    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 119th Congress]
    [119th Congress]
    [House Document 118-187]
    [Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
    [Pages 131-349]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

           JEFFERSON'S MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE \1\

                                   __________

                     sec. i--importance of adhering to rules

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

      Mr.  Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of the House of
    Commons, used to say, ``It was a maxim he had often heard when he was a
    young man, from old

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

    [[Page 132]]

    and experienced Members, that nothing tended more to throw power into
    the hands of administration, and those who acted with the majority of
    the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure from, the rules of
    proceeding; that these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, operated
    as a check and control on the actions of the majority, and that they
    were, in many instances, a shelter and protection to the minority,
    against the attempts of power.'' So far the maxim is cer-

    Manual do not alter any rules or current practice of the House.
    Although there were also numerous grammatical edits in the second
    edition, only substantive additions and new citations have been
    incorporated within this publication.

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

    Sec. 283a. Variant editions of the Manual.

        In 1812, a
    second edition of the Manual was published, with Jefferson's input,
    containing additions made by Jefferson subsequent to the publication of
    the first edition. However, a third edition, published in 1813, omitted
    all of the additions present in the second edition. Subsequent editions
    followed the language from the third edition, and when the House
    formally incorporated the Manual into its rules in 1837, the
    contemporaneous published editions of the Manual reflected the first and
    third editions rather than the second. The additions made by Jefferson
    in the second edition nevertheless provide valuable insight, and
    therefore, beginning with the 119th Congress, they are included in
    brackets within this publication. The additions from the second edition
    of the

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

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

    [[Page 133]]

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 134]]

      Those portions of the Manual that refer exclusively to Senate
    procedure or that refer to English practice wholly inapplicable to the
    House

    Sec. 285. Necessity of rules of action.

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

      [And in 1698 the Lords say, ``the reasonableness of what is desired is
    never considered by us, for we are bound to consider nothing but what is
    usual. Matters of form are essential to government, and 'tis of
    consequence to be in the right. All the reason for forms is custom, and
    the law of forms is practice; and reason is quite out of doors. Some
    particular customs may not be grounded on reason, and no good account
    can be given of them; and yet many nations are zealous for them; and
    Englishmen are as zealous as any others to pursue their old forms and
    methods.'' 4 Hats. 258.]

    -----------
    have been omitted. Paragraphs from the Constitution of the United
    States have also been omitted, because the Constitution is printed in
    full in this volume.

    [[Page 135]]

    of a presiding officer has formed the basis of a question of privilege
    (Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22783).

    * * * * *

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

                               sec. iii--privilege

    [[Page 136]]

    one instance, indeed, it has been relaxed by the 10 G. 3, c. 50, which
    permits judiciary proceedings to go on against them. That these
    privileges must be continually progressive, seems to result from their
    rejecting all definition of them; the doctrine being, that ``their
    dignity and independence are preserved by keeping their privileges
    indefinite; and that `the maxims upon which they proceed, together with
    the method of proceeding, rest entirely in their own breast, and are not
    defined and ascertained by any particular stated laws.' '' 1 Blackst.,
    163, 164.

    Sec. 287. Privileges of members of
    Parliament.

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

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

    [[Page 137]]

    vide by law the details which may be necessary for giving full effect to
    the enjoyment of this privilege. No such law being as yet made, it seems
    to stand at present on the following ground: 1. The act of arrest is
    void, ab initio. 2 Stra., 989. 2. The member arrested may be discharged
    on motion, 1 Bl., 166; 2 Stra., 990; or by habeas corpus under the
    Federal or State authority, as the case may be; or by a writ of
    privilege out of the chancery, 2 Stra., 989, in those States which have
    adopted that part of the laws of England. Orders of the House of
    Commons, 1550, February 20. 3. The arrest being unlawful, is a trespass
    for which the officer and others concerned are liable to action or
    indictment in the ordinary courts of justice, as in other cases of
    unauthorized arrest. 4. The court before which the process is returnable
    is bound to act as in other cases of unauthorized proceeding, and
    liable, also, as in other similar cases, to have their proceedings
    stayed or corrected by the superior courts.

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

      It  was probably from this view of the encroaching character
    of privilege that the framers of our Constitution, in their care to
    provide that the laws shall bind equally on all, and especially that
    those who make them shall not exempt themselves from their operation,
    have only privileged ``Senators and Representatives'' themselves from
    the single act of ``arrest in all cases except treason, felony, and
    breach of the peace, during their attendance at the session of their
    respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same, and from
    being questioned in any other place for any speech or debate in either
    House.'' Const. U.S. Art I, Sec. 6. Under the general authority ``to
    make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
    powers given them,'' Const. U.S., Art. II, Sec. 8, they may pro-

    [[Page 138]]

    set out immediately on his return, but allows him time to settle his
    private affairs, and to prepare for his journey; and does not even scan
    his road very nicely, nor forfeit his protection for a little deviation
    from that which is most direct; some necessity perhaps constraining him
    to it. 2 Stra., 986, 987.

    Sec. 289. Privilege as to going and returning.

      The  time
    necessary for going to, and returning from, Congress, not being defined,
    it will, of course, be judged of in every particular case by those who
    will have to decide the case. While privilege was understood in England
    to extend, as it does here, only to exemption from arrest, eundo,
    morando, et redeundo, the House of Commons themselves decided that ``a
    convenient time was to be understood.'' (1580) 1 Hats., 99, 100. Nor is
    the law so strict in point of time as to require the party to

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

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

    [[Page 139]]

    1956, p. 5991). The House, however, has declined to make a general rule
    permitting Members to waive their privilege, preferring that the Member
    in each case should apply for permission (III, 2660). Also in
    maintenance of its privilege the House has refused to permit the Clerk
    or other officers to produce in court, in obedience to a summons, an
    original paper from the files, but has given the court facilities for
    making copies (III, 2664, 2666; Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4552; Apr. 29, 1948,
    pp. 5161, 5162; May 6, 1948, p. 5432; Jan. 18, 1950, p. 565; Feb. 8,
    1950, p. 1695; Feb. 13, 1950, p. 1765; Sept. 22, 1950, p. 15636; Apr. 6,
    1951, p. 3403; Apr. 12, 1951, p. 3800; Oct. 20, 1951, p. 13777; Jan. 22,
    1953, p. 498; May 25, 1953, p. 5523; Jan. 28, 1954, p. 964; Feb. 25,
    1954, p. 2281; July 1, 1955, p. 9818; Apr. 12, 1956, p. 6258; Apr. 24,
    1958, p. 7262; Apr. 29, 1958, p. 7636; Sept. 16, 1974, p. 31123; Jan.
    19, 1977, p. 1728), but on one occasion, in which the circumstances
    warranted such action, the Clerk was permitted to respond and take with
    him certified copies of certain documents described in the subpoena (H.
    Res. 601, Oct. 29, 1969, p. 32005) and on two other occasions, in
    response to a request from the Department of Justice, to provide a copy
    of the audio backup file of a committee deposition made by the Official
    Reporters of Debate to the prosecuting attorney for use in a criminal
    proceeding (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.7; Sept. 12, 2019, p.
    _); and on the rare occasions in which the House has permitted the
    production of an original paper from its files, it has made explicit
    provision for its return (H. Res. 1022, 1023, Jan. 16, 1968, p. 80; H.
    Res. 1429, July 27, 1976, p. 24089). No officer or employee, except by
    authority of the House, should produce before any court a paper from the
    files of the House, nor furnish a copy of any paper except by authority
    of the House or a statute (III, 2663; VI, 587; Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4552;
    Apr. 30, 1948, pp. 5161, 5162; May 6, 1948, p. 5432; Jan. 18, 1950, p.
    565; Feb. 8, 1950, p. 1695; Feb. 13, 1950, p. 1765; Sept. 22, 1950, p.
    15636; Apr. 6, 1951, p. 3403; Apr. 12, 1951, p. 3800; Oct. 20, 1951, p.
    13777; Mar. 10, 1954, p. 3046; Feb. 7, 1955, p. 1215; May 7, 1956, p.
    7588; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 27.3). In the 98th Congress, the
    House adopted a resolution denying compliance with a subpoena issued by
    a Federal Court for the production of records in the possession of the
    Clerk (documents of a select committee from the prior Congress), where
    the Speaker and joint leadership had instructed the Clerk in the
    previous Congress not to produce such records and where the Court
    refused to stay the subpoena or to allow the select committee to
    intervene to protect its interest; the resolution directed the Counsel
    to the Clerk to assert the rights and privileges of the House and to
    take all steps necessary to protect the rights of the House (Precedents
    (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.4). On appeal from a subsequent district court
    judgment finding the Clerk in contempt, the Court of Appeals reversed on
    the ground that a subpoena to depose a nonparty witness under the
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may only be served in the district (of
    Maryland) where it was issued. In re Guthrie, 733 F.2d 634 (4th Cir.
    1984). If an official of both Houses of Congress is subpoenaed in his
    official capacity,

    [[Page 140]]

    the concurrence of both Houses by concurrent resolution is required to
    permit compliance (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.8). The House
    has authorized a former committee employee to provide testimony in a
    criminal proceeding, such authorization having been provided by the
    committee in the previous two Congresses (sec. 3(f)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan.
    6, 2015, p. 36).

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

      The  House has decided that the summons of a court to Members to
    attend and testify constituted a breach of privilege, and directed them
    to disregard the mandate (III, 2661); but in other cases wherein Members
    informed the House that they had been summoned before the District Court
    of the United States for the District of Columbia or other courts, the
    House authorized them to respond (III, 2662; Feb. 23, 1948, p. 1557;
    Mar. 5, 1948, p. 2224; Apr. 8, 1948, p. 4264; Apr. 12, 1948, p. 4347;
    Apr. 14, 1948, p. 4461; Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4529; Apr. 28, 1948, p. 5009;
    May 6, 1948, pp. 5433, 5451; Feb. 2, 1950, p. 1399; Apr. 4, 1951, p.
    3320; Apr. 9, 1951, p. 3525; Apr. 12, 1951, pp. 3751, 3752; Apr. 13,
    1951, p. 3915; June 4, 1951, p. 6084; June 22, 1951, p. 7001; Sept. 18,
    1951, p. 11571; Sept. 27, 1951, p. 12292; Mar. 5, 1953, p. 1658; Mar.
    18, 1953, p. 2085; Mar. 11, 1954, p. 3102; July 19, 1954, p. 10904; Apr.
    9, 1956, p. 5970; Apr. 10,

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

    [[Page 141]]

    chair of the Committee on House Administration to intervene as a party
    in a pending civil action in the U.S. Court of Claims, to defend on
    behalf of the House the constitutional authority to make laws necessary
    and proper for executing its constitutional powers, authorizing the
    employment of special counsel for such purpose, and providing for the
    payment from the contingent fund of expenses to employ such counsel (H.
    Res. 884, Nov. 2, 1977, p. 36661). The House has authorized the Speaker
    to take any steps considered necessary to protect the interests of the
    House before the court (H. Res. 49, Jan. 29, 1981, p. 1304) or to submit
    briefs amicus curiae (H. Res. 639, Mar. 17, 2016, pp. 3369, 3370 (see
    Apr. 18, 2016, p. 4475 for notification to the House of the filing of a
    brief pursuant to this authorization)). The House has authorized the
    Speaker to initiate or intervene in civil actions regarding the failure
    of the President or any other employee of the executive branch to
    implement a given law and authorized the Office of General Counsel to
    represent the House in such matters and to employ outside counsel
    (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 19.3), which authority was continued
    in the next Congress (sec. 3(f)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 36). The
    House has also authorized the Speaker to intervene in an existing case
    and appellate proceedings arising therefrom, and to intervene or appear
    in any other similar case in order to defend a particular law, and has
    authorized the Office of General Counsel to represent the House in such
    matters and to employ outside counsel (sec. 103(n), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3,
    2019, p. _; title III, H. Res. 6, Jan. 9, 2019, p. _). The House has on
    occasion adopted privileged resolutions, reported from the Committee on
    Rules, authorizing standing or select committees to make applications to
    courts in connection with their investigations (H. Res. 252, Feb. 9,
    1977, pp. 3966-75; H. Res. 760, Sept. 28, 1977, pp. 31329-36; H. Res.
    67, Mar. 4, 1981, pp. 3529-33), including regarding judicial enforcement
    of committee subpoenas (H. Res. 706, June 28, 2012, p. 10512, continued
    in the next two Congresses by sec. 4(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p.
    27 and sec. 3(f)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 36). In the 116th and
    118th Congresses the House adopted a resolution reported by the
    Committee on Rules authorizing a standing committee to intervene in or
    initiate judicial proceedings with respect to several specified
    investigations and reaffirming the authority of committees to initiate
    or intervene in judicial proceedings with respect to any subpoena issued
    by such committee if authorized to do so by the Bipartisan Legal
    Advisory Group pursuant to clause 8(b) of rule II (H. Res. 430, June 11,
    2019, p. _). The House has also adopted (by special rule) an unreported
    resolution on the same topic (H. Res. 980, Feb. 14, 2008, pp. 2190,
    2191, continued and expanded in the next Congress by sec. 4(f), H. Res.
    5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 10; H. Res. 917, Dec. 13, 2023, p. _), and in the
    116th Congress the House adopted (by special rule) an unreported
    resolution ratifying and reaffirming current and future investigations
    and subpoenas issued by committees with respect to certain individuals
    and subject matters (H. Res. 507, July 24, 2019, p. _). In the 115th
    Congress, the House enabled continuing litigation au-

    [[Page 142]]

    thority by adopting clause 8(c) of rule II (sec. 2(h), H. Res. 5, Jan.
    3, 2017, p. 37). For a discussion of the Office of General Counsel,
    which was established to provide legal assistance and representation to
    the House without regard to political affiliation and in consultation
    with the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, see clause 8 of rule II,
    Sec. Sec. 670, 670a, infra.

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

      Although  the statutes provide that the Department of Justice may
    represent any officer of the House or Senate in the event of judicial
    proceedings against such officer in relation to the performance of
    official duties (see 2 U.S.C. 5503), and that the Department of Justice
    shall generally represent the interests of the United States in court
    (28 U.S.C. 517), the House has on occasion authorized special
    appearances on its own behalf by special counsel when the prerogatives
    or powers of the House have been questioned in the courts. The House has
    adopted privileged resolutions authorizing the chair of a subcommittee
    to intervene in any judicial proceeding concerning subpoenas duces tecum
    issued by that committee, authorizing the appointment of a special
    counsel to carry out the purposes of such a resolution, and providing
    for the payment from the contingent fund (now referred to as
    ``applicable accounts of the House described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule
    X'') of expenses to employ such special counsel (H. Res. 1420, Aug. 26,
    1976, p. 27858; H. Res. 334, May 9, 1977, pp. 13949-52), authorizing the
    Sergeant-at-Arms to employ a special counsel to represent him in a
    pending action in Federal court in which he was named as a defendant,
    and providing for the payment from the contingent fund of expenses to
    employ such counsel (H. Res. 1497, Sept. 2, 1976, p. 28937), and
    authorizing the

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

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

    [[Page 143]]

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 144]]

    exists as one necessary to enable either House of Congress to exercise
    successfully their function of legislation. This latter proposition is
    one that we do not propose to decide in the present case, because we are
    able to decide it without passing upon the existence or nonexistence of
    such a power in aid of the legislative function'' (Kilbourn v. Thompson,
    103 U.S. 168, 189 (1880); II, 1611). In 1894, in the case of Chapman,
    another contumacious witness, the Supreme Court affirmed the undoubted
    right of either House of Congress to punish for contempt in cases to
    which its power properly extends under the expressed terms of the
    Constitution (II, 1614; In re Chapman, 1166 U.S. 661 (1897)). The nature
    of the punishment that the House may inflict was discussed by the Court
    in Anderson's case (II, 1607; Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204
    (1821)).

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

      In  1876 the
    arrest and imprisonment by the House of Hallet Kilbourn, a contumacious
    witness, resulted in a decision by the Supreme Court of the United
    States that the House had no general power to punish for contempt, as in
    a case wherein it was proposing to coerce a witness in an inquiry not
    within the constitutional authority of the House. The Court also
    discussed the doctrine of inherent power to punish, saying in
    conclusion, ``We are of opinion that the right of the Houses of
    Representatives to punish the citizen for a contempt of its authority or
    a breach of its privileges can derive no support from the precedents and
    practices of the two Houses of the English Parliament, nor from the
    adjudged cases in which the English courts have upheld these practices.
    Nor, taking what has fallen from the English judges, and especially the
    later cases on which we have just commented, is much aid given to the
    doctrine, that this power

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 145]]

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 146]]

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

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

      * * *  The editor of the Aurora
    having, in his paper of February 19, 1800, inserted some paragraphs
    defamatory of the Senate, and failed in his appearance, he was ordered
    to be com-

    [[Page 147]]

    the several States have the same powers by the laws of their States, and
    those of the Federal Government by the same State laws adopted in each
    State, by a law of Congress; that none of these bodies, therefore,
    derive those powers from natural or necessary right, but from express
    law; that Congress have no such natural or necessary power, nor any
    powers but such as are given them by the Constitution; that that has
    given them, directly, exemption from personal arrest, exemption from
    question elsewhere for what is said in their House, and power over their
    own members and proceedings; for these no further law is necessary, the
    Constitution being the law; that, moreover, by that article of the
    Constitution which authorizes them ``to make all laws necessary and
    proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution
    in them,'' they may provide by law for an undisturbed exercise of their
    functions, e.g., for the punishment of contempts, of affrays or tumult
    in their presence, &c.; but, till the law be made, it does not exist;
    and does not exist, from their own neglect; that, in the meantime,
    however, they are not unprotected, the ordinary magistrates and courts
    of law being open and competent to punish all unjustifiable disturbances
    or defamations, and even their own sergeant, who may appoint deputies ad
    libitum to aid him 3 Grey, 59, 147, 255,  is equal to small
    disturbances; that in requiring a previous law, the Constitution had
    regard to the inviolability of the citizen, as well as of the Member;
    as, should one House, in the regular

    [[Page 148]]

    form of a bill, aim at too broad privileges, it may be checked by the
    other, and both by the President; and also as, the law being
    promulgated, the citizen will know how to avoid offense. But if one
    branch may assume its own privileges without control, if it may do it on
    the spur of the occasion, conceal the law in its own breast, and, after
    the fact committed, make its sentence both the law and the judgment on
    that fact; if the offense is to be kept undefined and to be declared
    only ex re nata, and according to the passions of the moment, and there
    be no limitation either in the manner or measure of the punishment, the
    condition of the citizen will be perilous indeed. * * *

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

      * * *  To this it was answered, that the
    Parliament and courts of England have cognizance of contempts by the
    express provisions of their law; that the State Legislatures have equal
    authority because their powers are plenary; they represent their
    constituents completely, and possess all their powers, except such as
    their constitutions have expressly denied them; that the courts of

    [[Page 149]]

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 150]]

    the refusal of three individuals to obey a subpoena duces tecum and to
    answer certain questions while appearing under subpoena before a
    subcommittee, which resolution was withdrawn before action thereon (H.
    Res. 657, Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25217). In the 110th Congress, the House
    adopted (by special rule) a resolution directing the Speaker to certify
    to the United States Attorney the refusal of White House Chief of Staff
    to produce documents to a committee, and former White House Counsel to
    appear, testify, and produce documents to a subcommittee, each as
    directed by subpoena (H. Res. 979, Feb. 14, 2008, pp. 2190, 2191). In
    the 112th Congress, the House adopted a resolution directing the Speaker
    to certify to the United States Attorney the refusal of the Attorney
    General to produce documents to a committee as directed by subpoena (H.
    Res. 711, June 28, 2012, p. 10514). In the 113th Congress, the House
    adopted a resolution directing the Speaker to certify to the United
    States Attorney the refusal of the former Director of Exempt
    Organizations at the Internal Revenue Service to produce documents to a
    committee as directed by subpoena (H. Res. 574, May 7, 2014, p. 7490).
    In the 116th Congress, the House adopted a resolution directing the
    Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the refusal of the
    Attorney General and the Secretary of Commerce to produce documents to a
    committee as directed by subpoena and authorizing that committee to take
    steps to seek civil enforcement of certain subpoenas (H. Res. 497, July
    17, 2019, p. _). In the 117th Congress, the House adopted resolutions
    directing the Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney: 1) the
    refusal of a former White House staff member to produce documents to a
    committee or appear for a deposition; 2) the refusal of a former White
    House Chief of Staff to appear for a deposition; and 3) the refusal of a
    former White House Deputy Chief of Staff and a former White House staff
    member to produce documents to a committee or appear for a deposition,
    in each case as directed by subpoena (H. Res. 730, Oct. 21, 2021, p. _;
    H. Res. 851, Dec. 14, 2021, p. _; H. Res. 1037, Apr. 6, 2022, p. _). In
    the 118th Congress, the House adopted a resolution directing the Speaker
    to certify to the United States Attorney the refusal of the Attorney
    General to produce documents to a committee as directed by subpoena (H.
    Res. 1292, June 12, 2024, p. _) and, upon the adoption of such
    resolution, the House adopted (by special rule) a second resolution to
    the same effect that had been reported by a different committee (H. Res.
    1293, June 12, 2024, p. _).
      In the 97th Congress, the House adopted a resolution directing the
    Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the failure of an
    official of the executive branch (Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator,
    Environmental Protection Agency) to submit executive branch documents to
    a House subcommittee pursuant to a subcommittee subpoena. This was the
    first occasion on which the House cited an executive official for
    contempt of Congress (Dec. 16, 1982, p. 31754). In the following
    Congress, the House adopted (as a question of privilege) a resolution
    reported from the same committee certifying to the United States
    Attorney the fact that an agreement had been entered into between the
    committee and the executive branch for access by the committee to the
    documents that Anne Gorsuch had failed to submit and that were the
    subject of the contempt citation (where the contempt had not yet been
    prosecuted) (Aug. 3, 1983, p. 22692). In other cases in which compliance
    had subsequently been attained in the same Congress, the House has
    adopted privileged resolutions certifying the facts to the United States
    Attorney to the end that contempt proceedings be discontinued (see
    Deschler, ch. 15, Sec. 21). In the 98th Congress, the House adopted a
    privileged resolution directing the Speaker to certify to the United
    States Attorney the refusal of a former official of the executive branch
    to obey a subpoena to testify before a subcommittee (H. Res. 200, May
    18, 1983, p. 12720). In the 106th Congress the House considered a
    resolution directing the Speaker to certify to the United States
    Attorney

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

    [[Page 151]]

    every extent a Member except that he cannot vote until he is sworn,
    Memor., 107, 108. D'Ewes, 642, col. 2; 643, col. 1. Pet. Miscel. Parl.,
    119. Lex. Parl., c. 23.2 Hats., 22, 62.

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

      Privilege  from arrest takes place by force of the
    election; and before a return be made a Member elected may be named of a
    committee, and is to

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

      Although a Member may be named to a committee before being sworn, and
    in some cases a Member has not taken the oath until long afterwards (IV,
    4483), in the modern practice a Member-elect is elected to a standing
    committee effective only when sworn (e.g., H. Res. 26, 27, Jan. 7, 2011,
    p. 227; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 1.2). Where a Member-elect
    participated in various committee business before taking the oath of
    office, the House adopted a resolution ratifying his election to and
    participation in proceedings of the committee (Precedents (Wickham), ch.
    2, Sec. 3.3). In one case, when a Member did not appear to take the
    oath, the Speaker with the consent of the House appointed another Member
    to the committee in his place (IV, 4484). The status of a Member-elect
    under the Constitution undoubtedly differs greatly from the status of a
    Member-elect under the law of Parliament. In various inquiries by
    committees of the House this question has been examined, with the
    conclusions that a Member-elect becomes a Member from the very beginning
    of the term to which elected (I, 500), that he is as much an officer of
    the Government before taking the oath as afterwards (I, 185), and that
    his status is distinguished from that of a Member who has qualified (I,
    183, 184). Members-elect may resign or decline before taking the oath
    (II, 1230-1233, 1235; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 42). They have been excluded (I,
    449, 464, 474, 550, 551; VI, 56; Mar. 1, 1967, pp. 4997-5038) and in one
    case a Member-elect was expelled (I, 476; II, 1262). The names of
    Members who have not been sworn are not entered on the roll from which
    the yeas and nays are called for entry on the Journal (V, 6048; VIII,
    3122), nor are such Members-elect permitted to vote or introduce bills
    (see Sec. 198, supra). The House has granted a Member-elect a leave of
    absence (e.g., Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 1.8; Jan. 6, 2015, p.
    63).

    [[Page 152]]

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

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

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

      The privilege of a Member is the privilege of the House. If the Member
    waive it without leave, it is a ground for punishing him, but cannot in
    effect waive the privilege of the House. 3 Grey, 140, 222.

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

      In United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1979), the Supreme Court
    discussed the ability of either an individual Member or the entire
    Congress to waive the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause. The
    Court found first, that the Member's conduct in testifying before a
    grand jury and voluntarily producing documentary evidence of legislative
    acts protected by the Clause did not waive its protection. Assuming,
    without deciding, that a Member could waive the Clause's protection
    against being prosecuted for a legislative act, the Court said that such
    a waiver could only be found after an explicit and unequivocal
    renunciation of its immunity, which was absent in this case. Second,
    passage of the official bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 201, did not amount
    to an institutional waiver of the Speech or Debate Clause for individual
    Members. Again assuming without deciding whether Congress could
    constitutionally waive the Clause for individual Members, such a waiver
    could be shown only by an explicit and unequivocal expression of
    legislative intent, and there was no evidence of that in the legislative
    history of the statute. The Speech or Debate clause is not an impediment
    to the enforcement within the House of the rule prohibiting
    personalities in debate (clause 1 of rule XVII, Precedents (Smith), ch.
    7, Sec. 8.1).

    [[Page 153]]

    this is restrained to things done in the House in a parliamentary
    course. 1 Rush, 663. For he is not to have privilege contra morem
    parliamentarium, to exceed the bounds and limits of his place and duty.
    Com. p.

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

      For  any speech or debate in either
    House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. Const. U.S., I,
    6; S. P. protest of the Commons to James I, 1621; 2 Rapin, No. 54, pp.
    211, 212. But

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 154]]

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

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

      And  even in cases of treason, felony, and breach of
    the peace, to which privilege does not extend as to substance, yet in
    Parliament a member is privileged as to the mode of proceeding. The case
    is first to be laid before the House, that it

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

    [[Page 155]]

    the Congress (IV, 4484, footnote). A Senator in one case withdrew from
    the Senate pending his trial (II, 1278). After conviction but before the
    Senator's resignation, and while an appeal for rehearing was pending,
    the Senate continued its investigation (II, 1282).

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 156]]

    was presented to him by the two Houses; his expressing displeasure
    against some persons for matters moved in Parliament during the debate
    and preparation of a bill, were breaches of privilege, 2 Nalson, 743;
    and in 1783, December 17, it was declared a breach of fundamental
    privileges, &c., to report any opinion or pretended opinion of the King
    on any bill or proceeding depending in either House of Parliament, with
    a view to influence the votes of the members, 2 Hats., 251, 6.
    * * * * *

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

      Thus  the King's taking notice of the bill for suppressing
    soldiers, depending before the House; his proposing a provisional clause
    for a bill before it

    * * * * *
                                 sec. vi--quorum

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

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

    [[Page 157]]

    of a quorum (clause 7 of rule XX). Clause 5(c) of rule XX permits the
    House to operate with a ``provisional quorum'' where the House is
    without a quorum due to catastrophic circumstances. In the 116th and
    117th Congresses the House adopted a provision, effective during a
    designated public health emergency, to count for purposes of
    establishing a quorum all Members voting or recording their presence by
    proxy (sec. 3(b), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8,
    Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Title III of the Legislative Branch Appropriations
    Act, 2006, amended Federal election law to require States to hold
    special elections for the House within 49 days after a vacancy is
    announced by the Speaker in the extraordinary circumstance that
    vacancies in representation from the States exceed 100 (P.L. 109-55; 2
    U.S.C. 8).

      In the House the Speaker takes the Chair at the hour to which the
    House stood adjourned and there is no requirement that the House proceed
    immediately to establish a quorum, although the Speaker has the
    authority under clause 7 of rule XX to recognize for a call of the House
    at any time. The question of a quorum is not considered unless properly
    raised (IV, 2733; VI, 624), and it is not in order for the Speaker to
    recognize for a point of no quorum unless the Speaker has put the
    pending question or proposition to a vote. Although it was formerly the
    rule that a quorum was necessary for debate as well as business (IV,
    2935-2949), in the 94th Congress the House restricted the Chair's
    ability to recognize the absence

                           sec. vii--call of the house

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

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

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

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

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

    * * * * *

    [[Page 158]]

                                sec. ix--speaker

    Sec. 312. Election of Speaker.

      When  but one person is
    proposed, and no objection made, it has not been usual in Parliament to
    put any question to the House; but without a question the members
    proposing him conduct him to the chair. But if there be objection, or
    another proposed, a question is put by the Clerk. 2 Hats., 158. As are
    also questions of adjournment. 6 Gray, 406. Where the House debated and
    exchanged messages and answers with the King for a week without a
    Speaker, till they were prorogued. They have done it de die in diem for
    fourteen days. 1 Chand., 331, 335.

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 159]]

    the President pro tempore holds office at the pleasure of the Senate
    (II, 1417). In the 107th Congress the Senate elected two Presidents of
    the Senate pro tempore for different periods when the majority of the
    Senate shifted after inauguration of the Vice President (S. Res. 3, Jan.
    3, 2001, p. 7).

      In the later practice the President pro tempore has usually been
    chosen by resolution. In 1876 the Senate determined that the tenure of
    the Office of a President pro tempore elected at one session does not
    expire at the meeting of Congress after the first recess, the Vice
    President not having appeared to take the chair; that the death of the
    Vice President does not have the effect of vacating the Office of
    President pro tempore; and that

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

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

      Sir Job Charlton ill, Seymour chosen,

                          1673, February 18.      Not merely pro tem. 1

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

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

      Sawyer being ill, Seymour chosen.

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

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

    Sec. 315. Removal of the Speaker.

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

    [[Page 160]]

    In the 118th Congress the House adopted a resolution declaring the
    Office of Speaker vacant (H. Res. 757, Oct. 3, 2023, p. _). In the 116th
    Congress the House adopted clause 2(a)(3) of rule IX, providing that
    such a resolution only constitutes a question of the privileges of the
    House if offered by direction of a party caucus or conference (sec.
    102(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). This provision was repealed in
    the 118th Congress (sec. 2(q), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _) and
    replaced in the 119th Congress by a new clause 2(a)(3) of rule IX
    providing that such a resolution only constitutes a question of the
    privileges of the House if offered by a member of the majority party and
    if it has accumulated eight cosponsors from the majority party at the
    time it is offered (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2025, p. _). The House
    has removed or suspended other officers, such as Clerk and Doorkeeper
    (I, 287-290, 292; II, 1417). A resolution for the removal of an officer
    is presented as a matter of privilege (I, 284-286; VI, 35; Oct. 3, 2023,
    p. _; May 8, 2024, p. _). The Speaker may remove the Clerk, Sergeant-at-
    Arms, and Chief Administrative Officer under clause 1 of rule II (e.g.,
    Dec. 16, 2015, p. 20274).

