
1, 1996, p. 9888; May 8, 1996, p. 10511; May 15, 1996, p. 1131; Mar. 13, 
1997, p. 3833; Mar. 20, 2002, p. 3664) or to the Rules of the House in 
general (July 9, 2004, pp. 14971, 14972, 14976 (sustained by tabling of 
appeal)). Debate on a resolution providing authorities to expedite the 
consideration of end-of-session legislation may neither range to the 
merits of a measure that might or might not be considered under such 
authorities nor engage in personalities with respect to the official 
conduct of the Speaker, even as asserted to relate to the question of 
granting the authorities proposed (Sept. 24, 1996, pp. 24485, 24486). If 
a unanimous-consent request for a Member to address the House for one 
hour specifies the subject of the address, the occupant of the Chair 
during that speech may enforce the rule of relevancy in debate by 
requiring that the remarks be confined to the subject so specified (Jan. 
23, 1984, p. 93). Debate on a question of personal privilege must be 
confined to the statements or issue that gave rise to the question of 
privilege (V, 5075-5077; VI, 576, 608; VIII, 2448, 2481; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.4). Debate on a privileged resolution 
recommending disciplinary action against a Member, although it may 
include comparisons with other such actions taken by or reported to the 
House for purposes of measuring severity of punishment, may not extend 
to the conduct of another sitting Member not the subject of a committee 
report (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36271). The question whether a Member should 
be relieved from committee service is debatable only within very narrow 
limits (IV, 4510; June 16, 1975, p. 19056). Debate on a resolution 
electing a Member to a committee is confined to the election of that 
Member and should not extend to that committee's agenda (July 10, 1995, 
p. 18258).

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


Recognition
  Under prior practice in the Committee of the Whole, remarks did not 
have to be confined to the subject during general debate (V, 5233-5238; 
VIII, 2590; June 28, 1974, p. 21743); but under modern practice a 
special order providing for consideration of a measure in the Committee 
of the Whole typically does require such relevance in debate. All five-
minute debate in the Committee of the Whole is confined to the subject 
(V, 5240-5256; July 31, 2007, p. 21969 (sustained on appeal)), even on a 
pro forma amendment (VIII, 2591), in which case debate must relate to an 
issue in the pending portion of the bill (VIII, 2592, 2593); thus, if a 
general provisions title is pending debate may relate to any agency 
funded by the bill (June 13, 1991, p. 14692).




949. Speaker's power of recognition.

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


  This provision was adopted in 1789 (V, 4978) and amended in the 115th 
Congress to remove a mobility-based reference (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th 
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XIV (H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

  In the early history of the House, when business proceeded on 
presentation by individual Members, the Speaker recognized the Member 
who sought recognition first; and in case of doubt there was an appeal 
from such recognition (II, 1429-1434). But as the membership and 
business of the House increased it became necessary to establish and 
adhere to a fixed order of business, and recognition, instead of 
pertaining to the individual Member, necessarily came to pertain to the 
bill or other business that would be before the House under the rule 
regulating the order of business. Hence the necessity that the Speaker 
should not be compelled to heed the claims of Members as individuals was 
expressed in 1879 in a report from the Committee on Rules, which 
declared that ``in the nature of the case discretion must be lodged with 
the presiding officer'' (II, 1424). And in 1881 the Speaker declined to 
entertain an appeal from his decision on a question of recognition (II, 
1425-1428), establishing thereby a line of precedent that continues (VI, 
292; VIII, 2429, 2646, 2762). It also has been determined that a Member 
may not invoke clause 6 of rule XIV (formerly rule XXV) (Sec. 884, 
supra), providing that questions relating to the priority of business 
shall be decided by a majority without debate, to inhibit the Speaker's 
power of recognition under this clause (Speaker Albert, July 31, 1975, 
p. 26249). A Member desiring to be recognized should take the time to do 
so properly (Speaker Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner, 
Feb. 26, 2013, p. 1680; Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p. 4783; Speaker 
Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, pp. 2553, 2554). A Member offering a 
nondebatable motion (to adjourn) should not preface it with debate (Dec. 
8, 2015, p. 19606).--



Sec. 950. Oneminute and specialorder 
speeches.

  Recognition  for one-minute speeches by unanimous consent and the order 
of recognition therefor are entirely within the discretion of the 
Speaker (Nov. 15, 1983, p. 32657; Mar. 7, 2001, p. 3027; Sept. 28, 2012, 
p. 14956), who may refuse to recognize for them until the completion of 
legislative business (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 73; July 24, 1980, p. 
19386) or decline a unanimous-consent request to increase the number 
(Mar. 7, 2001, p. 3027; Sept. 16, 2008, p. 19204; Mar. 21, 2010, p. 
4092; Feb. 27, 2015, p. 2896). It is not in order to raise as a question 
of the privileges of the House a resolution directing the Speaker to 
recognize for such speeches, because a question of privilege cannot 
amend or interpret the Rules of the House (July 25, 1980, pp. 19762-64). 
The modern practice of limiting recognition before legislative business 
to one minute began August 2, 1937 (p. 8004) and was reiterated by 
Speaker Rayburn on March 6, 1945 (Deschler, ch. 21, Sec. 6.1). Although 
the Chair's calculation of time consumed under one-minute speeches is 
not subject to challenge, the Chair endeavors to recognize majority and 
then minority Members by allocating time in a nonpartisan manner (Aug. 
4, 1982, p. 19319). A tradition upheld by previous Speakers, and 
formalized by an announced policy in the 115th through 118th Congresses 
(Speaker Ryan, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 65; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; 
Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; Speaker McCarthy, Jan. 9, 2023, p. 
_), is that the Speaker will recognize a Member only once per day by 
unanimous consent for a one-minute speech, and will not entertain a 
second request (Speaker McCormack, June 11, 1963, p. 10634; May 1, 1985, 
p. 9995; July 21, 2009, pp. 18493, 18494; July 25, 2018, p. _). The 
Speaker will not entertain a request to extend recognition beyond one 
minute (Speaker McCormack, June 11, 1963, p. 10633; Jan. 7, 2014, p. 94; 
Oct. 2, 2020, p. _).


  Since the 98th Congress the Speaker has followed announced policies of 
alternating recognition for one-minute speeches and special-order 
speeches between majority and minority Members (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 8, 
1984, p. 22963; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551). In the 101st Congress, the Chair 
continued the practice of alternating recognition for one-minute 
speeches but began a practice of recognizing Members suggested by their 
party leadership before others in the well (Apr. 19, 1990, p. 7406). 
From August 8, 1984, through February 23, 1994, the Speaker also 
followed an announced policy of recognizing Members of the same party 
within a given category in the order in which their unanimous-consent 
requests for special orders were granted (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 8, 1984, 
p. 22963; Jan. 5, 1993, p. 106). On February 11, 1994, the Speaker 
announced a new policy governing recognition for special-order speeches. 
The Speaker announced that the Chair would recognize for speeches of 
five minutes or less before longer speeches, and that Members may not 
enter requests for five-minute special orders earlier than one week in 
advance. With respect to recognition for longer special orders, the 
Speaker announced a policy of recognition that would depend not on 
orders by unanimous consent but, rather, on lists submitted by the 
respective party Leaders. This policy, the result of bipartisan 
negotiations, was a departure from the modern practice as described in 
Deschler, ch. 21, Sec. 7.1 (special-order speeches following legislative 
business are enabled only by unanimous consent). In the 112th Congress, 
the Speaker announced a new policy (effective February 1, 2011) of 
recognizing only for longer speeches following legislative business 
(Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 105). Under the Speaker's policy: (1) 
recognition does not extend beyond 10 p.m.; (2) recognition is limited 
to four hours equally divided between the majority and minority; (3) the 
first hour for each party is reserved to its respective Leader or 
designee; (4) the second hour for each party is divided into two 30-
minute periods; (5) time within each party is allotted in accord with a 
list submitted to the Chair by the respective Leader, and time not 
claimed at the appropriate point is considered to have expired; (6) 
recognition for the first hour alternates between the parties from day 
to day; (7) the respective Leaders may establish additional guidelines 
for entering requests; and (8) the Speaker may withdraw recognition 
should circumstances warrant (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; May 23, 1994, p. 
11459; June 10, 1994, p. 12684; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Feb. 16, 1995, p. 
5096; May 12, 1995, p. 12765; Jan. 21, 1997, p. 460; Jan. 31, 2001, p. 
1078; Jan. 5, 2011, p. 105; Jan. 3, 2013, p. 46; Jan. 6, 2015, p. 62; 
Jan. 3, 2017, p. 65). In the 116th Congress, the Speaker revised the 
existing policy to provide that Members may be recognized for only one 
special-order speech per week, and this policy continued in subsequent 
Congresses (Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 
2021, p. _; Speaker McCarthy, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).

