[House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]
[Chapter 16. Consideration and Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 375]]

 
                   CHAPTER 16 - CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE

                              HOUSE PRACTICE

              A. Introductory; Initiating Consideration and Debate

  Sec.  1. In General; In the House
  Sec.  2. Order of Consideration
  Sec.  3. Use of Special Orders of Business
  Sec.  4. Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules
  Sec.  5. Role of Calendars
  Sec.  6. Consideration by Unanimous Consent
  Sec.  7. In the Committee of the Whole
  Sec.  8. In the House as in the Committee of the Whole
  Sec.  9. Limitations on Debate; Nondebatable Matters

              B. Control and Distribution of Time for Debate

  Sec. 10. In General; Role of Manager
  Sec. 11. Distribution and Alternation; Closing General Debate
  Sec. 12. Management by Committee; Closing Controlled Debate on an 
  Amendment
  Sec. 13. Designation of Member Who May Call Up a Measure
  Sec. 14. Effect of Special Rules
  Sec. 15. Yielding Time-- For Debate
  Sec. 16. -- Yielding for Amendment
  Sec. 17. Interruptions; Losing or Surrendering Control

              C. Relevancy in Debate

  Sec. 18. In General; In the House
  Sec. 19. In the Committee of the Whole-- General Debate
  Sec. 20. -- Under the Five-Minute Rule

              D. Disorder in Debate

  Sec. 21. In General
  Sec. 22. Disorderly Language
  Sec. 23. -- References to Senate
  Sec. 24. -- References to the Press, Media, or Gallery
  Sec. 25. -- References to Executive Officials

[[Page 376]]

  Sec. 26. Procedure; Calls to Order
  Sec. 27. -- Procedure in the Committee of the Whole
  Sec. 28. -- Taking Down Words
  Sec. 29. -- Withdrawal or Modification of Words
  Sec. 30. -- Permission to Explain
  Sec. 31. -- Speaker's Ruling
  Sec. 32. -- Discipline; Post-Ruling Motions

              E. Critical References to the House, Committees, or 
                 Members

  Sec. 33. In General; Criticism of the House
  Sec. 34. Criticism of Committees
  Sec. 35. Criticism of Speaker
  Sec. 36. Criticism of Legislative Actions or Proposals
  Sec. 37. Critical References to Members
  Sec. 38. -- Use of Colloquialisms; Sarcasm
  Sec. 39. -- Impugning Motives
  Sec. 40. -- Charging Falsehood or Deception
  Sec. 41. -- Lack of Intelligence or Knowledge
  Sec. 42. -- References to Race, Creed, or Racial Prejudice
  Sec. 43. -- Charges Relating to Loyalty or Patriotism

              F. Duration of Debate in House

  Sec. 44. In General
  Sec. 45. The Hour Rule
  Sec. 46. Ten-minute, 20-minute, and 40-minute Debate
  Sec. 47. Debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole
  Sec. 48. Limiting or Extending Time for Debate
  Sec. 49. Terminating Debate
  Sec. 50. One-minute and Special-order Speeches; Morning-hour Debates

              G. Duration of Debate in the Committee of the Whole

  Sec. 51. In General; Effect of Special Rules
  Sec. 52. General Debate
  Sec. 53. Limiting General Debate
  Sec. 54. Five-minute Debate
  Sec. 55. -- Limiting or Extending Five-minute Debate-- By House Action

[[Page 377]]

  Sec. 56. -- By Motion in the Committee of the Whole
  Sec. 57. -- By Unanimous Consent in the Committee of the Whole
  Sec. 58. Motions Allocating or Reserving Time
  Sec. 59. Timekeeping; Charging Time

              H. Reading Papers; Displays and Exhibits

  Sec. 60. Reading Papers
  Sec. 61. Use of Exhibits
  Sec. 62. -- Decorum Requirements

              I. Secret Sessions

  Sec. 63. In General
  Sec. 64. Motions; Debate
  Sec. 65. Secrecy Restrictions and Guidelines
        Research References
          5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 4978-5299
          8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2448-2608
          Deschler-Brown Ch 29
          Manual Sec. Sec. 359, 364, 369-371, 465, 622, 891, 945-969, 
            978-981, 987, 994-999


           A. Introductory; Initiating Consideration and Debate


  Sec. 1 . In General; In the House

                    Generally; Initiating Consideration

      Whether and how a matter is to be considered depends on many 
  factors--the way it is brought to the floor, the nature and precedence 
  of the proposal, and agreements reached by the leadership and 
  membership on the method of consideration. The House may reject a 
  proposal to consider a matter by voting solely on the question of 
  consideration. See Question of Consideration.
      There are four common procedures under which measures may be 
  called up for consideration: (1) special rules reported from the 
  Committee on Rules; (2) motions to suspend the rules; (3) unanimous-
  consent agreements; and (4) standing rules for certain measures 
  reported as privileged under rule XIII clause 5. Manual Sec. Sec. 853-
  868. However, nonprivileged matter contained in a measure reported 
  under rule XIII clause 5 destroys the

[[Page 378]]

  privilege of the measure; and consideration must depend on one of the 
  three remaining procedures. Manual Sec. Sec. 854, 855.
      House rules expressly preclude introduction or consideration of 
  certain commemoration bills (rule XII clause 5), as well as 
  consideration of certain private bills (rule XII clause 4) and 
  measures carrying a retroactive Federal income tax rate increase (rule 
  XXI clause 5(c)).
      Generally, questions are not considered on the floor unless 
  reported or discharged from House committees, although rule IX and 
  practices of the House permit the immediate consideration of 
  introduced bills under certain circumstances. Sec. Sec. 3, 4, 6 infra. 
  Certain time periods or ``layover'' requirements may be a condition 
  precedent to consideration in the House after a committee has 
  reported. See Committees. For recognition by the Chair to call up 
  measures under the various procedures, see Recognition.
      Other factors bearing on consideration include whether the 
  proposal has been referred to the House or Union Calendar or whether 
  the proposal is called up from a particular special calendar, such as 
  the Corrections Calendar. See Sec. 5, infra.