      A resolution declaring the Office of Speaker vacant presents a
    question of constitutional privilege (VI, 35; Oct. 3, 2023, p. _; May 8,
    2024, p. _).

    * * * * *
                                 sec. x--address

    Sec. 316. Addresses to the President.

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

    [[Page 161]]

    with the exception of President Hoover (VIII, 3333), the custom has been
    followed generally by subsequent Presidents.

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

                               sec. xi--committees

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

      Standing  committees, as of Privileges
    and Elections, &c., are usually appointed at the first meeting, to
    continue through the session. The person first named is generally
    permitted to act as chairman. But this is a matter of courtesy; every
    committee having a right to elect their own chairman, who presides over
    them, puts questions, and reports their proceedings to the House. 4
    inst., 11, 12; Scob., 9; 1 Grey, 122.

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

    [[Page 162]]

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

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

    Sec. 319. Secrecy of committee procedure.

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

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

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

    Sec. 320. Reception of petitions by committees.

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

    [[Page 163]]

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

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

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

      Although  the authority of this principle has not been
    questioned by the House, there have in special instances been deviations
    from it. Thus, in 1832, when a Member had been slain in a duel, and the
    fact was notorious that all the principals and seconds were Members of
    the House, the committee, charged only with investigating the causes and
    whether or not there had been a breach of privilege, reported with their
    findings recommendations for expulsion and censure of the Members found
    to be implicated. There was criticism of this method of procedure as
    deviating from the rule of Jefferson's Manual, but the House did not
    recommit the report (II, 1644). In 1857, when a committee charged with
    inquiring into accusations against Members not named found certain
    Members implicated, they gave them copies of the testimony and
    opportunities to explain to the committee, under oath or otherwise, as
    they individually might prefer (III, 1845), but reported recommendations
    for expulsion without first seeking the order of the House (II, 1275;
    III, 1844). In 1859 and 1892 a similar procedure occurred (III, 1831,
    2637). But the House, in a case wherein an inquiry had incidentally
    involved a Member, evidently considered the parliamentary law as
    applicable, because it admitted as of privilege and agreed to a
    resolution directing the committee to report the charges (III, 1843).
    And in cases wherein testimony taken before a joint committee
    incidentally impeached the official characters of a Member and a
    Senator, the facts in each case were reported to the House interested
    (III, 1854). A select committee, appointed to report upon the right of a
    Member-elect to be sworn (H. Res. 1, 90th Cong., pp. 14-27, Jan. 10,
    1967), invited him to appear, to testify, and permitted him to be
    accompanied by counsel (see H. Rept. 90-27).

    Sec. 323. Inquiries involving Members of other
    House.

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 164]]

    lowing instances: 7 Grey, 261, 278, 285, 338; 1 Chandler, 357, 462. In
    the following instances it does not appear whether they did or not: 6
    Grey, 129; 7 Grey, 213, 229, 321.

    Sec. 325. Action of joint committees.

      It  appears that on
    joint committees of the Lords and Commons each committee acted
    integrally in the fol

      It is the practice in Congress that joint committees shall vote per
    capita, and not as representatives of the two Houses (IV, 4425),
    although the membership from the House is usually, but not always (IV
    4410), larger than that from the Senate (III, 1946; IV, 4426-4431). But
    ordinary committees of conference appointed to settle differences
    between the two Houses are not considered joint committees, and the
    managers of the two Houses vote separately (V, 6336), each House having
    one vote. A quorum of a joint committee seems to have been considered to
    be a majority of the whole number rather than a majority of the
    membership of each House (IV, 4424). The first named of the Senate
    members acted as chair in one notable instance (IV, 4424), and in
    another the joint committee elected its chair (IV, 4447).

                        sec. xii--committee of the whole

    [[Page 165]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 166]]

    practice, when no other business is pending, to declare the House
    resolved into the Committee to consider a measure at any time after the
    House has adopted a special order of business providing for
    consideration of such measure (and not require a motion), unless the
    resolution specifies otherwise (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34).

      This is the form in the House, except that the chair of the Committee
    of the Whole sits in the Speaker's chair. Clause 1(b) of rule XVIII
    (former rule XXIII) was adopted to authorize the Speaker, and it is the
    modern

    Sec. 329. Quorum in Committee of the Whole.

      * * *  Their
    quorum is the same as that of the House; and if a defect happens, the
    chairman, on a motion and question, rises, the Speaker resumes the chair
    and the chairman can make no other report than to inform the House of
    the cause of their dissolution. * * *

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 167]]

    upon the Members retiring to their places, the Speaker told the House
    ``he has taken the chair without an order to bring the House into
    order.'' Some excepted against it; but it was generally approved as the
    only expedient to suppress the disorder. And every Member was required,
    standing up in his place, to engage that he would proceed no further in
    consequence of what had happened in the grand committee, which was done.
    3 Grey, 128.

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

      In  a Committee of the Whole, the tellers
    on a division differing as to numbers, great heats and confusion arose,
    and danger of a decision by the sword. The Speaker took the chair, the
    mace was forcibly laid on the table; where

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

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

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

    [[Page 168]]

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

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

      No  previous question can be put in a
    committee; nor can this committee adjourn as others may; but if their
    business is unfinished, they rise, on a question, the House is resumed,
    and the chairman reports that the Committee of the Whole have, according
    to order, had under their consideration such a matter, and have made
    progress therein; but not having had time to go through the same, have
    directed him to ask leave to sit again. Whereupon a question is put on
    their having leave, and on the time the House will again resolve itself
    into a committee. Scob., 38. But if they have gone through the
    matter <> referred to them, a member moves that the committee may
    rise, and the chairman report their proceedings to the House; which
    being resolved, the chairman rises, the Speaker resumes the chair, the
    chairman informs him that the committee have gone through the business
    referred to them, and that he is ready to make report when the House
    shall think proper to receive it. If the House have time to receive it,
    there is usually a cry of ``now, now,'' whereupon he makes the report;
    but if it be late, the cry is ``to-morrow, to-morrow,'' or ``Monday,''
    etc., or a motion is made to that effect, and a question put that it be
    received to-morrow, &c. Scob., 38.

    [[Page 169]]

    to sit again is not asked in the modern practice. The permission of the
    House is not asked when the Chair reports a matter concluded in
    Committee. The report is made and received as a matter of course, and is
    thereupon before the House for action. When the House has vested control
    of general debate in certain Members, their control may not be abrogated
    during general debate by another Member moving to rise, unless they
    yield for that purpose (May 25, 1967, p. 14121; June 10, 1999, p.
    12471). A Member yielded time in general debate may not yield to another
    for such motion (Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2178; May 17, 2000, p. 8200). The
    motion is privileged during debate under the five-minute rule, and may
    be offered during debate on a pending amendment, except where a Member
    has the floor (Aug. 13, 1986, p. 21215; Mar. 22, 1995, p. 8770). The
    motion may not include restrictions on the amendment process or
    limitations on future debate on amendments (June 6, 1990, p. 13234), is
    not debatable (May 17, 2000, p. 8203), may be withdrawn only by
    unanimous consent (June 12, 2019, p. _), and a demand for a recorded
    vote thereon is untimely after the Committee rises (May 19, 2016, p.
    6772). For a further discussion of the motion to rise, see Sec. 983,
    infra.
      In the practice of the House the previous question and motion to
    adjourn are not admitted in the Committee of the Whole (e.g., June 12,
    2019, p. _); but the rules (clause 8 of rule XVIII) provide for closing
    five-minute debate by motion. When the Committee rises without
    concluding a matter the Chair reports that it ``has come to no
    resolution thereon''; but leave

    [[Page 170]]

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

      The  Speaker recognizes only reports
    from the Committee of the Whole made by the chair thereof (V, 6987), and
    a matter alleged to have arisen therein but not reported may not be
    brought to the attention of the House (VIII, 2429, 2430) even on the
    claim that a question of privilege is involved (IV, 4912; V, 6987), but
    the Speaker has responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding events
    occurring during an earlier vote in the Committee of the Whole by
    advising on a general principle of the operation of the electronic
    voting system (May 19, 2016, p. 6772). In one instance, however, the
    Committee reported with a bill a resolution relating to an alleged
    breach of privilege (V, 6986). When a bill is reported the Speaker must
    assume that it has passed through all the stages necessary for the
    report (IV, 4916). When the Committee reported not only what it had done
    but by whom it had been prevented from doing other things, the Speaker
    held that the House might not amend the report, which stood (IV, 4909).
    When an amendment is reported by the Committee it may not be withdrawn,
    and a question as to its validity is not considered by the Speaker (IV,
    4900). When a Committee, directed by order of the House to consider
    certain bills, reported also certain other bills, the Speaker held that
    so much of the report as related to the latter bills could be received
    only by unanimous consent (IV, 4911). When a report is ruled out as in
    excess of the Committee's power, the accompanying bill stands
    recommitted (IV, 4784, 4907). A former rule prohibited a Committee's
    report from being received in the absence of a quorum (VI, 666; clause 7
    of rule XX).

    [[Page 171]]

    of the Whole to that section, rejection in the House of the motion to
    strike the section results in a vote on the committee substitute in its
    original form and not as perfected, because the perfecting amendments
    have been displaced in the Committee of the Whole and have not been
    revived on a separate vote in the House (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 13, 1977,
    pp. 33622-24). But if the Committee of the Whole reports a bill to the
    House with an adopted amendment in the nature of a substitute and the
    special order of business in question does not provide for separate
    House votes on amendments thereto, a separate vote may not be demanded
    on an amendment to such amendment, because only one amendment in its
    perfected form has been reported back to the House (Nov. 17, 1983, p.
    33463).

    Sec. 336. Amendments in Committee of the
    Whole.

      The Committee of the  Whole, like any other committee, may amend a proposition either
    by an ordinary amendment or by a substitute amendment (IV, 4899), but
    these amendments must be reported to the House for action. Amendments
    rejected by the Committee are not reported (IV, 4877). Ordinarily all
    amendments must be disposed of before the Committee may report (IV,
    4752-4758); but sometimes a special order of business requires a report
    at a specified time, in which case pending amendments are reported (IV,
    3225-3228) or not (IV, 4910) as the terms of the order may direct. In
    the 98th Congress, clause 2 of rule XXI was amended to give precedence
    to the motion that the Committee rise and report a general appropriation
    bill at the conclusion of its reading for amendment and before or
    between consideration of amendments proposing certain limitations or
    retrenchments (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). The 104th Congress
    further amended clause 2 to permit only the Majority Leader or a
    designee to offer that motion (sec. 215(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p.
    468). The 105th Congress elevated the Majority Leader's preferential
    motion in clause 2 to take precedence of any motion to amend at that
    stage (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). The practice of the House,
    based originally on a rule (IV, 4904), requires amendments to be
    reported from the Committee in their perfected forms, and this holds
    good even in the case of an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
    which may have been amended freely (IV, 4900-4903). If the Committee
    amends a paragraph and subsequently strikes the paragraph as amended,
    the first amendment fails, and is not reported to the House or voted on
    (IV, 4898; V, 6169; VIII, 2421, 2426), and when the Committee adopts two
    amendments that are subsequently deleted by an amendment striking and
    inserting new text, only the latter amendment is reported to the House
    (June 20, 1967, p. 16497). Where two amendments proposing inconsistent
    motions to strike and insert a pending section are considered as
    separate first degree amendments (not one as a substitute for the other)
    before either is finally disposed of under a special procedure
    permitting the Chair to postpone requests for a recorded vote, the
    Chair's order of voting on the matter as unfinished business determines
    which amendment (if both were adopted) would be reported to the House
    (Aug. 6, 1998, pp. 19098-107). Normally, if the Committee perfects a
    bill by adopting certain amendments and then adopts an amendment
    striking all after section one of the bill and inserting a new text,
    only the bill, as amended by the motion to strike and insert, is
    reported to the House; but when the bill is being considered under a
    special rule permitting a separate vote in the House on any of the
    amendments adopted in the Committee to the bill or to the committee
    substitute, all amendments adopted in the Committee are reported to the
    House regardless of their consistency (May 26, 1960, pp. 11302-04).
    Where a separate vote is demanded in this type of situation in the House
    only on an amendment striking a section of a committee substitute, but
    not on perfecting amendments that have been previously adopted in the
    Committee

    [[Page 172]]

    considered under a special rule prescribing the order for their
    consideration where the bill is considered as read, in which case they
    are voted on upon demand in the order in which considered in the
    Committee (Mar. 11, 1993, p. 4733; Mar. 25, 1993, pp. 6358, 6359). For
    automatic reconsideration in the House of amendments if the votes of
    Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are decisive, see Sec.  985,
    infra.

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

      All  amendments to a bill reported from the Committee of the Whole
    stand on an equal footing and must be voted on by the House (IV, 4871)
    in the order in which they are reported, although they may be
    inconsistent, one with another (IV, 4881, 4882), and are subject to
    amendment in the House unless the previous question is ordered (VIII,
    2419). Two amendments being reported as distinct were considered
    independently, although apparently one was a proviso attaching to the
    other (IV, 4905); and an entire and distinct amendment may not be
    divided, but must be voted on by the House as a whole (IV, 4883-4892;
    VIII, 2426). It is a frequent practice for the House by unanimous
    consent to act at once on all the amendments to a bill reported from the
    Committee, but it is the right of any Member to demand a separate vote
    on any amendment (IV, 4893, 4894; VIII, 2419) unless a special rule
    mandates that sundry amendments be put en gros (June 24, 2009, p.
    16147). Where a special rule permits en bloc consideration of certain
    amendments in the Committee, those amendments if reported back to the
    House may also be considered en bloc for a separate vote in the House on
    demand of any Member (Speaker O'Neill, Sept. 7, 1978, p. 28425). A
    Member may demand a separate vote in the House on an amendment to a
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the
    Committee of the Whole where the bill is being considered under a
    special rule permitting separate votes in the House on any of the
    amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or
    committee amendment (Sept. 30, 1971, p. 34337), but where a special rule
    ``self-executes'' an amendment as a modification of an amendment in the
    nature of a substitute to be considered as an original bill, that
    modification is not separately voted on upon demand in the House
    (Speaker Foley, Feb. 3, 1993, p. 2043). A Member may withdraw a demand
    for a separate vote in the House on an amendment reported from the
    Committee before the Speaker's putting the question thereon, and
    unanimous consent is not required (May 28, 1987, p. 14030). When demand
    is made for separate votes in the House on several amendments adopted in
    the Committee, the amendments are voted on in the House in the order in
    which they appear in the bill (July 24, 1968, pp. 23093-95; May 28,
    1987, p. 14030; June 11, 1997, p. 10654), except when amendments have
    been

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

    [[Page 173]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       sec. xiii--examination of witnesses

    Sec. 341. Common fame as ground for
    investigation.

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

      [As the heads of impeachment were severally read against the Lord
    Clarendon in 1667, some member in his place, stated to the House, ``that
    several persons had undertaken to make that head good.'' Or, ``that the
    member had heard this from a certain great lord.'' Or, ``that this was
    too public to stand in need of proof.'' Or, in one instance, ``that the
    member did not doubt that it will be made out.'' St. Tr. 558. 4 Hats.
    137.]

    [[Page 174]]

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

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

        Witnesses are not to be produced but where the House has
    previously instituted an inquiry, 2 Hats., 102, nor then are orders for
    their attendance given blank. 3 Grey, 51. [The process is a summons from
    the House. 4 Hats. 255, 258.]

      In the House witnesses are summoned in pursuance and by virtue of the
    authority conferred on a committee by the House to send for persons and
    papers (III, 1750). Even in cases wherein the rules give to certain
    committees the authority to investigate without securing special
    permission, authority must be obtained before the production of
    testimony may be compelled (IV, 4316). Subpoenas issued by order of the
    House are signed by the Speaker (clause 4 of rule I) and attested and
    sealed by the Clerk (clause 2 of rule II). In clause 2(m) of rule XI the
    House has authorized any committee or subcommittee to issue a subpoena
    when authorized by a majority of the members of the committee or
    subcommittee voting, a majority being present. A committee may also
    delegate the authority to issue subpoenas to the chair of a full
    committee. Authorized subpoenas are signed by the chair of the committee
    or by any other member designated by the committee. Sometimes the House
    authorizes issue of subpoenas during a recess of Congress and empowers
    the Speaker to sign them (III, 1806), and in one case the two Houses, by
    concurrent resolution, empowered the Vice President and Speaker to sign
    during a recess (III, 1763). See McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135
    (1927); Barry v. U.S. ex rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 (1929); Sinclair
    v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929). During the 116th and 117th
    Congresses, the House authorized electronic signature of subpoenas and
    electronic attestation and affixation of a seal by the Clerk during the
    pendency of a designated public health emergency (sec. 4(f), H. Res.
    965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
    Under section 2954 of title 5, United States Code, an executive agency,
    if so requested by the Committee on Government Operations (now Oversight
    and Government Reform), or any seven members thereof, shall submit any
    information requested of it relating to any matter within the
    jurisdiction of the committee. In the 118th and 119th Congresses, the
    House required that the chair of the Committee on Oversight and
    Government Reform be included as one of the seven members of the
    committee when making a request under such provision (sec. 3(i), H. Res.
    5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2025, p. _).

    [[Page 175]]

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

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

      When  any person is examined before a committee or at the bar of
    the House, any Member wishing to ask the person a question must address
    it to

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

    [[Page 176]]

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

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

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

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

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

    Sec. 346. Members as witnesses.

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

    [[Page 177]]

    instance the chair of an investigating committee administered the oath
    to himself and testified (III, 1821). The House, in an inquiry
    preliminary to an impeachment trial, gave leave to its managers to
    examine Members, and leave to its Members to attend for the purpose
    (III, 2033).

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

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

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

      The House and the Senate have observed this rule; but it does not
    appear that they have always made public ascertainment of the
    willingness of the Member to attend (III, 1790, 1791). In one case the
    Senate laid aside pending business in order to comply with the request
    of the House (III, 1791). In several instances House committees, after
    their invitations to Senators to appear and testify had been
    disregarded, have issued subpoenas. In such cases the Senators have
    either disregarded the subpoenas, refused to obey them, or have appeared
    under protest (III, 1792, 1793). In one case, after a Senator had
    neglected to respond either to an invitation or a subpoena the House
    requested of the Senate his attendance and the Senate disregarded the
    request (III, 1794). Where Senators have responded to invitations of
    House committees, their testimony has been taken without obtaining
    consent of the Senate (III, 1793, 1795, footnote).

    [[Page 178]]

    Sec. 348. Admission of counsel.

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

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

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

                        sec. xiv--arrangement of business

    [[Page 179]]

    Sec. 349. Advantages of an order of business.

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

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

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

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

      In the House before committees are appointed it is in order to offer a
    bill or resolution for consideration not previously considered by a
    committee (VII, 2103). In the 73d Congress, the House passed before the
    adoption of rules and election of committees a bill of major importance
    (providing relief in the existing national emergency in banking),
    following a message from the President recommending its immediate
    passage (Mar. 9, 1933, pp. 75-84).

    [[Page 180]]

    House. Such are original motions and reports on bills. Such are bills
    from the other House, which are received at all times, and receive their
    first reading as soon as the question then before the House is disposed
    of; and bills brought in on leave, which are read first whenever
    presented. So messages from the other House respecting amendments to
    bills are taken up as soon as the House is clear of a question, unless
    they require to be printed, for better consideration. Orders of the day
    may be called for, even when another question is before the House.

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

      Arrangement,  however, can only take hold of matters in
    possession of the House. New matter may be moved at any time when no
    question is before the

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

    * * * * *
                                 sec. xv--order

    Sec. 351. Precedent in Parliament and the
    House.

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

    [[Page 181]]

    on discretionary matters of recognition (II, 1425). It is rare, however,
    that such a reversal occurs.

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

                        sec. xvi--order respecting papers

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 182]]

      In the House an alleged improper alteration of a bill was presented as
    a question of privilege and examined by a select committee. It being
    ascertained that the alteration was made to correct a clerical error,
    the committee reported that it was ``highly censurable in any Member or
    officer of the House to make any change, even the most unimportant, in
    any bill or resolution which has received the sanction of this body''
    (III, 2598). Alleged abuse of power in the processing and enrollment of
    bills has formed the basis of questions of privilege (Feb. 16, 2006, p.
    1948; May 22, 2008, p. 10522). Although engrossing papers must be at the
    desk, additional copies of a pending measure are not required (June 26,
    2009, pp. 16698-700). The Clerk signs engrossments; the Speaker signs
    enrollments (1 U.S.C. 106).

                           sec. xvii--order in debate

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

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

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

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

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

      This provision has been superseded by clause 1 of rule XVII, which was
    amended in the 115th Congress to remove a requirement that a Member rise
    to seek recognition (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37). As long
    ago as 1832, at least, Members were not required to seek recognition
    from their own particular seats (V, 4979, footnote), and seats are no
    longer assigned. In addition, the Speaker calls the Member, not by name,
    but as ``the gentleman or gentlewoman from __,'' (naming the State).

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

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

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

    [[Page 183]]

    But sometimes the House does not acquiesce in the Speaker's decision, in
    which case the question is put, ``which Member was first up?'' 2 Hats.,
    76; Scob., 7; D'Ewes, 434, col. 1, 2.

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

      If  two or more rise to speak nearly together, the Speaker
    determines who was first up, and calls him by name, whereupon he
    proceeds, unless he voluntarily sits down and gives way to the other.

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

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

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

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

      But he may be permitted to speak again to clear a matter of fact, 3
    Grey, 357, 416; or merely to explain himself, 2 Hats., 73, in some
    material part of his speech, Ib., 75; or to the manner or words of the
    question, keeping himself to that only, and not traveling into the
    merits of it, Memorials in Hakew., 29; or to the orders of the House, if
    they be transgressed, keeping within that line, and not falling into the
    matter itself. Mem. Hakew., 30, 31.

    [[Page 184]]

    p. 4497; Oct. 18, 2007, p. 27575). In ordinary practice rule XVII is not
    rigidly enforced, and Members find little difficulty in making such
    explanations as are contemplated by the parliamentary law. See
    Sec. Sec. 959, 981, infra.

      The House has modified the parliamentary law as to a Member's right to
    speak a second time by clause 3 of rule XVII and by permitting a Member
    controlling time in debate to yield to another more than once (Apr. 5,
    2000,

    Sec. 358. Participation of the Speaker in debate.

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 185]]

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

    Sec. 360. Language reflecting on the House.

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

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

    [[Page 186]]

    Sec. 361. Personalities in debate forbidden.

      No  person, in
    speaking, is to mention a Member then present by his name, but to
    describe him by his seat in the House, or who spoke last, or on the
    other side of the question, &c., Mem. in Hakew., 3; Smyth's Comw., L. 2,
    c. 3; nor to digress from the matter to fall upon the person, Scob., 31;
    Hale Parl., 133; 2 Hats., 166, by speaking reviling, nipping, or
    unmannerly words against a particular Member. Smyth's Comw., L. 2, c. 3.
    * * *

      In the practice of the House, a Member is not permitted to refer to
    another Member by name (V, 5144; VIII, 2526, 2529, 2536), or to address
    a Member in the second person (V, 5140-5143; VI, 600; VIII, 2529;
    Speaker Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 26, 2013,
    p. 1680; Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p. 4783; Speaker Boehner, Feb.
    25, 2015, p. 2554; Speaker Ryan, June 23, 2017, p. 9794). The proper
    reference to another Member is ``the gentleman or gentlewoman from __,''
    (naming the Member's State) (June 14, 1978, p. 17615; July 21, 1982, p.
    17314). A mere reference to a Member's voting record does not form a
    basis for a point of order against those remarks (June 13, 2002, p.
    10226, p. 10232).

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

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

      Clause 1 of rule XVII has been held to proscribe: (1) referring to an
    identifiable group of sitting Members as having committed a crime (e.g.,
    stealing an election or obstructing justice) (Feb. 27, 1985, p. 3898;
    Speaker Wright, Mar. 21, 1989, p. 5016; May 19, 1998, p. 9738; July 15,
    2004, p. 15859); (2) referring in a personally critical manner to the
    political tactics of the Speaker or other Members (June 25, 1981, p.
    14056); (3) referring to a particular Member of the House in a
    derogatory fashion (Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27077); (4) characterizing a Member
    as ``the most impolite Member'' (June 27, 1996, p. 15915) or ``mean-
    spirited'' (May 13, 1992, p. 11235); (5) questioning the integrity of a
    Member (July 25, 1996, p. 19170); (6) denouncing the spirit in which a
    Member had spoken (V, 6981); (7) using a Member's surname as though an
    adjective for a word of ridicule (June 13, 2002, p. 10232; May 13, 2008,
    p. 8923); (8) questioning the decency of another Member (Mar. 21, 2007,
    p. 7074); (9) labeling the remarks of a Member ``hypocritical and
    dishonest'' (Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045); (9) referring to a Member as anti-
    Semitic or suggesting affiliation with a terrorist organization (Dec.
    14, 2021, p. _).

    [[Page 187]]

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

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

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

    [[Page 188]]

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 189]]

    to persons who would desecrate the flag (June 20, 1990, p. 14877), to
    refer to him as a ``crybaby'' (Nov. 16, 1995, p. 33394), or to refer to
    official conduct of the Speaker that has previously been resolved by the
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) or the House
    (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.7). The Chair may take the
    initiative to admonish Members for references in debate that disparage
    the Speaker (June 25, 1981, p. 14056; Mar. 22, 1996, p. 6077; May 13,
    2008, p. 8923). Debate on a resolution authorizing the Speaker to
    entertain motions to suspend the rules may not engage in personality by
    discussing the official conduct of the Speaker, even if possibly
    relevant to the question of empowerment of the Speaker (Sept. 24, 1996,
    p. 24485).

    Sec. 362. Criticism of the Speaker.

      Complaint  of the conduct
    of the Speaker should be presented directly for the action of the House
    and not by way of debate on other matters (V, 5188). In a case wherein a
    Member used words insulting to the Speaker the House on a subsequent
    day, and after other business had intervened, censured the offender (II,
    1248). In such a case the Speaker would ordinarily leave the chair while
    action should be taken by the House (II, 1366; V, 5188; VI, 565). In the
    104th Congress the Chair reaffirmed that it is not in order to speak
    disrespectfully of the Speaker, and that under the precedents the
    sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary requirements for
    timeliness of challenges (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 552; Jan. 19, 1995,
    p. 1599). It is not in order to arraign the personal conduct of the
    Speaker (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.6; Jan. 19, 1995, p. 1601).
    For example, it is not in order to charge dishonesty or disregard of the
    rules (July 11, 1985, p. 18550), to reflect on his patriotism by
    accusing him of ``kowtowing''

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

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

    [[Page 190]]

      The arraignment of the motives of Members is not permitted (V, 5147-
    51; Dec. 13, 1973, p. 41270), and Speakers have intervened to prevent
    it, in the earlier practice preventing even mildest imputations (V,
    5161, 5162). However, remarks in debate may address political, but not
    personal, motivations for legislative positions (Jan. 24, 1995, p. 2214;
    Mar. 8, 1995, pp. 7307, 7308; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33832; June 13, 1996, p.
    14043) or for committee membership (July 10, 1995, pp. 18257-59).
    Accusing another Member of hypocrisy has been held not in order (July
    24, 1979, p. 20380; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9675; Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045), and
    characterizing the motivation of a Member in offering an amendment as
    deceptive and hypocritical was ruled out of order (June 12, 1979, p.
    14461). A statement in debate that an amendment could only be demagogic
    or racist because only demagoguery or racism impelled such an amendment
    was ruled out of order as impugning the motives of the Member offering
    the amendment (Dec. 13, 1973, pp. 41270, 41271). However, debate
    characterizing a pending measure as a ``patently petty political
    terrorist tactic'' was held in order as directed at the pending measure
    rather than the motive or the character of its proponent (Nov. 9, 1995,
    p. 31913). Although in debate the assertion of one Member may be
    declared untrue by another, in so doing an intentional misrepresentation
    must not be implied (V, 5157-5160), and if stated or implied is
    censurable (II, 1305). A Member in debate having declared the words of
    another ``a base lie,'' censure was inflicted by the House on the
    offender (II, 1249).

    Sec. 364. Disorder and interruptions during debate.

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

    [[Page 191]]

    dents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.1) or may order that the well be cleared
    (Speaker McCormack, Dec. 9, 1963, p. 23831). For further discussion of
    interruptions in debate, see Sec. 946, infra.

      The House has, by clause 5 of rule XVII, prescribed certain rules of
    decorum differing somewhat from this provision of the parliamentary law,
    but supplemental to it rather than antagonistic. In one respect,
    however, the practice of the House differs from the apparent intent of
    the parliamentary law. In the House a Member may interrupt by addressing
    the Chair for permission of the Member speaking (V, 5006; VIII, 2465);
    but it is entirely within the discretion of the Member occupying the
    floor to determine when and by whom to be interrupted (V, 5007, 5008;
    VIII, 2463, 2465). There is no rule of the House requiring a Member
    having the floor to yield to another Member referred to during debate
    (Aug. 2, 1984, p. 22241). A Member may ask another to yield from any
    microphone in the Chamber, including those in the well, so long as not
    crossing between the Member having the floor and the Chair (June 5,
    1998, p. 11170). The Chair may take the initiative in preserving order
    when a Member declining to yield in debate continues to be interrupted
    by another Member, may order that the interrupting Member's remarks not
    appear in the Record (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.24), and may
    admonish Members not to converse with a Member attempting to address the
    House (Feb. 21, 1984, p. 2758), because it is not in order to engage in
    disruption while another is delivering remarks in debate (June 27, 1996,
    p. 15915). On the opening day of the 103d Congress, during the customary
    announcement of policies with respect to particular aspects of the
    legislative process, the Chair elaborated on the rules of order in
    debate with a general statement concerning decorum in the House (Jan. 5,
    1993, p. 105). Under this provision, the Chair may require a line of
    Members waiting to sign a discharge petition to proceed to the rostrum
    from the far right-hand aisle and require the line not to form between
    the Chair and Members engaging in debate (Oct. 24, 1997, p. 23293).
    Hissing and jeering is not proper decorum in the House (May 21, 1998, p.
    10282). In the event of disorder in the well, the Chair may ask Members
    to uphold the dignity and decorum of the House so that business can be
    conducted in an orderly fashion (Speaker Ryan, Prece

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 192]]

      This provision of parliamentary law should be read in conjunction with
    clause 4 of rule XVII, Sec. Sec. 960-961, infra, particularly as this
    provision relates to the ultimate authority of the House to determine
    whether a Member ignoring repeated calls to order should be permitted to
    proceed in order.