  The Chair will recognize for subdivisions of the first hour for each 
party only on designations (and reallocations) by the leadership 
concerned (Oct. 2, 1998, p. 23151; Dec. 12, 2001, p. 25605; June 21, 
2012, p. 9624; Feb. 14, 2013, p. 1430). A Member who is recognized to 
control time during special orders may yield to colleagues for such 
amounts of time as the Member may deem appropriate but may not yield 
blocks of time to be enforced by the Chair. Members regulate the 
duration of their yielding by reclaiming the time when appropriate (Jan. 
31, 2001, p. 1078). Neither a one-hour (Mar. 6, 2012, p. 2989; Jan. 6, 
2016, p. 103; July 14, 2016, p. 11421) nor 30-minute (Mar. 6, 2012, p. 
2994) special order may be extended, even by unanimous consent. When 
recognition for 30-minute (Jan. 11, 2016, p. 342) or hour-long (Oct. 1, 
2013, p. 14891; Jan. 6, 2016, p. 99) special-order speeches does not 
commence earlier than one hour or two hours, respectively, before 10 
p.m., the Chair prorates the time remaining before 10 p.m. to maintain 
equity between the parties in the allocation of the time available. 
Under a former stricture, the Chair did not entertain a unanimous-
consent request to extend a five-minute special-order speech (Mar. 7, 
1995, p. 7152; Sept. 29, 2009, pp. 22877, 22878), to recognize for a 
special-order speech after midnight (May 10, 2007, p. 12222), or to 
extend a special-order speech beyond midnight (Oct. 7, 1998, p. 24394).

  The Chair may withdraw recognition during a special-order speech, 
declare a recess under clause 12 of rule I, and following the recess 
confer recognition for the remainder of the speech (Nov. 4, 2009, p. 
26795).-



Sec. 951. Morninghour debate.

  Beginning  in the second 
session of the 103d Congress, the House has by unanimous consent agreed 
(without prejudice to the Speaker's ultimate power of recognition under 
this rule) to convene early on certain days for morning-hour debate 
(e.g., Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; May 23, 1994, p. 11458; June 8, 1994, p. 
12305; June 10, 1994, p. 12684; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Feb. 16, 1995, p. 
5096). On May 12, 1995 (p. 12765), the House extended and modified the 
above order to accommodate earlier convening times after mid-May of each 
year. Through the 111th Congress, the order applied only to Mondays and 
Tuesdays. Beginning on February 1, 2011, the House expanded the order to 
include Wednesdays and Thursdays. The above-cited orders of the House: 
(1) postpone the Prayer, approval of the Journal, and the Pledge of 
Allegiance during morning-hour debate; and (2) require the Chair to 
recognize Members for not more than five minutes each, alternating 
between the majority and minority parties in accord with lists supplied 
by their respective Leaders. Beginning in the 112th Congress, the order 
was altered to allow the filing of privileged reports during morning-
hour debate (Jan. 5, 2011, p. 104; see, e.g., June 20, 2012, p. 9460; 
Aug. 1, 2012, p. 13055; Dec. 20, 2017, p. _). The order was altered to 
allow the Speaker to dispense with morning-hour debate upon either 
receipt of a notification of an impairment at the place of reconvening 
under clause 12(c) of rule I (Jan. 7, 2014, p. 92) or a change in 
reconvening pursuant to clause 12(e) of rule I (Jan. 6, 2015, pp. 61, 
62); see Sec. 639, supra).


  Under the customary order of the House establishing morning-hour 
debate, the Chair does not entertain a unanimous-consent request to 
extend a five-minute period of recognition (Apr. 28, 1998, p. 6924; Nov. 
12, 2002, p. 21327) or to extend recognition beyond the specified 
termination (10 minutes before convening) (Jan. 2, 2013, p. 18669). The 
Chair may not recognize a request for legislative business (Feb. 27, 
2013, pp. 1777, 1778; Feb. 26, 2015, p. 2655; Dec. 9, 2015, pp. 19792, 
19793; June 15, 2016, p. 8768) or that a name be removed from a list of 
cosponsors of a bill (Apr. 26, 1994, p. 8544), or the noticing of intent 
to offer a question of the privileges of the House pursuant to rule IX 
(July 23, 2020, p. _). The Chair may withdraw recognition during 
morning-hour debate (Mar. 28, 2012, pp. 4361, 4362).-



Sec. 952. ``Oxfordstyle'' debates.

  In  the 103d Congress the 
House agreed by unanimous consent to conduct at a time designated by the 
Speaker structured debate on a mutually agreeable topic announced by the 
Speaker, with four participants from each party in a format announced by 
the Speaker (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; Mar. 11, 1994, p. 4772; May 23, 
1994, p. 11458; June 8, 1994, p. 12305; June 10, 1994, p. 12648). 
Pursuant to that authority the House conducted three ``Oxford-style'' 
debates (Mar. 16, 1994, p. 5088; May 4, 1994, p. 9300; July 20, 1994, p. 
17245). As a precursor to those structured debates, special-order time 
was used for a ``Lincoln-Douglas-style'' debate involving five Members, 
with one Member acting as ``moderator'' by controlling the hour under 
this clause (Nov. 3, 1993, p. 27312).




Sec. 953. Speaker governed by usage in 
recognition.

  Although  there is no appeal from the Speaker's recognition, the 
Speaker is not a free agent in determining who is to have the floor. The 
practice of the House establishes rules from which the Speaker should 
not depart. For example, when the order of business brings before the 
House a certain bill the Speaker must first recognize, for motions for 
its disposition, the Member who represents the committee that has 
reported it (II, 1447; VI, 306, 514). This is not necessarily the chair 
of the committee, for a chair who, in committee, has opposed the bill, 
must yield the prior recognition to a member of the committee who has 
favored the bill (II, 1449). Usually, however, the chair has charge of 
the bill and is entitled at all stages to prior recognition for 
allowable motions intended to expedite it (II, 1452, 1457; VI, 296, 
300). This principle does not, however, apply to the chair of the 
Committee of the Whole (II, 1453). Once the proponent of a pending 
motion has been recognized for debate thereon, a unanimous-consent 
request to modify the motion may be entertained only if the proponent 
yields for that purpose (Jan. 5, 1996, p. 348). The Chair will entertain 
a unanimous-consent request regarding the disposition of the measure 
only if the majority manager yields for that purpose in the case of a 
motion to instruct conferees (Mar. 29, 2006, p. 4377); a measure on 
which the previous question has been ordered without intervening motion 
(Feb. 10, 2000, p. 1019; Feb. 13, 2007, p. 3877, p. 3878; Mar. 4, 2010, 
pp. 2608, 2609; July 1, 2010, pp. 12633, 12634 (Chair corrected 
himself); Feb. 10, 2011, p. 1497, p. 1509, p. 1521; July 11, 2013, p. 
11328); or a measure on which time has been yielded under the hour rule 
solely for the purpose of debate (Dec. 16, 2005, p. 29061; Nov. 7, 2007, 
p. 30354; May 25, 2011, p. 7881; Feb. 14, 2013, pp. 1406, 1407; Apr. 8, 
2014, p. 5785, p. 5787; May 21, 2014, p. 8834; July 30, 2014, p. 13637; 
Jan. 21, 2015, pp. 843, 844; Oct. 7, 2015, pp. 15825-29; Sept. 6, 2017, 
p. _; July 17, 2018, p. _), even if the Chair has not yet conferred 
recognition for debate (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 30.5; May 17, 2012, 
p. 7084). Where time has been yielded under the hour rule solely for the 
purpose of debate, the Chair may take cognizance of the majority 
manager's refusal to yield for a unanimous-consent request for the 
consideration or disposition of another measure, and need not verify 
such refusal in each instance (Mar. 26, 2014, p. 4864; Aug. 1, 2014, p. 
13979; July 7, 2016, p. 10565; Sept. 14, 2016, p. 12674; Jan. 31, 2017, 
p. 1428; Sept. 6, 2017, p. _). Even if a request is not entertained 
under these strictures, a unanimous-consent request embellished with 
oratory constitutes debate and can become an imposition on the time of 
the manager who yielded (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14979; Jan. 15, 2014, p. 706; 
Mar. 26, 2014, p. 4864; Aug. 1, 2014, p. 13979; July 7, 2016, p. 10570; 
Sept. 14, 2016, p. 12675; Sept. 6, 2017, p. _).