                             Initiating Debate

      As a general rule, debate is not in order until a debatable motion 
  has been offered and stated by the Chair or read by the Clerk. 5 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 4982-4985, 5304. However, debate may be initiated without 
  motion:

     Under a reservation of the right to object to a unanimous-
         consent request. 4 Hinds Sec. 3058.
     When questions of personal privilege are raised. 3 Hinds 
         Sec. 2546.
     When conference reports are considered, the question on 
         agreeing being regarded as pending. Manual Sec. 550; 5 Hinds 
         Sec. 6517.
     When the Committee of the Whole reports its recommendation to 
         the House, unless the previous question is ordered. 4 Hinds 
         Sec. 4896.
     When personal explanations are made by unanimous consent. 5 
         Hinds Sec. 5064.
     When special rules providing for consideration of a measure 
         have been adopted. Manual Sec. Sec. 734, 972.
     When a measure on a special calendar or on a special day has 
         been called up. Rule XV.

  Sec. 2 . Order of Consideration

      The ``daily order of business'' is set forth in rule XIV, which 
  specifies the sequence in which certain matters are to be taken up. 
  Manual Sec. 869. The order of consideration may be varied by 
  unanimous-consent agreements or by special orders reported from the 
  Committee on Rules and adopted by the

[[Page 379]]

  House. See Sec. Sec. 3, 6, infra; generally, see also Order of 
  Business; Privileged Business; and Special Orders of Business. Indeed, 
  the preface to rule XIV clause 1 establishes a daily order of business 
  ``unless varied by the application of other rules and except for the 
  disposition of matters of higher precedence.''
      Among the privileged matters that may affect the order of 
  consideration are: (1) general appropriation bills under rule XIII 
  clause 5; (2) conference reports under rule XXII clause 7(a); (3) 
  special orders reported by the Committee on Rules under rule XIII 
  clause 5; and (4) questions of privilege under rule IX. Manual 
  Sec. Sec. 698, 871; see also Questions of Privilege.
      Some propositions are privileged for consideration on certain days 
  of the week or month. On any Monday or Tuesday, for example, the 
  Speaker may recognize Members to move to suspend the rules. Manual 
  Sec. 885; see also Sec. Sec. 4, 5, infra.


  Sec. 3 . Use of Special Orders of Business

      A major portion of the legislation taken up in the House is 
  considered pursuant to resolutions, also called ``special rules'' or 
  ``special orders,'' reported by the Committee on Rules and adopted by 
  the House. Although the general effect of the adoption of a resolution 
  making in order the consideration of a bill is to give the bill a 
  privileged status, the adoption of the resolution does not make the 
  consideration mandatory unless so stated in the resolution. Deschler 
  Ch 21 Sec. 16. For example, the resolution may: (1) provide that ``the 
  House shall immediately consider'' the bill; (2) permit the Speaker to 
  declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole for the 
  consideration of the bill (see rule XVIII clause 2); or (3) provide 
  for consideration at some specified time in the order of business. If 
  the special rule authorizes a specified Member to call up a bill 
  (either directly or indirectly, such as ``it shall be in order to 
  consider''), the consideration of the bill must await the initiative 
  of that Member. See Deschler Ch 21 Sec. 20.17.
      Special rules may provide for the consideration of a bill or 
  resolution in the Committee of the Whole, in the House, or in the 
  House as in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler Ch 21 
  Sec. Sec. 20.16, 20.17.
      The measure whose consideration is made in order by a special rule 
  may consist of a House or Senate bill or resolution or a conference 
  report. Deschler Ch 21 Sec. Sec. 20.5-20.15. A special rule may be 
  limited in scope, as where it provides only for initial consideration 
  of a measure, provides for general debate, and precludes further 
  consideration absent a second special rule. See, e.g., 105-2, H. Res. 
  435, May 19, 1998, p ____.

[[Page 380]]

      The resolution may waive one or more House rules that impede the 
  consideration of the bill or amendment thereto. Points of order do not 
  lie against the consideration of such a resolution, as it is for the 
  House to determine, by a majority vote on the adoption of the 
  resolution, whether certain rules should be waived. Deschler Ch 21 
  Sec. Sec. 16.9-16.14. Generally, see Special Orders of Business. 
  However, section 426 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
  permits a point of order against consideration of a rule that waives 
  points of order against a measure for violating that Act (subject to a 
  separate vote on the question of consideration). Manual Sec. 1127.


  Sec. 4 . Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules

      A privileged motion to suspend the rules may be used to bring a 
  matter before the House under rule XV clause 1. Manual Sec. Sec. 885, 
  887; 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 6846, 6847. Additionally, the motion to suspend 
  may provide for a series of procedural steps, including the 
  reconsideration of a bill already passed, agreement to an amendment, 
  and repassage as amended. 5 Hinds Sec. 6849. For examples of proposals 
  for which the motion may be used, see Suspension of Rules. However, 
  the motion is in order only on Mondays and Tuesdays of each week and 
  on the last six days of a session or when the House by unanimous 
  consent or rule gives the Speaker authority to recognize for such 
  motions on other days of the week. In any case, recognition for the 
  motion is within the discretion of the Speaker. The motion is 
  debatable for 40 minutes, is not amendable, and requires a two-thirds 
  vote for adoption. See Suspension of Rules.


  Sec. 5 . Role of Calendars

      The House maintains various calendars to facilitate the 
  consideration of different classes of legislative business. The 
  primary calendars are (1) the Union Calendar, for business to be taken 
  up in the Committee of the Whole, (2) the House Calendar, for matters 
  to be considered in the House, (3) the Private Calendar, to which all 
  reported private bills are referred, and (4) the Corrections Calendar. 
  Most legislative business reported from committee is referred to one 
  of these calendars. Manual Sec. Sec. 828, 829, 898. In addition, the 
  House maintains a Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees. Manual 
  Sec. Sec. 830, 892. For a discussion of the various calendars and 
  consideration of measures under the Corrections Calendar, see 
  Calendars.

[[Page 381]]

  Sec. 6 . Consideration by Unanimous Consent

      The House, pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement, sometimes 
  permits the consideration of a measure that is not otherwise in order 
  under the rules, for example, one not yet introduced. Manual 
  Sec. Sec. 381, 872, 956; 4 Hinds Sec. 3058. For a discussion of 
  consideration by unanimous consent (including the Speaker's guidelines 
  requiring approval by floor and committee leaderships before 
  recognition), see Unanimous-Consent Agreements.