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

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

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

    [[Page 193]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 194]]

    House has censured a Member for disorderly words spoken in the Committee
    of the Whole and reported therefrom (II, 1259).

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

    Sec. 370. References in debate to the
    Executive.

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

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

      Personal abuse, innuendo, or ridicule of the President is not
    permitted (VIII, 2497; Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21078; Oct. 21, 1987, pp.
    28857, 28858; Sept. 21, 1994, p. 25147; Sept. 7, 2006, pp. 17381, 17382;
    Oct. 24, 2017, p. 16355). The standards applicable to references
    regarding the President apply also to the President-elect (e.g., Nov.
    14, 2016, p. 14092). In the 102d Congress, the Speaker enunciated a
    minimal standard of propriety for all debate concerning nominated
    candidates for the Presidency, based on the traditional proscription
    against personally offensive references to the President even in the
    capacity as a candidate (Speaker Foley, Sept. 24, 1992, p. 27344). This
    policy has been extended to a presumptive major-party nominee for
    President (e.g., Apr. 22, 2004, pp. 7401, 7402) (although references to
    the past statements or views of such nominee are not necessarily
    unparliamentary (May 6, 2004, p. 8554)). The House has adopted a special
    order of business permitting Members to engage in personalities toward
    the President during debate on certain specified measures (sec. 2, H.
    Res. 38, Jan. 12, 2021, p. _).

    [[Page 195]]

    p. 19822); (5) a personal ``dark side'' (Mar. 1, 2017, p. 3243),
    ruthless (May 8, 2019, p. _) or ``sinister'' (Dec. 20, 2018, p. _); (6)
    that such person is deserving of shame (May 24, 2016, p. 6998) or is
    ``shameful'' (e.g., Dec. 8, 2016, p. 16331) (although an accusation of
    ``shameful opposition'' to a legislative proposal is not necessarily out
    of order (Deschler, ch. 29, Sec.  58.7)); (7) not ``a large enough
    person'' to apologize (Mar. 11, 2004, p. 4086); (8) ``arrogant'' (e.g.,
    Jan. 11, 2007, p. 998); (9) ``mean-spirited'' (e.g., July 15, 2008, p.
    15061), ``mean'' (July 28, 2017, p. 12341), or vicious (Sept. 25, 2017,
    p. 14710); vengeful (June 3, 2013, p. 7783), ``cruel'' (e.g., Nov. 15,
    2013, p. 17166), heartless (e.g., July 25, 2017, p. 11493), callous
    (e.g., Sept. 27, 2017, p. _), a ``jerk'' (Nov. 15, 2018, p. _), or
    accusations of demeaning and denigrating others (Oct. 26, 2017, p.
    16692); (10) ill-tempered or lacking temperament (e.g., Sept. 7, 2016,
    p. 11924), ``infantile'' (June 15, 2016, p. 8771) or ``petulant'' (e.g.,
    Jan. 18, 2018, p. _); (11) a ``hissy fit'' (e.g., Oct. 27, 2011, pp.
    16239, 16245) or ``temper tantrum'' (e.g., Mar. 19, 2018, p. _); (12)
    was ``rooting against,'' or was turning one's back on, the American
    people (e.g., Mar. 16, 2016, p. 3317), intentionally hurting the public
    (Oct. 3, 2013, p. 15069), or ``bilking'' the taxpayer (Apr. 22, 2015, p.
    5374); (13) that such person had engaged in insults (e.g., May 13, 2015,
    p. 6583), ``attacks women'' (July 16, 2018, p. _) or protected classes
    (Oct. 26, 2017, p. 16692), or ``says ugly things about women'' (Nov. 21,
    2019, p. _); (14) accusing such person of being ``delusional'' (e.g.,
    Dec. 9, 2015, pp. 19794, 19795), ``paranoid'' (Dec. 14, 2017, p. 19818),
    ``mentally unwell'' (Sept. 29, 2021, p. _), ``erratic and impetuous''
    (Jan. 24, 2019, p. _), of having ``diminished faculties'' (June 4, 2024,
    p. _), or of suffering ``debilitating cognitive decline'' (July 10,
    2024, p. _); (15) commenting derogatorily on physical attributes (May
    24, 2016, p. 6997); (16) accusing such person of engaging in ``character
    assassination'' or a ``smear campaign'' against others (Jan. 10, 2018,
    p. _); (17) alleging that such person mocked disabled individuals (Feb.
    14, 2018, p. _); (18) referring to such person as a ``moron'' (Mar. 22,
    2018, p. _), an ``idiot'' (Dec. 20, 2017, p. 20446), a ``withering,
    blundering, failure'' (Feb. 3, 2022, p. _), or of doing or saying stupid
    things (Oct. 26, 2017, p. 16692); (19) referring to such person as
    ``greedy'' (Apr. 17, 2018, p. _); (20) accusing such person of threats
    against public officials (Apr. 25, 2018, p. _); (21) questioning such
    person's ``reckless'' and ``negligent'' personal conduct (May 24, 2018,
    p. _), doubting such person's faithfulness to a spouse (e.g., June 13,
    2018, p. _), accusing such person of ``using women'' (June 28, 2018, p.
    _), or alleging that such person has a ``sex tape'' (July 18, 2018, p.
    _); (22) ``soulless'' (June 21, 2018, p. _) or ``immoral'' (e.g., Sept.
    25, 2017, p. 14708); (23) a ``drama queen'' (Dec. 20, 2018, p. _); (24)
    insinuating that such person acts according to his ego (Oct. 10, 2017,
    p. 15750), has a fragile ego (Nov. 29, 2017, p. _), or is ``making the
    American people suffer for the sake of his ego'' (Jan. 9, 2019, p. _);
    (25) accusing such person of ``spreading evil'' (Dec. 1, 2017, p.
    19034); (26) accusing such person of vanity (July 11, 2019, p. _); (27)

    [[Page 196]]

    suggesting that such person was ``struggling to stay awake'' (June 24,
    2021, p. _) or is otherwise ``feeble'' (Oct. 2, 2023, p. _).
      Under this standard, the following remarks regarding personal conduct,
    demeanor, or attributes have been held out of order as unparliamentary
    references: (1) discussing personal conduct even as a point of reference
    or comparison (July 16, 1998, p. 15784; Sept. 9, 1998, p. 19735); (2)
    ``cowardly,'' ``cowardice'' (e.g., Oct. 25, 1989, p. 25817), lacking
    personal courage (Mar. 26, 2014, p. 4875), ``dastardly'' (July 25, 2017,
    p. 11493), or lacking a backbone (July 16, 2018, p. _); (3) ``a little
    bugger'' (Nov. 18, 1995, p. 33974); (4) ``disgusting'' and
    ``despicable'' (Mar. 11, 2004, p. 4033; Jan. 15, 2019, p. _),
    ``disgraceful'' (e.g., June 20, 2012, pp. 9462, 9463) or a disgrace
    (e.g., Sept. 25, 2017, p. 14711), ``disgusting and indecent rhetoric''
    (Mar. 27, 2017, p. 4898), ``vile'' (June 15, 2018, p. _), incapable of
    ``basic human decency'' (Sept. 13, 2018, p. _) or a ``loathsome human''
    (Dec. 14, 2017,

      It is not in order to call the President a ``liar'' or accuse such
    person of ``lying'' (e.g., June 26, 1985, p. 17394). Indeed, any
    suggestion of mendacity is out of order, such as: (1) suggesting that
    such person misrepresented the truth, attempted to obstruct justice, and
    encouraged others to perjure themselves (Feb. 25, 1998, p. 2621); (2)
    dishonesty (e.g., July 13, 2004, p. 15275), failing to be honest (Apr.
    14, 2011, p. 6198), making a ``dishonest argument'' (Sept. 12, 2006, p.
    17851), or intent to be intellectually dishonest (May 9, 1990, p. 9828)
    or issue a false statement (Dec. 20, 2017, p. 20438), or stating that
    many were convinced such person had ``not been honest'' (Mar. 5, 1998,
    p. 2620), or stating that such person had ``fallen quite short when it
    comes to fairness or honesty'' (June 12, 2017, p. 9056); (3) ``raping''
    the truth (Apr. 24, 1996, p. 8807), ``contempt for the truth'' (June 24,
    2019, p. _), not telling the truth (e.g., Oct. 29, 2003, p. 26363),
    distorting the truth (Sept. 9, 2003, pp. 21570-73), having only a
    ``nodding acquaintance'' with the truth (Mar. 1, 2017, p. 3291), or
    asserting that such person's ``relationship with the truth is
    complicated at best'' (June 22, 2017, p. 9738); (4) not being ``straight
    with us'' (e.g., Nov. 19, 2003, p. 29811) or ``spoke out of the other
    side of his mouth'' (Jan. 31, 2012, p. 525); (5) attributing
    ``hypocrisy'' (e.g., Sept. 25, 1992, p. 27674); (6) ``deceit'' (Nov. 17,
    2014, p. 15809), ``deception'' (e.g., Sept. 28, 2016, p. 13894), being
    deceptive (e.g., Mar. 29, 2004, pp. 5523, 5524), using ``deceptive
    rhetoric'' (Oct. 17, 2007, pp. 27534, 27538), or engaging in a ``massive
    campaign of deception'' (July 11, 2018, p. _); (7) making promises while
    having ``no intention of living up to his promises'' (Mar. 27, 2017, p.
    4898) or stating that such person went back on (Dec. 20, 2018, p. _) or
    ``personally reneged on'' (Jan. 18, 2018, p. _) his word; (8) acting in
    a ``duplicitous'' manner (June 11, 2015, p. 9358); (9) acting in a
    ``disingenuous'' manner (Mar. 1, 2017, p. 3307); (10) fabricating an
    issue (e.g., July 6, 2004, pp. 14313, 14314), ``gaslighting'' (Dec. 14,
    2022, p. _), engaging in ``scams'' (May 22, 2019, p. _), ``playing the
    American people for fools'' (Oct. 19, 2021, p. _), or intending to
    mislead (e.g., Oct. 6, 2004, p. 21053), such as pushing falsehoods (Aug.
    24, 2021, p. _) or stating ``blatant falsehoods'' (Jan. 30, 2017, p.
    1339); (11) engaging in ``elaborate attempts to conceal information''
    (Dec. 14, 2017, p. 19811); (12) engaging in ``defamation'' (Dec. 14,
    2017, p. 19818); (13) intentional mischaracterization, although
    mischaracterization without intent to deceive is not necessarily out of
    order (July 19, 2005, p. 16525); (14) cheating in an election (Aug. 22,
    2020, p. _); (15) a ``lying, dog-faced pony soldier'' (May 10, 2022, p.
    _).

    [[Page 197]]

    2005, pp. 20238, 20239); (2) using the Presidency for personal benefit
    (e.g., Jan. 11, 2017, p. 583) or ``self-enrichment'' (e.g., Apr. 17,
    2018, p. _), or accusing the President of the ``appearance of
    wrongdoing'' and of ``profiting illegally'' from the office (Mar. 15,
    2018, p. _); (3) questioning whether the President can ``live up to the
    ethical requirements'' of the office (Jan. 24, 2017, p. 1183); (4)
    calling such person ``amoral'' or lacking in morality (June 3, 2013, p.
    7783; Nov. 16, 2016, p. 14390), or accusing such person of having ``no
    conscience'' (May 21, 2018, p. _); (5) referring to such person as
    having financial conflicts of interest (Dec. 11, 2018, p. _); (6) making
    allegations that the President engaged in ``foreign bribery'' (July 18,
    2023, p. _).
      It is not in order to cast aspersions on the ethical behavior of the
    President, including: (1) alluding to unethical behavior or corruption
    (e.g., June 20, 1996, p. 14829), such as implying a cause-and-effect
    relationship between political contributions and his actions as
    President (e.g., May 22, 2001, p. 9028), including an accusation that
    the President had ``lined the pockets'' of his ``political cronies'' and
    filled ``campaign coffers'' (Sept. 14,

    [[Page 198]]

    or a ``rapist'' (May 16, 2024, p. _), or accusing such person of
    bragging about sexual assault (May 16, 2018, p. _); (13) referring to
    such person as a ``grifter'' (Apr. 11, 2018, p. _); (14) alleging that
    such person is holding ``innocent babies'' hostage and referencing their
    placement in cages (June 19, 2018, p. _) or generally referring to such
    person's ``disregard for the well-being of children'' (May 9, 2019, p.
    _); (15) accusing such person of child abuse (July 18, 2018, p. _) or
    encouraging others to commit assault (June 27, 2018, p. _); (16)
    accusing such person of treason (Dec. 14, 2017, p. _) or of potentially
    ``treasonous'' behavior (e.g., July 16, 2018, p. _); (17) referring to
    such person as a ``mobster, con man, gangster'' (June 11, 2019, p. _) or
    a ``mob boss'' (June 11, 2019, p. _), or accusing such person of
    inciting a mob (May 15, 2024, p. _); (18) accusing such person of
    blackmailing a foreign leader (Sept. 24, 2019, p. _); (19) suggesting
    that such person is ``helping'' drug cartels with ``their human
    trafficking business'' (Apr. 16, 2021, p. _) or aiding and abetting drug
    cartels (Oct. 22, 2021, p. _), or calling such person the ``trafficker-
    in-chief'' (e.g., Feb. 2, 2022, p. _); (20) referring to such person as
    a ``kingpin'' overseeing criminal activity (Sept. 14, 2023, p. _); (21)
    accusing such person of engaging in ``money laundering'' (Nov. 1, 2023,
    p. _).
      Accusations that the President has committed a crime, or even that the
    President has done something illegal, are unparliamentary. The following
    allegations are not in order: (1) ``draft-dodger'' (e.g., Apr. 24, 1996,
    pp. 8807, 8808), unexcused absences from military service (May 5, 2004,
    pp. 8417, 8418), such as being ``A.W.O.L.'' (Sept. 22, 2004, p. 18953),
    dereliction of duty as Commander-in-Chief (e.g., Oct. 22, 2015, pp.
    16385, 16389), or of ``abdication of duty'' (Oct. 12, 2017, p. 15859);
    (2) discussing ``charges'' leveled at the President or under
    investigation (e.g., Mar. 19, 1998, p. 4094), including alluding to
    ``fund-raising abuses'' (Mar. 14, 2000, p. 2716), speculating that the
    Vice President might someday pardon the President for certain charges
    (Apr. 12, 2000, p. 5419), or invoking a finding of personal liability by
    a court (May 24, 2016, p. 6998); (3) ``crook'' (e.g., Mar. 1, 2017, p.
    3241), ``come clean'' (Sept. 21, 2016, p. 13243), ``fess up'' (Feb. 6,
    2017, p. 1849), or an allegation that the President has engaged in a
    ``coverup'' (May 22, 2019, p. _); (4) suggesting censure or impeachment
    (e.g., Feb. 2, 2017, p. 1698); (5) discussing alleged criminal conduct
    (e.g., Sept. 10, 1998, p. 19976), including an assertion that the
    President led a vast criminal enterprise for decades (Sept. 5, 2018, p.
    _); (6) obstruction of justice (e.g., May 17, 2017, p. 7911) or
    speculation that a hypothetical action by the President would constitute
    obstruction of justice (Jan. 29, 2018, p. _); (7) accusations of
    ``illegal'' activity or actions taken with the knowledge that they were
    not in accordance with the law (e.g., June 20, 2006, p. 11935); (8)
    ``above the law'' (e.g., June 18, 2012, p. 9191), ``lawless'' (e.g.,
    Aug. 1, 2014, p. 14017), violating the law (e.g., July 29, 2014, p.
    13385), breaking the law (Sept. 9, 2014, p. 14290), abusing the law
    (Feb. 27, 2015, p. 2907), assaulting the rule of law (May 16, 2017, p.
    7831), disrespecting the rule of law (Sept. 27, 2018, p. _), or ``beyond
    justice'' (Apr. 11, 2018, p. _); (9) suggesting collusion with a foreign
    country to violate the integrity of a U.S. election (Mar. 29, 2017, p.
    5048); (10) ``shredding'' (Apr. 19, 2016, p. 4563), having contempt for
    (e.g., July 17, 2013, pp. 11608, 11609), having disrespect for (Feb. 3,
    2014, p. 2389), decimating (Apr. 11, 2018, p. _), trampling upon (e.g.,
    Apr. 26, 2018, p. _), or raping (Feb. 26, 2019, p. _) the Constitution;
    (11) ``con man'' or ``con artist'' (e.g., June 9, 2016, p. 8375); (12)
    alluding to alleged sexual misconduct (e.g., May 10, 1994, p. 9697),
    labeling such person a sexual predator (Nov. 16, 2016, p. 14390)

    [[Page 199]]

      References to racial or other discrimination on the part of the
    President are not in order. As such, remarks may not refer to the
    President as: (1) a racist (e.g., June 9, 2016, p. 8375); (2) having
    made ``racial slurs'' or ``racial epithets'' (e.g., Jan. 9, 2017, p.
    392); (3) telling a ``racist lie'' (e.g., Jan. 9, 2017, p. 392); (4) a
    bigot (e.g., June 9, 2016, p. 8375), including by referring to bigotry
    emanating from the Presidency (e.g., Jan. 16, 2019, p. _); (5) having
    made a bigoted or racist statement (e.g., June 7, 2016, p. 7898); (6)
    having taken a bigoted action (Jan. 30, 2017, p. 1339) or ``putting his
    bigotry into policy'' (June 27, 2018, p. _); (7) not caring about black
    people (Sept. 8, 2005, p. 19797); (8) a misogynist (June 9, 2016, p.
    8363) or a homophobe (Sept. 5, 2018, p. _); (9) having run a prejudiced
    campaign (Jan. 12, 2017, p. 854); (10) having engaged in ``racist
    rhetoric'' (Jan. 17, 2018, p. _), racist stereotyping (Oct. 23, 2017, p.
    16313), or a ``racist rant'' (Feb. 6, 2018, p. _); (11) having ``racist
    intentions'' (Jan. 17, 2018, p. _) or ``inciting racism'' (Nov. 8, 2017,
    p. 17398); (12) normalizing bigotry (Jan. 30, 2018, p. _); (13)
    exhibiting ``hatred for immigrants'' (Feb. 27, 2018, p. _), demonizing
    immigrants (e.g., Feb. 8, 2018, p. _), ``hate peddling'' (June 21, 2018,
    p. _) or having engaged in ``hateful rhetoric'' (Sept. 6, 2018, p. _),
    ``hateful policies'' (Feb. 26, 2019, p. _), condoning hate groups (June
    11, 2019, p. _), ``stoking the flames'' of hate (July 24, 2019, p. _),
    ``inhuman'' behavior (Mar. 7, 2019, p. _) or fearmongering (Jan. 9,
    2019, p. _; Jan. 10, 2019, p. _) with respect to immigrants; (14)
    holding the view that ``crime and the skin color of a person are
    synonymous'' (May 16, 2018, p. _); (15) ``uniting hatred'' (Sept. 25,
    2017, p. _); (16) engaging in ``xenophobic threats'' (June 4, 2019, p.
    _); (17) having a ``white nationalist agenda'' (July 22, 2020, p. _).

      Language impugning the patriotism or loyalty of the President is not
    in order, such as: (1) directly questioning patriotism (Sept. 9, 2016,
    p. 12156); (2) labeling the President as un-American or having an ``un-
    American ideology'' (e.g., June 7, 2016, p. 7898) or ``subverting
    democracy'' (Apr. 17, 2018, p. _); (3) accusing the President of giving
    ``aid and comfort to the enemy'' (e.g., Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352),
    ``aiding and abetting the enemy'' (Apr. 22, 2004, pp. 7401, 7402),
    ``aiding and abetting a terroristic regime'' (Sept. 10, 2015, p. 13976),
    choosing terrorists over Americans (Mar. 9, 2022, p. _), or ``sucking up
    to dictators'' (June 7, 2018, p. _); (4) accusing the President of
    ``spying'' on Congress (e.g., Jan. 7, 2016, p. 128); (5) equating the
    President's decisions with regard to armed conflict to his having
    ``slaughtered'' thousands (Mar. 8, 2007, p. 5815) or that a soldier's
    death was for his ``amusement'' (Oct. 18, 2007, pp. 27569, 27570); (6)
    accusing the President of having ``hurt'' Americans ``out of spite''
    (July 28, 2017, p. 12341), of torturing the American people (Jan. 23,
    2019, p. _), or of inflicting harm upon Americans (July 9, 2019, p. _);
    (7) alleging that the President ``puts himself above his country'' (July
    17, 2018, p. _); (8) referring to the President's ``voter fraud
    playbook'' (Dec. 11, 2018, p. _); (9) calling the President a ``threat
    to national security'' (Jan. 26, 2023, p. _); (10) accusing the
    President of having ``blood on [his] hands'' (Mar. 7, 2024, p. _); (11)
    accusing the President of stealing food out of soldiers' mouths (June
    12, 2024, p. _); (12) referring to the President as a threat to
    democracy (Sept. 18, 2024, p. _).

    [[Page 200]]

    tarian'' behavior (Feb. 14, 2018, p. _); (10) accusing the President of
    ``boot-licking'' foreign leaders (July 18, 2018, p. _); referring to the
    President as a bully (Jan. 15, 2019, p. _) or a ``billionaire bully''
    (Jan. 9, 2019, p. _); (11) comparing such person's rhetoric to that of
    ``Hitler and other Nazi leaders'' (Apr. 10, 2024, p. _).
      Personally disparaging the manner in which the President carries out
    the duties of the office can constitute a personality, such as when the
    remarks suggest that the President is an undemocratic leader akin to a
    dictator. Remarks that have been held to be unparliamentary include: (1)
    an accusation of ``abuse of power'' or ``abuse of the office'' (e.g.,
    Sept. 9, 2014, p. 14314) or ``abuse of executive privilege'' (Apr. 27,
    2016, p. 5239); (2) an accusation that the President ``disrespected the
    office'' (Mar. 27, 2017, p. 4898) or took an action ``beneath the
    dignity of the office'' (May 3, 2017, p. 6439); (3) an accusation of
    violating the oath of office (e.g., Dec. 3, 2013, p. 18074); (4)
    likening the President to a ``ruler'' (e.g., July 8, 2013, p. 10964),
    ``king'' (e.g., July 17, 2013, p. 11622), ``monarch'' (Jan. 15, 2013, p.
    218), ``emperor'' (Dec. 2, 2014, p. 16380), ``modern-day pharoah'' (Jan.
    23, 2019, p. _), a dictator (e.g., Feb. 6, 2018, p. _), or accusing the
    President of ``quasi-monarchical'' behavior or of ``royal pageantry''
    (July 11, 2019, p. _); (5) an accusation of ``tyranny'' (Mar. 16, 2016,
    p. 3317), of having ``tyrannical impulses'' (Oct. 20, 2021, p. _), or of
    admiring tyrants (Feb. 26, 2019, p. _); (6) an accusation of
    ``demagoguery'' or of being a demagogue (e.g., Jan. 23, 1996, p. 1144);
    (7) referring to the President as a ``Manchurian President'' (July 24,
    2017, p. 11470); (8) an accusation that the President has brought shame
    upon the office (Dec. 1, 2017, p. 19034) or the nation (Dec. 12, 2017,
    p. 19621), ``diminished'' the office by turning it into a ``Theatre of
    the Absurd'' (Jan. 19, 2018, p. _), or is a ``reality-show President''
    (Jan. 17, 2019, p. _); (9) an accusation of ``authori

      The Chair may admonish Members transgressing this stricture even after
    other debate has intervened (Jan. 23, 1996, p. 1144; Apr. 27, 2016, p.
    5239).

      A Member may not read in debate extraneous material personally abusive
    of the President that would be improper if spoken in the Member's own
    words (Mar. 3, 1993, p. 3958; Nov. 15, 1995, p. 32587; May 2, 1996, p.
    10010; Mar. 17, 1998, p. 3799; July 15, 2003, p. 18170; Sept. 16, 2003,
    pp. 22151, 22152; Oct. 17, 2007, p. 27538; Oct. 5, 2013, p. 15297; Sept.
    28, 2015, p. 14945; Apr. 19, 2016, p. 4563; June 29, 2017, p. 10145;
    Jan. 17, 2018, p. _; July 12, 2018, p. _), such as material labeling the
    President's statement a lie (Sept. 10, 2014, p. 14416). This prohibition
    includes the recitation of another Member's criticism of the President
    made off the floor (even if recited as a rebuttal to such criticism)
    (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27775; Apr. 18, 2016, p. 4499; Oct. 24, 2017, p.
    16397).

      Although wide latitude is permitted in debate on a proposition to
    impeach the President (V, 5093), Members must abstain from language
    personally offensive (V, 5094; Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829); and Members
    must abstain from comparisons to the personal conduct of sitting Members
    of the House or Senate (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829). Furthermore, when
    impeachment is not the pending business on the floor, Members may not
    refer to evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by the President
    contained in a communication from an independent counsel pending before
    a House committee (Sept. 14, 1998, p. 20171; Sept. 17, 1998, p. 20758),
    although they may refer to the communication, itself, within the
    confines of proper decorum in debate (Oct. 6, 1998, p. 23841), and may
    not otherwise suggest that the President has done something worthy of
    censure or impeachment (e.g., Feb. 2, 2017, p. 1698), including by
    reciting the vote totals on an impeachment resolution that had been
    previously laid on the table by the House (Dec. 7, 2017, p. 19441) or by
    urging the Senate to convict the President during a trial following his
    impeachment by the House (Jan. 29, 2020, p. _).

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

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

    [[Page 201]]

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

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

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

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

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

      It  is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been said
    on the same subject in the other House, or the particular votes or
    majorities on it there; because the opinion of each House should be left
    to its own independency, not to be influenced by the proceedings of the
    other; and the quoting them might beget reflections leading to a
    misunderstanding between the two Houses. 8 Grey, 22.

    [[Page 202]]

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

      Since the adoption of the new rule, the following references to the
    Senate or its Members have been held unparliamentary: (1) insinuating
    that a Senator or the Majority Leader lied (Dec. 20, 2011, pp. 21444,
    21446; Sept. 28, 2018, p. _); (2) accusing Senate Republicans of
    hypocrisy (May 16, 2005, p. 9757); (3) accusing a Senator of making
    slanderous statements (June 17, 2005, p. 13009; June 21, 2005, p.
    13408); (4) attributing to a Senator a list of offenses under
    investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (Oct. 18, 2005,
    p. 22987); (5) accusing a Senator of corruption (Oct. 13, 2009, p.
    24720), taking bribes (Jan. 19, 2010, p. 209), or being unethical (Aug.
    2, 2012, p. 13256); (6) accusing the Republican leadership of
    ``hijacking justice'' (Feb. 1, 2017, p. 1497); (7) accusing a Senator of
    giving ``aid and comfort'' to the enemy (Dec. 13, 2005, p. 28162); (8)
    referring to a Senator as ``disgraceful'' (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14985) or a
    Senate action as a ``disgrace'' (Apr. 18, 2013, p. 5539), or
    sarcastically as ``courageous'' (July 22, 2011, p. 11831-33); (9)
    referring to Senate Democrats (May 18, 2005, p. 10136) or liberals in
    the Senate (July 30, 2011, p. 12531) as ``cowardly''; (10) stating a
    ``low opinion'' of the Senate (Apr. 1, 2011, p. 4966); (11) stating that
    the Majority Leader ``has a high opinion of himself'' (Dec. 20, 2011, p.
    21392); (12) accusing a Senator of ``taunting'' (May 22, 2014, p. 8972)
    or of childish behavior (Jan. 24, 2019, p. _); (13) accusing a Senator
    of being prejudiced, racist, or of making a racist comment (Jan. 12,
    2017, p. 854) or referring to Senators as ``white nationalists'' (Jan.
    20, 2022, p. _); (14) accusing several Senators of an abuse of power
    (Nov. 2, 2017, p. 17063); (15) accusing a Senator of criminal conduct or
    harassment (Nov. 16, 2017, p. 18465); (15) referring to a Senator as a
    ``lightweight'' (Dec. 12, 2017, p. 19642) or an ``idiot'' (Dec. 20,
    2017, p. 20443); (16) accusing the Majority Leader and other Senators of
    ``taking a stand against the truth'' (Jan. 12, 2022, p. _).

      It remains the duty of the Chair to call to order a Member who engages
    in personality with respect to a Senator (see Sec. 374, infra), and the
    Chair may admonish a Member for unparliamentary references even after
    intervening recognition (Oct. 12, 1999, p. 24954; Nov. 15, 2001, p.
    22596). Although the Chair is under a duty to caution Members against
    unparliamentary references, the Chair will not advise Members on how to
    construct their remarks to avoid improper references (Feb. 25, 2004, pp.
    2409-15). A Member may not read in debate extraneous material regarding
    a Senator that would be improper if spoken in the Member's own words
    (Nov. 16, 2017, p. 18465; Dec. 12, 2017, p. 19642; Sept. 28, 2018, p.
    _).

    [[Page 203]]

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 204]]

    27070, 27071), including innuendo suggesting policy choices were made on
    the basis of personal pecuniary gain (July 7, 2004, p. 14582; Sept. 13,
    2005, pp. 20238, 20239) or accusations of abuse of power (July 14, 2004,
    p. 15501); to describe him as ``arrogant'' (June 28, 2007, p. 17926;
    Sept. 25, 2008, p. 21781); to accuse her of supporting domestic
    terrorism (May 20, 2021, p. _); to question the patriotism of a major-
    party nominee for the office (Sept. 9, 2016, p. 12156). The rule also
    precludes the insertion in the Record of a paper making improper
    references to the Vice President (Sept. 19, 2000, p. 18580).
      References in debate to the Vice President (as President of the
    Senate) are governed by the standards of reference permitted toward the
    President, as under the earlier form of the rule. As such, a Member may
    criticize in debate the policies, or candidacy, of the Vice President
    but may not engage in personality (Dec. 14, 1995, p. 36968; July 14,
    1998, p. 15314; Sept. 20, 2000, p. 18639). For example, it is not in
    order to allude to ``wrongdoings [including] fund-raising telephone
    calls by the Vice President'' (Mar. 14, 2000, p. 2716); to attribute to
    him a list of offenses under investigation by a special prosecutor (Oct.
    18, 2005, p. 22987); to suggest that the House should investigate him in
    connection with government contracts awarded to his former employer
    (June 15, 2006, p. 11480); to speculate that he might someday pardon the
    President (Apr. 12, 2000, p. 5419); to accuse him of lying (Sept. 20,
    2000, p. 18639; Sept. 21, 2000, p. 18789; Feb. 16, 2006, p. 1960; Mar.
    6, 2007, p. 5412); to suggest ``he has a problem with the truth'' (Oct.
    5, 2000, p. 21014); to allege ``unethical behavior'' or ``corruption''
    (see, e.g., Oct. 29, 2003, pp. 26400-402; Nov. 4, 2003, pp.