  The Member who introduces a bill has no claim to recognition as 
opposed to members of the reporting committee, but in cases in which a 
proposition is brought directly before the House the mover is entitled 
to prior recognition for motions and debate (II, 1446, 1454; VI, 302-
305, 417; VIII, 2454, 3231). This principle applies to the makers of 
certain motions. Thus, the Member on whose motion the enacting clause of 
a bill is stricken in the Committee of the Whole is entitled to prior 
recognition when the bill is reported to the House (V, 5337; VIII, 
2629). Where a Member raises an objection in a joint session to count 
the electoral vote, and the Houses separate to consider the objection, 
the Chair first recognizes that Member (III, 1956; Jan. 6, 2005, p. 
199), a co-signer of the objection (Jan. 6, 1969, pp. 145-7), or another 
Member in support of the objection (Jan. 6, 2021, p. _). But a Member 
may not, by offering a debatable motion of higher privilege than the 
pending motion, deprive the Member in charge of the bill of possession 
of the floor for debate (II, 1460-1463; VI, 290, 297-299; VIII, 2454, 
3193, 3197, 3259). The Member in charge of the bill and having the floor 
may demand the previous question, although another Member may propose to 
offer a motion of higher privilege (VIII, 2684); but the motion of 
higher privilege must be put before the previous question (V, 5480; 
VIII, 2684). When the House establishes a special order for 
consideration of a measure, only a manager identified by the terms of 
that order is recognized to call up the measure (Deschler, ch. 21, 
Sec. 1.25; Jan. 18, 2007, p. 1624). The Member who has been recognized 
to call up a measure in the House has priority of recognition to move 
the previous question thereon, even over the chair of the committee 
reporting that measure (Oct. 1, 1986, p. 27468).

  The fact that a Member has the floor on one matter does not 
necessarily entitle the Member to prior recognition on a motion relating 
to another matter (II, 1464). It is because the Speaker is governed by 
these usages that the Speaker often asks a Member seeking recognition, 
``For what purpose does the gentleman (or gentlewoman) seek 
recognition?''. By this question the Speaker determines whether the 
Member proposes business or a motion that is entitled to precedence, and 
may deny recognition (VI, 289-291, 293; Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-
78; Speaker Wright, Feb. 17, 1988, p. 1583; Feb. 27, 1992, p. 3656). For 
example, a Member's mere revelation that the Member seeks to offer a 
motion to adjourn does not suffice to render that motion ``pending,'' 
and thus the Chair remains able to declare a short recess under clause 
12 of rule I (Oct. 28, 1997, p. 23524; June 25, 2003, p. 16241; July 13, 
2009, p. 17493). There is no appeal from such denial of recognition (II, 
1425; VI, 292; VIII, 2429, 2646, 2762; Feb. 27, 1992, p. 3656). Where 
the Chair confers recognition solely for the reading of a matter and not 
for debate, the Member so recognized may not yield to another for debate 
(Jan. 6, 2011, p. 140). Recognition for parliamentary inquiry lies in 
the discretion of the Chair (VI, 541; Mar. 23, 2007, p. 7420, p. 7423), 
who may take a parliamentary inquiry under advisement (VIII, 2174), 
especially if not related to the pending proceedings (Apr. 7, 1992, p. 
8273).

  The Chair may follow a tradition of the House to allow the highest 
ranking party leaders (Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader) 
additional time to make their remarks in debate (Precedents (Wickham), 
ch. 3, Sec. Sec. 6.18, 6.19), regardless of the party of the yielding 
Member (Dec. 2, 2021, p. _), and only the nominal time yielded for such 
debate is charged to the manager (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, 
Sec. Sec. 6.20, 6.21). With regard to recognition for such additional 
time, the Chair has refused to espouse a hypothetical outer limit (June 
26, 2009, p. 16734) and to announce the amount of time consumed 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 6.20; May 27, 2010, p. 9686).



Sec. 954. Loss of right to recognition by Member in 
charge.

  When  an essential motion made by the Member in charge of a bill is 
decided adversely, the right to prior recognition passes to the Member 
whom the Speaker perceives to be leading the opposition to the motion 
(II, 1465-1468; VI, 308). Under this principle control of a measure 
passes when the House disagrees to a recommendation of the committee 
reporting the measure (II, 1469-1472) or when the Committee of the Whole 
reports the measure adversely (IV, 4897; VIII, 2430). Similarly, this 
principle applies when a motion for the previous question is rejected 
(VI, 308). However, a Member who led the opposition to ordering the 
previous question may be preempted by a motion of higher precedence 
(Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-78). On the other hand, the mere defeat 
of an amendment proposed by the Member in charge does not cause the 
right to prior recognition to pass to an opponent (II, 1478, 1479).


  Rejection of a conference report after the previous question has been 
ordered thereon does not cause recognition to pass to a Member opposed 
to the report, and the manager retains control to offer the initial 
motion to dispose of amendments in disagreement (Speaker Albert, May 1, 
1975, p. 12761). Similarly, the invalidation of a conference report on a 
point of order, which is equivalent to its rejection by the House, does 
not give the Member raising the question of order the right to the floor 
(VIII, 3284) and exerts no effect on the right to recognition (VI, 313). 
In most cases, when the House refuses to order the previous question on 
a conference report, it then rejects the report (II, 1473-1477; V, 
6396). However, control of a Senate amendment reported from conference 
in disagreement passes to an opponent when the House rejects a motion to 
dispose thereof (Aug. 6, 1993, p. 19582).

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



Sec. 955. Prior right of Members to recognition for 
debate.

  In  debate the members of the committee--except the Committee of 
the Whole (II, 1453)--are entitled to priority of recognition for debate 
(II, 1438, 1448; VI, 306, 307), but a motion to lay a proposition on the 
table is in order before the Member entitled to prior recognition for 
debate has begun remarks (V, 5391-5395; VI, 412; VIII, 2649, 2650).


  In recognizing for debate under general House rules the Chair 
alternates between those favoring and those opposing the pending matter, 
preferring members of the committee reporting the bill (II, 1439-1444). 
Where debate time is divided and controlled by a majority manager and a 
minority manager, the Chair has discretion to alternate recognition 
between the two (July 7, 2016, p. 10570). When a member of a committee 
has occupied the floor in favor of a measure the Chair attempts to 
recognize a Member opposing next, even though not a member of the 
committee (II, 1445). The principle of alternation is not insisted on 
rigidly where a limited time is controlled by Members, as in the 40 
minutes of debate on motions for suspension of the rules and the 
previous question (II, 1442).




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

  As  to motions to suspend the rules, the Speaker 
exercises discretion in recognition (V, 6791-6794, 6845; VIII, 3402-
3404). The Speaker also may decline to recognize a Member who desires to 
ask unanimous consent to set aside the rules in order to consider a bill 
not otherwise in order, this being the way of signifying objection to 
the request. But this authority did not extend to the former Consent 
Calendar. The Chair has declined to entertain a unanimous-consent 
request to print a separate volume of tributes given in memory of a 
deceased former Member absent concurrence of the Joint Committee on 
Printing (Aug. 1, 1996, p. 21247). The Speaker has announced and 
enforced a policy of conferring recognition for unanimous-consent 
requests for the consideration of certain legislation only when assured 
that the majority and minority floor and committee leaderships have no 
objection. This policy includes: (1) requests relating to reported 
measures (July 23, 1993, p. 16820; Feb. 10, 2011, p. 1476) and 
unreported measures (see, e.g., Dec. 15, 1981, p. 31590; Nov. 16, 1983, 
p. 33138; Jan. 25, 1984, p. 354; Jan. 26, 1984, p. 449; Jan. 31, 1984, 
p. 1063; Feb. 4, 1987, p. 2675; Jan. 3, 1989, p. 89; Jan. 3, 1991, p. 
64; Jan. 5, 1993, p. 106; Apr. 4, 1995, p. 10297; Mar. 20, 2010, p. 
4033; Mar. 5, 2013, p. 2331; Dec. 18, 2015, p. 21534); (2) requests for 
immediate consideration of matters (separately unreported) comprising a 
portion of a measure already passed by the House (Dec. 19, 1985, p. 
38356); (3) requests to consider a motion to suspend the rules and pass 
an unreported bill on a former nonsuspension day (Aug. 12, 1986, p. 
21126) or a former suspension day (Feb. 1, 2012, p. 690; Mar. 30, 1998, 
p. 5153); (4) requests to permit consideration of (nongermane) 
amendments to bills (Nov. 14, 1991, p. 32083; Dec. 20, 1995, p. 37877; 
June 27, 2002, p. 11838); (5) requests to permit expedited consideration 
of measures on subsequent days, as by waiving the requirement that a 
bill be referred to committee for 30 legislative days before a motion to 
discharge may be presented under clause 2 of rule XV (formerly clause 3 
of rule XXVII) (June 9, 1992, p. 13900); (6) requests relating to 
Senate-passed bills on the Speaker's table (Oct. 25, 1995, p. 29347; 
Jan. 3, 1996, p. 58; Aug. 2, 1999, p. 18942), including one identical to 
a House-passed bill (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 799) and a Senate concurrent 
resolution to correct an enrollment (Oct. 20, 1998, p. 27358); (7) 
requests to dispose of Senate amendments to House bills on the Speaker's 
table (Jan. 4, 1996, pp. 200, 210; Nov. 22, 2002, p. 23510; Oct. 1, 
2013, p. 14876; Oct. 4, 2013, p. 15196, p. 15204; Oct. 12, 2013, p. 
15788). The Speaker will recognize for an ``omnibus'' unanimous-consent 
request (one request disposing of various measures) only when assured 
that the request, and each constituent part of the request, has been 
cleared under this policy (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 18.22; Oct. 
16, 2002, p. 20765; Nov. 14, 2002, p. 22513). The Speaker's enforcement 
of this policy is not subject to appeal (Apr. 4, 1995, p. 10298) and is 
a matter of discretionary recognition in the first instance (Sept. 27, 
2006, p. 20065). ``Floor leadership'' in this context has been construed 
to apply only to the Minority Leader and not to the entire hierarchy of 
minority leadership, where the Chair had been assured that the Minority 
Leader had been consulted (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 6.22). It 
is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to indicate which 
side of the aisle has failed under the Speaker's guidelines to clear a 
unanimous-consent request (Feb. 1, 1996, p. 2260; Nov. 22, 2002, p. 
23510; Oct. 11, 2013, pp. 15713, 15714; Oct. 12, 2013, p. 15788; Feb. 6, 
2019, p. _; July 1, 2021, p. _), but the Chair may indicate cognizance 
of a source of objection for the Record (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 799). The 
Chair will not issue an advisory opinion on whether an amendment would 
be germane to a given proposition for purposes of obtaining clearances 
under this policy (Mar. 21, 2010, p. 4172). With respect to unanimous-
consent requests to dispose of Senate amendments to House bills on the 
Speaker's table, the Chair will entertain such a request only if made by 
the chair of the committee with jurisdiction, or by another committee 
member authorized to make the request (Apr. 26, 1984, p. 10194; Feb. 4, 
1987, p. 2675; Jan. 3, 1996, p. 86; Jan. 4, 1996, pp. 200, 210; 
Deschler, ch. 21, Sec. 1.23). For a discussion of recognition for 
unanimous-consent requests to vary procedures in the Committee of the 
Whole governed by a special order adopted by the House, see 
Sec. Sec. 993a, 993b, infra.