  Sec. 7 . In Committee of the Whole

      Certain legislative measures are referred to the Union Calendar by 
  the Speaker for subsequent consideration in the Committee of the 
  Whole. Their consideration therein is governed by special rules, 
  orders of the House, or the standing rules applicable to the 
  Committee. See rule XVIII; 4 Hinds Sec. Sec. 3214, 4705, 4822; 
  Deschler Ch 19 Sec. Sec. 1, 4.
      For comprehensive discussion of consideration of measures in 
  Committee of the Whole, see Committees of the Whole.


  Sec. 8 . In the House as in the Committee of the Whole

      Bills and other measures sometimes are taken up by the House when 
  it sits ``as in'' the Committee of the Whole. Manual Sec. 427. This 
  practice permits consideration of a measure under the five-minute rule 
  rather than the hour rule, but without general debate. 4 Hinds 
  Sec. 4924; Manual Sec. 424. For a discussion of consideration of 
  measures in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, see Committees 
  of the Whole.


  Sec. 9 . Limitations on Debate; Nondebatable Matters

                        Generally; Time Limitations

      Debate is subject to many limitations under the rules and 
  precedents of the House. Most of the limitations imposed by House rule 
  concern the duration of time allowed for the debate of a particular 
  proposition. These include, for example, the hour rule (Manual 
  Sec. 957), the 40-minute rule (Manual Sec. Sec. 891, 995), the 20-
  minute rule (Manual Sec. 892), the ten-minute rule (Manual Sec. 987), 
  the five-minute rule (Manual Sec. 978), and the time limits that are 
  imposed on the one-minute speeches or special-order speeches that are 
  often permitted when no legislative business is pending (Manual 
  Sec. 950). For a more detailed discussion of these time limitations, 
  see Sec. Sec. 44-50, infra.
      Most of these are rules of general applicability. In addition, the 
  House may adopt a special rule from the Committee on Rules that places 
  a different limit on the duration of debate on a particular 
  legislative proposal.

[[Page 382]]

   This practice enables the House, by majority vote, to specify time 
  for, and control of, debate depending on the complexity of the 
  proposed measure.
      Unless otherwise provided by House rule or by a special rule from 
  the Committee on Rules, a proposition considered in the House is 
  debated under the hour rule. Sec. Sec. 44, 45, infra. However, the 
  various motions that may apply to a proposition often carry their own 
  time limitations for debate and, in some instances, preclude debate 
  entirely.

                       Matters Not Subject to Debate

      The relevant standing rule and the precedents must be consulted in 
  order to determine whether debate on a motion or question is 
  precluded. Following are examples of questions that are not subject to 
  debate:

     A motion that the Journal be read in full. Manual Sec. 621.
     A motion for the previous question. Deschler Ch 23 Sec. 21.
     A motion to go into the Committee of the Whole. 4 Hinds 
         Sec. Sec. 3062, 3078; 6 Cannon Sec. 716.
     A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report. 4 
         Hinds Sec. Sec. 4766, 4782; Deschler Ch 19 Sec. 22.4.
     A motion for a call of the House or incidental to a call of 
         the House. Manual Sec. 1024; 6 Cannon Sec. Sec. 683, 688.
     A resolution authorizing the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest 
         absentees. 6 Cannon Sec. 686.
     A motion that the Speaker be authorized to declare a recess or 
         that when the House adjourns it stand adjourned to a day and 
         time certain. Rule XVI; Manual Sec. 913.
     A resolution providing for a sine die adjournment or for 
         adjournment to a day certain. Manual Sec. 84.
     A motion to adjourn. Manual Sec. 911.
     A motion to lay on the table. 6 Cannon Sec. 415; 8 Cannon 
         Sec. 2465.
     A motion to reconsider an undebatable proposition. 5 Hinds 
         Sec. Sec. 5694-5699.
     A motion to close general debate or to limit five-minute 
         debate. Manual Sec. 979; 5 Hinds Sec. 5203.
     A motion to strike unparliamentary language from the 
         Congressional Record. 6 Cannon Sec. 617.
     An incidental question of order after a demand for the 
         previous question. Manual Sec. 1000.
     An incidental question of order arising during a division. 5 
         Hinds Sec. 5926.
     A motion that the Committee of the Whole take up a bill out of 
         calendar order. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2331, 2333.
     A motion for a change of reference of a bill. Manual Sec. 825.
     A question of consideration. Manual Sec. 906.
     A question relating to the priority of business. Manual 
         Sec. 884.
     An appeal from a decision of the Chair on the priority of 
         business. 5 Hinds Sec. 6952; Manual Sec. 884.

[[Page 383]]

     An appeal from a decision of the Chair on relevancy. 5 Hinds 
         Sec. Sec. 5056-5063.
     An appeal from a decision of the Chair on the dilatoriness of 
         a motion. 5 Hinds Sec. 5731.
     An amendment to the title of a bill. Manual Sec. 922; 8 Cannon 
         Sec. 2907.


              B. Control and Distribution of Time for Debate


  Sec. 10 . In General; Role of Manager

      Under long-standing practice, and as usually provided by special 
  rules, one or more designated Members manage a bill during its 
  consideration. Such managers are normally the chairman and ranking 
  minority member of a committee reporting the measure. Sec. 14, infra.
      The majority manager of a measure has procedural advantages 
  enabling him to expedite its consideration and passage. He is entitled 
  to the prior right to recognition unless he surrenders or loses 
  control or unless a preferential motion to recommit is offered by an 
  opponent of the bill. See Recognition. If the bill is to be taken up 
  in the House under the standing rules, the manager calling it up is 
  entitled to one hour of debate, which he may in his discretion yield 
  to other Members. See Sec. 15, infra. He may at any time during his 
  hour move the previous question, thereby bringing the matter to a vote 
  and terminating further debate, unless he has yielded control of time 
  to another. See Sec. 45, infra; see also Previous Question.
      The manager of a bill enjoys a similar advantage in the Committee 
  of the Whole where the bill is being considered under a special rule 
  or unanimous-consent agreement. General debate therein typically is 
  controlled and divided by the majority and minority managers. The 
  majority manager has the right to close general debate. Manual 
  Sec. 959. When the bill is read for amendment in the Committee, the 
  managers have the prior right to recognition, whether to offer an 
  amendment or oppose an amendment or to move to close or to limit 
  debate or to move that the Committee rise. Similarly, if the bill is 
  taken up in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, priority in 
  recognition is extended during debate to members in charge of the bill 
  from the reporting committee. See Recognition.
      Once a measure has been approved by a standing committee of the 
  House, its chairman has a duty under the rules to report it promptly 
  and to take steps to have the matter considered and voted upon. Rule 
  XIII clause 2(b). When the measure is called up, the reporting 
  committee manages the bill during the various stages of its 
  consideration. The designated managers from the committee, and then 
  other members of the committee in order of