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

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

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

      In a notable instance, wherein a Member of the House had assaulted a
    Senator in the Senate Chamber for words spoken in debate, the Senate
    examined the breach of privilege and transmitted its report to the
    House, which punished the Member (II, 1622). A Senator having assailed a
    House Member in debate, the House messaged to the Senate a resolution
    declaring the language a breach of privilege and requested the Senate to
    take appropriate action (Sept. 27, 1951, p. 12270). The Senator
    subsequently asked unanimous consent to correct his remarks in the
    permanent Congressional Record, but objection was raised (Sept. 28,
    1951, p. 12383). But where certain Members of the House, in a published
    letter, sought to influence the vote of a Senator in an impeachment
    trial, the House declined to consider the matter as a breach of
    privilege (III, 2657). Although on one occasion it was held that a
    resolution offered in the House requesting the Senate to expunge from
    the Record statements in criticism of a Member of the House did not
    constitute a question of privilege, being in violation of the rule
    prohibiting references to the Senate in debate (VIII, 2519), a properly
    drafted resolution referring to language published in the Record of
    Senate proceedings as constituting a breach of privilege and requesting
    the Senate to take appropriate action concerning the subject has been
    held to present a question of the privileges of the House (VIII, 2516).

    [[Page 205]]

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

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

      * * *  Where the complaint is of words
    disrespectfully spoken by a Member of another House, it is difficult to
    obtain punishment, because of the

      A rule of comity prohibiting most references in debate to the Senate
    was first enunciated in Jefferson's Manual and was strictly enforced in
    the House through the 108th Congress (albeit with certain exceptions
    adopted in the 100th and 101st Congresses in the former clause 1(b) of
    rule XVII) (Sec. 371, supra and Sec. 945, infra). In the 109th Congress
    clause 1 was amended to permit references to the Senate or its Members,
    even critical references, so long as avoiding personality (sec. 2(g), H.
    Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Nevertheless, it remains the duty of the
    Chair to call to order a Member who violates the rule in debate or
    through an insertion in the Record.

    [[Page 206]]

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

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

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

      In 1832, during proceedings for the censure of a Member, the Speaker
    informed the Member that he should withdraw (II, 1366); but this seems
    to be an exceptional instance of the enforcement of the law of
    Parliament. In other cases, after the proposition for censure or
    expulsion has been proposed, Members have been heard in debate, either
    as a matter of right (II, 1286), as a matter of course (II, 1246, 1253),
    by express provision (II, 1273), and in writing (II, 1273), or by
    unanimous consent (II, 1275). A Member against whom a resolution of
    censure was pending was asked by the Speaker if he desired to be heard
    (VI, 236). But a Member was not permitted to depute another Member to
    speak in his behalf (II, 1273). In modern practice the Member has been
    permitted to speak in his own behalf, both in censure (June 10, 1980,
    pp. 13802-11) and expulsion proceedings (Oct. 2, 1980, pp. 28953-78;
    July 24, 2002, pp. 14299, 14309; Nov. 1, 2023, p. _; Nov. 30, 2023, p.
    _). A Member-elect has been permitted to participate in debate on a
    resolution relating to his right to take the oath (Jan. 10, 1967, p.
    23).

    [[Page 207]]

    been disallowed, even after a division. In a case so contrary, not only
    to the laws of decency, but to the fundamental principle of the social
    compact, which denies to any man to be a judge in his own cause, it is
    for the honor of the House that this rule of immemorial observance
    should be strictly adhered to. 2 Hats., 119, 121; 6 Grey, 368.

    Sec. 376. Disqualifying personal interest of a
    Member.

      Where  the private interests of a Member are concerned in a bill or
    question he is to withdraw. And where such an interest has appeared, his
    voice has

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

    Sec. 377. Wearing of hats by Members.

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

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

    Sec. 378. Adjournment of questions of order.

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

    [[Page 208]]

    by the House. On occasion, the Chair has reversed as erroneous a
    decision previously made (VI, 639; VII, 849; VIII, 2794, 3435).

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

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

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

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

                         sec. xviii--orders of the house

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 209]]

    far an order of the House is binding, see Hakew., 392.

      As a request for unanimous consent to consider a bill is in effect a
    request to suspend the order of business temporarily, a Member has the
    right at any time to demand the ``regular order'' (IV, 3058). If the
    regular order is demanded pending a request for unanimous consent,
    further reservation of the right to object thereto is precluded (Speaker
    Foley, Nov. 14, 1991, p. 32129; Nov. 7, 2009, pp. 27189, 27190).
    Occasionally a Member may incorrectly demand the ``regular order'' to
    assert that remarks are not confined to the question under debate. On
    such an occasion the Chair may treat the demand as a point of order
    requiring a ruling by the Chair (May 1, 1996, pp. 9888, 9889).

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

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

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

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

    Sec. 384. Orders of the day now obsolete.

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

      The House found the use of ``Orders of the day'' as a method of
    disposing business impracticable as long ago as 1818, and not long after
    abandoned their use (IV, 3057), although an interesting reference to
    them survives in clause 1 of rule XIV. The House proceeds under rule XIV
    unless that order is displaced by the use of special orders of business
    or the intervention of privileged business.

    [[Page 210]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 211]]

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

      Where  the Constitution authorizes each House to
    determine the rules of its proceedings it must mean in those cases
    (legislative, executive, or judiciary) submitted to them by the
    Constitution, or in something relating to these, and necessary toward
    their execution. But orders and resolutions are sometimes entered in the
    journals having no relation to these, such as acceptances of invitations
    to attend orations, to take part in procession, etc. These must be
    understood to be merely conventional among those who are willing to
    participate in the ceremony, and are therefore, perhaps, improperly
    placed among the records of the House.

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

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

    [[Page 212]]

      As to the participation on occasions of ceremony, the House has
    entered its orders on its journal; but it rarely attends outside the
    Capitol building as a body (July 25, 2002, p. 14645), usually preferring
    that its Members go individually (V, 7061-7064) or that it be
    represented by a committee (V, 7053-7056) or other delegation (May 28,
    1987, p. 14031). It has discussed, but not settled, its power to compel
    a Member to accompany it outside the Hall on an occasion of combined
    business and ceremony (II, 1139). The House typically remains in session
    for the inauguration of the President on the portico of the Capitol
    (Jan. 20, 1969, pp. 1288-92) and the mace is carried to the ceremony,
    but in one instance the House adjourned until the day after the
    inauguration of the President in response to increased security concerns
    related to a recent breach of the Capitol building, and the mace was not
    carried to the ceremony in that instance (Jan. 19, 2021, p. _).

                               sec. xix--petition

    Sec. 389. Petitions, remonstrances, and memorials.

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

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

    Sec. 390. Signing and presentation of
    petitions.

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

      In the House petitions have been presented for many years by filing
    with the Clerk (clause 3 of rule XII). Members file them, and
    petitioners do not attend on the House in the sense implied in the
    parliamentary law. In cases in which a petition set forth serious
    changes, the petitioner was required to have his signature attested by a
    notary (III, 2030, footnote).

    [[Page 213]]

    ceived,'' or even silence, dispenses with the formality of this
    question. It is then to be read at the table and disposed of.

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

      Regularly  a motion for receiving it must be made and seconded, and a
    question put, whether it shall be received, but a cry from the House of
    ``re

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

                                 sec. xx--motion

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 214]]

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

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

      It  might be asked whether a motion for adjournment or for the
    orders of the day can be made by one Member while another is speaking?
    It can not. When two Members offer to speak, he who rose first is to be
    heard, and it is a breach of

      The House has modified the principle that the Member who seeks
    recognition first is to be recognized (clause 2 of rule XVII), and, in
    the 115th Congress, removed requirements that a Member rise to seek
    recognition (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37); but in other
    respects the principles of this paragraph are in force.

                              sec. xxi--resolutions

    Sec. 395. Orders and resolutions of the House.

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

    [[Page 215]]

      A resolution for an allowance of money to the clerks being moved, it
    was objected to as not in order, and so ruled by the Chair; but on
    appeal to the Senate (i.e., a call for their sense by the President, on
    account of doubt in his mind, according to clause 5 of rule XXII) the
    decision was overruled. Jour., Senate, June 1, 1796. I presume the doubt
    was, whether an allowance of money could be made otherwise than by bill.

    Sec. 396. Concurrent resolutions of the two Houses.

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

    [[Page 216]]

    special appropriations for minor and incidental purposes (V, 7319),
    continuing appropriations (H.J. Res. 790, P.L. 91-33), establishing the
    date for convening of Congress (H.J. Res. 1041, P.L. 91-182), extending
    the submission date under law for transmittal of a report to Congress by
    the President (H.J. Res. 635, P.L. 97-469), and extending the
    termination date for a law (H.J. Res. 864, P.L. 91-59). At one time they
    were used for purposes of general legislation; but the two Houses
    finally concluded that a bill was the proper instrumentality for this
    purpose (IV, 3370-3373). A joint resolution has been changed to a bill
    by amendment (IV, 3374), but in the later practice it has become
    impracticable to do so.

    Sec. 397. Joint resolutions.

      Another  development of the
    modern practice is the joint resolution, which is a bill so far as the
    processes of the Congress in relation to it are concerned (IV, 3375;
    VII, 1036). With the exception of joint resolutions proposing amendments
    to the Constitution (V, 7029), all these resolutions are sent to the
    President for approval and have the full force of law. They are used for
    what may be called the incidental, unusual, or inferior purposes of
    legislating (IV, 3372), as extending the national thanks to individuals
    (IV, 3370), the invitation to Lafayette to visit America (V, 7082,
    footnote), notice to a foreign government of the abrogation of a treaty
    (V, 6270), declaration of intervention in Cuba (V, 6321), correction of
    an error in an existing act of legislation (IV, 3519; VII, 1092),
    enlargement of scope of inquiries provided by law (VII, 1040), election
    of managers for National Soldiers' Homes (V, 7336),

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

                      sec. xxiii--bills, leave to bring in

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

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

    [[Page 217]]

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

                         sec. xxiv--bills, first reading

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

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

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

                         sec. xxv--bills, second reading

    [[Page 218]]

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

      The  second reading must regularly be on another day. Hakew., 143.
    It is done by the Clerk at the table, who then hands it to the Speaker.
    The Speaker, rising, states to the House the title of the bill; that
    this is the second time of reading it; and that the question will be,
    whether it shall be committed, or engrossed and read a third time? But
    if the bill came from the other House, as it always comes engrossed, he
    states that the question will be, whether it shall be read a third time?
    and before he has so reported the state of the bill, no one is to speak
    to it. Hakew., 143, 146.

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

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

                          sec. xxvi--bills, commitment

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

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

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

    [[Page 219]]

      Clause 2 of rule XIX provides that the Speaker may entertain a motion
    to commit to a standing or select committee pending or following the
    ordering of the previous question.

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

      Those  who take exceptions to some particulars in the bill are to
    be of the committee, but none who speak directly against the body of the
    bill; for he that would totally destroy will not amend it, Hakew., 146;
    Town., col., 208; D'Ewes, 634, col. 2; Scob., 47; or as is said, 5 Grey,
    145, the child is not to be put to a nurse that cares not for it, 6
    Grey, 373. It is therefore a constant rule ``that no man is to be
    employed in any matter who has declared himself against it.'' And when
    any member who is against the bill hears himself named of its committee
    he ought to ask to be excused. Thus, March 7, 1606, Mr. Hadley was, on
    the question being put, excused from being of a committee, declaring
    himself to be against the matter itself. Scob., 46.

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

    Sec. 403. Delivery of bills to committees.

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 220]]

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

    Sec. 405. Commital with directions to report
    forthwith.

      When  a bill is under consideration, however, the House, under a
    former version of clause 2 of rule XIX, could have on motion committed
    it with instructions to report forthwith with certain specified
    amendment (V, 5548, 5549), in which case the chair of the committee
    reports at once without awaiting action of the committee (V, 5545-5547;
    VIII, 2730, 2732) and the bill is in order for immediate consideration
    (V, 5550; VIII, 2735).

    Sec. 406. Discharge of a committee.

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

    Sec. 407. Meetings and action of committees.

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

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

    [[Page 221]]

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

    Sec. 408. Authorization of reports of committees.

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 222]]

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 223]]

    to support a charge of perjury. Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S.
    84 (1949). The absence of a quorum of a committee at the time a witness
    willfully fails to produce subpoenaed documents is not a valid defense
    in a prosecution for contempt if the witness failed to raise that
    objection before the committee. United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323
    (1950); United States v. Fleischman, 339 U.S. 349 (1950).

      A quorum of a committee may transact business and a majority of the
    quorum, even though it be a minority of the whole committee, may
    authorize a report (IV, 4586), but an actual quorum of a committee must
    be present to make action taken valid (VIII, 2212, 2222), unless the
    House authorizes less than a quorum to act (IV, 4553, 4554). A quorum of
    a committee must be present when alleged perjurious testimony is given
    in order

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

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

      [But in 1626, April 24, the House of Commons resolved, that though any
    members may be present at the examination of witnesses, they may not be
    at the debate, disposition or penning of the business by the select
    committee. 4 Hats. 124.]

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 224]]

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

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

      The  paper before a committee, whether select
    or of the whole, may be a bill, resolutions, draught of an address, &c.,
    and it may either originate with

    [[Page 225]]

    tion and referral of a numbered bill to committee(s). In the older
    practice the Committee of the Whole originated resolutions and bills
    (IV, 4705); but the later development of the rules governing the order
    of business would prevent the offering of a motion to go into Committee
    of the Whole for such a purpose, except by unanimous consent.

      In the House it has generally been held that a select or standing
    committee may not report a bill unless the subject matter has been
    referred to it (IV, 4355-4360), except that under the modern practice
    reports filed as privileged pursuant to clause 5 of rule XIII have been
    permitted on bills and resolutions originating in certain committees and
    not formally referred thereto. Pursuant to this paragraph some
    committees have originated drafts of bills for consideration and
    amendment before the introduc

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

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

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

    [[Page 226]]

    on consideration of the body of the bill such alterations may therein be
    made as may also occasion the alteration of the preamble. Scob., 50; 7
    Grey, 431.

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

      To  this natural order of beginning at the
    beginning there is a single exception found in parliamentary usage. When
    a bill is taken up in committee, or on its second reading, they postpone
    the preamble till the other parts of the bill are gone through. The
    reason is, that

    [[Page 227]]

      On this head the following case occurred in the Senate, March 6, 1800:
    A resolution which had no preamble having been already amended by the
    House so that a few words only of the original remained in it, a motion
    was made to prefix a preamble, which having an aspect very different
    from the resolution, the mover intimated that he should afterwards
    propose a correspondent amendment in the body of the resolution. It was
    objected that a preamble could not be taken up till the body of the
    resolution is done with; but the preamble was received, because we are
    in fact through the body of the resolution; we have amended that as far
    as amendments have been offered, and, indeed, till little of the
    original is left. It is the proper time, therefore, to consider a
    preamble; and whether the one offered be consistent with the resolution
    is for the House to determine. The mover, indeed, has intimated that he
    shall offer a subsequent proposition for the body of the resolution; but
    the House is not in possession of it; it remains in his breast, and may
    be withheld. The Rules of the House can only operate on what is before
    them. The practice of the Senate, too, allows recurrences backward and
    forward for the purpose of amendment, not permitting amendments in a
    subsequent to preclude those in a prior part, or e converso.

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

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

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

    [[Page 228]]

      Clause 2 of rule XIII provides that it shall be the duty of the chair
    of each committee to report or cause to be reported promptly any measure
    approved by the committee and to take or cause to be taken necessary
    steps to bring the matter to a vote; and in any event, the report of a
    committee must be filed within seven calendar days (exclusive of days
    when the House is not in session) after a majority of the committee has
    invoked the procedures of clause 2 of rule XIII. In the House a
    committee may order its report to be made by the chair (IV, 4669), or by
    any other member of the committee (IV, 4526), even one from the minority
    party (IV, 4672, 4673; VIII, 2314). A committee report may be filed by a
    Delegate (July 1, 1958, p. 12870). Only the chair makes a report for the
    Committee of the Whole (V, 6987).

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 229]]

      This practice is still in force as to Senate bills of which the
    engrossed copies cannot be in any way interlined or altered by House
    committees. Original copies of House bills are not referred to
    committees but are maintained indefinitely by the Clerk. Both House and
    Senate bills are now printed as referred, and committees may thus report
    either with proposed amendments. In the official papers (signed
    engrossed copies), the engrossed House amendments to a Senate bill would
    still be shown as a separate message attached to the Senate engrossed
    bill when returned to the Senate.

                         sec. xxvii--report of committee

    Sec. 418. Parliamentary method of submitting
    reports.

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

    [[Page 230]]

    Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34406). For a discussion of the layover rule,
    see Sec. 850, infra.

      This provision is to a large extent obsolete so far as the practice of
    the House is concerned. Most of the reports of committees are made by
    filing them with the Clerk without reading (clause 2 of rule XIII), and
    only the reports of committees having leave to report at any time are
    made by the chair or other member of the committee from the floor
    (clause 5 of rule XIII). Except as provided in clause 2(c) of rule XIII,
    committee reports must be submitted while the House is in session; and
    this requirement may be waived by only by order of the House (by rule,
    suspension, or unanimous consent but not by motion) (Dec. 17, 1982, p.
    31951). Subject to availability requirements under clause 4 and timing
    considerations under clause 6 of rule XIII, all reports privileged under
    clause 5 of rule XIII may be called up for consideration immediately
    after being filed (H. Res. 988, 93d

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

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

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

                         sec. xxviii--bill, recommitment

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

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

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

    [[Page 231]]

      Before the motion to recommit with instructions was eliminated, where
    a matter was recommitted with instructions, the committee had to confine
    itself within the instructions (IV, 4404), and if the instructions
    related to a certain portion only of a bill, other portions could not be
    reviewed (V, 5526). When a report has been disposed of adversely a
    motion to recommit it is not in order (V, 5559). Bills are sometimes
    recommitted to the Committee of the Whole as the indirect result of the
    action of the House (clause 9 of rule XVIII; IV, 4784) or directly on
    motion either with or without instructions (V, 5552, 5553).

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

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

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

                        sec. xxix--bill, reports taken up

    Sec. 422. Consideration and action on reports.

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

    [[Page 232]]

    In rare instances, however, committees submit merely written reports
    without propositions for action. Such reports being before the House may
    be debated before any specific motion has been made (V, 4987, 4988), and
    are in such case read to the House (IV, 4663) and after being considered
    the question is taken on agreeing. In such cases the report appears in
    full on the Journal (II, 1364; IV, 4675; V, 7177). When reports are
    acted on in this way it has not been the practice of the House to
    consider them by paragraphs, but the question has been put on the whole
    report (II, 1364).

      In the House, bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, and
    simple resolutions come before the House for action although the written
    reports accompanying them, which are always printed, do not (IV, 4674),
    and even the reading of the reports is in order only in the time of
    debate (V, 5292). The Chair will not recognize a Member during debate on
    a bill in the House or in the Committee of the Whole for unanimous
    consent to amend the accompanying committee report in a specified
    manner, because the House should not change the substance of a committee
    report upon which it is not called to vote (Apr. 2, 1985, p. 7209; Nov.
    7, 1989, p. 27762).

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

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

    [[Page 233]]

    bill is read through and then the amendments proposed by the committee
    are read. In modern practice the House may adopt a special order ``self-
    executing'' the adoption of the reported committee amendments in the
    House, and may permit further amendment to the amended text (e.g., H.
    Res. 245, 106th Cong., July 15, 1999, p. 16216).

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

                            sec. xxx--quasi-committee

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

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

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

    [[Page 234]]

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 235]]

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

    [[Page 236]]

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

      How  far does this XXVIIIth rule subject the House, when
    in quasi-committee, to the laws which regulate the proceedings of
    Committees of the Whole? The particulars in which these differ from
    proceedings in the House are the following: 1. In a committee every
    member may speak as often as he pleases. 2. The votes of a committee may
    be rejected or altered when reported to the House. 3. A committee, even
    of the whole, cannot refer any matter to another committee. 4. In a
    committee no previous question can be taken;

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 237]]

    read a third time, if it came from the other house, or, if originating
    with themselves, whether it shall be engrossed and read a third time.
    The speaker reads sitting, but rises to put questions. The clerk stands
    while he reads.

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

      In  Parliament, after the bill has been read a second time, if on
    the motion and question it be not committed, or if no proposition for
    commitment be made, the speaker reads it by paragraphs, pausing between
    each, but putting no question but on amendments proposed; but when
    through the whole, he puts the question whether it shall be

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

      In the House the Clerk and not the Speaker or chair of the Committee
    of the Whole reads bills on second reading. After the second reading,
    which is by paragraph or section in the Committee of the Whole, the bill
    is open to amendment (see Sec. 980, infra). Clause 8 of rule XVI, as
    explained in Sec. 942, infra, governs first and second readings of bills
    in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The requirement for the
    Speaker to rise when putting a question was removed from clause 6 of
    rule I in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p.
    37).

    [[Page 238]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 239]]

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

                           sec. xxxii--reading papers

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

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

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

    [[Page 240]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sec. 436. Reading of papers on reference.

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

    [[Page 241]]

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

                        sec. xxxiii--privileged questions

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

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

    Sec. 438. Theory as to privileged questions.

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

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

    Sec. 439. Precedence of the motion to adjourn.

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

    [[Page 242]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 243]]

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

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

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

    Sec. 442. Obsolete use of the previous
    question.

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

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

    Sec. 443. The motion to postpone indefinitely.

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

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

    [[Page 244]]

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

    Sec. 444. Postponement to a day certain.

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

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

    Sec. 445. Motion to lay on the table.

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

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

    Sec. 446. Delegation of consideration to
    committee.

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

    [[Page 245]]

    they then proceed to consider and amend it themselves.

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

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

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

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

                     for the parliamentary: the senate uses:

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

                                                Postponement to a day within
    Adjournment,                            E   the session.

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

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

    [[Page 246]]

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

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

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

                        commit              <3-l  }>

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

                        commit                  member of the fourth class,

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

                        postpone

                        amend
    4. Amend and previous question

                        postpone

                        commit              <3-ln }>

                                            <3-ln }>

    [[Page 247]]

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

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

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

    Sec. 449. General principles of priority of
    motions.

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 248]]

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 249]]

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

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

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

    [[Page 250]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 251]]

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 252]]

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

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

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

    [[Page 253]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sec. 458. Matters of privilege as intervening
    questions.

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

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

    [[Page 254]]

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

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

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

    Sec. 460. Withdrawal of motions.

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

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

                        sec. xxxiv--the previous question

    Sec. 461. The previous question of
    Parliament.

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

    Sec. 462. Manner of putting the previous
    question.

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

    [[Page 255]]

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 256]]

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

                              sec. xxxv--amendments

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 257]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 258]]

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 259]]

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

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

    [[Page 260]]

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 261]]

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

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

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

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

    Sec. 472. Application of the motion to
    strike.

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

    [[Page 262]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 263]]

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

    Sec. 475. Amendments filling blanks as to
    time.

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

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

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

    [[Page 264]]

    ment. [Or, both may be referred to a committee to be made into one bill.
    4 Hats. 319.] So if the matter of one bill would be better distributed
    into two, any part may be struck out by way of amendment, and put into a
    new bill. * * *

    Sec. 476. Joining and dividing bills.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 265]]

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

                      sec. xxxvi--division of the question

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

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

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

    [[Page 266]]

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

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

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

    [[Page 267]]

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

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

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

    [[Page 268]]

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

                        sec. xxxvii--coexisting questions

    Sec. 483. Fundamental principles as to coexisting
    questions.

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

    [[Page 269]]

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

                       sec. xxxviii--equivalent questions

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

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

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

    Sec. 485. Equivalent questions in
    general.

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

    [[Page 270]]

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 271]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                            sec. xxxix--the question

    Sec. 489. Putting the question.

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

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

    [[Page 272]]

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

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

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

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

    Sec. 491. Informal putting of the question.

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

                          sec. xl--bills, third reading

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

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

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

    [[Page 273]]

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 274]]

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

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

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

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

    Sec. 495. Obsolete parliamentary practice as to
    riders.

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

      This practice is never followed in the House.

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

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

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

    [[Page 275]]

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

    Sec. 497. Amendments before the third reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 276]]

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

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

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

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

    Sec. 500. Bills not altered after their passage.

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

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

                         sec. xli--division of the house

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

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

    [[Page 277]]

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 278]]

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

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

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

    Sec. 504. Voting by yeas and nays.

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

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

    [[Page 279]]

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

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

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

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

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

    Sec. 506. Movements of Members during
    voting.

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

    [[Page 280]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sec. 509. Twothirds votes.

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

    Sec. 509a. Threefifths votes.

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

    [[Page 281]]

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

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

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

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

    Sec. 511. Change of a vote.

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

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

                                sec. xlii--titles

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

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

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

                           sec. xliii--reconsideration

    [[Page 282]]

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

    Sec. 513. Early Senate practice as to
    reconsideration.

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

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

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

    [[Page 283]]

    Sec. 514. Parliamentary law as to
    reconsideration.

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

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

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

    [[Page 284]]

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

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

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

    [[Page 285]]

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

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

    Sec. 518. Passage of supplementary bills.

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

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

                    sec. xliv--bills sent to the other house

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 286]]

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

                     sec. xlv--amendments between the houses

    [[Page 287]]

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

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

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

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

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

    Sec. 523. Parliamentary law as to receding.

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

    [[Page 288]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 289]]

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

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

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

      In the case of a money bill, the Lord's proposed amendments become, by
    delay, confessedly necessary. The Commons, however, refused them as
    infringing on their privilege as to money bills; but they offered
    themselves to add to the bill a proviso to the same effect, which had no
    coherence with the Lords' amendments; and urged that it was an expedient
    warranted by precedent, and not unparliamentary in a case become
    impracticable, and irremediable in any other way. 3 Hats., 256, 266,
    270, 271. But the Lords refused, and the bill was lost. 1 Chand., 288. A
    like case, 1 Chand., 311. * * *

      In the House it is a recognized principle that the House may not
    recede from its own amendments with an amendment (V, 6216-6218). The
    House may not amend its own amendment to a Senate amendment to a House
    bill (Mar. 16, 1934, p. 4685). However, the stage of disagreement having
    been reached on a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House
    proposition, the House may first recede from its amendment and, having
    receded, may then concur in the Senate amendment with a different
    amendment without violating this paragraph (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 12,
    1977, pp. 33448-54). The House has by special order of business before
    the stage of disagreement receded from its amendment and concurred in a
    Senate amendment with an amendment (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3,
    Sec. 6.14; Dec. 12, 2013, p. 19064).

    [[Page 290]]

    Sec. 527. Text to which both Houses have agreed
    not to be changed.

      * * * So the  Commons resolved that it is unparliamentary to
    strike out, at a conference, anything in a bill which hath been agreed
    and passed by both Houses, 6 Grey, 274; 1 Chand., 312.

      The practice of the two Houses has confirmed this principle of the
    parliamentary law and established the rule that managers of a conference
    may not change the text to which both Houses have agreed (V, 6417, 6418,
    6420; VIII, 3257; see clause 9 of rule XXII), and neither House, alone,
    may empower the managers by instruction to make such a change (V, 6388).
    In the earlier practice, when it was necessary to change text already
    agreed to, the managers appended a supplementary paragraph to their
    report, and this was agreed to by unanimous consent in the two Houses
    (V, 6433-6436); or the two Houses agreed to a concurrent resolution
    giving the managers the necessary powers (V, 6437-6439; Dec. 17, 1974,
    p. 40472). Under the current practice the House considers a conference
    report that changes text already agreed to by unanimous consent, under
    suspension of the rules, or by report from the Committee on Rules
    waiving clause 9 of rule XXII.

      To change text finally agreed to by both Houses, each House may adopt
    a concurrent resolution directing the Clerk of the House or the
    Secretary of the Senate to correct the enrollment.

      The further principle has been established in practice of the House
    that it may not, even by unanimous consent (V, 6179), change in the
    slightest particular (V, 6181) the text to which both Houses have agreed
    (V, 6180; VIII, 3257). And this prohibition extends, also, to a case
    wherein it is proposed to add a new section at the end of a bill that
    has passed both Houses (V, 6182).

    Sec. 528. Consideration of Senate and House amendments;
    precedence of motions.

        A motion to amend an amendment from the other
    House takes precedence of a motion to agree or disagree.

      This is the rule of the House if the stage of disagreement has not
    been reached (V, 6164, 6169-71; VIII, 3202), or if the House has receded
    from its disagreement to the amendment in question (VIII, 3196, 3197,
    3203). The following discussion summarizes the precedence and
    consideration of motions to dispose of Senate or House amendments in
    contemporary practice.

    [[Page 291]]

    3149, 3150; VI, 756; VIII, 3185, 3194). The stage of disagreement is not
    reached until the House has either disagreed to Senate amendments or has
    insisted on its own amendments to a Senate bill, and has notified the
    Senate. Further House action can only occur when the House has received
    the papers back from the Senate (Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868).

    Sec. 528a. Consideration of Senate or House
    amendments.

      When Senate  amendments are before the House for the first time, or
    when the Senate has returned a bill with House amendments to which it
    has disagreed (and on which the House has not insisted), no privileged
    motion is in order in the House except a motion pursuant to clause 1 of
    rule XXII, made by direction of the committee with subject-matter
    jurisdiction, to disagree to the Senate amendments or insist on the
    House amendment and request or agree to a conference with the Senate
    (see Oct. 11, 1984, p. 32308). Other motions to dispose of amendments
    between the Houses are not privileged until the stage of disagreement
    has been reached on a bill with amendments of the other House (clause 4
    of rule XXII; IV,

      Before the stage of disagreement, an amendment to a Senate amendment
    to a House-passed measure on the Speaker's table is not in order until
    an order is entered for consideration of the Senate amendment in the
    House (Speaker O'Neill, June 19, 1986, pp. 14638-40).

      If the House does agree to consider a bill with Senate amendment
    before the stage of disagreement has been reached, by unanimous consent
    or special order of business, a motion to amend takes precedence over
    the motion to agree. However, the usual practice in such a situation is
    to consider a request, either by unanimous consent, suspension of the
    rules, or special order of business reported by the Committee on Rules,
    simultaneously providing for consideration and disposition of the Senate
    amendment (thus precluding the consideration of other requests to
    dispose of the amendment (see Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 5)).

      It should be noted that a small category of Senate amendments, those
    not requiring consideration in the Committee of the Whole, may be taken
    from the Speaker's table and disposed of by motion pursuant to clause 2
    of rule XXII before the stage of disagreement has been reached, but the
    vast majority of legislation does affect the Treasury (as described in
    clause 1 of rule XIII) and requires consideration in the Committee of
    the Whole.

    Sec. 528b. Precedence of motions before the stage
    of disagreement.