Sec. 957. The hour rule in debate.

  2.  * * * A Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not occupy more than one hour in 
debate on a question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union except as otherwise provided in this rule.


  This provision (formerly clause 2 of rule XIV) dates from 1841, when 
the increase of membership had made it necessary to prevent the making 
of long speeches that sometimes occupied three or four hours each (V, 
4978). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47).


Managing debate
  This provision applies to debate on a question of privilege, as well 
as to debate on other questions (V, 4990; VIII, 2448). When the time for 
debate has been placed within the control of those representing the two 
sides of a question, it must be assigned to Members in accordance with 
this rule (V, 5004, 5005; VIII, 2462). A Member recognized to call up a 
privileged resolution may yield the floor upon expiration of the hour 
without moving the previous question, thereby permitting another Member 
to be recognized for a successive hour (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27838). Under 
this clause a Member recognized for one hour for a ``special-order'' 
speech in the House may not extend that time, even by unanimous consent 
(Feb. 9, 1966, p. 2794; July 12, 1971, pp. 24594, 24603; Oct. 23, 1997, 
p. 23254). The Chair has advised that the Member in charge of measure 
would be recognized for unanimous-consent requests to enlarge the time 
for debate (Feb. 4, 2009, p. 2698; Feb. 13, 2009, p. 4140). In the 104th 
Congress the Speaker announced the intention to strictly enforce time 
limitations on debate (Jan. 4, 1995, pp. 457-552). The Chair has 
announced that the Chair would accommodate as many unanimous-consent 
requests to insert remarks in debate as necessary provided they comprise 
a simple, declarative statement (not multiple statements (July 11, 2013, 
p. 11317)) of the Member's attitude toward the pending measure; however, 
any embellishment of such a request with other oratory may become an 
imposition on the time of the Member who yielded for that purpose (see, 
e.g., Mar. 24, 1995, p. 9215; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.27; 
May 9, 2003, p. 11039; Nov. 21, 2003, p. 30793; Nov. 7, 2009, p. 27192; 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.30; Oct. 13, 2011, pp. 15520, 
15521; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.28; May 4, 2017, p. _). The 
Chair evaluates each request individually to determine whether it 
constitutes debate (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.28) and the 
decision of the Chair is subject to appeal (July 11, 2013, p. 11323-24, 
p. 11406, p. 11410-11). The Chair exercises discretion in determining 
whether to deduct time from the yielding manager (Precedents (Wickham), 
ch. 5, Sec. 21.13) and it is not a proper motion that the time deducted 
for such debate be restored to the yielding Member (July 11, 2013, p. 
11321, p. 11329). Similarly, a unanimous-consent request for the 
consideration or disposition of a measure that is embellished with 
oratory constitutes debate and may become an imposition on the time of 
the manager who yielded for that purpose (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14979; Jan. 
15, 2014, p. 706; Mar. 26, 2014, p. 4864; Aug. 1, 2014, p. 13979; July 
7, 2016, p. 10570; Sept. 14, 2016, p. 12675; Sept. 6, 2017, p. _).



958. The opening and closing of general debate.

  3. (a)  The 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who calls up a measure may 
open and close debate thereon. When general debate extends beyond one 
day, that Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall be entitled 
to one hour to close without regard to the time used in opening.




Sec. 959. Member to speak but once to the same question; 
right to close controlled debate.

  (b)  Except as provided in paragraph (a), 
a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not speak more than 
once to the same question without leave of the House.



  (c) A manager of a measure who opposes an amendment thereto is 
entitled to close controlled debate thereon.

  Paragraph (a) was adopted in 1847 and perfected in 1880 (V, 4996). 
Paragraph (b) was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1840 (V, 4991). Before 
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraph (a) was 
found in former clause 3 of rule XIV and paragraph (b) was found in 
former clause 6 of rule XIV. The recodification also added paragraph (c) 
to codify modern practice (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This clause 
applies to general debate in the Committee of the Whole (Mar. 26, 1985, 
p. 6283).

  Where a special order of business allocates control of debate to 
specified Members, another may not separately claim time on the basis of 
opposition (Dec. 16, 2010, p. 22417). In response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, the Chair advised that a manager of controlled debate may yield 
time to a Member from the other party, but that any Member to whom a 
block of time was yielded may not control that time (Oct. 9, 2015, pp. 
15999, 16000). For further discussion of management of time for general 
debate and for debate on amendments in the Committee of the Whole, see 
Sec. 978, infra.

  A Member who has spoken once to the main question may speak again to 
an amendment (V, 4993, 4994). It is too late to make the point of order 
that a Member has spoken already after that Member has begun speaking 
(V, 4992). Paragraph (b) is often circumscribed by modern practice and 
by special orders of business that vest control of debate in designated 
Members and permit them to yield more than once to other Members, and a 
Member controlling debate under the hour rule may yield more than once 
to the same Member (Apr. 5, 2000, p. 4497; Oct. 18, 2007, p. 27575). For 
a discussion of the right of a Member to speak more than once under the 
five-minute rule, see Sec. 981, infra. See also Sec. 357, supra.

  A majority manager of the bill who represents the primary committee of 
jurisdiction is entitled to close general debate; for example, as 
against another manager representing an additional committee of 
jurisdiction (May 13, 1998, p. 9042, 9050); or as against the subject of 
a disciplinary resolution (July 24, 2002, p. 14313). If an order of the 
House divides debate on an unreported measure among four Members, the 
Chair will recognize for closing speeches in the reverse order of the 
original allocation (Mar. 24, 1999, p. 5454). If a special order of the 
House allocates time for debate, which is further fractionalized under a 
later order by unanimous consent, the Chair recognizes for closing 
speeches in the reverse order of their original recognitions, concluding 
with the Member who opened the debate (e.g., Mar. 17, 2011, p. 4399). 
This is true even when the manager who opened debate is opposed, as in 
the case of a measure reported adversely (July 22, 1998, p. 16726; July 
27, 1999, p. 18012; June 21, 2000, pp. 11704, 11721; July 26, 2000, p. 
16437). In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair advised that 
time unused by a minority manager in general debate is considered as 
yielded back upon recognition of the majority manager to close general 
debate (Feb. 27, 2002, p. 2059). A Member may yield a final amount of 
time to another for purposes of closing (Mar. 17, 2011, p. 4399).

  The right to close may not be exercised after the previous question 
has been ordered (V, 4997-5000). The right to close does not belong to a 
Member who has merely moved to reconsider the vote on a bill where not a 
member of the reporting committee (V, 4995). The right of a contestant 
in an election case to close when permitted to speak in the contest has 
been a matter of discussion (V, 5001).