[[Page 384]]

  seniority, have priority in recognition at all stages of 
  consideration. See Recognition. When a chairman is opposed to a bill 
  (although rare), the responsibility for managing the bill may be 
  delegated to the ranking majority member of the committee. Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 26.7. Such delegation of control is ineffective where 
  challenged unless communicated to the Chair. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 26.30. The chairman also may relinquish control where the 
  Committee of the Whole has adopted amendments to the bill to which he 
  is opposed. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 26.8.
      Where the measure falls within the jurisdiction of two standing 
  committees, the chairman of one of them may yield to the chairman of 
  the other to control part of the available time and to move the 
  previous question. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 26.10.
      For further discussion on control of debate by managers, see also 
  Sec. 12, infra.


  Sec. 11 . Distribution and Alternation; Closing General Debate

      The distribution of available time for debate, and the alternation 
  of time between majority and minority members, is governed by 
  principles of comity and by House tradition, as well as by standing 
  rules of the House and by special rules. Manual Sec. 955. A division 
  of time for debate on certain motions may be required, and a Member 
  opposed may claim a priority to control a portion of the time. For 
  example, rule XV clause 1(c) requires a division of time for debate on 
  a motion to suspend the rules between those in favor and those 
  opposed. Manual Sec. 891. Under rule XXII, one-third of the time may 
  be claimed by a Member opposed to conference reports, motions to 
  instruct conferees, and amendments reported from conference in 
  disagreement, where both the majority and minority managers support 
  the proposition.
      The Chair alternates recognition between those favoring and those 
  opposing the pending proposition where a rule or precedent gives some 
  control to an opponent or, traditionally, between the parties where 
  time is limited. Special rules commonly divide control of time for 
  general debate equally between the chairman and ranking minority 
  member of the committees reporting the measure. When a special rule 
  itself is being considered, the majority floor manager customarily 
  yields half of the time to the minority. Alternation generally, see 
  Recognition.
      A majority manager of the bill who represents the primary 
  committee of jurisdiction is entitled to close general debate, as 
  against another manager representing an additional committee of 
  jurisdiction. Where an order of the House divides debate on an 
  unreported measure among four Members, the

[[Page 385]]

  Chair will recognize for closing speeches in the reverse order of the 
  original allocation. Similarly, where general debate on an adversely 
  reported measure is controlled by two Members allocated time under a 
  previous order of the House and by two other Members deriving 
  subdivisions of that time under a later order by unanimous consent, 
  the Chair may recognize for closing speeches in the reverse order of 
  the original allocation, concluding with the Member who opened the 
  debate. Where a Member derives time for debate from the manager of a 
  measure by unanimous consent, that Member also derives the right to 
  close debate thereon. Where a member of the minority is recognized 
  under a special order to call up a Senate concurrent resolution from 
  the Speaker's desk, he is recognized to open and close debate thereon. 
  Manual Sec. 959.


  Sec. 12 . Management by Committee; Closing Controlled Debate on an 
            Amendment

      Special orders providing ``modified rules'' governing the 
  amendment process commonly limit and divide control of debate between 
  a proponent and an opponent of the amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 28. Similarly, the Committee of the Whole may by unanimous 
  consent also limit and divide control of debate between a proponent 
  and a Member in opposition. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 27.3. Under rule 
  XVII clause 3(c), the manager of a bill or other representative of the 
  committee position--and not the proponent of an amendment--has the 
  right to close debate on an amendment where debate has been so limited 
  and allocated without regard to the party affiliation of the 
  proponent. Manual Sec. 959. Clause 3(c) is an exception to the rule 
  set forth in rule XVII clause 3(a), which otherwise provides that the 
  mover, proposer, or introducer of the pending matter has the right to 
  open and close debate. The exceptional treatment of the right to close 
  debate on an amendment elevates the manager's prerogative over the 
  proponent's burden of persuasion. This is so even when the majority 
  manager offers an amendment that has not been recommended by the 
  committee. In that case, a member of the committee in opposition to 
  such amendment has the right to close. 107-2, July 25, 2002, p ____.
      Clause (3)(c) applies to the manager of an unreported measure, 
  even where the rule providing for the consideration of the unreported 
  measure designates managers who do not serve on a committee of 
  jurisdiction. It also applies to a measure reported by the committee 
  without recommendation. The minority manager may claim the right to 
  close debate under clause 3(c), as may a member of a committee of 
  sequential referral to close debate against an amendment to a 
  provision recommended by that committee. Man

[[Page 386]]

  ual Sec. 959. However, the proponent of an amendment has the right to 
  close where a manager does not oppose the amendment but claims the 
  time in opposition by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 959.
      For further discussion on control of debate by managers, see 
  Sec. 10, supra.


  Sec. 13 . Designation of Member Who May Call Up a Measure

      The committee reporting a measure occasionally designates the 
  Member who may call up a measure for consideration, in which case the 
  Chair may recognize only that Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. Sec. 27.1, 27.2. A special rule also may designate the Member. 
  Sec. 14, infra. If a Member has not been specifically designated, the 
  Chair may in his discretion recognize a committee member to call up a 
  measure. 91-1, Dec. 23, 1969, p 40982.