      Should the  House consider Senate amendments before the stage of
    disagreement, the precedence of nonprivileged motions is as follows
    (disregarding the privileged motion to disagree and send to conference
    by direction of the committee): (1) to concur with amendment; (2) to
    concur; (3) to disagree and request or agree to a conference; and (4) to
    disagree. With respect to consideration of House amendments before the
    stage of disagreement, the precedence of motions is (1) to recede; (2)
    to insist and request or agree to a conference; and (3) to insist.
    Although the House may adhere, adherence is seldom utilized (because it
    precludes a conference unless receded from) and is extremely rare on
    first disagreement (see Sec. 522, supra; see also the discussion of
    adherence in Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 12). A motion to adhere is the
    least privileged motion.

    [[Page 292]]

      It was formerly held that a motion to send to conference yielded to
    the simple motion to disagree, or to insist (see Cannon's Procedure in
    the House of Representatives, p. 120). In current practice, however, the
    compound motion to disagree to Senate amendments and request or agree to
    a conference, or to insist on House amendments and request or agree to a
    conference, has replaced the two-step procedure for getting to
    conference and, because it brings the two Houses together, takes
    precedence over simple motions to insist or disagree (or to adhere).

      Notwithstanding the foregoing precedence of motions, the ordinary
    motions applicable to any question that is under debate--to table, to
    postpone to a day certain, and to refer--remain available under clause 4
    of rule XVI. A motion to table Senate amendments brings the bill to the
    table (V, 5424, 6201-6203; Sept. 28, 1978, p. 32334). It has been held
    that before the stage of disagreement, the motion to table a Senate
    amendment (V, 6201-6203) or the motion to refer a Senate amendment (V,
    5301, 6172, 6174) take precedence (in that order) over motions to amend,
    agree, or disagree. And if the previous question has been ordered on
    another motion to dispose of the Senate amendment, a motion to refer is
    in order (V, 5575). In the Senate, the adoption of a motion to table a
    House amendment is messaged to the House as disagreement to said
    amendment (Sept. 30, 2013, p. 14705, p. 14736) and the adoption of a
    motion to table a House request for a conference is messaged to the
    House as disagreement to said request (Oct. 1, 2013, p. 14862; Mar. 3,
    2015, pp. 3114, 3115).

      A Senate amendment is read in full when taken from the Speaker's desk
    (VIII, 2400). Before consideration of any motions to dispose of Senate
    amendments, the Speaker has the discretionary authority, under clause 2
    of rule XIV, to refer such amendments to the appropriate committee, with
    or without a time limitation.

    Sec. 528c. Reaching the stage of disagreement.

      The House  has
    reached the stage of disagreement on a bill when it is again in
    possession of the papers thereon, having previously disagreed to Senate
    amendments or insisted on House amendments (with or without requesting
    or agreeing to a conference) (Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868), and not merely
    where the other House has returned a bill with an amendment (Dec. 7,
    1977, p. 38728). Only previous insistence or disagreement by the House
    itself places the House in disagreement (and not merely disagreement,
    insistence, or amendment by the Senate). For example, if the House has
    concurred in a Senate amendment to a House bill with an amendment,
    insisted on the House amendment and requested a conference, and the
    Senate has then concurred in the House amendment with a further
    amendment, the matter is privileged for further disposition in the House
    because the House has communicated to the Senate its insistence and
    request for a conference (Speaker Albert, Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868). Of
    course, if the Senate has agreed to a House request for a conference,
    the bill is committed to conference and motions are not in order for its
    disposition until after the conferees have reported (the House may
    unilaterally discharge its conferees and consider the bill, if in
    possession of the papers, only by unanimous consent, special order, or
    suspension of the rules, and not by motion).

    [[Page 293]]

    therefore, for motions to be privileged because the House is in
    disagreement on the bill, but for the House to have receded from its
    disagreement or insistence on a particular amendment or to have received
    a new Senate amendment for the first time. In those cases motions remain
    privileged, but the precedence of motions on the amendment in question
    reverts to the precedence of motions before the stage of disagreement,
    as set forth in Sec. 528b, supra (see discussion below of the effect of
    the House's receding). The two Houses having permitted the amendment
    process to go beyond the second degree, a motion to concur in a Senate
    amendment (in the 4th degree), the stage of disagreement having been
    reached, is privileged but is subject to the motion to lay on the table
    (Mar. 18, 1986, p. 5217).
      Once the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill with
    amendments, the House remains in the stage of disagreement until the
    matter is finally disposed of and motions for its disposition are
    privileged whenever the House is in possession of the papers. This
    principle applies both where the stage of disagreement is reached
    without a conference, and where matters remain in disagreement after
    conferees have reported. It is possible,

      Where the House by special order of business limited the availability
    of privileged motions under clause 4 of rule XXII to the Majority Leader
    or a designee (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 6.14; July 31, 2014, p.
    13727), the Chair declined to recognize another Member for such a motion
    (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14981; Oct. 12, 2013, p. 15782, p. 15791).

    Sec. 528d. Precedence of motions after the
    stage of disagreement.

      Generally, after  the stage of disagreement has been reached on a
    Senate amendment, the precedence of motions is as follows: (1) to recede
    and concur; (2) to recede and concur with an amendment or amendments;
    (3) to insist on disagreement and request a (further) conference; (4) to
    insist on disagreement; and (5) to adhere. The Chair may examine the
    substance of a pending motion to determine the precedence thereof in
    relation to another motion, even though in form it may appear
    preferential. Thus, a proper motion to concur with an amendment to a
    Senate amendment reported from conference in disagreement (the House
    having receded) has been offered and voted on before a pending motion
    drafted as one to concur with an amendment but in actual effect a motion
    to insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment, because simply
    reinserting the original House text without change (Deschler-Brown, ch.
    31, Sec. 8.12).

    [[Page 294]]

    with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment (if such
    instructions are permitted under the standing rules) may not be offered
    after the previous question has been ordered on a motion to recede and
    concur, a motion of higher privilege (see Deschler-Brown, ch. 32,
    Sec. 7.5). However, after the House has receded from disagreement to a
    Senate amendment, a motion to amend is preferential over a motion to
    agree, and thus after the previous question is ordered on a motion to
    concur, the House having already receded, a motion to recommit with
    instructions to amend would be in order (VIII, 2744). Motions to
    postpone, either to a day certain or indefinitely, have the lowest
    privilege with respect to a Senate amendment after the stage of
    disagreement has been reached. For old examples in which the House
    postponed indefinitely consideration of Senate amendments, see V, 6199,
    6200 (in the latter case the Senate had adhered). Clause 8(b)(3) of rule
    XXII makes preferential and separately debatable a motion to insist on
    disagreement to a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill, if:
    (1) the Senate amendment has been reported from conference in
    disagreement; (2) the original motion to dispose of the Senate amendment
    proposes to change existing law; and (3) the motion to insist is timely
    offered by the chair of a committee of jurisdiction or a designee.
      A Senate amendment is read in full when taken from the Speaker's desk
    (VIII, 3232; Mar. 3, 2015, p. 3103). The ordinary motion to table under
    clause 4 of rule XVI may be applied to a Senate amendment, is
    preferential to a motion to dispose of the Senate amendment (Deschler-
    Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 7.22; Mar. 3, 2015, p. 3099), but carries the bill
    to the table (Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 7.22). When applied to a
    motion to dispose of a Senate amendment, the motion to table carries to
    the table only the motion to dispose and not the amendment or bill (see
    Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 7.27). With respect to the motion to refer
    (or recommit), a simple motion to refer or recommit only takes
    precedence over a motion to adhere, after the stage of disagreement has
    been reached on the bill. After the previous question is ordered on a
    pending motion to dispose of a Senate amendment, a motion to recommit
    (pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIX) may only be offered if it
    constitutes, in effect, a motion that takes precedence over the pending
    motion to dispose of a Senate amendment. Thus, after the stage of
    disagreement has been reached on a Senate amendment, a motion to
    recommit

      Where the matter in question is a House amendment or amendments after
    the stage of disagreement has been reached, the precedence of motions is
    (1) to recede; (2) to further insist on the amendment and request a
    (further) conference; and (3) to adhere. For discussion of possible
    options of the House, having receded from its amendment or amendments,
    see Sec. 524, supra, and Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 7. If the House
    recedes from its amendment to a Senate bill, the bill is passed unless
    otherwise specified. If the House recedes from its amendment to a Senate
    amendment, the bill is not passed unless the House takes another step,
    either to concur in the Senate amendment or amend it. The House having
    receded from its amendment to a Senate amendment, it is no longer in
    disagreement on the amendment (although it is on the bill if the stage
    of disagreement has previously been reached), and the motion to amend
    the Senate amendment takes precedence over the motion to concur therein.
    Until the House recedes, however, a motion to recede from the House
    amendment and concur in the Senate amendment is preferential. A
    conference report held to violate clause 9 of rule XXII was vitiated,
    after which a privileged motion to recede and concur in a Senate
    amendment with an amendment incorporating by reference the text of an
    introduced House bill was offered (Nov. 14, 2002, p. 22409).

    [[Page 295]]

    33698-701). If the House agrees to recede, a motion to concur with an
    amendment then takes precedence over the motion to concur, is considered
    as pending if part of the original motion, and is voted on first (Sept.
    30, 1988, pp. 27265-74; Oct. 11, 1989, p. 24097). As indicated in
    Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 8.2, a Member offering a preferential
    motion does not thereby gain control of the debate, which remains in the
    control of the floor manager recognized to offer the original motion to
    dispose of amendments between the Houses. In the modern practice, clause
    8(d) of rule XXII has been interpreted to apply to any motion to dispose
    of an amendment between the Houses after the stage of disagreement and
    the Chair will divide the time equally between the majority and minority
    floor managers (see Sec. 1086, infra). Where both floor managers support
    such a motion, however, a Member opposed may claim one-third of the
    time, and the Chair will recognize for closing debate in the reverse
    order of opening (Mar. 3, 2015, pp. 3114, 3115).
      The same principle as to the precedence of motions after a division of
    the question applies to a motion to recede and concur in a Senate
    amendment, the stage of disagreement having been reached. Although the
    motion to recede and concur takes precedence over the motion to recede
    and concur with an amendment, the former motion may be divided on the
    demand of any Member and each portion may be separately debatable (Oct.
    5, 1978,

      Recognition to offer a preferential motion goes to the senior
    committee member seeking the floor who is not the offeror of a displaced
    motion of lesser privilege (Nov. 16, 1989, p. 29565). Although the
    manager of a conference report is entitled to prior recognition to offer
    motions to dispose of amendments in disagreement, the manager should not
    be entitled to offer two motions, one preferential to the other, to be
    pending at the same time. However, where the manager's first motion to
    insist on disagreement has been superseded by the House's voting to
    recede from disagreement, then the initial motion is no longer pending;
    and the manager may be recognized to offer another motion to concur with
    an amendment, which would be preferential to the remaining portion of
    another Member's divided motion to concur (Deschler-Brown, ch 32,
    Sec. 8.2). This is to be contrasted with the situation in which the bill
    manager offers a motion to dispose of a Senate amendment that is
    rejected by the House, in which case recognition to offer a subsequent
    motion to dispose of the pending Senate amendment shifts to another
    Member who led the opposition to the rejected motion (see Sec. 954,
    infra).

    [[Page 296]]

    amendment to that text by the originating House therefore is only in the
    1st degree, and the amendment to that again by the amending House is
    only in the 2d, to wit, an amendment to an amendment, and so admissible.
    Just so, when, on a bill from the originating House, the other, at its
    second reading, makes an amendment; on the third reading this amendment
    is become the text of the bill, and if an amendment to it be moved an
    amendment to that amendment may also be moved, as being only in the 2d
    degree.

    Sec. 529. Degree of amendments between the
    Houses.

      A bill  originating in one House is passed by the other with an
    amendment.    The originating House agrees to their amendment with an
    amendment. The other may agree to their amendment with an amendment,
    that being only in the 2d and not the 3d degree; for, as to the amending
    House, the first amendment with which they passed the bill is a part of
    its text. It is the only text they have agreed to. The

      This principle is followed in the practice of the House (V, 6176-
    6178). For a discussion of the attitude of the Senate on this topic, see
    October 31, 1991, p. 29494.

                             sec. xlvi--conferences

    Sec. 530. Parliamentary law as to asking
    conferences.

      It is on the  occasion of amendments between the Houses that
    conferences are usually asked; but they may be asked [4 Hats. 4, 223,]
    in all cases of difference of opinion between the two Houses on matters
    depending between them. [4 Hats. 4, 5, 7.]The request of a conference,
    however, must always be by the House which is possessed of the papers. 3
    Hats., 31; 1 Grey, 425. [4 Hats. 3, 43.]

    [[Page 297]]

      The House follows the principles set forth in this paragraph of the
    parliamentary law. A conference may be asked on only a portion of the
    amendments in disagreement, leaving the differences as to the remainder
    to be settled by the action of the two Houses themselves (V, 6401). In
    very rare instances conferences have been asked by one House after the
    other has absolutely rejected a main proposition (IV, 3442; V, 6258). A
    difference over an amendment to a proposed constitutional amendment may
    be committed to a conference (V, 7037).

      The second edition of Jefferson's Manual provides greater specificity
    by stating that conferences occur on occasion of ``amendments by one
    House disagreed to by the other'' rather than ``amendments between the
    Houses.''

    Sec. 531. Conferences over matters other
    than differences as to amendments.

      Although conferences  between the two Houses of Congress
    are usually held over differences as to amendments to bills,
    occasionally differences arise as to the respective prerogatives of the
    Houses (II, 1485-1495) or as to matters of procedures (V, 6401), as in
    impeachment proceedings (III, 2304), which are referred to conference.
    In early and exceptional instances conferences have been asked as to
    legislative matters when no propositions relating thereto were pending
    (V, 6255-6257).

    Sec. 532. Conferences by means of select
    committees.

      In very  rare cases, also, the Houses interchange views and come to
    conclusions by means of select committees appointed on the part of each
    House (I, 3). Thus, in 1821, a joint committee was chosen to consider
    and report to the two Houses whether or not it was expedient to provide
    for the admission of Missouri into the Union (IV, 4471), and in 1877
    similar committees were appointed to devise a method for counting the
    electoral vote (III, 1953).

    Sec. 533. Requests for conferences.

      The  parliamentary law
    provides that the request for a conference must always be by the House
    that is in possession of the papers (V, 8254). It was formerly the more
    regular practice for the House disagreeing to amendments of the other to
    leave the asking of a conference to that other House if it should decide
    to insist (V, 6278-6285, 6324); but it is so usual in the later practice
    for the House disagreeing to an amendment of the other to ask a
    conference that an omission to do so has even raised a question (V,
    6273). Yet it cannot be said that the practice requires a request for a
    conference to be made by the House disagreeing to the amendments of the
    other (V, 6274-6277). One House having asked a conference at one
    session, the other House may agree to the conference at the next session
    of the same Congress (V, 6286).

    [[Page 298]]

    Sec. 534. Requests for conferences declined or
    neglected.

      In rare  instances one House has declined the request of the other
    for a conference (V, 6313-6315; Mar. 20, 1951, p. 2683; Oct. 1, 2013, p.
    14862; Mar. 3, 2015, p. 3103), sometimes accompanying it by adherence
    (V, 6313, 6315). In one instance, in which the Senate declined a
    conference, it transmitted, by message, its reasons for so doing (V,
    6313). Sometimes, also, one House disregards the request of the other
    for a conference and recedes from its disagreement, thereby rendering a
    conference unnecessary (V, 6316-6318). And in one case, in which one
    House has asked a conference to which the other has assented, the asking
    House receded before the conference took place (V, 6319). Also, a bill
    returned to the House with a request for a conference has been postponed
    indefinitely (V, 6199).

    Sec. 535. Motions to request conferences.

      After the  stage of
    disagreement has been reached, a motion to ask a conference is
    considered as distinct from motions to agree or disagree to amendments
    of the other House (V, 6268) and the motions to agree, recede, or insist
    are considered as preferential (V, 6269, 6270). Where a motion to
    request a conference at this stage has been rejected, its repetition at
    the same stage of the proceedings, no other motion to dispose of the
    matter in disagreement having been considered, has not been permitted
    (V, 6325). Where a conference results in disagreement, a motion to
    request a new conference is privileged (V, 6586). Sometimes
    disagreements are voted on by the House and conferences asked through
    the medium of special orders of business (IV, 3242-3249).

      Before the stage of disagreement, any motion with respect to
    amendments between the two Houses is without privilege, except for
    motions with respect to the limited number of amendments that qualify
    under clause 2 of rule XXII or motions under clause 1 of rule XXII, to
    disagree to Senate amendments (or insist on House amendments) and to
    request or agree to an initial conference if the motion is authorized by
    the primary committee and all reporting committees of initial referral
    and if the Speaker chooses to recognize for that purpose. Under clause
    2(a)(3) of rule XI, a committee may adopt a rule providing that the
    chair be directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII. A
    motion under the latter clause may be repeated, if again authorized by
    the relevant committees, and if the Speaker again agrees to recognize
    for that purpose, even though the House has once rejected a motion to
    send the same matter to conference (Speaker Albert, Oct. 3, 1972, p.
    33502).

    [[Page 299]]

    managers the Speaker usually consults the Member in charge of the bill
    (V, 6336); and where an amendment in disagreement falls within the
    jurisdiction of two committees of the House, the Speaker has named
    Members from both committees and specified the respective areas on which
    they were to confer (Speaker Albert, Nov. 30, 1971, p. 43422). In
    appointing conferees on the general appropriation bill for fiscal year
    1951, Speaker Rayburn appointed a set of managers for each chapter of
    the bill and four Members to sit on all chapters (Aug. 7, 1950, p.
    11894). Although the appointment of conferees, both as to their number
    and composition, is within the discretion of the Chair (Speaker Garner,
    June 24, 1932, p. 13876; Speaker Martin, July 8, 1947, p. 8469), and
    although a point of order will not lie against the exercise of this
    discretion (VIII, 2193, 3221), the Speaker normally takes into
    consideration the attitude of the majority and minority of the House on
    the disagreements in issue (V, 6336-6338; VIII, 3223), the varying views
    of the Members of the House (V, 6339, 6340), and does not necessarily
    confine the appointments to members of the committee in charge of the
    bill (V, 6370). In one case, in which the prerogatives of the House were
    involved, all of the managers were appointed to represent the majority
    opinion (V, 6338). See also Sec. 637, infra.

    Sec. 536. Managers of conferences.

      Although usual,  it is not
    essential that one House, in asking a conference, transmit the names of
    its managers at the same time, and the Senate has moved to agree to a
    conference asked by the House before the appointment of House managers
    (V, 6405; Feb. 27, 2015, p. 2892). The managers, properly so called (V,
    6335), constitute practically two distinct committees, each of which
    acts by a majority (V, 6334). The Speaker appoints the managers on the
    part of the House (clause 11 of rule I) and has discretion as to the
    number to serve on a given bill (V, 6336; VIII, 2193) but must appoint
    (1) a majority of Members who generally support the House position, as
    determined by the Speaker; (2) Members who are primarily responsible for
    the legislation; and (3) to the fullest extent feasible the principal
    proponents of the major provisions of the bill as it passed the House
    (clause 11 of rule I). Although the practice used to be to appoint three
    managers from each house (V, 6336), in the absence of joint rules each
    House may appoint whatever number it sees fit (V, 6328-6330). The two
    Houses have frequently appointed a disparate number of managers (V,
    6331-6333; VIII, 3221); and where the Senate appointed nine and the
    House but three, a motion to instruct the Speaker to appoint a greater
    number of managers on the part of the House was held out of order (VII,
    2193). In appointing

    Sec. 537. Reappointment of, at second and
    subsequent conferences.

      Where there  were several conferences on a bill, it was the
    early practice to change the managers at each conference (V, 6288-6291,
    6324), and so fixed was this practice that their reappointment had a
    special significance, indicating an unyielding temper (V, 6352-6368);
    but in the later practice it is the rule to reappoint managers (V, 6341-
    6344) unless a change be necessary to enable the sentiment of the House
    to be represented (V, 6369).

    Sec. 538. Vacancies, etc., in managers of
    conferences.

      Managers of  a conference are excused from service either by authority
    of the House (V, 6373-6376; VIII, 3224, 3227) or, since the 103d
    Congress, by removal by the Speaker (clause 11 of rule I). The absence
    of a manager may cause a vacancy, which the Speaker fills by appointment
    (V, 6372; VIII, 3228). If one House makes a change in its managers, it
    informs the other House, by message (V, 6377, 6378). According to the
    later practice the powers of managers who have not reported do not
    expire at the termination of a session, unless it be the last session
    (V, 6260-6262).

    [[Page 300]]

    then, if satisfied, vote the reasons satisfactory, or say nothing; if
    not satisfied they resolve then not satisfactory and ask a conference on
    the subject of the last conference, where they read and deliver, in like
    manner, written answer to those reasons. 3 Grey, 183. They are meant
    chiefly to record the justification of each House to the nation at large
    and to posterity and in proof that the miscarriage of a necessary
    measure is not imputable to them. 3 Grey, 255. At free conferences[,
    which are asked after two conferences, 4 Hats. 37, 40,] the managers
    discuss, viva voce and freely, and interchange propositions for such
    modifications as may be made in a parliamentary way, and may bring the
    sense of the two Houses together. [The conferees may argue in support of
    what is done in their House, but not against it, nor assent to any new
    thing there propounded, till their House be informed and agree to it. 4
    Hats. 31, 33.] * * *

    Sec. 539. Parliamentary law as to free and simple
    conferences.

      Conferences  may be either simple or free. At a conference simply,
    written reasons are prepared by the House asking it, and they are read
    and delivered, without debate, to the managers of the other House at the
    conference, but are not then to be answered. 4 Grey, 144. The other
    House

    [[Page 301]]

    Sec. 540. Free and simple conferences in modern
    practice.

      This provision  of the parliamentary law bears little relation to the modern
    practice of the two Houses of Congress, and that practice has evolved a
    new definition: ``A free conference is that which leaves the committee
    of conference entirely free to pass upon any subject where the two
    branches have disagreed in their votes, not, however, including any
    action upon any subject where there has been a concurrent vote of both
    branches. A simple conference--perhaps it should more properly be termed
    a strict or a specific conference, though the parliamentary term is
    `simple'--is that which confines the committee of conference to the
    specific instructions of the body appointing it'' (V, 6403). And where
    the House had asked a free conference it was held not in order to
    instruct the managers (V, 6384). But it is very rare for the House in
    asking a conference to specify whether it shall be free or simple.

    Sec. 541. Instruction of managers of a
    conference.

      In their practices  as to the instruction of managers of a conference, the
    House and the Senate do not agree. Only in rare instances has the Senate
    instructed (V, 6398), and these instances are at variance with its
    declaration, made after full consideration, that managers may not be
    instructed (V, 6397). And where the House has instructed its managers,
    the Senate sometimes has declined to participate and asked a free
    conference (V, 6402-6404). In the later practice the House does not
    inform the Senate when it instructs its managers (V, 6399), the Senate
    having objected to the transmittal of instructions by message (V, 6400,
    6401). In one instance in which the Senate learned indirectly that the
    House had instructed its managers, it declared that the conference
    should be full and free, and instructed its own managers to withdraw if
    they should find the freedom of the conference impaired (V, 6406). But
    the House holds to the opinion that the House may instruct its managers
    (V, 6379-6382), although the propriety of doing so at a first conference
    has been questioned (V, 6388, footnote). And in rare instances in which
    a free conference is asked instruction is not in order (V, 6384). At a
    new conference the instructions of a former conference are not in force
    (V, 6383; VIII, 3240). And instructions may not direct the managers to
    do that which they might not otherwise do (V, 6386, 6387; VIII, 3235,
    3244), as to effect a change in part of a bill not in disagreement (V,
    6391-6394) or change the text to which both Houses have agreed (V,
    6388). Although managers may disregard instructions, their report may
    not for that reason be ruled out of order (V, 6395; VIII, 3246; June 8,
    1972, p. 20282), and when a conference report was recommitted with
    instructions the managers were not confined to the instructions alone
    (VIII, 3247).

    [[Page 302]]

    having been considered and disposed of, further motions are not in order
    (VIII, 3236). The restriction on further motions does not apply to a
    motion to instruct under clause 7(c) of rule XXII (Aug. 22, 1935, pp.
    14162-64).
      The motion to instruct managers should be offered after the vote to
    ask for or agree to a conference and before the managers are appointed
    (V, 6379-6382; VIII, 3233, 3240, 3256). The motion to instruct may be
    amended unless the previous question is ordered (V, 6525; VIII, 3231,
    3240); thus a motion to instruct House conferees to agree to a numbered
    Senate amendment with an amendment may be amended, upon rejection of the
    previous question, to instruct the conferees to agree to the Senate
    amendment (June 9, 1982, pp. 13027, 13028, 13039, 13049). A Member may
    not be recognized for a unanimous-consent request to modify a pending
    motion to instruct unless yielded to for that purpose by the proponent
    (Mar. 29, 2006, p. 4377). The motion to instruct may be laid on the
    table without carrying the bill to the table (VIII, 2658). The motion is
    debatable (see clause 7(b) of rule XXII) unless the previous question is
    ordered (VIII, 2675, 3240), which the proponent may not move until those
    allotted time under clause 7(b) have yielded back (Oct. 3, 1989, p.
    22842). After a motion to ask or agree to a conference is agreed to,
    only one valid motion to instruct is in order (VIII, 3236; Speaker
    Wright, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 11.1); and the ruling out of
    such a motion does not preclude the offering of a proper motion (VIII,
    3235; Dec. 7, 2005, p. 27706); but one motion

      A member of the minority is first entitled to recognition for a motion
    to instruct conferees (Speaker Bankhead, Oct. 31, 1939, pp. 1103-05;
    Speaker Albert, Oct. 19, 1971, pp. 36832-35), and if two minority
    members of the reporting committee seek recognition to offer a motion to
    instruct conferees before their appointment, the Chair will recognize
    the senior minority member of the committee (Oct. 10, 1986, p. 30181;
    Speaker Wright, Feb. 17, 1988, p. 1583). The House has by unanimous
    consent restricted the ability to offer a motion to instruct to a
    specified Member, and admitted such a motion notwithstanding any
    appointment of conferees (Mar. 30, 2022, p. _).

    Sec. 542. Parliamentary law as to reports of
    managers of a conference.

      * * * And each  party reports in writing to their respective
    Houses the substance of what is said on both sides, and it is entered in
    their journals. 9 Grey, 220; 3 Hats. 280[; 4 Hats. 48.] This report can
    not be amended or altered, as that of a committee may be. Journal
    Senate, May 24, 1796.

    [[Page 303]]

    signing the other report first (V, 6323, 6426, 6499, 6500, 6504). Under
    certain circumstances managers may report an entirely new bill on a
    subject in disagreement, but this bill is acted on as part of the report
    (V, 6465-6467; see also clause 9 of rule XXII). A quorum among the
    managers on the part of the House at a committee of conference is
    established by their signatures on the conference report and joint
    explanatory statement (Oct. 4, 1994, p. 27662).

    Sec. 543. Forms of conference reports.

      In the two  Houses of
    Congress conference reports were originally merely suggestions for
    action and were neither identical in the two Houses nor acted on as a
    whole (V, 6468-6471). In the House clause 7(a) of rule XXII provides
    that conference reports may be received at any time, except when the
    Journal is being read, while the roll is being called, or the House is
    dividing. They are privileged on or 72 hours after they have been filed
    and printed in the Record, together with the accompanying statement
    (clause 8 of rule XXII). The early reports were not signed by the
    managers (IV, 3905); but in the later practice the signatures of the
    majority of the managers of each House is required (V, 6497-6502; VIII,
    3295). Sometimes a manager indorses the report with a conditional
    approval or dissent (V, 6489-6496, 6538; Nov. 18, 1991, p. 32575).
    Traditionally, however, signatures with conditions are not counted
    toward a majority (cf. VIII, 3302) and in the modern practice are not
    printed in the report. Supplemental reports or minority views may not be
    filed in connection with conference reports (VIII, 3302). The name of an
    absent manager may not be affixed, but the two Houses by concurrent
    action may authorize the manager to sign the report after it has been
    acted on (V, 6488). The minority portion of the managers of a conference
    have no authority to make either a written or verbal report concerning
    the conference (V, 6406). In the later practice reports of managers are
    identical, and made in duplicate for the two Houses, the House managers
    signing first the report for their House and the Senate managers

    Sec. 544. Partial conference reports.

      Managers may  report an
    agreement as to a portion of the numbered amendments in disagreement,
    leaving the remainder to be disposed of by subsequent action (V, 6460-
    6464). Where a Senate amendment to the title of a House bill was in
    conference, but inadvertently omitted from the conference report, the
    House adopted the report, and, by unanimous consent, insisted on its
    disagreement to the putatively reported amendment and agreed to a
    concurrent resolution that deemed the conference report to have
    ``resolved all disagreements'' (Oct. 10, 2002, p. 20333).

    Sec. 545. Reports of inability to agree.

      Where managers  of a
    conference are unable to agree, or where a report is disagreed to in
    either House, another conference is usually asked (V, 6288-6291). When
    managers report that they have been unable to agree, the report is not
    acted on by the House (V, 6562; VIII, 3329; Aug. 23, 1957, p. 15816).
    Although under the earlier practice, when conferees reported in complete
    disagreement, the amendments in disagreement were considered available
    for immediate disposition (VIII, 3299, 3332), the current practice (as a
    result of the amendments to clause 8(a) of rule XXII in the 93d and
    116th Congresses) is to require the matter to lay over for 72 hours
    after the report in disagreement is filed and printed in the Record. In
    the earlier practice reports of inability to agree were made verbally or
    by unsigned written reports (V, 6563-6567); but in later practice they
    are written, in identical form, and signed by the managers of the two
    Houses (V, 6568, 6569).

    [[Page 304]]

    and may even report an entirely new bill on the subject (V, 6421, 6423;
    VIII, 3248, 3263, 3265, 3276; Sec. 1088, infra). If the amendment in
    disagreement proposes a substitute differing greatly from the House
    provision they may eliminate the entire subject matter (Speaker Gillett,
    Sept. 14, 1922, p. 12598).

    Sec. 546. Managers restricted to the
    disagreements of the two Houses.

      The managers  of a conference must confine
    themselves to the differences committed to them (V, 6417, 6418; VIII,
    3252, 3255, 3282), and may not include subjects not within the
    disagreements (V, 6407, 6408; VIII, 3253-3255, 3260, 3282, 3284), even
    though germane to a question in issue (V, 6419; VIII, 3256; Speaker
    Albert, Dec. 20, 1974, p. 41849). But they may perfect amendments
    committed to them if they do not in so doing go beyond the differences
    (V, 6409, 6413). Thus, where an amendment providing an appropriation to
    construct a road had been disagreed to, it was held in order to report a
    provision to provide for a survey for the road (V, 6425). Managers may
    not change the text to which both Houses have agreed (V, 6417, 6418,
    6420, 6433-6436). But if the amendment in issue strikes all of the bill
    after the enacting clause and substitutes a new text, the managers have
    the whole subject before them and may exercise a broad discretion as to
    details (V, 6424; VIII, 3266),

    Sec. 547. Remedy where managers exceed their
    authority.