  As codified in paragraph (c), the manager of a bill or other 
representative of the committee and not the proponent of an amendment 
has the right to close controlled debate on an amendment (VIII, 2581; 
July 16, 1981, p. 16043; Apr. 4, 1984, p. 7841; June 5, 1985, p. 14302; 
July 10, 1985, p. 18496; Oct. 24, 1985, p. 28824; May 2, 1988, p. 9638; 
May 5, 1988, p. 9961), including the minority manager (June 29, 1984, p. 
20253; Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21660; July 26, 1989, p. 16403; Oct. 27, 1997, 
p. 23212; July 26, 2002, p. 14972) and including the manager of a 
measure that was reported adversely (Feb. 13, 2002, p. 1355). This is so 
even if the manager is also the proponent of a pending amendment to the 
amendment (Mar. 16, 1983, p. 5792). The Chair will assume that the 
manager of a measure is representing the committee of jurisdiction even 
if the measure called up is unreported (Apr. 15, 1996, p. 7421; July 24, 
1998, p. 17263), if an unreported compromise text is made in order as 
original text in lieu of committee amendments (Oct. 19, 1995, p. 28650), 
or if the committee reported the measure without recommendation (Feb. 
12, 1997, pp. 2108, 2109). If the pending text includes a provision 
recommended by a committee of sequential referral, a member of that 
committee is entitled to close debate in opposition to an amendment 
thereto (June 15, 1989, pp. 12084-87). If the rule providing for the 
consideration of a measure assigns a managerial role by vesting control 
of debate: (1) in named Members who do not serve on a committee of 
jurisdiction of an unreported measure (Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19325); or (2) 
of a reported measure, in a committee other than one of referral (Feb. 
15, 2012, p. 1642), those managers are entitled to close controlled 
debate in opposition to an amendment thereto. The majority manager of 
the bill will be recognized to control time in opposition to an 
amendment thereto, without regard to the party affiliation of the 
proponent, where the special order allocated control to ``a Member 
opposed'' (May 13, 1998, p. 9110). The right to close debate in 
opposition to an amendment devolves to a member of the committee of 
jurisdiction who derived debate time by unanimous consent from a manager 
who originally had the right to close debate (Sept. 10, 1998, pp. 19961-
63). Such right to close may not devolve to the manager of a bill who 
derived debate time by unanimous consent from a non-committee Member 
controlling time in opposition because that right may be transferred 
only where there has been an unbroken line of committee affiliation in 
opposition to the amendment (July 17, 2003, pp. 18585-87). The proponent 
of a first-degree amendment who controls time in opposition to a second-
degree amendment that favors the original bill over the first-degree 
amendment does not qualify as a ``manager'' within the meaning of 
paragraph (c) (June 15, 2000, pp. 11040, 11047).


Call to order
  The proponent of an amendment may close controlled debate if: neither 
a committee representative nor a Member assigned a managerial role by 
the governing special order oppose the amendment (Aug. 15, 1986, p. 
22057; May 6, 1998, pp. 8307, 8316; May 13, 1998, p. 9092; July 14, 
1998, p. 15321; July 17, 2003, pp. 18585-87); a committee representative 
is allocated control of time in opposition to an amendment not by 
recognition from the Chair but by unanimous-consent request of a third 
Member who was allocated the time by the Chair (July 24, 1997, pp. 
15684, 15685, 15689); no representative from the reporting committee 
opposes an amendment to a multijurisdictional bill (Mar. 9, 1995, p. 
7467); the measure is unreported and has no ``manager'' under the terms 
of a special rule (Apr. 24, 1985, p. 9206); a measure is being managed 
by a single reporting committee and the Member controlling time in 
opposition, though a member of the committee having jurisdiction over 
the amendment, does not represent the reporting committee (Nov. 9, 1995, 
p. 31964); a Member is recognized by unanimous consent to control time 
otherwise reserved for an opponent (e.g., Mar. 8, 2012, p. 3162; July 
23, 2014, p. 12747).



960. The call to order for words spoken in 
debate.

  4. (a)  If a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, in speaking 
or otherwise, transgresses the Rules of the House, the Speaker shall, or 
a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may, call to order the 
offending Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, who shall 
immediately sit down unless permitted on motion of another Member, 
Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner to explain. If a Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner is called to order, the Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner making the call to order shall 
indicate the words excepted to, which shall be taken down in writing at 
the Clerk's desk and read aloud to the House.



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

  The first sentence of paragraph (a) and all but the last sentence of 
paragraph (b) (formerly clause 4 of rule XIV) were adopted in 1789 and 
amended in 1822 and 1880 (V, 5175). The last sentence of paragraph (a) 
and the last sentence of paragraph (b) (formerly clause 5 of rule XIV) 
were adopted in 1837 and amended in 1880, although the practice of 
writing down objectionable words had been established in 1808. When the 
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, it consolidated former 
clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV into a single clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47).



Sec. 961. Words taken down and other calls to order 
for unparliamentary debate.

  Members  transgressing the rules of debate and 
decorum may be called to order by the Speaker (VIII, 2481, 2521, 3479), 
a Member (II, 1344; V, 5154, 5161-5163, 5175, 5192), or a Delegate (II, 
1295). A Member may initiate a call to order either by making a point of 
order that a Member is transgressing the rules or by formally demanding 
that words be taken down under this clause (Sept. 12, 1996, pp. 22897, 
22899; Sept. 17, 1996, p. 23426; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; Sept. 25, 
1996, p. 24759). A Member's comportment in debate may constitute a 
breach of decorum even though the content of the Member's speech is not, 
itself, unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Except for naming the 
offending Member, the Speaker may not otherwise censure or punish the 
Member (II, 1345; VI, 237; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; see also Sec. 366, 
supra). The House may by proper motions under this clause dictate the 
consequences of a ruling by the Chair that a Member was out of order 
(May 26, 1983, p. 14048). As an exercise of recognition, the Chair's 
determination that a Member's time in debate has expired is not subject 
to appeal (Mar. 22, 1996 p. 6086; see also Sec. Sec. 622, 629, supra). 
Furthermore, a Member speaking while not under recognition (as when 
speaking beyond the allotted time) is not entitled to in-House 
amplification (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.13; see also 
Sec. 684, supra).


  As discussed in Sec. 374, supra, it is customary for the Chair to 
initiate the call to order of a Member who engages in personality in 
debate with respect to Members of the Senate, including an insertion in 
the Record (Speaker Albert, Apr. 17, 1975, p. 10458; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.16; Feb. 27, 1997, pp. 2784, 2785). On the 
other hand, it is customary for the Chair to await an initiative from 
the floor to call to order a Member who engages in personality in debate 
with respect to another Member of the House (June 29, 1987, p. 18072; 
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Feb. 27, 1997, pp. 2784, 2785). The Chair may take 
initiative to call to order a Member engaging in verbal outburst either 
following expiration of recognition for debate (Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081) 
or during recognition of another Member (June 5, 2003, p. 13884). The 
Chair may order the offending Member to be seated (June 5, 2003, p. 
13884) or may deny further recognition, subject to the will of the House 
on the question of proceeding in order (Speaker O'Neill, June 16, 1982, 
p. 13843; July 29, 1994, p. 18609; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535). The Chair 
may admonish a Member for words spoken in debate and request that they 
be removed from the Record even before a demand that the words be taken 
down (Sept. 24, 1992, p. 27345).

  This clause (formerly clause 5) prohibits the taking down of words 
after intervening business (V, 5177; VIII, 2536; Sept. 16, 1991, p. 
23032; Mar. 28, 1996, p. 6934) and the Chair's ruling in that regard is 
subject to appeal (Jan. 22, 2007, p. 1899). However, a Member seeking 
recognition at the appropriate time may yet be recognized to demand that 
words be taken down even though brief debate may have intervened, as 
long as the request is contemporaneous with the objectionable words 
(July 16, 2019, p. _; Jan. 6, 2021, p. _), and a request that a Member 
uttering objectionable words yield does not forfeit the right to demand 
that the words be taken down (VIII, 2528). Action taken by the Chair to 
determine whether a point of order from the floor is intended as a 
demand that words be taken down is not such intervening debate or 
business as would render the demand untimely (Oct. 2, 1984, p. 28522). 
Similarly, a parliamentary inquiry concerning the propriety of words 
just spoken in debate does not render untimely a demand that the words 
be taken down as unparliamentary (May 6, 2004, p. 8554). However, an 
improper parliamentary inquiry concerning the substantive content of the 
words does render untimely such demand (July 20, 2005, pp. 16653, 
16654). Although under this clause a Member may not be held to answer a 
call to order if further debate or business has intervened, the Chair 
may under clause 2 of rule I generally admonish Members to preserve 
proper decorum even after intervening debate (Dec. 5, 2001, p. 24002; 
Apr. 27, 2016, p. 5191). For instances in which the Chair admonished 
Members for improper references to the Senate after brief intervening 
debate, see Sec. 371, supra.