  Sec. 14 . Effect of Special Rules

                                 Generally

      The designation of certain Members to control debate on a measure 
  is frequently provided by special rule from the Committee on Rules. 
  Typically the Committee on Rules will draft a special rule providing 
  that debate be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
  ranking minority member of the reporting committee or committees. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 28. That control can be delegated to a 
  designee.

                Dividing Debate Between Multiple Committees

      A special rule from the Committee on Rules may specify that debate 
  be divided between and controlled by two or more standing committees. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 28.13. The special rule may provide that 
  debate be controlled by the chairmen and ranking minority members of 
  the several committees reporting a bill, sometimes with the secondary 
  committees controlling a lesser amount of time. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 28.16. Debate also may be divided between the standing committee 
  reporting a bill and a permanent select committee. 95-1, Sept. 9, 
  1977, p 28367.
      Where a special rule divides the control of general debate on a 
  bill among the chairmen and ranking members of two standing 
  committees, but does not specify the order of recognition, the Chair 
  may exercise his discretion. He may allow one committee to use its 
  time before recognizing the other, or may rotate among the four 
  managers. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 28.18.
      If the rule divides control of debate among a primary reporting 
  committee and several sequentially reporting committees in a 
  designated order,

[[Page 387]]

  the Chair may allocate time between the chairman and ranking minority 
  member of each committee in the order listed, if and when present on 
  the floor, and permit only the primary committee to reserve a portion 
  of its time to close general debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 28.16. 
  When the Chair has announced his intention to permit the primary 
  committee to so reserve a portion of its time, the sequential 
  committees are required to use all of their time before the closing 
  debate by the primary committee. 99-1, Dec. 5, 1985, pp 34638, 34644. 
  A majority manager of the bill who represents the primary committee of 
  jurisdiction is entitled to close general debate (as against another 
  manager representing an additional committee of jurisdiction). Manual 
  Sec. 959.

      Division of Time Between a Member in Favor and a Member Opposed

      In the event that a specified amount of time for debate is equally 
  divided and controlled between the proponent of the amendment and a 
  Member opposed thereto, only one Member may be recognized to control 
  the time in favor of the amendment and only one Member may be 
  recognized to control the time in opposition, though each may in turn 
  yield blocks of time to other Members. 99-2, Aug. 11, 1986, pp 20678, 
  20679. Pro forma amendments are not permitted where second degree 
  amendments are prohibited unless so specified. 99-2, Aug. 14, 1986, p 
  21655. Time for debate on the amendment having been divided between 
  the proponent and an opponent, the Chair may in his discretion 
  recognize the manager of the bill in opposition, there being no 
  requirement for recognition of the minority party. Indeed, the Chair 
  ordinarily recognizes the chairman of the committee managing the bill 
  if he qualifies as opposed to the amendment. Manual Sec. 959; Sec. 10, 
  supra.
      A special rule may provide that, after general debate divided 
  between the chairman and ranking minority member of the reporting 
  committee, a certain amount of time for general debate be divided and 
  controlled by a Member in favor of and a Member opposed to a certain 
  section of the bill. 96-1, Sept. 13, 1979, pp 24168, 24192. In one 
  instance, the House adopted a special rule providing for one hour of 
  general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
  and ranking minority member of the reporting committee, and two hours 
  to be divided and controlled by Members to be designated by the 
  chairman. 95-2, July 31, 1978, p 23451.

[[Page 388]]

  Sec. 15 . Yielding Time-- For Debate

                         In General; Who May Yield

      In an earlier era, a Member could not yield time for debate 
  without losing his right to reoccupy the floor. A Member could not 
  yield the floor unless he yielded it unconditionally. 5 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 5023, 5026. That practice began to change with the adoption 
  of the hour rule for debate in 1841. 5 Hinds Sec. 5021.
      Under current practice, a Member controlling the time during 
  debate may yield blocks of time for debate to others, take his seat, 
  and still retain the right to resume debate or move the previous 
  question. 8 Cannon Sec. 3383. The yielding of time for debate is 
  discretionary with the Members who have control thereof. Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 31.1, 31.2. A Member may not yield for purposes 
  of debate where he has risen merely to make or reserve a point of 
  order. Deschler-Brown Ch 31 Sec. 7.5.
      A Member who seeks yielded time should address the Chair and 
  request the permission of the Member speaking. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 42. Where a Member interrupts another Member during debate 
  without being yielded to, the time consumed by his remarks are not 
  charged against the time for debate of the Member controlling the 
  floor and the remarks are not carried in the Congressional Record. 
  Manual Sec. 946. A Member may yield to another for a parliamentary 
  inquiry, but the time consumed by the inquiry and the response of the 
  Chair comes out of the time of the Member yielding. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 29.5.
      The time used by yielding is ordinarily charged against the 
  yielding Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.5. Unused time reverts 
  to the yielding Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 31.36.
      Rule XVIII clause 3(b), which prohibits a Member who is not a 
  manager from speaking more than once on a question, often is 
  superseded in modern practice by special orders of business that vest 
  control of debate in designated Members and permit them to yield more 
  than once to other Members. Manual Sec. 959.

                               In the House

      The Member in control of debate in the House under the hour rule 
  may in his discretion yield for debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29. 
  Indeed, although not required to do so by standing rule, majority 
  members in control under the hour rule frequently yield one-half the 
  time to the minority in order that full debate may be had. Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.15. Of course, the yielding of time must be 
  consistent with any division of time

[[Page 389]]

  that is required by House rule or a special rule from the Committee on 
  Rules.

                       In the Committee of the Whole

      In the Committee of the Whole, a Member in control of time for 
  general debate may yield a block of time (up to one hour) to another 
  Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 31.24.
      During five-minute debate Members may yield, as for a question or 
  comment, but may not yield blocks of time. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5035-
  5037. A Member yielding to a colleague during debate under the five-
  minute rule should remain standing to protect his right to the floor. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.8. If a Member uses only part of his 
  time, his five-minute period is treated as exhausted, as it cannot be 
  reserved, and another Member cannot claim recognition for the unused 
  time. 8 Cannon Sec. 2571. However, where debate on an amendment is 
  limited or allocated by a unanimous-consent agreement or motion, or by 
  a special rule, to a proponent and an opponent, the five-minute rule 
  is abrogated and the Members controlling the debate may yield and 
  reserve time. Manual Sec. 980.