      In the  House the Speaker may rule out a conference report if it be
    shown that the managers have exceeded their authority (V, 6409-6416;
    VIII, 3256; Oct. 4, 1962, p. 22332; Nov. 14, 2002, pp. 22408, 22409). In
    the House points of order against reports are made or reserved after the
    report is read and before the reading of the statement (V, 6424, 6441;
    VIII, 3282, 3284, 3285, 3287), or consideration begins (V, 6903-6905;
    VIII, 3286), and comes too late after the report has been agreed to (V,
    6442); and in case the statement is read in lieu of the report the point
    of order must be made or reserved before the statement is read (VIII,
    3256, 3265, 3285, 3288, 3289). Where clause 8(c) of rule XXII applies,
    points of order must be made before debate begins on the report (Nov.
    14, 2002, p. 22408).

      A conference report held to violate clause 9 of rule XXII was
    vitiated, after which a privileged motion to recede and concur in a
    Senate amendment with an amendment incorporating by reference the text
    of an introduced House bill was offered (Nov. 14, 2002, p. 22409).

      Under the former practice of the Senate, the Chair did not rule out
    conference reports, but the Senate itself expressed its opinion on the
    vote to agree to the report (V, 6426-6432). However, on March 8, 1918,
    the Senate adopted a ``scope'' rule providing for a point of order
    against conferees inserting matter not committed to them or changing the
    text agreed to by both Houses. This rule of the Senate was strictly
    construed (VIII, 3273, 3275) until the 104th Congress when the Senate
    overturned on appeal a ruling of its presiding officer that the
    inclusion of a special labor-law provision in a conference report
    exceeded the scope of conference (Oct. 3, 1996, pp. 27147-51). The Chair
    interpreted that action as tantamount to a change in the Senate rules
    until the 107th Congress. Public Law 106-553 provided that at the
    beginning of the 107th Congress the Presiding Officer of the Senate
    would apply precedents under Senate rule XXVIII as in effect at the end
    of the 103d Congress. Public Law 110-81 amended it to provide a new
    procedure (see, e.g., Nov. 7, 2007, pp. 30270, 30271, 30282).

    [[Page 305]]

    and for an automatic request for a new conference if the House managers
    fail to meet in open session following appointment of the Senate
    conferees (Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32896). For a discussion of open conference
    meetings, see Sec. 1093, infra. Rarely, also, papers in the nature of
    petitions have been referred to managers (V, 6263). The managers of the
    two Houses vote separately (V, 6336). Clause 12(a)(3) of rule XXII
    provides additional statements on the meetings, discussions, and
    signatures of House managers. Clause 13 of rule XXII provides a point of
    order against consideration of a conference report that differs in a
    non-clerical manner from the version placed before the House managers
    for signature.

    Sec. 548. Meeting and action of managers.

      The  managers of a
    conference may not report before the other House is notified of their
    appointment and a meeting is held (V, 6458). Conferences are generally
    held in the Capitol, and formerly with closed doors, although in rare
    instances Members and others were admitted to make arguments (V, 6254,
    footnote, 6263). Clause 12 of rule XXII now provides for at least one
    open conference meeting except if the House determines by the yeas and
    nays that all or part of the meeting may be closed to the public. The
    same rule now provides for a point of order in the House against the
    report

    Sec. 549. Action on a conference report in the
    two Houses.

      The report of  the managers of a conference goes first to one House and
    then to the other, neither House acting until it is in possession of the
    papers, which means the original bill and amendments, as well as the
    report (V, 6322, 6518-6522, 6586; VIII, 3301). The report must be acted
    on as a whole, being agreed to or disagreed to as an entirety (V, 6472-
    6480, 6530-6533; VIII, 3304, 3305; Speaker Bankhead, Aug. 22, 1940, p.
    10763; Speaker Albert, Nov. 10, 1971, p. 40481); and until the report
    has been acted on no motion to deal with the individual amendments is in
    order (V, 6323, 6389, 6390; Speaker Rayburn, Mar. 16, 1942, pp. 2502-
    04). Under a special order of business recommended by the Committee on
    Rules, the House has considered a single, indivisible motion to adopt
    not only a conference report but also sundry motions to dispose of
    amendments reported from conference in disagreement (June 18, 1992, p.
    15453). Although ordinarily reports are agreed to by majority vote, a
    two-thirds vote is required on a report relating to a constitutional
    amendment (V, 7036). Conference reports must be acted on in both Houses
    and, in a case in which the Senate had adopted a report recommending
    that it recede from its amendments to a House bill, the House rejected
    the report and then agreed to the Senate amendments (Mar. 21, 1956, p.
    5278). A conference report being made up but not acted on at the
    expiration of a Congress, the bill is lost (V, 6309). One House has, by
    message, reminded the other of its neglect to act on a conference
    report; but this was an occasion of criticism (V, 6309).

    [[Page 306]]

    to recommit a conference report if the other body, by action on the
    report, have not discharged their managers (V, 6545-6553, 6609; VIII,
    3310), and by concurrent resolution a report may be recommitted to
    conference after each House has acted thereon (VIII, 3316), but such a
    proposition would not be privileged in the House (V, 6554-6557; VIII,
    3309).

    Sec. 550. Motions in order during action on a
    conference report.

      When a  conference report is presented, the question on
    agreeing is regarded as pending (V, 6517; VIII, 3300), and as the
    negative of it is equivalent to disagreement, the motion to disagree is
    not admitted (II, 1473; V, 6517; VIII, 3300). The reading of the
    amendments to which the report relates is not in order during its
    consideration (V, 5298). The report may not be amended on motion made in
    either House alone (V, 6534, 6535; VIII, 3306), but amendment is
    sometimes made by concurrent action of the two Houses (V, 6536, 6537;
    VIII, 3308). A motion to refer to a standing committee (V, 6558) or to
    lay on the table is not entertained in the House (V, 6538-6544); and a
    conference report may not be sent to Committee of the Whole on
    suggestion that it contains matter ordinarily requiring consideration in
    that committee (V, 6559-6561). It is in order on motion

      A bill being recommitted to the committee of conference, no further
    action is taken by the House until it is again reported by the managers
    (VIII, 3326, 3327), and when reported is subject to another motion to
    recommit (VIII, 3325). Adoption of a motion to recommit opens to further
    negotiation all issues committed to conference (Apr. 21, 1988, p. 8198).
    A motion to recommit a conference report under the former version of the
    rule could not instruct House managers to exceed the scope of conference
    (Sec. 1088, infra); and, under clause 7(d) of rule XXII, a motion to
    instruct may not contain argument (Sec. 1079, infra).

    Sec. 551. Effect of disagreement to a conference
    report.

      When either  House disagrees to a conference report the matter is left in
    the position it was in before the conference was asked (V, 6525), and
    the amendments in disagreement come up for further action (II, 1473),
    but do not return to the state they were in before disagreement, so that
    they need not be considered in the Committee of the Whole (V, 6589).
    Motions for disposition of Senate amendments, sending to conference and
    instruction of conferees, are again in order (VIII, 3303). However, if a
    conference report is considered as rejected pursuant to the provisions
    of clause 10 of rule XXII because of the inclusion of nongermane matter,
    the pending question is as specified in that clause and, depending on
    the nature of the text in disagreement, may be to recede and concur with
    an amendment, to insist on the House position, or to insist on
    disagreement (see Sec. Sec. 1089, 1090, infra).

    [[Page 307]]

    Sec. 552. Custody of papers when a conference is asked
    before disagreement.

      A  conference may be asked, before the House asking
    it has come to a resolution of disagreement, insisting or adhering. 3
    Hats., 269, 341. In which case the papers are not left with the other
    conferees, but are brought back to the foundation of the vote to be
    given. And this is the most reasonable and respectful proceeding; for,
    as was urged by the Lords on a particular occasion, ``it is held vain,
    and below the wisdom of Parliament, to reason or argue against fixed
    resolutions, and upon terms of impossibility to persuade.'' 3 Hats.,
    226. * * *

      In the Houses of Congress conferences are sometimes asked before a
    disagreement, and while the rule as to retention of the papers
    undoubtedly holds good, neglect to observe it has not been questioned
    (V, 6585).

    Sec. 553. Relations of adherence and conference
    under the parliamentary law.

      * * * So the  Commons say, ``an adherence is never
    delivered at a free conference, which implies debate.'' 10 Grey, 137.
    And on another occasion the Lords made it an objection that the Commons
    had asked a free conference after they had made resolutions of adhering.
    It was then affirmed, however, on the part of the Commons that nothing
    was more parliamentary than to proceed with free conferences after
    adhering, 3 Hats., 269, and we do in fact see instances of conference,
    or of free conference, asked after the resolution of disagreeing, 3
    Hats., 251, 253, 260, 286, 291, 316, 349; of insisting, ib., 280, 290,
    299, 319, 322, 355; of adhering, 269, 270, 283, 300; and even of a
    second or final adherence. 3 Hats., 270. * * *

    Sec. 554. Relations of adherence and conference
    under the practice of the two Houses of Congress.

      The two Houses  not observing the
    parliamentary distinctions as to free and other conferences, their
    practice in case of adherence is also different. Conferences are not
    asked after an adherence by both Houses, but have often been asked and
    granted where only one House has adhered (V, 6241-6244). A vote to
    adhere may not be accompanied by a request for a conference (V, 6303;
    VIII, 3208), because the House that votes to adhere does not ask a
    conference (V, 6304-6308). The request for a conference in such a case
    is properly accompanied by a motion to insist (V, 6308). And the House
    that has adhered may insist on its adherence when it agrees to the
    conference (V, 6251). But it is not considered necessary either to
    recede or insist before agreeing to the conference (V, 6242, 6244, 6310,
    6311).

    [[Page 308]]

    conferees of the other; and in one case where they refused to receive
    them they were left on the table in the conference chamber. Ib., 271,
    317, 323, 354; 10 Grey, 146.

    Sec. 555. Custody of the papers after an
    effective conference.

      * * * And in  all cases of conference asked after a vote of
    disagreement, &c., the conferees of the House asking it are to leave the
    papers with the

      This principle of the parliamentary law is recognized in both Houses,
    and is customarily followed in cases wherein the managers of the
    conference come to an agreement on which a report may be based (July 31,
    1981, p. 18884). If conferees of House agreeing to conference surrender
    papers to House asking conference, the report can be received first by
    House asking the conference (VIII, 3330). In the 101st Congress, where a
    report following a successful conference was filed in both Houses, an
    objection to a unanimous-consent request in the Senate prevented the
    release of papers held at the Senate desk to the House, where the Senate
    in the normal course of events was scheduled to act first on the report
    (June 28, 1990, p. 16249).

    Sec. 556. Custody of papers when managers of a
    conference fail to agree.

      Where a  conference breaks up without reaching any
    agreement the managers for the House that requested the conference, who
    have the papers by right, are justified in retaining them and carrying
    them back to the House (IV, 3905, footnote; V, 6246, 6254, 6571-6584;
    VIII, 3332). And in one case wherein under such circumstances the papers
    were taken back to the Senate, which was the body agreeing to the
    conference, the Senate after consideration sent them to the House,
    because it seemed proper for the asking House to take the first action
    (V, 6573). But sometimes managers have brought the papers to the
    agreeing House without question (V, 6239, footnote; July 14, 1988, p.
    18411).

    Sec. 557. Free or instructed conferences.

      [The  Commons
    affirm that it is usual to have two free conferences or more, before
    either House proceeds to adhere: because, before that time, the Houses
    have not had the full opportunity of making replies to one another's
    arguments; and to adhere so suddenly and unexpectedly, excludes all
    possibility of offering expedients. 4 Hats. 330.]

    [[Page 309]]

      After a free conference the usage is to proceed with free conferences
    and not to return again to a conference. 3 Hats., 270; 9 Grey, 229.

      After a conference denied a free conference may be asked. 1 Grey, 45.

      The House instructs its managers whenever it sees fit, without regard
    to whether or not the preceding conference has been free or instructed.

    Sec. 558. Parliamentary law as to purposes for which
    conferences may be held.

      When a  conference is asked, the subject of it must
    be expressed or the conference not agreed to. Ord. H. Com., 89; 1 Grey,
    425; 7 Grey, 31[; 4 Hats. 20, 46]. They are sometimes asked to inquire
    concerning an offense or default of a member of the other House. 6 Grey,
    181; 1 Chand., 304. Or the failure of the other House to present to the
    King a bill passed by both Houses. 8 Grey, 302. Or on information
    received and relating to the safety of the nation. 10 Grey, 171. Or when
    the methods of Parliament are thought by the one House to have been
    departed from by the other a conference is asked to come to a right
    understanding thereon. 10 Grey, 148. So when an unparliamentary message
    has been sent, instead of answering it they ask a conference. 3 Grey,
    155. Formerly an address or articles of impeachment or a bill, with
    amendments, or a vote of the House, or concurrence in a vote, or a
    message from the King were sometimes communicated by way of conference.
    6 Grey, 128, 300, 387; 7 Grey, 80; 8 Grey, 210, 255; 1 Torbuck's Deb.,
    278; 10 Grey, 293; 1 Chandler, 49, 287. But this is not the modern
    practice. 8 Grey, 255.

    [[Page 310]]

    Sec. 559. Obsolete provision as to conference and
    impeachment.

        A conference has been asked after the first reading of a
    bill. 1 Grey, 194. This is a singular instance.

      [During the time of a conference the House can do no business. As soon
    as the names of the managers are called over, and they are gone to the
    conference, the Speaker leaves the chair, without any question, and
    resumes it on the return of the managers. It is the same while the
    managers of an impeachment are at the House of Lords. 4 Hats. 47, 209,
    288.]

      The House has no procedure conforming to these provisions.

                              sec. xlvii--messages

    Sec. 560. Messages sent only when both Houses are
    sitting.

        Messages between the Houses are to be sent only while both
    Houses are sitting. 3 Hats., 15. * * *

      Formerly this rule was observed (V, 6603, 6604), but since the 62d
    Congress messages have been received by the House when the Senate was
    not in session (VIII, 3338). Clause 2 of rule II was added in the 97th
    Congress, and amended in the 111th Congress, to authorize the Clerk to
    receive messages at any time that the House is not in session (H. Res.
    5, Jan. 5, 1981, p. 98) or in recess (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 9).

    Sec. 561. Messages received during debate.

        * * * They are
    received during a debate without adjourning the debate. 3 Hats., 22.

      In the House messages are received during debate, the Member having
    the floor yielding on request of the Speaker.

    [[Page 311]]

    Sec. 562. Reception of messages during voting, in
    absence of a quorum, etc.

      In Senate  the messengers are introduced in any state
    of business, except: 1. While a question is being put. 2. While the yeas
    and nays are being called. 3. While the ballots are being counted. The
    first case is short; the second and third are cases where any
    interruption might occasion errors difficult to be corrected. So
    arranged June 15, 1798.

      In the House messages are not received while a question is being put
    or during a vote by division. However, they are received during the call
    of the yeas and nays, during consideration of a question of privilege
    (V, 6640-6642), during a call of the House (V, 6600), during debate on a
    motion to approve the Journal (Sept. 13, 1965, p. 23607), and before the
    organization of the House (V, 6647-6649). But the Speaker exercises
    discretion about interrupting the pending business (V, 6602).

    Sec. 563. Informal rising of Committee of the Whole to
    receive a message.

      In the  House, as in Parliament, if the House be in
    committee when a messenger attends, the Speaker takes the chair to
    receive the message, and then quits it to return into committee without
    any question or interruption. 4 Grey, 226.

    Sec. 564. Salutation of messengers by the
    Speaker.

        Messengers are not saluted by the Members, but by the Speaker
    for the House. 2 Grey, 253, 274.

      The practice of the House as to reception of messages is founded on
    this paragraph of the parliamentary law and on the former joint rules
    (V, 6591-6595). The Speaker, with a slight inclination, addresses the
    messenger, by title, after the messenger, with an inclination, has
    addressed the Speaker (V, 6591).

    Sec. 565. Correction and return of messages.

      If  messengers
    commit an error in delivering their message, they may be admitted or
    called in to correct their message. 4 Grey, 41. Accordingly, March 13,
    1800, the Senate having made two amendments to a bill from the House,
    their Secretary, by mistake, delivered one only, which being
    inadmissible by itself, that House disagreed, and notified the Senate of
    their disagreement. This produced a discovery of the mistake. The
    Secretary was sent to the other House to correct his mistake, the
    correction was received, and the two amendments acted on de novo.

    [[Page 312]]

    may qualify as privileged in the House or may be disposed of by
    unanimous consent (III, 2613; V, 6605; Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 2;
    Oct. 1, 1982, p. 27172; May 20, 1996, p. 11809). For example: (1) the
    House by unanimous consent agreed to a request from the Senate for the
    return of a Senate bill to the end that the Senate effect a specified
    (substantive) change in its text (May 7, 1998, p. 8386) or to the end
    that the bill be recommitted to committee (July 15, 2004, p. 15890); (2)
    the House by unanimous consent directed its Clerk to correct an error in
    a message to the Senate (V, 6607); (3) the House, upon receipt of a
    request by the Senate to return a bill during consideration of the
    conference report accompanying that bill, laid the conference report
    aside and agreed to the Senate request (V, 6609); (4) the House
    requested the return of a message indicating passage of a Senate joint
    resolution after learning that both Houses had previously passed an
    identical House Joint Resolution, so that it could indefinitely postpone
    action thereon (Nov. 16, 1989, p. 29587); (5) the Speaker laid before
    the House as privileged a message from the Senate requesting the return
    of a message where it had erroneously appointed conferees to a bill
    after the papers had been messaged to the House, so that the message
    could be changed to reflect the appointment of Senate conferees (May 20,
    1996, p. 11809); (6) the Speaker laid before the House as privileged a
    message from the Senate requesting the return of a Senate bill that
    included provisions intruding on the constitutional prerogative of the
    House to originate revenue measures (Oct. 19, 1999, p. 25901; Sept. 28,
    2004, p. 19724; Sept. 30, 2004, p. 20045); (7) where the engrossment
    failed to depict certain action of the House, the House considered and
    agreed to a privileged resolution requesting the Senate to return the
    engrossment of a House bill (July 15, 2004, p. 15890; Feb. 11, 2022, p.
    _) and a House-passed Senate bill (Oct. 8, 2004, p. 22630); (8) the
    Speaker laid before the House as privileged a message from the Senate
    requesting the return of a Senate bill (Sept. 19, 2022, p. _) and Senate
    amendments to a House bill (July 14, 2005, p. 15932; Mar. 13, 2018, p.
    _) where the engrossment failed to properly depict the action of the
    Senate.
      A request of one House for the return of a bill messaged to the other,
    or the request of one House to correct an error in its message to the
    other,

      The House by unanimous consent authorized the Clerk to produce a
    duplicate copy of a specified engrossment after the Senate was unable to
    locate the official papers (Sept. 17, 2020, p. _).

    [[Page 313]]

    till they shall be called for to be read. Hakew., 178.

    Sec. 566. Disposal of messages after reception.

      As soon  as
    the messenger who has brought bills from the other House has retired,
    the Speaker holds the bills in his hand; and acquaints the House ``that
    the other House have by their messenger sent certain bills,'' and then
    reads their titles, and delivers them to the Clerk to be safely kept

      In the House the message goes to the Speaker's table for disposition
    under clause 2 of rule XIV. The Speaker does not acquaint the House,
    because it has already heard the message.

    Sec. 567. Information by message as to bills
    passed.

      It is not  the usage for one House to inform the other by what numbers a
    bill is passed. 10 Grey, 150. Yet they have sometimes recommended a
    bill, as of great importance, to the consideration of the House to which
    it is sent. 3 Hats., 25. * * *

      The Houses of Congress do not communicate by what numbers a bill is
    passed, or otherwise recommend their bills.

    Sec. 568. Information by message as to
    rejection of bills.

      * * * Nor when  they have rejected a bill from the other House, do
    they give notice of it; but it passes sub silentio, to prevent
    unbecoming altercations. 1 Blackst., 183.

      But in Congress the rejection is notified by message to the House in
    which the bill originated.

      In the two Houses of Congress the fact of the rejection of a bill is
    messaged to the House in which the bill originated, as in the days of
    Jefferson, although the joint rule requiring it has disappeared (IV,
    3422; V, 6601). And in a case wherein the House had stricken the
    enacting words of a Senate bill, the Senate was notified that the bill
    had been rejected (IV, 3423; VII, 2638; Oct. 4, 1972, pp. 33785-87).

    Sec. 569. Questions asked by conference, not by
    message.

      A question  is never asked by the one House of the other by way of
    message, but only at a conference; for this is an interrogatory, not a
    message. 3 Grey, 151, 181.

    [[Page 314]]

      In 1798 the House asked of the Senate a question by way of conference,
    but this appears to be the only instance (V, 6256).

    Sec. 570. Messages as to neglected bills.

      When a  bill is
    sent by one House to the other, and is neglected, they may send a
    message to remind them of it. 3 Hats., 25; 5 Grey, 154. But if it be
    mere inattention, it is better to have it done informally by
    communication between the Speakers or Members of the two Houses.

      It does not appear that either House of Congress has by message
    reminded the other of a neglected bill.

    Sec. 571. Messages from the President to the two
    Houses.

      Where the  subject of a message is of a nature that it can properly be
    communicated to both Houses of Parliament, it is expected that this
    communication should be made to both on the same day. But where a
    message was accompanied with an original declaration, signed by the
    party to which the message referred, its being sent to one House was not
    noticed by the other, because the declaration being original, could not
    possibly be sent to both Houses at the same time. 2 Hats., 260, 261,
    262.

      The King having sent original letters to the Commons afterward desires
    they may be returned, that he may communicate them to the Lords. 1
    Chandler, 303.

    [[Page 315]]

      A message of the President of the United States is usually
    communicated to both Houses on the same day when its nature permits (V,
    6590); but an original document accompanying can, of course, be sent to
    but one House (V, 6616, 6617). The President having by inadvertence
    included certain papers in a message, was allowed to withdraw them (V,
    6651). In the House the Speaker has the discretion, which is rarely
    exercised, to suspend a roll call in order to receive a message from the
    President.

                               sec. xlviii--assent

    Sec. 572. Parliamentary law as to presenting a bill for
    the King's assent.

      The  House which has received a bill and passed it may
    present it for the King's assent, and ought to do it, though they have
    not by message notified to the other their passage of it. Yet the
    notifying by message is a form which ought to be observed between the
    two Houses from motives of respect and good understanding. 2 Hats., 242.
    Were the bill to be withheld from being presented to the King, it would
    be an infringement of the rules of Parliament. Ib.

      In the House it was held that where there had been no unreasonable
    delay in transmitting an enrolled bill to the President, a resolution
    relating thereto did not present a question of privilege (III, 2601),
    but a resolution seeking such a determination may be privileged (Oct. 8,
    1991, p. 25761).

    Sec. 573. Parliamentary law as to enrollment of
    bills.

      When a  bill has passed both Houses of Congress, the House last acting
    on it notifies its passage to the other, and delivers the bill to the
    Joint Committee on Enrollment, who sees that it is truly enrolled in
    parchment. When the bill is enrolled it is not to be written in
    paragraphs, but solidly, and all of a piece, that the blanks between the
    paragraphs may not give room for forgery. 9 Grey, 143. * * *

    [[Page 316]]

    11, 1984, p. 32149), and such a concurrent resolution is privileged for
    consideration in the House during the last six days of the session (Jan.
    1, 2013, p. 18571; see 1 U.S.C. 106 for authority to waive ordinary
    printing requirements at the end of a session), but before the last six
    days, a joint resolution waiving the law to permit hand enrollments is
    required and may be considered in the House by unanimous consent (Dec.
    10, 1985, p. 35741) or by special order of business (Oct. 8, 1998, p.
    24735). The two Houses have by joint resolution authorized not only a
    ``hand enrollment'' of a time-sensitive bill but also a parchment
    enrollment of the same measure, to be prepared at a later time for
    deposit in the National Archives with the original (P.L. 100-199, Dec.
    21, 1987; P.L. 100-454, Sept. 29, 1988). Where an enrolled bill enacts
    another numbered bill by reference, that same law may require the
    Archivist to include as an appendix to that law the text of the
    referenced bill (see, e.g., P.L. 106-554). Only in a very exceptional
    case have the two Houses waived the requirement that bills shall be
    enrolled (IV, 3442). The enrolling clerk should make no change, however
    unimportant, in the text of a bill to which the House has agreed (III,
    2598); but the two Houses may by concurrent resolution authorize the
    correction of an error when enrollment is made (IV, 3446-3450), and this
    seems a better practice than earlier methods by authority of the
    Committee on Enrolled Bills (IV, 3444, 3445).

    Sec. 574. Practice of the two Houses of Congress
    as to enrollment of bills.

      Formerly the  enrollment in the House and the Senate was
    in writing (IV, 3436, 3437); but in 1893 the two Houses, by concurrent
    resolution, provided that bills should be enrolled on parchment by
    printing instead of by writing, and also that the engrossment of bills
    before sending them to the other House for action should be in printing
    (IV, 3433), and in 1895 this concurrent resolution was approved by
    statute (IV, 3435; 1 U.S.C. 106). In the last six days of a session of
    Congress the two Houses, by concurrent resolution, may permit the
    enrolling and engrossing to be done by hand (IV, 3435, 3438; Dec. 20,
    1982, p. 32875; Oct.

    Sec. 575. Signing of enrolled bills for
    presentation to the President.

      * * * It is  then put into the hands of the Clerk of
    the House to have it signed by the Speaker. The Clerk then brings it by
    way of message to the Senate to be signed by their President. The
    Secretary of the Senate returns it to the Committee of Enrollment, who
    present it to the President of the United States. * * *

    [[Page 317]]

      The practice of the two Houses of Congress for the signing of enrolled
    bills was formerly governed by joint rules, and has continued since
    those rules were abrogated in 1876 (IV, 3430). The bills are signed
    first by the Speaker, then by the President of the Senate (IV, 3429).
    The two Houses by concurrent action may authorize the cancellation of
    signatures and reenrollment in case of error (see Sec. 625, infra) or a
    bill prematurely enrolled (IV, 3454).

    Sec. 576. Authority of pro tempore presiding
    officers to sign enrolled bills.

      A Speaker pro  tempore elected by the House (II,
    1401), or whose designation has received the approval of the House (II,
    1404; VI, 277; clause 8 of rule I), signs enrolled bills (see clause 4
    of rule I); but a Member merely called to the chair during the day (II,
    1399, 1400; VI, 276), or designated in writing by the Speaker, does not
    exercise this function (II, 1401).

      The Senate, by rule, has empowered a presiding officer by written
    designation to sign enrolled bills (II, 1403).

    Sec. 577. Presentation of enrolled bills to the
    President.

      In early  days a joint committee took enrolled bills to the President
    (IV, 3432); but in the later practice the chair of the committee in each
    House that had responsibility for the enrollment of bills also had the
    responsibility of presenting the bills from that House, and submitted
    from his committee daily a report of the bills presented for entry in
    the Journal (IV, 3431). In the 107th Congress the responsibility in the
    House for enrolled bills was transferred from the Committee on House
    Administration to the Clerk (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
    Enrolled bills pending at the close of a session have, at the next
    session of the same Congress, been ordered to be treated as if no
    adjournment had taken place (IV, 3487-3488). Enrolled bills signed by
    the presiding officers at one session have been sent to the President
    and approved at the next session of the same Congress (IV, 3486).
    Enrollments presented at the close of one Congress have been signed by
    the President after the convening of the next Congress (see Sec. 111,
    supra).

    * * * * *
                               sec. xlix--journals

    Sec. 578. Obsolete provisions as to entry of motions in
    the journal.

      If a  question is interrupted by a vote to adjourn, or to
    proceed to the orders of the day, the original question is never printed
    in the journal, it never having been a vote, nor introductory to any
    vote; but when suppressed by the previous question, the first question
    must be stated, in order to introduce and make intelligible the second.
    2 Hats., 83.

    [[Page 318]]

      This provision of the parliamentary law is superseded by clause 1 of
    rule XVI, which requires every motion entertained by the Speaker to be
    entered on the Journal.

    Sec. 579. Journal entries of questions postponed or
    laid on the table.

      So also  when a question is postponed, adjourned, or laid on
    the table, the original question, though not yet a vote, must be
    expressed in the journals, because it makes part of the vote of
    postponement, adjourning, or laying it on the table.

      In the House a question is not adjourned, except in the sense that it
    may be left to go over as unfinished business by reason of a vote to
    adjourn.

    Sec. 580. Entry of amendments in the
    Journal.

      Where  amendments are made to a question, those amendments are not
    printed in the journals, separated from the question; but only the
    question as finally agreed to by the House. The rule of entering in the
    journals only what the House has agreed to, is founded in great prudence
    and good sense, as there may be many questions proposed which it may be
    improper to publish to the world in the form in which they are made. 2
    Hats., 85.

      In the practice of the House a motion to amend is entered on the
    Journal as any other motion, under clause 1 of rule XVI.
    * * * * *

    Sec. 581. Entry of votes in journal of the House of
    Commons.

        The first order for printing the votes of the House of
    Commons was October 30, 1685. 1 Chandler, 387.

    [[Page 319]]

    Houses together have power of judicature; and the book of the Clerk of
    the House of Commons is a record, as is affirmed by act of Parl., 6 H.
    8, c. 16; 4 Inst., 23, 24; and every member of the House of Commons hath
    a judicial place. 4 Inst., 15. As records they are open to every person,
    and a printed vote of either House is sufficient ground for the other to
    notice it. Either may appoint a committee to inspect the journals of the
    other, and report what has been done by the other in any particular
    case. 2 Hats., 261; 3 Hats., 27-30. Every member has a right to see the
    journals and to take and publish votes from them. Being a record, every
    one may see and publish them. 6 Grey, 118, 119.

    Sec. 582. The Journal as an official record.

      Some  judges
    have been of opinion that the journals of the House of Commons are no
    records, but only remembrances. But this is not law. Hob., 110, 111;
    Lex. Parl., 114, 115; Jour. H. C., Mar. 17, 1592; Hale, Parl., 105. For
    the Lords in their House have power of judicature, the Commons in their
    House have power of judicature, and both

      The Journal of the House is the official record of the proceedings of
    the House (IV, 2727), and certified copies are admitted as evidence in
    the courts of the United States (IV, 2810; 28 U.S.C. 1736). A Senate
    committee concluded that the Journal entries of a legislative body were
    conclusive as to all the proceedings had, and might not be contradicted
    by ex parte evidence (I, 563).

    Sec. 583. Correction of the Journal through a
    committee.