  While a demand that a Member's words be taken down is pending, that 
Member should be seated immediately (July 29, 1994, p. 18609; Jan. 25, 
1995, p. 2352; Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045; Dec. 14, 2021, p. _), and no 
Member may engage the Chair until the demand has been disposed of (Nov. 
9, 1995, p. 31913; Nov. 14, 1995, p. 32472). If two Members 
consecutively demand that each other's words be taken down as 
unparliamentary, the Chair advises both Members to be seated and then 
directs the Clerk to report the first words objected to (June 19, 1996, 
p. 14655). An offending Member may be directed by the Chair to be seated 
even if a formal demand that the Member's words be taken down is not 
pending; for example, if a Member declines to proceed in order at the 
directive of the Chair after points of order have been sustained against 
unparliamentary references in debate, the Chair may, under rule I and 
this rule, deny the Member further recognition as a disposition of the 
question of order, subject to the will of the House on the question of 
proceeding in order (Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22900; Sept. 17, 1996, p. 23427; 
Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; see also Sec. 366, supra).

  The Chair may entertain a unanimous-consent request to withdraw or 
modify words taken down either before (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, 
Sec. 51.1) or after (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 51.2) the words have 
been reported to the House (VIII, 2528, 2538, 2540, 2543, 2544; July 16, 
1998, p. 15827; June 28, 2000, pp. 12771, 12776). Unanimous consent is 
not required for a Member to withdraw a demand that words be taken down 
before a ruling by the Chair (June 18, 1986, p. 14232).

  The words having been read from the desk, the Chair decides whether 
they are in order (II, 1249; V, 5163, 5169, 5187) as read by the Clerk 
and not as otherwise alleged to have been uttered (June 9, 1992, p. 
13902). When a Member denies that the words taken down are the exact 
words used, the question as to the words is put to the House for 
decision (V, 5179, 5180). Where demands are made to take down words both 
as spoken in a one-minute speech and as reiterated when the offending 
Member is permitted by unanimous consent to explain, the Chair may rule 
simultaneously on both (July 25, 1996, p. 19170). A decision of the 
Chair on words taken down is subject to appeal (Sept. 28, 1996, p. 
25780; Apr. 9, 2003, p. 9005).

  The rule permits a motion that an offending Member be permitted to 
explain before the Chair rules on the words taken down, and the Chair 
has discretion to ask for explanation before ruling on the words (Feb. 
1, 1940, p. 954). The Chair also may recognize an offending Member, 
permitted by unanimous consent, to explain words ruled out of order 
(Nov. 10, 1971, p. 40442).

  If words taken down are ruled out of order, the Member loses the floor 
(V, 5196-5199; Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352; Apr. 17, 1997, p. 5832; Mar. 7, 
2012, p. 3045; Dec. 14, 2021, p. _) and may not proceed on the same day 
without the permission of the House (Jan. 29, 1946, p. 533; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.1; Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352), even on yielded 
time (V, 5147), and may not insert unspoken remarks in the Record (Jan. 
25, 1995, p. 2352), but still may exercise the right to vote or to 
demand the yeas and nays (VIII, 2546). The ruling does not take the 
issue off the floor, and other Members may proceed to debate the same 
subject (July 25, 1996, p. 19170; Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045). The offending 
Member will not lose the floor if the House permits the Member to 
proceed in order (see, e.g., Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.6), 
which motion may be stated on the initiative of the Chair (Oct. 8, 1991, 
p. 25757; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9676; July 25, 1996, p. 19170; June 13, 
2002, p. 10232) or offered by any Member (July 25, 1996, p. 19172; Mar. 
21, 2007, p. 7074). The motion is not inconsistent with the immediate 
consequence of the call to order because this clause (formerly clause 4) 
also permits the House to determine the extent of the sanction for a 
given breach (Oct. 10, 1991, p. 26102). The motion is debatable within 
narrow limits of relevance under the hour rule, and consequently also is 
subject to the motion to lay on the table (Speaker Foley, Oct. 8, 1991, 
p. 25757).

  Where a Member has been called to order not in response to a formal 
demand that words be taken down but in response to a point of order, the 
former practice was to test the opinion of the House by a motion ``that 
the gentleman be allowed to proceed in order'' (V, 5188, 5189; VIII, 
2534). Under the modern practice the Chair either may invite the 
offending Member to proceed in order (see, e.g., Sept. 12, 1996, p. 
22898) or, particularly if admonitions have been ignored, may deny the 
Member recognition for the balance of the time for which recognized, 
subject to the will of the House, as by a vote on the question whether 
the Member should be permitted to proceed in order (Sept. 12, 1996, p. 
22899; Sept. 17, 1996, p. 23426; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; Sept. 25, 
1996, p. 24759).

  Words taken down and ruled out of order by the Chair are subject to a 
motion that they be stricken or expunged from the Record. This motion 
has precedence (VIII, 2538-2541; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 22.1). Unanimous consent to expunge such words often is granted 
upon the initiative of the Chair (May 10, 1990, p. 9992; June 13, 2002, 
p. 10232), and is debatable within narrow limits (VIII, 2539; Speaker 
Martin, June 12, 1947, p. 6896). However, the motion may not be 
entertained in the Committee of the Whole (Feb. 18, 1941, p. 1126) or 
offered by the Member called to order (Feb. 11, 1941, pp. 894, 899).

  When disorderly words are spoken in the Committee of the Whole, they 
are taken down and read at the Clerk's desk, and the Committee rises 
automatically (VIII, 2533, 2538, 2539) and reports them to the House 
(II, 1257-1259, 1348). Action in the House on words reported from the 
Committee of the Whole is limited to the words reported (VIII, 2528), 
and it is not in order as a question of privilege in the House to 
propose censure of a Member for disorderly words spoken in the Committee 
of the Whole but not reported therefrom (V, 5202). After words reported 
to the House from Committee of the Whole have been disposed of (by 
decision of the Chair and any associated action by the House), the 
Committee resumes its sitting without motion (VIII, 2539, 2541).

  The House has censured a Member for disorderly words (II, 1253, 1254, 
1259, 1305; VI, 236). The House has proceeded to consider censure or 
other action although business may have intervened in certain 
exceptional cases, such as when disorderly words are part of an 
occurrence constituting a breach of privilege (II, 1657), when a 
Member's language has been investigated by a committee (II, 1655), when 
a Member has reiterated on the floor certain published charges (III, 
2637), when a Member has uttered words alleged to be treasonable (II, 
1252), or when a Member has uttered an attack on the Speaker (II, 1248; 
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Jan. 19, 1995, p. 1599).


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




962. Decorum of Members in the Hall.

  5.  When the Speaker is 
putting a question or addressing the House, a Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner may not exit or cross the Hall. When a Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner is speaking, a Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner may not pass between the person speaking and the 
Chair. During the session of the House, a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner may not wear non-religious headdress or a hat or remain by 
the Clerk's desk during the call of the roll or the counting of ballots. 
A person on the floor of the House may not smoke or use a mobile 
electronic device that impairs decorum. The Sergeant-at-Arms is charged 
with the strict enforcement of this clause.


  Until the 104th Congress this clause (formerly clause 7 of rule XIV) 
was made up of provisions adopted in 1789, 1837, 1871, and 1896. In the 
104th Congress a reference to the former Doorkeeper was deleted and a 
prohibition against using any personal electronic office equipment was 
added (secs. 201, 223, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, pp. 463, 469). However, 
that prohibition was modified in the 108th Congress to cover only a 
wireless telephone or personal computer (sec. 2(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 
2003, p. 7) and again in the 112th Congress to cover any mobile 
electronic device that impairs decorum (sec. 2(e)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 
2011, p. 80). In the 115th Congress, the first sentence was amended to 
replace a mobility-based reference (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, 
p. 37). In the 116th Congress, the rule was amended to codify an 
exemption for religious headdress (sec. 102(x), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, 
p. _). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 7 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47). The Chair may enlist the Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce a 
breach of this clause (Sept. 17, 1997, p. 19027; Precedents (Wickham), 
ch. 6, Sec. 15.7; June 22, 2018, p. _).