                  Yielding During Debate on Special Rules

      The traditional practice with regard to resolutions from the 
  Committee on Rules providing special rules for the consideration of 
  measures is for the Member in charge of the resolution to yield one-
  half of the time to the minority, who then may yield specified 
  portions thereof. Although the minority member of the Committee on 
  Rules to whom one-half of the time for debate is yielded customarily 
  yields portions of that time to other Members, another Member to whom 
  a portion of time is yielded may in turn yield blocks of that time 
  only by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 31.23. However, 
  where a Member has been recognized under the hour rule following 
  refusal of the previous question on such a resolution, he has control 
  of the time and is under no obligation to yield half of that time as 
  is the customary practice of the Committee on Rules. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 15.20.

                     Yielding Time During Yielded Time

      A Member to whom time has been yielded during debate under the 
  hour rule in the House may, while remaining on his feet, yield to a 
  third Member for comments or questions but may not in turn yield 
  blocks of time, except by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 31.21. A similar rule is followed in the Committee of the Whole. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 31.24.

[[Page 390]]

      Where a Member is yielded time in the House for debate only, he 
  may not yield to a third Member for purposes other than debate. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 31.19.


  Sec. 16 . -- Yielding for Amendment

                                In General

      A measure being considered in the House is not subject to 
  amendment by a Member not in control of the time unless the Member in 
  control yields for that purpose. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 30.1, 
  30.4. A Member may not offer an amendment in time secured for debate 
  only or request unanimous consent to offer an amendment unless yielded 
  to for that purpose by the Member controlling the floor. Manual 
  Sec. 946; 8 Cannon Sec. 2474; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 30.6.
      A Member to whom time is yielded for the purpose of offering an 
  amendment in the House is recognized in his own right to discuss the 
  amendment for one hour and may himself yield time. 8 Cannon 
  Sec. Sec. 2471, 2478; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 30.11.

                    Loss of Control by Yielding Member

      A Member may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment 
  without losing the floor. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5021, 5030, 5031; 8 Cannon 
  Sec. 2476; Manual Sec. 946. Where a Member controlling the time on a 
  measure in the House yields for the purpose of amendment, another 
  Member may move the previous question on the measure before the Member 
  yielded to is recognized to debate his amendment. Manual Sec. 997. The 
  previous question takes precedence over an amendment. Rule XVI clause 
  4; Manual Sec. 911. If the Member calling up a measure offers an 
  amendment and then yields to another Member to offer an amendment to 
  his amendment, the first Member loses the floor and the Member yielded 
  to is recognized for one hour and may move the previous question on 
  the amendments and on the measure itself. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 33.9.

                        Under the Five-Minute Rule

      A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not yield to 
  another Member to offer an amendment. It is the prerogative of the 
  Chair to recognize Members offering amendments under the five-minute 
  rule. Manual Sec. 946. However, a Member recognized under the five-
  minute rule may by unanimous consent yield the balance of his time to 
  another Member, who may thereafter offer an amendment when separately 
  recognized by the Chair for that purpose. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 19.25.

[[Page 391]]

      A Member offering a pro forma amendment under the five-minute rule 
  may not yield to another Member during that time to offer an 
  amendment. Manual Sec. 981.


  Sec. 17 . Interruptions; Losing or Surrendering Control

                                In General

      With few exceptions, a Member may interrupt another Member in 
  debate only if yielded to. A Member desiring to interrupt another in 
  debate should address the Chair to obtain the permission of the Member 
  speaking. The Member speaking may then exercise his own discretion 
  about whether or not to yield. The Chair will take the initiative in 
  preserving order when a Member declining to yield in debate continues 
  to be interrupted by another Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 42.14; 
  Manual Sec. 946.
      A Member in control of time for debate in the House may 
  voluntarily surrender the floor by simply so stating or by withdrawing 
  the measure he is managing. A Member recognized under the hour rule 
  may yield the floor upon expiration of his hour without moving the 
  previous question, thereby permitting another Member to be recognized 
  for a successive hour. Manual Sec. 957. A Member also may lose the 
  floor if he is ruled out of order for disorderly language. Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 33. Finally, a Member loses the floor if he yields 
  for other legislative business (8 Cannon Sec. 2468) or for an 
  amendment (Sec. 16, supra).
      A Member may be interrupted by a point of order or by the 
  presentation of certain privileged matter, such as a conference 
  report. 5 Hinds Sec. 6451; 8 Cannon Sec. 3294. In addition, it is 
  customary for the Speaker to request a Member to yield for the 
  reception of a message. Manual Sec. 946.
      Although a motion proposed by the Member in charge may be 
  displaced by a preferential motion, a Member may not by offering such 
  motion deprive the Member in charge of the floor. 8 Cannon Sec. 3259. 
  A Member having the floor may not be deprived of the floor and taken 
  off his feet:

     By a motion to adjourn. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5369, 5370; 8 Cannon 
         Sec. 2646.
     By a demand for the previous question. 8 Cannon Sec. 2609.
     By a question of personal privilege. 5 Hinds Sec. 5002; 8 
         Cannon Sec. 2459; 98-1, Sept. 29, 1983, pp 26508, 26509.

                 Interruptions for Parliamentary Inquiries

      An interruption for a parliamentary inquiry is not in order unless 
  the Member having the floor yields for that purpose. Manual Sec. 628; 
  8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2455-2458. If a Member does yield for that purpose, 
  he will not lose control of the floor because he retains the right to 
  resume. Thus, a Member

[[Page 392]]

  who has been yielded time for a parliamentary inquiry may not during 
  his inquiry move that the House adjourn, for that would deprive the 
  Member holding the floor of his right to resume. 88-2, June 3, 1964, p 
  12522.
      Where the Member controlling the time yields to another for 
  debate, the latter may, during the time so yielded, propound a 
  parliamentary inquiry. 90-1, July 17, 1967, p 19033. The time consumed 
  to state and answer the inquiry is deducted from his time for debate. 
  94-1, Sept. 25, 1975, p 30196. When the Member holding the floor 
  during general debate yields solely for a parliamentary inquiry, the 
  time continues to run against him. Deschler-Brown Ch 31 Sec. 15.6. 
  However, when the Chair entertains a parliamentary inquiry before the 
  Member managing the pending measure in the House has been recognized 
  for debate, or between recognitions, the time consumed by the inquiry 
  does not come out of his time. Deschler-Brown Ch 31 Sec. 15.8.