      On  information of a misentry or omission of an entry in the
    journal, a committee may be appointed to examine and rectify it, and
    report it to the House. 2 Hats., 194, 195.

                               sec. l--adjournment

    [[Page 320]]

    House to comply with his requisition, or not, as they see fitting. 2
    Hats., 232; 1 Blackst., 186; 5 Grey, 122.
    * * * * *

    Sec. 584. Parliamentary law as to adjournment of the
    Commons and Lords.

      The two  Houses of Parliament have the sole, separate, and
    independent power of adjourning each their respective Houses. The King
    has no authority to adjourn them; he can only signify his desire, and it
    is in the wisdom and prudence of either

    Sec. 585. Motion to adjourn not to be amended.

      A motion  to
    adjourn, simply cannot be amended, as by adding ``to a particular day;''
    but must be put simply ``that this House do now adjourn;'' and if
    carried in the affirmative, it is adjourned to the next sitting day,
    unless it has come to a previous resolution, ``that at its rising it
    will adjourn to a particular day,'' and then the House is adjourned to
    that day. 2 Hats., 82.

      The modern practice of the House adheres to this principle
    (Sec. Sec. 912, 913, infra). Clause 4 of rule XVI admits at the
    discretion of the Speaker a separate motion of equal privilege that when
    the House adjourns on that day it stand adjourned to a day and time
    certain (consistent with article I, section 5, clause 4 of the
    Constitution, not in excess of three days).

    Sec. 586. Motion for a recess.

      Where it is  convenient that
    the business of the House be suspended for a short time, as for a
    conference presently to be held, &c., it adjourns during pleasure; 2
    Hats., 305; or for a quarter of an hour. 4 Grey, 331.

    [[Page 321]]

    fied for the conclusion of the proposed recess (V, 6667). A Committee of
    the Whole takes a recess only by permission of the House (V, 6669-6671;
    VIII, 3362). The motion for a recess is not privileged (V, 4302, 5301,
    6740), in the House or in the Committee of the Whole (June 26, 1981, p.
    14356) against a demand that business proceed in the regular order (V,
    6663; VIII, 3354-3356). However, beginning in the 102d Congress a motion
    to authorize the Speaker to declare a recess was given a privilege equal
    to that of the motion to adjourn (clause 4 of rule XVI); and beginning
    in the 103d Congress the Speaker was authorized to declare a recess
    ``for a short time when no question is pending'' (clause 12 of rule I).
    For the Speaker's authority to declare an emergency recess when notified
    of an imminent threat to the safety of the House, see Sec. 639, infra.

      An adjournment during pleasure is effected in the House by a motion
    for a recess. A recess may not be taken by less than a quorum (IV, 2958-
    2960), and consequently the motion for it is not in order in the absence
    of a quorum (IV, 2955-2957). When the hour previously fixed for a recess
    arrives, the Chair declares the House in recess even in the midst of a
    division or when a quorum is not present (V, 6665, 6666; VI, 664); but a
    roll call is not in this way interrupted (V, 6054, 6055). Where a
    special order requires a recess at a certain hour of a certain day, the
    recess is not taken if the encroachment of a prior legislative day
    prevents the existence of said certain day as a legislative day (IV,
    3192). And an adjournment at a time before the hour fixed for a recess
    vacates the recess (IV, 3283). A motion for a recess must, when
    entertained, be voted on, even though the taking of the vote may have
    been prevented until after the hour speci

    Sec. 587. Adjournment pronounced by the
    Speaker.

      If a  question be put for adjournment, it is no adjournment till
    the Speaker pronounces it. 5 Grey, 137. And from courtesy and respect,
    no member leaves his place till the Speaker has passed on.

                               sec. li--a session

    [[Page 322]]

    Parl., c. 2; 1 Ro. Rep., 29; 4 Inst., 7, 27, 28; Hutt., 61; 1 Mod., 252;
    Ruffh. Jac., L. Dict. Parliament; 1 Blackst., 186. Their whole session
    is considered in law but as one day, and has relation to the first day
    thereof. Bro. Abr. Parliament, 86.

    Sec. 588. Sessions of Parliament.

      Parliament have  three
    modes of separation, to wit: by adjournment, by prorogation or
    dissolution by the King, or by the efflux of the term for which they
    were elected. Prorogation or dissolution constitutes there what is
    called a session; provided some act was passed. In this case all matters
    depending before them are discontinued, and at their next meeting are to
    be taken up de novo, if taken up at all. 1 Blackst., 186. Adjournment,
    which is by themselves, is no more than a continuance of the session
    from one day to another, of for a fortnight, a month, &c., ad libitum.
    All matters depending remain in statu quo, and when they meet again, be
    the term ever so distant, are resumed, without any fresh commencement,
    at the point at which they were left. 1 Lev., 165; Lex.

    Sec. 589. Sitting of committees in recesses
    and creation of commissions to sit after Congress adjourns.

      Committees may be  appointed
    to sit during a recess by adjournment, but not by prorogation. 5 Grey,
    374; 9 Grey, 350; 1 Chandler, 50. Neither House can continue any portion
    of itself in any parliamentary function beyond the end of the session
    without the consent of the other two branches. When done, it is by a
    bill constituting them commissioners for the particular purpose.

      The House may empower a committee to sit during a recess that is
    within the constitutional term of the House (IV, 4541-4543), but not
    thereafter (IV, 4545). A commission created by law may operate beyond
    the term of the Congress in which it was created (IV, 4545). Under
    clause 2(m)(1)(A) of rule XI, all committees are authorized to sit and
    act anywhere within the United States, and to issue subpoenas, whether
    the House is in session or has adjourned to a date certain or adjourned
    sine die, even after the second regular session of a Congress until the
    end of the constitutional term. Under clause 1(b)(4) and clause 1(d)(3)
    of rule XI, all committees are authorized to file investigative reports
    and activities reports following adjournment sine die.

    [[Page 323]]

    them.'' I. 3. If convened by the President's proclamation, this must
    begin a new session, and of course determine the preceding one to have
    been a session. So if it meets under the clause of the Constitution
    which says, ``the Congress shall assemble at least once in every year,
    and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they
    shall by law appoint a different day.'' I. 4. This must begin a new
    session; for even if the last adjournment was to this day the act of
    adjournment is merged in the higher authority of the Constitution, and
    the meeting will be under that, and not under their adjournment. So far
    we have fixed landmarks for determining sessions. * * *

    Sec. 590. Sessions and recesses of
    Congress.

      Congress separate  in two ways only, to wit, by adjournment, or dissolution by
    the efflux of their time. What, then, constitutes a session with them? A
    dissolution certainly closes one session, and the meeting of the new
    Congress begins another. The Constitution authorizes the President, ``on
    extraordinary occasions to convene both Houses, or either of

    [[Page 324]]

    er there had actually been a recess of Congress (V, 6687, 6693), with
    the conclusion that a recess was a real and not an imaginary time (V,
    6687).

      The twentieth amendment to the Constitution, clause 2, now provides
    that the Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, at noon on
    the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
    Section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812,
    as amended by section 461 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,
    84 Stat. 1140, provides that except in time of war the two Houses shall
    adjourn sine die not later than the last day of July (Sundays excepted)
    unless otherwise provided by the Congress. (For form of resolution used
    to continue in session past July 31, see H. Con. Res. 648, 92d Cong.,
    July 25, 1972, p. 25145.) The same section contemplates an adjournment
    of Congress from the thirtieth day before to the second day following
    Labor Day in the first session of a Congress (each odd-numbered year) in
    lieu of an adjournment sine die. See Sec. 1106, infra. Congress is
    adjourned for more than three days by a concurrent resolution (IV, 4031,
    footnote), and such adjournments to a day certain, within the session,
    do not terminate the session (V, 6676, 6677). In one instance the two
    Houses by concurrent resolution provided for adjournment to a day
    certain with the provision that if there be no quorum present on that
    day the session should terminate (V, 6686). Before the adoption of the
    twentieth amendment it had become established practice that a meeting of
    Congress once within the year did not make uncertain the constitutional
    mandate to meet on the first Monday of December (I, 10, 11). And where a
    special session continued until the time prescribed by the Constitution
    for the annual meeting without an appreciable intervening time (V, 6690,
    6692), a question arose as to wheth

    Sec. 591. Manner of closing a session by action
    of the two Houses.

      * * * In other  cases it is declared by the joint vote authorizing
    the President of the Senate and the Speaker to close the session on a
    fixed day, which is usually in the following form: ``Resolved by the
    Senate and House of Representatives, that the President of the Senate
    and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be authorized to close
    the present session by adjourning their respective Houses on the __ day
    of __.''

      In the modern practice the resolving clause of the concurrent
    resolution is in form different from that given by Jefferson. For a
    history and chronology of adjournment resolutions, see Sec. 84, supra.

    Sec. 592. Parliamentary law as to business at the
    termination of a session.

      When it was  said above that all matters depending before
    Parliament were discontinued by the determination of the session, it was
    not meant for judiciary cases depending before the House of Lords, such
    as impeachments, appeals, and writs of error. These stand continued, of
    course, to the next session. Raym., 120, 381; Ruffh. Fac., L. D.,
    Parliament.

      Impeachments stand, in like manner, continued before the Senate of the
    United States.

      For a discussion of continuance of impeachments, see Sec. 620, infra.

    * * * * *
                               sec. lii--treaties

    [[Page 325]]

    with respect to that nation. In all countries, I believe, except
    England, treaties are made by the legislative power; and there, also, if
    they touch the laws of the land they must be approved by Parliament.
    Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dallas's Rep., 223. It is acknowledged, for instance,
    that the King of Great Britain cannot by a treaty make a citizen of an
    alien. Vattel, b. 1, c. 19, sec. 214. An act of Parliament was necessary
    to validate the American treaty of 1783. And abundant examples of such
    acts can be cited. In the case of the treaty of Utrecht, in 1712, the
    commercial articles required the concurrence of Parliament; but a bill
    brought in for that purpose was rejected. France, the other contracting
    party, suffered these articles, in practice, to be not insisted on, and
    adhered to the rest of the treaty. 4 Russell's Hist. Mod. Europe, 457; 2
    Smollet, 242, 246.

    Sec. 593. General nature of
    treaties.

      Treaties are  legislative acts. A treaty is the law of the land. It
    differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign
    nation, being but a contract

    [[Page 326]]

    wise regulated. 3. It must have meant to except out of these the rights
    reserved to the States; for surely the President and Senate can not do
    by treaty what the whole Government is interdicted from doing in any
    way. 4. And also to except those subjects of legislation in which it
    gave a participation to the House. This last exception is denied by some
    on the ground that it would leave very little matter for the treaty
    power to work on. The less the better, say others. The Constitution
    thought it wise to restrain the executive and Senate from entangling and
    embroiling our affairs with those of Europe. Besides, as the
    negotiations are carried on by the executive alone, the subjecting to
    the ratification of the representatives such articles as are within
    their participation is no more inconvenient than to the Senate. But the
    ground of this exception is denied as unfounded. For examine, e.g., the
    treaty of commerce with France, and it will be found that, out of
    thirty-one articles, there are not more than small portions of two or
    three of them which would not still remain as subjects of treaties,
    untouched by these exceptions.

    Sec. 594. Jefferson's discussion of treaties under the
    Constitution.

      By the  Constitution of the United States this department of
    legislation is confined to two branches only of the ordinary
    legislature--the President originating and the Senate having a negative.
    To what subjects this power extends has not been defined in detail by
    the Constitution; nor are we entirely agreed among ourselves. 1. It is
    admitted that it must concern the foreign nation party to the contract,
    or it would be a mere nullity, res inter alias acta. 2. By the general
    power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to
    comprehend only those subjects which are usually regulated by treaty,
    and can not be other

    Sec. 595. General action of the House as to
    treaties.

      The  participation of the House in the treaty-making power has
    been often examined since Jefferson's Manual was written. The House has
    in several instances taken action in carrying into effect, terminating,
    enforcing, and suggesting treaties (II, 1502-1505, 1520-1522), although
    sometimes the propriety of requesting the executive to negotiate a
    treaty has been questioned (II, 1514-1517).

    [[Page 327]]

    carrying such treaty into effect (II, 1509); and in 1816, after a
    discussion with the Senate, the House maintained its position that a
    treaty must depend on a law of Congress for its execution as to such
    stipulations as relate to subjects constitutionally entrusted to
    Congress (II, 1506). In 1868 the House's assertion of right to a voice
    in carrying out the stipulations of certain treaties was conceded in a
    modified form (II, 1508). Again, in 1871, the House asserted its
    prerogative (II, 1523). In 1820 and 1868 there were discussions of the
    House's functions as to treaties ceding or acquiring foreign territory
    (II, 1507, 1508), and at various other times there have been discussions
    of the general subject (II, 1509, 1546, 1547; VI, 324-326).

    Sec. 596. Authority of the House as to treaties in
    general.

      The exact  authority of the House in the making of general treaties has
    been the subject of differences of opinion. In 1796 the House affirmed
    that, when a treaty related to subjects within the power of Congress, it
    was the constitutional duty of the House to deliberate on the expediency
    of

    Sec. 597. Authority of the House as to revenue
    treaties.

      After long and  careful consideration the Judiciary Committee of the House
    decided, in 1887, that the executive branch of the Government might not
    conclude a treaty affecting the revenue without the assent of the House
    (II, 1528-1530), and a Senate committee after examination concluded that
    duties were more properly regulated with the publicity of congressional
    action than by treaties negotiated by the President and ratified by the
    Senate in secrecy (II, 1532). In practice the House has acted on revenue
    treaties (II, 1531, 1533); and in 1880 it declared the negotiation of a
    revenue treaty an invasion of its prerogatives (II, 1524). At other
    times the subject has been discussed (II, 1525-1528, 1531, 1533).

    Sec. 598. House approves Indian
    treaties.

      After long  discussion the House, in 1871, successfully asserted its
    right to a voice in approving Indian treaties (II, 1535, 1536), although
    in earlier times this prerogative had been jealously guarded by the
    executive (II, 1534).

      There have been various conflicts with the executive over requests of
    the House for papers relating to treaties (II, 1509-1513, 1518, 1519,
    1561).

    Sec. 599. Treaties abrogated by
    law.

      Treaties being  declared, equally with the laws of the United States, to be the
    supreme law of the land, it is understood that an act of the legislature
    alone can declare them infringed and rescinded. This was accordingly the
    process adopted in the case of France in 1798.

    [[Page 328]]

      Notice to a foreign government of the abrogation of a treaty is
    authorized by a joint resolution (V, 6270). A resolution alleging an
    unconstitutional abrogation of a treaty by the President, and calling on
    the President to seek the approval of Congress before such abrogation,
    does not constitute a question of the privileges of the House under rule
    IX (June 6, 2002, pp. 9492-98 (sustained by tabling of appeal)).

    Sec. 600. Procedure of the Senate as to
    treaties.

      It has  been the usage for the Executive, when it communicates a
    treaty to the Senate for their ratification, to communicate also the
    correspondence of the negotiators. This having been omitted in the case
    of the Prussian treaty, was asked by a vote of the House of February 12,
    1800, and was obtained. And in December, 1800, the convention of that
    year between the United States and France, with the report of the
    negotiations by the envoys, but not their instructions, being laid
    before the Senate, the instructions were asked for and communicated by
    the President.

      The mode of voting on questions of ratification is by nominal call.

      The Senate now has rules governing its procedure on treaties.

    * * * * *
                             sec. liii--impeachment

    Sec. 601. Jurisdiction of Lords and Commons as
    to impeachments.

      These are the  provisions of the Constitution of the United States
    on the subject of impeachments. The following is a sketch of some of the
    principles and practices of England on the same subject:

    [[Page 329]]

    entitled to a trial by his peers generally; but on accusation by the
    House of Commons, they may proceed against the delinquent, of whatsoever
    degree, and whatsoever be the nature of the offense; for there they do
    not assume to themselves trial at common law. The Commons are then
    instead of a jury, and the judgment is given on their demand, which is
    instead of a verdict. So the Lords do only judge, but not try the
    delinquent. Ib., 6, 7. But Wooddeson denies that a commoner can now be
    charged capitally before the Lords, even by the Commons; and cites
    Fitzharris's case, 1681, impeached of high treason, where the Lords
    remitted the prosecution to the inferior court. 8 Grey's Deb., 325-7; 2
    Wooddeson, 576, 601; 3 Seld., 1604, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1641; 4 Blackst.,
    25; 9 Seld., 1656; 73 Seld., 1604-18. [4 Hats. 200. et passim contra.]
      Jurisdiction. The Lords can not impeach any to themselves, nor join in
    the accusation, because they are the judges. Seld. Judic. in Parl., 12,
    63. [(A work of doubtful authority.) 4 Hats. 153, 186.] Nor can they
    proceed against a commoner but on complaint of the Commons. Ib., 84. The
    Lords may not, by the law, try a commoner for a capital offense, on the
    information of the King or a private person, because the accused is

    [[Page 330]]

    Sec. 602. Parliamentary law as to accusation
    in impeachment.

      Accusation. The  Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation, becomes
    suitors for penal justice. 2 Wood., 597; 6 Grey, 356. The general course
    is to pass a resolution containing a criminal charge against the
    supposed delinquent, and then to direct some member to impeach him by
    oral accusation, at the bar of the House of Lords, in the name of the
    Commons. The person signifies that the articles will be exhibited, and
    desires that the delinquent may be sequestered from his seat, or be
    committed, or that the peers will take order for his appearance. Sachev.
    Trial, 325; 2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords' Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616;
    6 Grey, 324.

    Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the
    House.

      In the  House various events have been credited with setting an
    impeachment in motion: charges made on the floor on the responsibility
    of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526,
    528, 535, 536); charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually
    referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496,
    2499, 2515; VI, 543); a resolution introduced by a Member and referred
    to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); a
    message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); charges
    transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or territory
    (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or facts developed and
    reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444).
    In the 93d Congress, the Vice President sought to initiate an
    investigation by the House of charges against him of possibly
    impeachable offenses. The Speaker and the House took no action on the
    request because the matter was pending in the courts and the offenses
    did not relate to activities during the Vice President's term of office
    (Sept. 25, 1973, p. 31368; III, 2510 (wherein the Committee on the
    Judiciary, to which the matter had been referred by privileged
    resolution, reported that the Vice President could not be impeached for
    acts or omissions committed before his term of office)). On the other
    hand, in 1826 the Vice President's request that the House investigate
    charges against his prior official conduct as Secretary of War was
    referred, on motion, to a select committee (III, 1736). On September 9,
    1998, an independent counsel transmitted to the House under 28 U.S.C.
    595(c) a communication containing evidence of alleged impeachable
    offenses by the President. The House adopted a privileged resolution
    reported by the Committee on Rules referring the communication to the
    Committee on the Judiciary, restricting Members' access to the
    communication, and restricting access to committee meetings and hearings
    on the communication (H. Res. 525, Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). Later, the
    House adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee on the
    Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee (H. Res.
    581, Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24679). In the first impeachment of President
    Trump, the House adopted a privileged resolution reported from the
    Committee on Rules directing sundry committees to continue their ongoing
    investigations as part of an existing inquiry into potential grounds for
    impeachment (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _). In the second
    impeachment of President Trump, the House considered an unreported
    resolution containing a single article of impeachment pursuant to a
    special order of business only several days after the underlying conduct
    occurred (Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).

    [[Page 331]]

      A resolution disapproving of the conduct of the Speaker with respect
    to the initiation of an impeachment inquiry constitues a question of the
    privileges of the House (Sept. 25, 2019, p. _; Sept. 27, 2019, p. _).

    Sec. 604. A proposition to impeach a question of
    privilege.

      A direct  proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in
    the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the
    rules governing the order of business (III, 2045-2048, 2051, 2398; VI,
    468, 469; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989,
    p. 8814; Sept. 23, 1998, pp. 21560-62; Nov. 6, 2007, p. 29817; June 10,
    2008, p. 12053; July 15, 2008, pp. 15084, 15086; Dec. 6, 2016, p. 15892;
    Dec. 6, 2017, p. 19354; Jan. 19, 2018, p. _; July 17, 2019, p. _; Nov.
    13, 2023, p. _; see Deschler, ch. 14, Sec. 8). It may not even be
    superseded by an election case, which is also a matter of high privilege
    (III, 2581). It does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar
    proposition has been made at a previous time during the same session of
    Congress (III, 2408; July 15, 2008, pp. 15084, 15086 (see June 10, 2008,
    p. 12053)), previous action of the House not affecting it (III, 2053).
    As such, a report of the Committee on the Judiciary accompanying an
    impeachment resolution is filed as privileged (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27819;
    Dec. 15, 2019, p. _), as is a report from a committee to which an
    impeachment resolution is referred by order of the House (Feb. 5, 2024,
    p. _). A proposition to impeach may be called up as privileged (Dec. 18,
    1998, p. 27828) or considered pursuant to a special order of business
    reported by the Committee on Rules (Dec. 18, 2019, p. _; Jan. 13, 2021,
    p. _; Feb. 6, 2024, p. _). The addition of new articles of impeachment
    offered by the managers but not reported by committee is also privileged
    (III, 2418), as is a proposition to refer to committee the papers and
    testimony in an impeachment of the preceding Congress (V, 7261). After
    having recognized an impeachment resolution as a question of the
    privileges of the House, the Chair refused to respond to an inquiry
    regarding the substance of the resolution, that being a matter for the
    House by its disposition of the matter (Dec. 6, 2016, pp. 15892-93). To
    a privileged resolution of impeachment, an amendment proposing instead
    censure, which is not privileged, was held not germane (Dec. 19, 1998,
    p. 28107). On several occasions the Committee on the Judiciary, having
    been referred a question of impeachment, reported a recommendation that
    impeachment was not warranted and, thereafter, called up the report as a
    question of privilege (Deschler, ch. 14, Sec. 1.3). Under an expired
    provision of law an independent counsel appointed to investigate the
    President was subject to impeachment (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21560). A
    resolution impeaching the United States Ambassador to the United Nations
    (July 13, 1978, p. 20606), the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue
    Service (Dec. 6, 2016, p. 15892), or the Secretary of Homeland Security
    (Nov. 13, 2023, p. _), constitutes a question of the privileges of the
    House under rule IX.

    [[Page 332]]

    Congress (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2),
    empowering managers to hire special legal and clerical personnel and
    providing for their pay, and to carry out other responsibilities (Jan.
    3, 1989, p. 84; Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 240), and
    replacing an excused manager (Feb. 7, 1989, p. 1726); but a resolution
    simply proposing an investigation, even though impeachment may be a
    possible consequence, is not privileged (III, 2050, 2546; VI, 468). The
    House has adopted special orders of business: (1) providing for the
    consideration of a specified proposition relating to an impeachment once
    made and denying privilege to any other such proposition (sec. 3, H.
    Res. 767, Dec. 18, 2019, p. _); and (2) providing for the adoption of a
    specified proposition relating to an impeachment upon adoption of an
    article of impeachment and denying privilege to any other such
    proposition (sec. 3, H. Res. 41, Jan. 13, 2021, p. _; sec. 2, H. Res.
    996, Feb. 6, 2024, p. _).
      Propositions relating to an impeachment already made also are
    privileged (III, 2400, 2402, 2410; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Dec. 2,
    1987, p. 33720; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206), such as resolutions providing
    for selection of managers of an impeachment (VI, 517; Dec. 19, 1998, p.
    28112), proposing abatement of impeachment proceedings (VI, 514),
    reappointing managers for impeachment proceedings continued in the
    Senate from the previous

      Where a resolution of investigation positively proposes impeachment or
    suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege (III, 2051,
    2052, 2401, 2402), such as a resolution reported by the Committee on the
    Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee and
    investing the committee with special investigative authorities to
    facilitate the inquiry (III, 2029; VI, 498, 528, 549; Deschler, ch. 14,
    Sec. Sec. 5.8, 6.2; H. Res. 581, Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24679). A committee to
    which has been referred privileged resolutions for the impeachment of an
    officer may call up as privileged resolutions incidental to
    consideration of the impeachment question, including conferral of
    subpoena authority and funding of the investigation from the contingent
    fund (now referred to as ``applicable accounts of the House described in
    clause 1(k)(1) of rule X'') (VI, 549; Feb. 6, 1974, p. 2349). Similarly,
    a resolution authorizing depositions by committee counsel in an
    impeachment inquiry is privileged under rule IX as incidental to
    impeachment (Speaker Wright, Oct. 3, 1988, p. 27781).

    [[Page 333]]

    of alleged impeachable offenses by the President, the House adopted a
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules referring the
    communication to the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct a review (H.
    Res. 525, 106th Cong., Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). Later, the House
    adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee on the
    Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee (H. Res.
    581, Oct. 8, 1998, pp. 24679, 24735) The House has adopted a privileged
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules directing sundry
    committees to continue ``ongoing investigations'' as part of an
    ``existing'' impeachment inquiry (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _; H.
    Res. 918, Dec. 13, 2023, p. _). The House has referred an impeachment
    resolution to a committee other than the Committee on the Judiciary
    based on the subject matter of the underlying allegations (H. Res. 529,
    June 22, 2023, p. _; H. Res. 863, Nov. 13, 2023, p. _). In the second
    impeachment of President Trump, the House did not pursue any formal
    committee investigation or impeachment inquiry.

    Sec. 605. Investigation of impeachment
    charges.

      The impeachment  having been made on the floor by a Member (III, 2342, 2400;
    VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536), or charges suggesting impeachment having
    been made by memorial (III, 2495, 2516, 2520; VI, 552), or even
    appearing through common fame (III, 2385, 2506), the House has at times
    ordered an investigation at once. At other times it has refrained from
    ordering investigation until the charges had been examined by a
    committee (III, 2364, 2488, 2491, 2492, 2494, 2504, 2513) or has
    referred to committee an impeachment resolution raised as a question of
    privilege (Nov. 6, 2007, p. 29820; June 10, 2008, p. 12072 and June 11,
    2008, p. 12218; Nov. 13, 2023, p. _). Under the later practice,
    resolutions introduced through the hopper that directly call for the
    impeachment of an officer have been referred to the Committee on the
    Judiciary, but resolutions calling for an investigation by that
    committee or by a select committee with a view toward impeachment have
    been referred to the Committee on Rules (Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873). Upon
    receipt of a communication from an independent counsel transmitting to
    the House under 28 U.S.C. 595(c) a communication containing evidence

    [[Page 334]]

    result in any formal investigative report or an impeachment resolution
    reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, see Sec. 176, supra.

    Sec. 606. Procedure of committee in
    investigating.

      The House has  almost always examined the charges by its own committee
    before it has voted to impeach (III, 2294, 2487, 2501). This committee
    has sometimes been a select committee (III, 2342, 2487, 2494), sometimes
    a standing committee (III, 2400, 2409). In some instances the committee
    has made its inquiry ex parte (III, 2319, 2343, 2366, 2385, 2403, 2496,
    2511); but in the later practice the sentiment of committees has been in
    favor of permitting the accused to explain, present witnesses, cross-
    examine (III, 2445, 2471, 2518), and be represented by counsel (III,
    2470, 2501, 2511, 2516; 93d Cong., Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219; H. Rept.
    105-830, Dec. 16, 1998; H. Rept. 116-346, Dec. 15, 2019, p. _). The
    Committee on the Judiciary having been directed by the House to
    investigate whether sufficient grounds existed for the impeachment of
    President Nixon, and the President having resigned following the
    decision of that committee to recommend his impeachment to the House,
    the chair of the committee submitted from the floor as privileged the
    committee's report containing the articles of impeachment approved by
    the committee but without an accompanying resolution of impeachment. The
    House thereupon adopted a resolution (1) taking notice of the
    committee's action on a resolution and Articles of Impeachment and of
    the President's resignation; (2) accepting the report and authorizing
    its printing, with additional views; and (3) commending the chair and
    members of the committee for their efforts (Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29361). In
    the first impeachment of President Trump, the House adopted a privileged
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules directing sundry
    committees to continue ongoing investigations, and directed the
    Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to conduct specified
    investigatory proceedings and to transmit a report of its findings to
    the Committee on the Judiciary for use in the second phase of the
    impeachment inquiry (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _). For discussion
    of a similarly structured privileged resolution directed at President
    Biden that did not

    Sec. 606a. Procedure of House in
    considering.

      During the  pendency of an impeachment resolution, remarks in debate
    may include references to personal misconduct on the part of the
    President but may not include language generally abusive toward the
    President and may not include comparisons to the personal conduct of
    sitting Members of the House or Senate (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829). A
    resolution setting forth separate articles of impeachment may be divided
    among the articles (e.g., Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28110; Mar. 11, 2010, p.
    3153; Dec. 18, 2019, p. _).

    Sec. 607. Impeachment carried to the
    Senate.

      Its committee  on investigation having reported, the House may vote the
    impeachment (III, 2367, 2412; VI, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3067-91),
    and, after having notified the Senate by message (III, 2413, 2446), may
    direct the impeachment to be presented at the bar of the Senate by a
    single Member (III, 2294), or by two (III, 2319, 2343, 2367), five (III,
    2445), seven (III, 2448, 2475; Jan. 15, 2020, p. _), nine (July 22,
    1986, p. 17306; Jan. 13, 2021, p. _), 11 (III, 2300, 2323; Feb. 13,
    2024, p. _), or 13 (Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112). These Members in several
    notable cases represented the majority party alone (e.g., Dec. 19, 1998,
    p. 28112), but ordinarily include representation of the minority party
    (III, 2445, 2472, 2505). Under early practice the House elected managers
    by ballot (III, 2300, 2323, 2345, 2368, 2417). In two instances the
    Speaker appointed the managers on behalf of the House pursuant to an
    order of the House (III, 2388, 2475). Since 1912 the House has adopted a
    resolution appointing managers. In the later practice the House
    considers together the resolution and articles of impeachment (VI, 499,
    500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3067-91) and following their adoption adopts
    resolutions electing managers to present the articles before the Senate,
    notifying the Senate of the adoption of articles and election of
    managers, and authorizing the managers to prepare for and to conduct the
    trial in the Senate (VI, 500, 514, 517; Mar. 6, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394;
    July 22, 1986, p. 17306; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206). These privileged
    incidental resolutions may be merged into a single, indivisible
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 614, Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112; Precedents
    (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2; H. Res. 798, Jan. 15, 2020, p. _; H. Res.
    40, Jan. 13, 2021, p. _; H. Res. 995, Feb. 13, 2024, p. _).

    [[Page 335]]

    Sec. 608. Impeachment process in the
    Senate.

      Process. If the  party do not appear, proclamations are to be issued, giving
    him a day to appear. On their return they are strictly examined. If any
    error be found in them, a new proclamation issues, giving a short day.
    If he appear not, his goods may be arrested, and they may proceed. Seld.
    Jud. 98, 99.

    Sec. 608a. First Senate impeachment proceedings against
    President Trump.