  Originally Members wore their hats during sessions, as in Parliament, 
and the custom was not abolished until 1837 (II, 1136). The prohibition 
against Members wearing non-religious headdress or hats in the Chamber 
while the House is in session includes doffing a hat in tribute to a 
group (Speaker Foley, June 22, 1993, p. 13569; June 10, 1996, p. 13560) 
and the donning of a hood (Mar. 28, 2012, pp. 4361, 4362), but in the 
116th Congress, the Speaker announced that discretion would be applied 
in enforcing the prohibition with respect to hats or head coverings worn 
out of medical necessity (Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). In the 96th Congress the 
Speaker announced that he considered as proper the customary and 
traditional attire for Members, including a coat and tie for male 
Members and appropriate attire for female Members (where thermostat 
controls had been raised in the summer to conserve energy); the House 
then adopted a resolution, offered as a question of the privileges of 
the House, requiring Members to wear proper attire as determined by the 
Speaker, and denying noncomplying Members the privilege of the floor 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.2). In the 106th, 109th, and 112th 
through 116th Congresses Members were reminded of the need to be in 
proper attire in the Chamber (June 28, 2000, p. 12654; June 20, 2006, p. 
11895; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 26, 
2013, p. 1680; July 31, 2013, p. 12804; Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, 
p. 4783; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, p. 2553; Speaker Ryan, June 23, 
2017, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Mar. 10, 2020, p. _), and the Chair has so 
admonished a Member speaking in debate without a jacket (Apr. 3, 2001, 
p. 5361) and has withdrawn recognition of a Member not wearing proper 
attire (Mar. 28, 2012, p. 4361). The donning of a distinctive uniform of 
another occupation is not proper (Oct. 20, 2009, p. 25164). In the 97th 
Congress, the Speaker announced during a vote by electronic device that 
Members were not permitted under the traditions of the House to wear 
overcoats on the House floor (Dec. 16, 1981, p. 31847).

  Pursuant to the modification of this clause in the 112th Congress, the 
Speaker has announced that mobile electronic devices that impair decorum 
include wireless telephones and personal computers, but that electronic 
tablet devices may be used unobtrusively in the Chamber (Speaker 
Boehner, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 106), although no device may be used for still 
photography or for audio or video recording (Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5, 
2011, p. 106; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, p. 2553; June 23, 2016, p. 
9862; Speaker Ryan, June 23, 2017, p. _). The display of an image on an 
electronic device while not under recognition impairs decorum (Mar. 13, 
2014, p. 4393). The Chair has also announced that Members should disable 
wireless telephones on entering the Chamber (e.g., June 12, 2000, p. 
10369). The Chair has cited this clause in prohibiting the use of a 
mobile telephone to play audio on the House floor (June 22, 2018, p. _).

  Smoking is not permitted in the Hall during sessions of the House 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.20), nor during sittings of the 
Committee of the Whole (Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21707); and the prohibition 
extends to smoking behind the rail (Feb. 23, 1995, p. 5640).

  On the opening day of the 101st Congress, the Speaker prefaced his 
customary announcement of policies concerning such aspects of the 
legislative process as recognition for unanimous-consent requests and 
privileges of the floor with a general statement concerning decorum in 
the House, including particular adjurations against engaging in 
personalities, addressing remarks to spectators, and passing in front of 
the Member addressing the Chair (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 88; see also Jan. 5, 
1993, p. 105; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551). The Chair has announced: (1) that 
Members should not traffic, or linger in, the well of the House while 
another Member is speaking (Feb. 3, 1995, p. 3541; Mar. 3, 1995, p. 
6721; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37111; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 179), 
including Members who may have been invited to the well by the Member 
speaking (June 12, 2003, p. 14627; July 7, 2016, p. 10558); (2) that 
Members should not engage in disruption while another Member is speaking 
(Dec. 20, 1995, p. 37878), including shouting interjections during 
debate (Feb. 28, 1995, p. 6259; Feb. 13, 2009, p. 4136; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 4.3; Oct. 11, 2011, p. 15117). Mass presence of 
Members in the well while not under recognition constitutes a breach of 
decorum (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.1). Under this provision 
the Chair may require a line of Members waiting to sign a discharge 
petition to proceed to the rostrum from the far right-hand aisle and 
require the line not to form between the Chair and Members engaging in 
debate (Oct. 24, 1997, p. 23293).

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


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




963. Objections to use of exhibits.

  6.  When the use of an 
exhibit in debate is objected to by a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner, the Chair, in the discretion of the Chair, may submit the 
question of its use to the House without debate.


  This provision was rewritten in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 
1993, p. 49) to address the use of exhibits in debate rather than the 
reading from papers. As rewritten in the 103d Congress, an objection to 
the use of an exhibit automatically triggered a vote by the House on its 
use. The clause was amended in the 107th Congress to give the Chair the 
discretion to submit the question of its use to the House (sec. 2(o), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). A gender-based reference was eliminated in 
the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before 
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was 
found in former rule XXX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

  When the use of an exhibit in debate was objected to before the clause 
was rewritten in the 107th Congress, the Chair immediately put the 
question on whether use of the exhibit would be permitted (the Chair was 
not determining a breach of decorum under clause 2 of rule I) (Nov. 1, 
1995, p. 31154; Nov. 10, 1995, p. 20689; July 31, 1996, p. 20689). The 
Chair put the question without debate, and without requiring the 
objecting Member to state the basis for the objection (Nov. 10, 1995, p. 
20689). As such, an objection under this rule was not a point of order: 
it could have been resolved by withdrawal of the exhibit; that failing, 
it amounted to a demand that the Chair put to the House the question 
whether the exhibit may be used (July 31, 1996, p. 20700). In response 
to a point of order raised against an exhibit, the Chair has 
acknowledged that submitting the question of its use to the House before 
deciding instead to rule on the point of order under clause 2 of rule I 
is a matter of discretion (Jan. 20, 2018, p. _ (sustained by tabling of 
appeal)).

  It is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to judge the 
accuracy or authenticity of the content of an exhibit (Nov. 10, 1995, p. 
32142; July 11, 2001, p. 12977). The Chair has held that a second 
virtually consecutive invocation of this provision, resulting in a 
second pair of votes on use of a chart and on reconsideration thereof, 
was not dilatory under former clause 10 of rule XVI (current clause 1 of 
rule XVI) or former clause 4(b) of rule XI (current clause 6(b) of rule 
XIII) (July 31, 1996, p. 20700). It is not in order to request that the 
voting display be turned on as an exhibit to accompany a Member's debate 
(Oct. 12, 1998, p. 25770). A Member under recognition to notice a 
question of the privileges of the House is not recognized for debate and 
thus may not display an exhibit (Mar. 13, 2014, p. 4393). For a 
discussion of the Speaker's responsibility to preserve decorum that may 
require the disallowance of exhibits in debate that would be demeaning 
to the House, or to any Member of the House, or that would be disruptive 
of the decorum thereof, see Sec. 622, supra.



Sec. 964. History of former rule on reading of 
papers.

  The earlier  form of the rule (formerly rule XXX), originally adopted in 
1794 and amended in 1802 and 1880 (V, 5257), addressed reading from 
papers. It recognized the right of a Member under the general 
parliamentary law to have read the paper on which the House is to vote 
(V, 5258), but when that paper had been read once, the reading could not 
be repeated unless by order of the House (V, 5260). The right could be 
abrogated by suspension of the rules (V, 5278-5284; VIII, 3400); but was 
not abrogated simply by the fact that the current procedure was taking 
place under the rule for suspension (V, 5273-5277). On a motion to refer 
a report, the reading of it could be demanded as a matter of right, but 
the latest ruling left to the House to determine whether or not an 
accompanying record of testimony should be read (V, 5261, 5262). In 
general the reading of a report was held to be in the nature of debate 
(V, 5292); but where a report presented facts and conclusions but no 
legislative proposition, it was read if submitted for action (IV, 4663). 
Where a paper is offered as involving a matter of privilege it may be 
read to the House (III, 2597; VI, 606; VIII, 2599), rather than by the 
Speaker privately (III, 2546), but a Member may not, as a matter of 
right, require the reading of a book or paper on suggestion that it 
contains matter infringing on the privileges of the House (V, 5258).


  The former rule XXX prohibiting the reading of papers in debate was 
held to apply to the exhibition of articles as evidence or in 
exemplification in debate (VIII, 2452, 2453; June 2, 1937, p. 6104; Aug. 
5, 1949, p. 10859), and the new form of the rule adopted in the 103d 
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49) marks the modern relevance of 
that application. Although Members may use exhibits such as charts 
during debate subject to this rule, the Speaker may, pursuant to the 
authority to preserve order and decorum under rule I (see Sec. 622, 
supra), direct the removal from the well of the House of a chart that is 
not being utilized during debate (Apr. 1, 1982, p. 6304), or that is 
otherwise disruptive of decorum (July 27, 2017, p. _).


Galleries


Sec. 965. Earlier practice.