                          C. Relevancy in Debate


  Sec. 18 . In General; In the House

      A Member addressing the House must confine himself ``to the 
  question under debate. . . .'' Rule XVII clause 1; Manual Sec. 945. 
  The rule, which was adopted in 1811, enables the House to expedite 
  proceedings when a specific proposition is before it for action. 
  Manual Sec. 945; 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 4979, 5043-5048; 8 Cannon 
  Sec. 2481. The rule is directed against irrelevant discussion, not 
  mere redundancy. Although Jefferson's Manual enjoins superfluous or 
  tedious remarks, in practice the House has never suppressed debate of 
  this character, the hour rule being regarded as sufficiently 
  restrictive in that regard. Manual Sec. 359.
      Debate on a reported resolution pending before the House should be 
  confined thereto and should not be extended to an unreported bill even 
  though on the same subject. 5 Hinds Sec. 5053. The rule is applicable 
  to debate on private bills (8 Cannon Sec. 2590) and to bills on the 
  Corrections Calendar (104-1, Nov. 14, 1995, p 32354-57; 104-2, Mar. 
  12, 1996, p 4447-51). On a motion to suspend the rules, debate is 
  confined to the object of the motion and may not range to the merits 
  of a bill not scheduled for such consideration. Manual Sec. 948.
      It was the custom of earlier Speakers to hold the Member speaking 
  strictly to the question before the House, without waiting for the 
  point to be made on the floor. See 5 Hinds Sec. 5043 (note). Under 
  modern practice the Speaker rarely calls to order, on his own 
  initiative, a Member speaking to an unrelated question, but waits for 
  a point of order to be made. Manual Sec. 948.

[[Page 393]]

      Under modern practice Speakers have applied the rule of relevancy 
  with more tolerance and latitude than under the earlier practice. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 35. A Member is sometimes permitted to 
  discuss matters other than the pending measure by unanimous consent. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 35. Absent unanimous consent, if a point of 
  order is made and sustained, the Speaker must direct the Member 
  speaking to confine his remarks to the question (5 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 5044-5048) and to maintain an ongoing ``nexus'' between the 
  pending bill and any broader policy issues (Manual Sec. 948).
      The relevancy requirement of rule XVII is applicable to floor 
  debate on pending propositions. It is not normally applicable to a 
  Member making a one-minute or special-order speech. See Sec. 50, 
  infra. However, if a unanimous-consent request for a Member to address 
  the House for one hour specifies the subject of the address, the Chair 
  may enforce the rule of relevancy in debate by requiring that the 
  remarks be confined to the subject so specified. Manual Sec. 948.
      When a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules is pending, 
  debate must be confined to that special rule and to the merits of the 
  bill made in order thereby. Debate should not extend to the merits of 
  a bill that is not to be considered under the special order. Manual 
  Sec. 948.
      Debate on a question of personal privilege must be confined to the 
  statements or issue that gave rise to the question of privilege (5 
  Hinds Sec. Sec. 5075-5077; 6 Cannon Sec. Sec. 576, 608; 8 Cannon 
  Sec. Sec. 2448, 2481; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 36). Debate on a 
  privileged resolution recommending disciplinary action against a 
  Member may include comparisons with other such actions taken by or 
  reported to the House for purposes of measuring the severity of 
  punishment but should not extend to the conduct of another Member who 
  is not the subject of a committee report. Debate on a resolution 
  electing a Member to committee should not extend to that committee's 
  agenda. Manual Sec. 948.


  Sec. 19 . In the Committee of the Whole-- General Debate

      In the Committee of the Whole, during the general debate that 
  precedes the reading of the bill for amendment under the five-minute 
  rule, a Member is allowed great freedom and latitude in debate. 5 
  Hinds Sec. Sec. 5234-5238. ``Anything may be discussed which may by 
  the liveliest imagination be supposed to relate to the state of the 
  Union in any particular or in any degree, however remote.'' 8 Cannon 
  Sec. 2590. However, such license is normally suppressed by the special 
  rule or other House order setting the duration and scope of the 
  debate. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5233-5238; 8 Cannon Sec. 2590; Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 37. If the bill is being considered under the terms 
  of a spe

[[Page 394]]

  cial rule that requires that debate be confined to the bill, a Member 
  may exceed those bounds only by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 37.3.


  Sec. 20 . -- Under the Five-Minute Rule

      The scope of debate under the five-minute rule is more narrowly 
  confined than is the scope of general debate. Manual Sec. 948; 5 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 5240-5256; 8 Cannon Sec. 2591. Debate on a pending amendment 
  must be confined to the subject of the amendment and its relation to 
  the bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 38.5, 38.11. This is due in 
  part to the language of rule XVIII clause 5, which states that a 
  Member is to be allowed five minutes ``to explain'' an offered 
  amendment. Manual Sec. 978. It has been held that remarks on the 
  general merits of the bill are not in order as ``explaining'' an 
  amendment, and remarks touching on the demerits of the bill are not in 
  order as opposing an amendment. 5 Hinds Sec. 5242. Nevertheless, the 
  Chair may accord Members latitude to put their amendment in context, 
  such as permitting debate on a series of amendments in the nature of a 
  substitute to a concurrent resolution on the budget to include 
  amendments not yet offered. 106-1, Mar. 25, 1999, p ____.
      Relevancy in debate may be enforced even if a Member is attempting 
  to respond to previous extraneous remarks in debate against which no 
  point of order was raised. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 38.13. However, a 
  Member may speak to another subject by unanimous consent. This is 
  permitted even where the Committee of the Whole is proceeding pursuant 
  to the provisions of a special rule permitting only designated 
  amendments to be offered. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 38.17. Where a 
  general provisions title is pending, debate may relate to any subject 
  covered by the bill. Manual Sec. 948.