      Under  an order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate
    informed the House and the Chief Justice that it was ready to receive
    the House managers for the purpose of exhibiting articles of impeachment
    against President Trump (Jan. 15, 2020, p. _). The House managers
    presented the articles of impeachment by reading two resolutions as
    follows: (1) the appointment of managers (H. Res. 798, Jan. 16, 2020, p.
    _); and (2) the two articles of impeachment (H. Res. 755, Jan. 16, 2020,
    p. _).

      The Senate adopted a resolution governing the initial impeachment
    trial proceedings of President Trump following the tabling of multiple
    amendments to that resolution (S. Res. 483, Jan. 21, 2020, p. _). The
    resolution addressed: (1) the composition of the evidentiary record; (2)
    a timetable for motions, arguments, and presentations by House managers
    and President's counsel; (3) a time period for Senators to question the
    parties; (4) a separate time period on the question of whether the
    Senate would subpoena witnesses or documents; and (5) a process for
    deposing subpoenaed witnesses and determining whether they should
    testify at the trial. During debate on that resolution, the Chief
    Justice admonished the House managers and the President's counsel for
    breaches of decorum, citing in part a similar admonishment in the 1905
    impeachment trial of Judge Swayne for use of the term ``pettifogging''
    (Jan. 21, 2020, p. _; III, 2169). Upon an announcement by the Chief
    Justice pursuant to the terms of the governing resolution, a classified
    document identified by House managers was made available at the trial
    but was not made public or printed (Jan. 22, 2020, p. _). The Senate
    trial of President Trump featured a historical and legal argument from
    the independent counsel who had led the investigation of President
    Clinton which formed the basis for his impeachment in 1998 (Jan. 27,
    2020, p. _). The trial also featured questions from Senators and
    argument on the validity of House subpoenas issued before the House had
    adopted a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry (Jan. 29, 2020,
    p. _; Jan. 30, 2020, p. _). The Chief Justice refused to read a question
    from a Senator that revealed the name of a whistleblower involved in the
    impeachment charges (Jan. 30, 2020, p. _). The Senate rejected a motion
    to allow for subpoenas of witnesses and documents (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _).

    [[Page 336]]

    House in not providing for a minority day of hearing (Feb. 3, 2020, p.
    _). Following closing arguments, the Senate Clerk read each article and
    each Senator voted ``guilty'' or ``not guilty'' on each article (Feb. 5,
    2020, p. _). The Senate adjudged President Trump not guilty by a vote of
    48-52 on the first article and 47-53 on the second article (Feb. 5,
    2020, p. _). By order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate
    communicated the judgment of the Senate to the House (Feb. 5, 2020, p.
    _).

      The Senate adopted a second resolution governing the remaining
    impeachment trial proceedings (S. Res. 488, Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Such
    resolution: (1) closed the evidentiary record; (2) provided for final
    arguments; (3) provided for the adjournment of the Court of Impeachment;
    and (4) provided for a vote on the articles of impeachment. The Chief
    Justice responded to a parliamentary inquiry by advising that after
    reviewing the precedents he did not view it as appropriate for a Chief
    Justice, an unelected official from another branch of government, to
    break a tie and change the result of a vote of the elected Members of
    the Senate (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Counsel for the President in closing
    arguments alleged that the House Committee on the Judiciary had violated
    the rules of the

    Sec. 608b. Second Senate impeachment proceedings against
    President Trump.

      Under  an order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate
    informed the House that it was ready to receive the House managers for
    the purpose of exhibiting the article of impeachment against former
    President Trump (Jan. 21, 2021, p. p. _). The House managers presented
    the article of impeachment by reading two resolutions as follows: (1)
    the appointment of managers (H. Res. 40, Jan. 25, 2021, p. _); and (2)
    the article of impeachment (H. Res. 24, Jan. 25, 2021, p. _).

    [[Page 337]]

      The President pro tempore of the Senate presided over the impeachment
    trial (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The Senate tabled a threshold point of
    order that the impeachment trial of a former President was
    unconstitutional after the President pro tempore presented the question
    directly to the body (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The Senate then adopted a
    resolution governing the initial impeachment trial proceedings (S. Res.
    16, Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The resolution: (1) set the timing of the
    impeachment trial for two weeks hence; (2) set a timetable for various
    trial briefs by House managers and President's counsel; (3) directed
    that any trial briefs include argument on the jurisdiction of the
    Senate's ability to sit as a Court of Impeachment with respect to the
    trial of a former President for acts committed as President; and (4)
    directed parties to prepare to address the question of jurisdiction at
    the outset of the trial proceedings. Prior to the start of the trial,
    the Senate adopted a second resolution governing the trial proceedings
    (S. Res. 47, Feb. 9, 2021, p. _). That resolution addressed: (1) the
    composition of the evidentiary record; (2) initial argument on the
    question of whether the former President was subject to the jurisdiction
    of the Senate as a Court of Impeachment for conduct while President,
    with an automatic vote at the end of such argument and immediate
    dismissal of the article of impeachment upon a determination, by
    majority vote with a quorum present, that the Senate had no
    jurisdiction; (3) a timetable for motions, arguments, and presentations
    by House managers and President's counsel in the case of a vote in favor
    of jurisdiction; (4) a time period for Senators to question the parties;
    (5) a separate time period on the question of whether the Senate would
    subpoena witnesses or documents; (6) a process for deposing subpoenaed
    witnesses and determining whether they should testify at the trial; (7)
    a motion by the House managers to admit additional materials into the
    evidentiary record; (8) a time period for final arguments; (9) convening
    on a specified Sunday if the trial was not yet resolved; and (10) the
    provision of a vote on the article of impeachment.

      By a vote of 56-44 the Senate determined that it had jurisdiction to
    sit as a Court of Impeachment with respect to former President Trump
    following arguments from the House managers relying in large part on the
    precedent of William Belknap (see Sec. 174, supra), and the President
    pro tempore announced that the trial would proceed (Feb. 9, 2021, p. _).
    The House managers relied on numerous video presentations of the attack
    on the Capitol building on January 6, 2021, in their initial
    presentation (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _). As part of their presentation, the
    House managers invoked a newspaper article referencing a call placed to
    a sitting Senator, causing that Senator to attempt to move that the
    remarks of the managers be stricken from the Record (Feb. 10, 2021, p.
    _). The President pro tempore responded by ruling that the managers'
    presentation was not limited to the evidentiary record already provided,
    which was appealed by the moving Senator (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _).
    Following a quorum call, the Senator withdrew his appeal and the House
    managers agreed to withdraw the relevant portion of the presentation
    without prejudice to raise the issue at a later time (Feb. 10, 2021, p.
    _).

    [[Page 338]]

    _). By order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate communicated the
    judgment of the Senate to the House (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _).

      Following the initial presentations, the Senate agreed by unanimous
    consent to structure the question response periods (Feb. 12, 2021, p.
    _). During the questioning period, the President pro tempore took the
    initiative to remind Senators of the admonition of Chief Justice Roberts
    from the first impeachment trial of President Trump regarding civility
    in debate (Feb. 12, 2021, p. _; see Sec. 608a, supra). Following the
    question period, the House managers offered a motion to subpoena a
    current Member of the House as a witness following reports of a phone
    call on the day of the violent attack on the Capitol that was
    purportedly relevant to the House managers' case (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _).
    Following debate regarding the viability of virtual depositions and a
    call for order from the President pro tempore, the Senate voted 55-45 to
    allow a motion to subpoena witnesses or documents under the rules of
    impeachment (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). After a short recess, the Senate
    returned and, in exchange for the entry into evidence of a statement
    from the current Member of the House regarding the phone call in
    question, the House managers agreed to forego any motions to subpoena
    witnesses, and the parties proceeded to closing arguments (Feb. 13,
    2021, p. _). During the House managers' closing argument, the phone call
    involving the sitting Senator was again raised. The Senator attempted to
    engage in debate, and then appealed the ruling of the President pro
    tempore that debate was not in order (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). He
    eventually withdrew his appeal and the President pro tempore directed
    that the remarks be stricken from the record on the grounds that the
    evidentiary record was closed and that new evidence could not be raised
    during the closing argument (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). Following closing
    arguments, the Senate Clerk read the article and each Senator voted
    ``guilty'' or ``not guilty'' thereon (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). The Senate
    adjudged President Trump not guilty on the charge of incitement of
    insurrection by a vote of 57-43 in favor of conviction (less than two-
    thirds) (Feb. 13, 2021, p.

    Sec. 608c. Senate impeachment proceedings against
    President Clinton.

      In the  impeachment trial of President Clinton, the Senate
    adjudged President Clinton not guilty by a vote of 45-55 on the first
    article and a vote of 50-50 on the second article (Feb. 12, 1999, p.
    2375). For a procedural history of that trial, see Sec. 608a of the
    House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).

      See S. Doc. 93-102, ``Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials
    in the United States Senate,'' for precedents relating to the conduct of
    Senate impeachments.

    Sec. 609. Exhibition and form of
    articles.

      Articles. The accusation  (articles) of the Commons is substituted in place of an
    indictment. Thus, by the usage of Parliament, in impeachment for writing
    or speaking, the particular words need not be specified. Sach. Tr., 325;
    2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords' Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616.

      Having delivered the impeachment, the committee returns to the House
    and reports verbally (III, 2413, 2446; VI, 501). Formerly, the House
    exhibited its articles after the impeachment had been carried to the bar
    of the Senate; in the later practice, the resolution and articles of
    impeachment have been considered together and exhibited simultaneously
    in the Senate by the managers (VI, 501, 515; Mar. 10, 1936, pp. 3485-88;
    Oct. 7, 1986, p. 29126; Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272). The managers, who are
    elected by the House (III, 2300, 2345, 2417, 2448; VI, 500, 514, 517;
    Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394) or appointed by the Speaker (III, 2388,
    2475), carry the articles in obedience to a resolution of the House
    (III, 2417, 2419, 2448) to the bar of the Senate (III, 2420, 2449,
    2476), the House having previously informed the Senate (III, 2419, 2448)
    and received a message informing them of the readiness of the latter
    body to receive the articles (III, 2078, 2325, 2345; Aug. 6, 1986, p.
    19335; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 240). Having exhibited the articles the managers
    return and report verbally to the House (III, 2449, 2476).

    [[Page 339]]

      The articles in the Belknap impeachment were held sufficient, although
    attacked for not describing the respondent as one subject to impeachment
    (III, 2123). In the proceedings against Judge Ritter, objections to the
    articles of impeachment, on the ground that they duplicated and
    accumulated separate offenses, were overruled (Apr. 3, 1936, p. 4898;
    Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606). These articles are signed by the Speaker and
    attested by the Clerk (III, 2302, 2449), and in form approved by the
    practice of the House (III, 2420, 2449, 2476).

      Articles of impeachment that have been exhibited to the Senate may be
    subsequently modified or amended by the House (VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936,
    pp. 4597-99), and a resolution proposing to amend articles of
    impeachment previously adopted by the House is privileged for
    consideration when reported by the managers on the part of the House
    (VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936, p. 4597).

      For discussion of substantive charges contained in articles of
    impeachment and the constitutional grounds for impeachment, see
    Sec. 175, supra (accompanying Const., art. II, sec. 4). For a discussion
    of the presentation of the House managers in support of the impeachments
    of President Trump, and related matters, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra.
    For a discussion of the same with respect to the impeachment of
    President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for the
    116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).

    [[Page 340]]

    the common law, but not in capital cases. Seld. Jud., 102, 105.

    Sec. 610. Parliamentary law as to appearance
    of respondent.

      Appearance. If he  appear, and the case be capital, he answers in custody;
    though not if the accusation be general. He is not to be committed but
    on special accusations. If it be for a misdemeanor only, he answers, a
    lord in his place, a commoner at the bar, and not in custody, unless, on
    the answer, the Lords find cause to commit him, till he finds sureties
    to attend, and lest he should fly. Seld. Jud., 98, 99. [4 Hats. 176,
    185.] A copy of the articles is given him, and a day fixed for his
    answer. T. Ray.; 1 Rushw., 268; Fost., 232; 1 Clar. Hist. of the Reb.,
    379. On a misdemeanor, his appearance may be in person, or he may answer
    in writing, or by attorney. Seld. Jud., 100. The general rule on
    accusation for a misdemeanor is, that in such a state of liberty or
    restraint as the party is when the Commons complain of him, in such he
    is to answer. Ib., 101. If previously committed by the commons, he
    answers as a prisoner. But this may be called in some sort judicium
    parium suorum. Ib. In misdemeanors the party has a right to counsel by

    Sec. 611. Requirements of the Senate as to
    appearance of respondent.

      This paragraph  of the parliamentary law is largely obsolete
    so far as the practice of the House and the Senate are concerned. The
    accused may appear in person or by attorney (III, 2127, 2349, 2424), and
    take the stand (VI, 511, 524; Apr. 11, 1936, pp. 5370-86; Oct. 7, 1986,
    p. 29149), or may not appear at all (III, 2307, 2333, 2393). In case the
    accused does not appear the House does not ask that the accused be
    compelled to appear (III, 2308), but the trial proceeds as on a plea of
    ``not guilty.'' The writ of summons to the accused recites the articles
    and notifies the accused to appear at a fixed time and place and file an
    answer (III, 2127). In all cases respondent may appear by counsel (III,
    2129), and in one trial, when a petition set forth that respondent was
    insane, the counsel of his son was admitted to be heard and present
    evidence in support of the petition, but not to make argument (III,
    2333). For a discussion of answers, arguments, and presentations of the
    respondent in the Trump impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 608a-
    608b, supra. For a discussion of the same with respect to the Clinton
    impeachment proceedings, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for
    the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).

      The chair of the committee impeaches at the bar of the Senate by oral
    accusation (III, 2413, 2446, 2473), and the managers for the House
    attend in the Senate after the articles have been exhibited and demand
    that process issue for the attendance of respondent (III, 2451, 2478),
    after which they return and report verbally to the House (III, 2423,
    2451; VI, 501). The Senate thereupon issue a writ of summons, fixing the
    day of return (III, 2423, 2451; S. Res. 16, Jan. 8, 1999, p. 349); and
    in a case wherein the respondent did not appear by person or attorney
    the Senate published a proclamation for him to appear (III, 2393). But
    the respondent's goods were not attached. In only one case has the
    parliamentary law as to sequestration and committal been followed (III,
    2118, 2296), later inquiry resulting in the conclusion that the Senate
    had no power to take into custody the body of the accused (III, 2324,
    2367).

    [[Page 341]]

    bar to the impeachment. 2 Wood., 615; 2 St. Tr., 735.

    Sec. 612. Answer of respondent.

      Answer. The  answer need not
    observe great strictness of the form. He may plead guilty as to part,
    and defend as to the residue; or, saving all exceptions, deny the whole
    or give a particular answer to each article separately. 1 Rush., 274; 2
    Rush., 1374; 12 Parl. Hist., 442; 3 Lords' Journ., 13 Nov., 1643; 2
    Wood., 607. But he cannot plead a pardon in

      In the Senate proceedings of the impeachment of President Andrew
    Johnson, the answer of the President took up the articles one by one,
    denying some of the charges, admitting others but denying that they set
    forth impeachable offenses, and excepting to the sufficiency of others
    (III, 2428). The form of this answer was commented on during preparation
    of the replication in the House (III, 2431). In the Senate proceedings
    on the impeachment of President Clinton, the answer of the President
    also took up the articles one by one, denying some of the charges and
    admitting others but denying that they set forth impeachable offenses
    (Jan. 14, 1999, pp. 359-361). Blount and Belknap demurred to the charges
    on the ground that they were not civil officers within the meaning of
    the Constitution (III, 2310, 2453), and Swayne also raised questions as
    to the jurisdiction of the Senate (III, 2481). The answer is part of the
    pleadings, and exhibits in the nature of evidence may not properly be
    attached thereto (III, 2124). The answer of the respondent in
    impeachment proceedings is messaged to the House and subsequently
    referred to the managers on the part of the House (VI, 506; Apr. 6,
    1936, p. 5020; Sept. 9, 1986, p. 22317).

      For a chronology of arguments and presentations of the respondent in
    the Trump impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a
    chronology of the same with respect to the Clinton impeachment
    proceedings, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for the 116th
    Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).

    Sec. 613. Other pleadings.

      Replication, rejoinder,  &c. There
    may be a replication, rejoinder, &c. Sel. Jud., 114; 8 Grey's Deb., 233;
    Sach. Tr., 15; Journ. H. of Commons, 6 March, 1640-1.

    [[Page 342]]

    in closed session various preliminary motions made by respondent (e.g.,
    to declare the Senate rule on appointment of a committee to receive
    evidence to be unconstitutional, to declare beyond a reasonable doubt as
    the standard of proof in an impeachment trial, and to postpone the
    impeachment trial) before voting in open session to dispose of those
    motions (Oct. 7, 8, 1986, pp. 29151, 29412).
      A replication is always filed (for the form of replication in modern
    practice, see Sept. 26, 1988, p. 25357), and in one instance the
    pleadings proceeded to a rejoinder, surrejoinder, and similiter (III,
    2455). A respondent also has filed a protest instead of pleading on the
    merits (III, 2461), but there was objection to this and the Senate
    barely permitted it. In another case respondent interposed a plea as to
    jurisdiction of offenses charged in certain articles, but declined to
    admit that it was a demurrer with the admissions pertinent thereto (III,
    2125, 2431). In the Belknap trial the House was sustained in averring in
    pleadings as to jurisdiction matters not averred in the articles (III,
    2123). The right of the House to allege in the replication matters not
    touched in the articles has been discussed (III, 2457). In the
    Louderback (VI, 522) and Ritter (Apr. 6, 1936, p. 4971) impeachment
    proceedings, the managers on the part of the House prepared and
    submitted the replication to the Senate without its consideration by the
    House, contrary to former practice (VI, 506). The Senate may consider

      For a chronology of disposition of motions in the Senate under its
    impeachment rules during the impeachment of President Trump, see
    Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a chronology of the same with respect to
    the impeachment of President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules
    and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).

    Sec. 614. Examination of witnesses.

      Witnesses. The  practice
    is to swear the witnesses in open House, and then examine them there; or
    a committee may be named, who shall examine them in committee, either on
    interrogatories agreed on in the House, or such as the committee in
    their discretion shall demand. Seld. Jud., 120, 123.

      In trials before the Senate witnesses have always been examined in
    open Senate, although examination by a committee has been suggested
    (III, 2217) and utilized (S. Res. 38, 101st Cong., Mar. 16, 1989, p.
    4533). In the 74th Congress, the Senate amended its rules for
    impeachment trials to allow the presiding officer, upon the order of the
    Senate, to appoint a committee to receive evidence and take testimony in
    the trial of any impeachment (May 28, 1935, p. 8309). In the trial of
    Judge Claiborne the Senate directed the appointment of a committee of
    twelve Senators to take evidence and testimony pursuant to rule XI of
    the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on
    Impeachment Trials (S. Res. 481, Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22035); and in Nixon
    v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the Supreme Court refused to
    declare unconstitutional the appointment of such a committee to take
    evidence and testimony.

      For a chronology of motions to subpoena witnesses during the Senate
    impeachment proceedings against President Trump, see Sec. Sec. 608a-
    608b, supra. For a chronology of the same with respect to Senate
    impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the
    House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).

    [[Page 343]]

    Commons. Seld. Jud., 163. It must also have been for a misdemeanor only,
    as the Lords spiritual sat in the case, which they do on misdemeanors,
    but not in capital cases. Id., 148. The judgment was a forfeiture of all
    her lands and goods. Id., 188. This, Selden says, is the only jury he
    finds recorded in Parliament for misdemeanors; but he makes no doubt, if
    the delinquent doth put himself on the trial of his country, a jury
    ought to be impaneled, and he adds that it is not so on impeachment by
    the Commons, for they are in loco proprio, and there no jury ought to be
    impaneled. Id., 124. The Ld. Berkeley, 6 E., 3, was arraigned for the
    murder of L. 2, on an information on the part of the King, and not on
    impeachment of the Commons; for then they had been patria sua. He waived
    his peerage, and was tried by a jury of Gloucestershire and
    Warwickshire. Id., 125. [But 4 Hats. 73, says he was a Commoner, and
    that there was no waiver of privilege.] In 1 H., 7, the Commons protest
    that they are not to be considered as parties to any judgment given, or
    hereafter to be given in Parliament. Id., 133. They have been generally
    and more justly considered, as is before stated, as the grand jury; for
    the conceit of Selden is certainly not accurate, that they are the
    patria sua of the accused, and that the Lords do only judge, but not
    try. It is undeniable that they do try; for they examine witnesses as to
    the facts, and acquit or condemn, according to their own belief of them.
    And Lord Hale says, ``the peers are judges of law as well

    [[Page 344]]

    as of fact;'' 2 Hale, P. C., 275; Consequently of fact as well as of
    law.

    Sec. 615. Relation of jury trial to
    impeachment.

      Jury. In the  case of Alice Pierce, 1 R., 2, a jury was impaneled for
    her trial before a committee. Seld. Jud., 123. But this was on a
    complaint, not on impeachment by the

      No jury is possible as part of an impeachment trial under the
    Constitution (III, 2313). In 1868, after mature consideration, the
    Senate overruled the old view of its functions (III, 2057), and decided
    that it sat for impeachment trials as the Senate and not as a court
    (III, 2057), and eliminated from its rules all mention of itself as a
    ``high court of impeachment'' (III, 2079, 2082). However, the modern
    view of the Senate as a court was evident during the impeachment trial
    of President Clinton. There the Senate convened as a ``Court of
    Impeachment'' (see, e.g., Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272). In response to an
    objection raised by a Senator, the Chief Justice held that the Senate
    was not sitting as a ``jury'' but was sitting as a ``court'' during the
    impeachment trial of President Clinton. As such, the House managers were
    directed to refrain from referring to the Senators as ``jurors'' (Jan.
    15, 1999, p. 580).

    Sec. 615a. The presiding officer.

      An anxiety lest  the Chief
    Justice might have a vote in the approaching trial of the President
    seems to have prompted this earlier action (III, 2057). There was
    examination of the question of the Chief Justice's power to vote (III,
    2098); but the Senate declined to declare his incapacity to vote, and he
    did in fact give a casting vote on incidental questions (III, 2067)
    though in a later trial, the Chief Justice advised that he did not
    believe it appropriate for the Chief Justice to cast a vote that would
    change the result of the vote of the Senate (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Under
    the earlier practice, the Senate declined to require that the Chief
    Justice be sworn when about to preside (III, 2080); but the Chief
    Justice had the oath administered by an associate justice (III, 2422).
    The President pro tempore of the Senate, pursuant to an earlier order of
    the Senate, appointed a committee to escort the Chief Justice into the
    Senate chamber to preside over the impeachment trial of President
    Clinton (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272).

      In impeachments for officers other than the President of the United
    States the presiding officer of the Senate presides, whether being Vice
    President, the regular President pro tempore (III, 2309, footnote, 2337,
    2394) or a special President pro tempore chosen to preside at the trial
    only (III, 2089, 2477). The President pro tempore presided over the
    impeachment trial of a former President who was still President at the
    time of his impeachment (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _).

    [[Page 345]]

    2060). The President pro tempore of the Senate administered the oath to
    the Chief Justice presiding over the impeachment trial of President
    Clinton, and the Chief Justice in turn administered the oath to the
    Senators (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272).

    Sec. 615b. Oath and quorum.

      Senators elected after  the
    beginning of an impeachment trial are sworn as in the case of other
    Senators (III, 2375). The quorum of the Senate sitting for an
    impeachment trial is a quorum of the Senate itself, and not merely a
    quorum of the Senators sworn for the trial (III, 2063). The vote
    required for conviction is two-thirds of those Senators present and
    voting (Oct. 20, 1989, p. 25335). In 1868, when certain States were
    without representation, the Senate declined to question its competency
    to try an impeachment case (III,

    Sec. 616. Attendance of the Commons.

      Presence of  Commons.
    The Commons are to be present at the examination of witnesses. Seld.
    Jud., 124. Indeed, they are to attend throughout, either as a committee
    of the whole House, or otherwise, at discretion, appoint managers to
    conduct the proofs. Rushw. Tr. of Straff., 37; Com. Journ., 4 Feb.,
    1709-10; 2 Wood., 614. And judgment is not to be given till they demand
    it. Seld. Jud., 124. But they are not to be present on impeachment when
    the Lords consider of the answer or proofs and determine of their
    judgment. Their presence, however, is necessary at the answer and
    judgment in case capital Id., 58, 158, as well as not capital; 162. * *
    *.

    Sec. 617. Attendance of the House of
    Representatives.

      The  House has consulted its own inclination and
    convenience about attending its managers at an impeachment. It did not
    attend at all in the trials of Blount, Swayne, Archbald, Louderback, and
    Ritter (III, 2318, 2483; VI, 504, 516); and after attending at the
    answer of Belknap, decided that it would be represented for the
    remainder of the trial by its managers alone (III, 2453). At the trial
    of President Johnson the House, in Committee of the Whole, attended
    throughout the trial (III, 2427), but this is exceptional. In the Peck
    trial the House discussed the subject (III, 2377) and reconsidered its
    decision to attend the trial daily (III, 2028). While the Senate is
    deliberating the House does not attend (III, 2435); but when the Senate
    votes on the charges, as at the other open proceedings of the trial, it
    may attend (III, 2383, 2388, 2440). Although it has frequently attended
    in Committee of the Whole, it may attend as a House (III, 2338).

    [[Page 346]]

    question, or particular sentence, is out of that which seemeth to be
    most generally agreed on. Seld. Jud., 167; 2 Wood., 612.

    Sec. 618. Voting on the articles in an impeachment
    trial.

      * * * The  Lords debate the judgment among themselves. Then the vote is
    first taken on the question of guilty or not guilty; and if they
    convict, the

      The question in judgment in an impeachment trial has occasioned
    contention in the Senate (III, 2339, 2340), and in the trial of
    President Johnson the form was left to the Chief Justice (III, 2438,
    2439). In the Belknap trial there was much deliberation over this
    subject (III, 2466). In the Chase trial the Senate modified its former
    rule as to form of final question (III, 2363). The yeas and nays are
    taken on each article separately (III, 2098, 2339) in the form
    ``Senators, how say you? is the respondent guilty or not guilty?'' (Oct.
    9, 1986, p. 29871). But in the trial of President Johnson the Senate, by
    order, voted on the articles in an order differing from the numerical
    order (III, 2440), adjourned after voting on one article (III, 2441),
    and adjourned without day after voting on three of the eleven articles
    (III, 2443). In other impeachments, the Senate has adopted an order to
    provide the method of voting and putting the question separately and
    successively on each article (VI, 524; Apr. 16, 1936, p. 5558). For a
    discussion of the vote of the Senate on each article of impeachment with
    respect to the impeachments of President Trump, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b,
    supra. For a discussion of the same with respect to articles of
    impeachment against President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules
    and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).

    [[Page 347]]

    precedents. 6 Sta. Tr., 14; 2 Wood., 611. The Chancellor gives judgment
    in misdemeanors; the Lord High Steward formerly in cases of life and
    death. Seld. Jud., 180. But now the Steward is deemed not necessary.
    Fost., 144; 2 Wood., 613. In misdemeanors the greatest corporal
    punishment hath been imprisonment. Seld. Jud., 184. The King's assent is
    necessary to capital judgments (but 2 Wood., 614, contra), but not in
    misdemeanors, Seld. Jud., 136.

    Sec. 619. Judgment in
    impeachments.

      Judgment. Judgments in  Parliament, for death have been strictly guided per
    legem terrae, which they can not alter; and not at all according to
    their discretion. They can neither omit any part of the legal judgment
    nor add to it. Their sentence must be secundum non ultra legem. Seld.
    Jud., 168, 171. This trial, though it varies in external ceremony, yet
    differs not in essentials from criminal prosecutions before inferior
    courts. The same rules of evidence, the same legal notions of crimes and
    punishments, prevailed; for impeachments are not framed to alter the
    law, but to carry it into more effectual execution against too powerful
    delinquents. The judgment, therefore, is to be such as is warranted by
    legal principles or

      The Constitution of the United States (art. I, sec. 3, cl. 7) limits
    the judgment to removal and disqualification. The order of judgment
    following conviction in an impeachment trial is divisible for a separate
    vote if it contains both removal and disqualification (III, 2397; VI,
    512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606), and an order of judgment (such as
    disqualification) requires a majority vote (VI, 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p.
    5607). Under earlier practice, after a conviction the Senate voted
    separately on the question of disqualification (III, 2339, 2397), but no
    vote is required by the Senate on judgment of removal from office
    following conviction, because removal follows automatically from
    conviction under article II, section 4 of the Constitution (Apr. 17,
    1936, p. 5607). Thus, the presiding officer directs judgment of removal
    from office to be entered and the respondent removed from office without
    separate action by the Senate where disqualification is not contemplated
    (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29873). A resolution impeaching the President may
    provide for only removal from office (H. Res. 1333, 93d Cong., Aug. 20,
    1974, p. 29361) or for both removal and disqualification from holding
    any future office (H. Res. 611, 105th Cong., Dec. 19, 1998, p. 27828; H.
    Res. 755, 116th Cong., Dec. 18, 2019, p. _; H. Res. 24, 117th Cong.,
    Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).

    Sec. 620. Impeachment not interrupted by
    adjournments.

      Continuance. An  impeachment is not discontinued by the dissolution of
    Parliament, but may be resumed by the new Parliament. T. Ray 383; 4 Com.
    Journ., 23 Dec., 1790; Lord's Jour., May 15, 1791; 2 Wood., 618.

    [[Page 348]]

    lowing impeachment proceedings extended from one Congress to the next:
    (1) the impeachment of Judge Pickering was presented in the Senate on
    the last day of the Seventh Congress (III, 2320), and the Senate
    conducted the trial in the Eighth Congress (III, 2321); (2) the
    impeachment of Judge Louderback was presented in the Senate on the last
    day of the 72d Congress (VI, 515), and the Senate conducted the trial in
    the 73d Congress (VI, 516); (3) the impeachment of Judge Hastings was
    presented in the Senate during the second session of the 100th Congress
    (Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20223) and the trial in the Senate continued into the
    101st Congress (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84); (4) the impeachment of President
    Clinton was presented to the Senate after the Senate had adjourned sine
    die for the 105th Congress (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2), and
    the Senate conducted the trial in the 106th Congress (Jan. 7, 1999, p.
    272); (5) the impeachment inquiry of Judge Porteous was authorized in
    the 110th Congress (Sept. 17, 2008) and continued in the next Congress
    (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.1). Although impeachment
    proceedings may continue from one Congress to the next, the authority of
    the managers appointed by the House expires at the end of a Congress;
    and the managers must be reappointed when a new Congress convenes
    (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2). end segment .004
    deg. segment .005 -- rule I through rule III  deg.

    [[Page 349]]

      In Congress impeachment proceedings are not discontinued by a recess
    (III, 2299, 2304, 2344, 2375, 2407, 2505, see also Sec. 592, supra). The
    fol