  The reading  of papers other than 
those on which the vote was about to be taken was usually permitted 
without question (V, 5258). However, this privilege was subject to the 
authority of the House if another Member objected (V, 5285-5291; VIII, 
2597, 2602; Dec. 19, 1974, p. 41425; Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34669). This 
principle applied even to the Member's own written speech (V, 5258; 
VIII, 2598), to a report that the Member proposed to have read in his or 
her own time or to read in his or her place (V, 5293), and to excerpts 
from the Congressional Record (VIII, 2597). After the previous question 
was ordered, a Member could not ask the decision of the House on a 
request for the reading of a paper not before the House for action (V, 
5296), even though it be the report of the committee (V, 5294, 5295). 
For further discussion, see Sec. Sec. 432-436, supra. Pursuant to the 
former form of this rule, the consent of the House for a Member to read 
a paper in debate only permitted the Member seeking such permission to 
read as much of the paper as possible in the time yielded or allotted to 
that Member, and did not necessarily grant permission to read or to 
insert the entire document (Mar. 1, 1979, p. 3748). Where a Member 
objected to another's reading from a paper, the Chair put the question 
without debate. It was not in order under the guise of parliamentary 
inquiry to debate that question by indicating that the objection was a 
dilatory tactic (Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34672).





966. Gallery occupants not to be introduced.

  7.  During a 
session of the House, it shall not be in order for a Member, Delegate, 
or Resident Commissioner to introduce to or to bring to the attention of 
the House an occupant in the galleries of the House. The Speaker may not 
entertain a request for the suspension of this rule by unanimous consent 
or otherwise.



Congressional Record
  This clause was adopted April 10, 1933 (VI, 197). Before the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in 
former clause 8 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The Chair 
takes the initiative to enforce this clause (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, 
Sec. Sec. 45.4, 45.7).



967. Revisions of remarks in debate.

  8. (a)  The 
Congressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of 
remarks made during the proceedings of the House, subject only to 
technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner making the remarks.


  (b) Unparliamentary remarks may be deleted only by permission or order 
of the House.




Sec. 968. Standard of conduct.

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



Legislative Proceedings
  This clause was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 213, H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Before the House recodified its rules in the 
106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 9 of rule XIV 
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Under paragraph (a) a unanimous-
consent request to revise and extend remarks permits a Member (1) to 
make technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections to remarks 
uttered and (2) to include in the Record additional remarks not uttered 
to appear in a distinctive typeface; however, such a unanimous-consent 
request does not permit a Member to remove remarks actually uttered 
(Jan. 4, 1995, p. 541). For example, remarks held irrelevant by the 
Chair may be removed from the Record by unanimous consent only (Mar. 20, 
2002, p. 3663). Remarks uttered while not under recognition (such as 
when a Member fails to heed the gavel at the expiration of debate time 
or when a Member attempts to interject remarks in debate where the 
Member under recognition has refused to yield) do not appear in the 
Record (e.g., May 22, 2003, p. 12965; Oct. 2, 2003, p. 23950; May 19, 
2004, pp. 10107, 10108; Feb. 15, 2012, p. 1643). Paragraph (a) also 
applies to statements and rulings of the Chair (Jan. 20, 1995, p. 1866). 
For a discussion of rules relating to the Congressional Record, see 
Sec. Sec. 685-692, supra.



968a. Disruption of legislative proceedings.

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


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

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

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




Sec. 968b. Standard of conduct.

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



Secret sessions
  This clause was added in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(a)(3), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 3, 2017, p. 36). In the 114th Congress, the Chair stated that the 
mass presence of Members in the well while not under recognition 
constituted a breach of decorum (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.1).




969. Secret session of the House.

  10.  When confidential 
communications are received from the President, or when the Speaker or a 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner informs the House that such 
individual has communications that such individual believes ought to be 
kept secret for the present, the House shall be cleared of all persons 
except the Members, Delegates, Resident Commissioner, and officers of 
the House for the reading of such communications, and debates and 
proceedings thereon, unless otherwise ordered by the House.


  This provision (formerly rule XXIX), in a somewhat different form, was 
adopted in 1792, although secret sessions had been held by the House 
before that date. They continued to be held at times with considerable 
frequency until 1830. In 1880, at the time of the general revision of 
the rules, the House concluded to retain the rule, although it had been 
long in disuse (V, 7247; VI, 434). Gender-based references were 
eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 
7). This clause was redesignated from clause 9 to clause 10 in the 115th 
Congress (sec. 2(a)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 36). Before the 
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was 
found in former rule XXIX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

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

  The House and not the Committee of the Whole determines whether the 
Committee may sit in executive session, and an inquiry relative to 
whether the Committee of the Whole should sit in secret session is 
properly addressed to the Speaker and not to the chair of the Committee 
of the Whole (May 9, 1950, p. 6746; June 6, 1978, p. 16376; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 18.31). A Member seeking to offer the motion that 
the House resolve itself into secret session must qualify, as provided 
by the rule, by asserting that the Member has a secret communication to 
make to the House (June 6, 1978, p. 16376). A motion having been 
defeated, a Member may offer a second motion on the same legislative day 
if having additional communications to make (May 10, 2007, p. 12114, 
12177). The motion for a secret session is not debatable (June 20, 1979, 
p. 15711; Mar. 31, 1998, p. 5229; Sept. 26, 2006, p. 19781) but is 
subject to the motion to lay on the table (May 10, 2007, p. 12177).

  The following procedures apply during a secret session. The Member who 
offers the motion may be recognized for one hour of debate after the 
House resolves into secret session, and the normal rules of debate, 
including the principle that no motions would be in order unless the 
manager yields for that purpose, apply. The Speaker having found that a 
Member has qualified to make the motion for a secret session, having 
confidential communications to make, no point of order lies that the 
material in question must be submitted to the Members to make that 
determination (the motion for a secret session having been adopted by 
the House). No point of order lies in secret session that employees 
designated by the Speaker as essential to the proceedings, who have 
signed an oath of secrecy, may not be present. A motion in secret 
session to make public the proceedings therein is debatable for one 
hour, within narrow limits of relevancy. At the conclusion of debate in 
secret session, a Member may be recognized to offer a motion that the 
session be dissolved (July 17, 1979, pp. 19057-59).

  Where the House has concluded a secret session and has not voted to 
release the transcripts of that session, the injunction of secrecy 
remains and the Speaker may informally refer the transcripts to 
appropriate committees for their evaluation and report to the House as 
to ultimate disposition to be made (June 20, 1979, pp. 15711-13). The 
House may subsequently by unanimous consent order printed in the 
Congressional Record such proceedings, with appropriate deletions and 
revisions agreeable to the committees (July 17, 1979, p. 19049).

  On June 20, 1979, the House adopted by voice vote a motion that the 
House resolve itself into secret session pursuant to this rule (the 
first such occasion since 1830), where the Member offering the motion 
had assured the Speaker that he had confidential communications to make 
to the House as required by the rule (pp. 15711-13). The Speaker pro 
tempore announced on that occasion before the commencement of the secret 
session that the galleries would be cleared of all persons, that the 
Chamber would be cleared of all persons except Members and those 
officers and employees specified by the Speaker whose attendance was 
essential to the functioning of the secret session, who would be 
required to sign an oath of secrecy, and that all proceedings in the 
secret session must be kept secret until otherwise ordered by the House 
(June 20, 1979, pp. 15711-13).


[[Page 819]]

  On March 13, 2008, the House by unanimous consent authorized the Chair 
to resolve the House into secret session pursuant to this rule, that 
debate therein proceed without intervening motion for one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Whip, and 
that at the conclusion of debate the secret session be dissolved and the 
House stand adjourned (p. 4145). Before commencement of that secret 
session, the Speaker pro tempore (1) read to the House the contents of 
this clause; (2) announced a recess to clear the galleries and floor of 
all persons except Members and necessary staff, to permit staff to sign 
a notarized oath of secrecy, and to conduct a security sweep of the 
Chamber; (3) reminded Members of clause 13 of the Code of Official 
Conduct; (4) announced that all proceedings in secret session would 
remain secret unless otherwise ordered by the House; (5) announced that 
three bells would be rung approximately 15 minutes before the House 
reconvened for the secret session (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, 
Sec. 6.12).

  The House conducted a secret session in the 96th Congress to receive 
confidential communications consisting of classified information in the 
possession of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, which those committees had authorized to be 
used in a secret session of the House if ordered. On that occasion the 
Speaker overruled a point of order against the motion for a secret 
session because the Speaker must rely on the assurance of a Member 
claiming to have confidential communications to make to the House, and 
because the Speaker was aware that the committee with possession of the 
materials had authorized those materials to be used in a secret session 
(Feb. 25, 1980, p. 3618). Another secret session was held in the 98th 
Congress pending consideration of a bill amending the Intelligence 
Authorization Act to prohibit United States support for military or 
paramilitary operations in Nicaragua (July 19, 1983, p. 19776).




  Under the authority in clause 3 of rule I, the Speaker may convene a 
classified briefing for Members on the House floor when the House is not 
in session (e.g., Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.14).