                           D. Disorder in Debate


  Sec. 21 . In General

                                 Generally

      Among the oldest rules of the House are those that authorize the 
  Speaker to maintain order and decorum in the House (rule I clause 2) 
  and to call a Member to order where he has transgressed the rules of 
  the House ``in speaking or otherwise'' (rule XVII clause 4). This 
  language makes it clear that Members must not only follow all the 
  rules and requirements for the conduct of business in the House, but 
  must also observe the principles of

[[Page 395]]

  decorum and courtesy in debate, as set forth in rule XVII and by 
  related provisions in Jefferson's Manual. Manual Sec. Sec. 353-379, 
  945-962.
      Time consumed by proceedings incident to a call to order is not 
  charged against the time of the Member under recognition. 102-2, Oct. 
  3, 1992, p 31009.
      A Member may be called to order by another Member's timely demand 
  that the words used be taken down and read aloud at the Clerk's desk. 
  The Speaker then rules whether the words or actions of the Member are 
  disorderly. Whether an offending Member is to be allowed to proceed in 
  order or is to be disciplined is determined by the House. Sec. 26, 
  infra.

                              Disorderly Acts

      Decorum or comportment in the conduct and behavior of Members on 
  the floor of the House is governed in part by rule XVII clause 5. 
  Manual Sec. 962. Prohibited conduct under the rule includes:

     Walking out of or across the hall while the Speaker is 
         addressing the House.
     Passing between the Chair and a speaking Member.
     Wearing a hat.
     Using a wireless phone or personal computer.
     Remaining by the Clerk's desk during roll calls.
     Smoking.

      A Member's comportment may constitute a breach of decorum even 
  though the content of that Member's speech is not, itself, 
  unparliamentary. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 41.2.
      Demonstrations of approval or disapproval, such as applause, are 
  not a part of the proceedings of the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 41.8. While a Member has the floor, he may not request Members to 
  conduct a straw vote, such as showing hands or rising in support of a 
  certain measure. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 41.10.
      The Chair may entertain a demand to clear the well in the event of 
  disorder therein. 88-1, Dec. 9, 1963, p 23831. Under rule II clause 3, 
  the Sergeant-at-Arms attends the sittings of the House and the 
  Committee of the Whole and maintains order under the direction of the 
  Speaker or Chairman. Manual Sec. 656; 1 Hinds Sec. 257. On one 
  occasion the Speaker requested the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist him in 
  maintaining decorum disrupted by a former Member. Manual Sec. 622. 
  Former Members may be banned from the floor for indecorous behavior as 
  a matter of privilege. Manual Sec. 680.
      Acts of physical violence by one Member or between two Members 
  during or after heated debate have occurred. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1642-
  1644, 1655,

[[Page 396]]

  1656. Assaults or affrays in the Committee of the Whole are dealt with 
  by the House. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1648-1651.

                                  Attire

      The Speaker has announced as proper the customary traditional 
  attire for Members while in attendance in the House Chamber, including 
  a coat and tie for male Members and appropriate attire for female 
  Members. In one instance, the Speaker refused to recognize for debate 
  a Member in violation of the practice that Members were expected to 
  follow traditional standards of dress, and requested the Member in 
  question to remove himself from the floor and don proper attire. The 
  House subsequently agreed to a resolution, offered as a question of 
  privilege, requiring Members to wear proper attire as determined by 
  the Speaker, and denying noncomplying Members the privilege of the 
  floor. Manual Sec. 622.

                        Exhibits and Charts; Badges

      Under rule XVII clause 6, the Chair, in his discretion, may submit 
  to the House the question of the use of an exhibit, such as a chart, 
  during debate. In addition, the Speaker's responsibility to preserve 
  decorum requires that he disallow the use of an exhibit in debate that 
  would be demeaning to the House or that would be disruptive of its 
  proceedings. Manual Sec. Sec. 622, 963; see Sec. 62, infra.
      In recent years, Members occasionally have worn badges of various 
  sorts on the floor to convey political messages to their colleagues 
  and to the television audience. The Speaker has advised Members that 
  the wearing of badges on the floor while engaging in debate is 
  inappropriate and in contravention of rule XVII clause 1. Manual 
  Sec. 945.

                          Speaker's Announcements

      On the opening day of recent Congresses, the Speaker has stressed 
  the importance of various rules of decorum in the House. He has 
  prefaced his customary announcement with a general statement 
  concerning decorum in the House, including adjurations against 
  engaging in personalities, addressing remarks to spectators, and 
  passing in front of the Member addressing the Chair. ``It is 
  essential,'' the Speaker said, ``that the dignity of the proceedings 
  of the House be preserved, not only to assure that the House conducts 
  its business in an orderly fashion but to permit Members to properly 
  comprehend and participate in the business of the House.'' 107-1, Jan. 
  3, 2001, p ____.

[[Page 397]]

  Sec. 22 . Disorderly Language

      Members have been censured or otherwise disciplined for the use of 
  disorderly words in debate, whether the words were uttered in the 
  House or the Committee of the Whole. Manual Sec. 960; 2 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 1254, 1259, 1305; 6 Cannon Sec. 236. A Member may likewise 
  be disciplined for the insertion of disorderly words in the 
  Congressional Record. 6 Cannon Sec. 236. Members have been cautioned 
  against the use of vulgarity or profanity in debate. Manual Sec. 945. 
  The Chair may call to order a Member engaging in or tending toward 
  personalities in debate or for a verbal outburst following expiration 
  of his time for debate. Manual Sec. Sec. 361, 622. For a discussion of 
  critical references to Members, see Sec. 37, infra.
      The context of the debate itself must be considered in determining 
  whether the words objected to constitute disorderly criticism or do in 
  fact fall within the boundaries of appropriate parliamentary 
  discourse. The present-day meaning of language, the tone and intent of 
  the Member speaking, and the subject of his remarks, must all be taken 
  into account by the Speaker. There have been instances in which the 
  same or similar word has on one occasion been ruled permissible and on 
  another ruled unparliamentary. Thus the word ``damn'' has been ruled 
  out of order, whereas ``damnable'' has been permitted. Deschler-Brown 
  Ch 29 Sec. 43.


  Sec. 23 . -- References to Senate

                                 Generally

      A well-established rule of comity prohibits certain references in 
  debate to the Senate or to individual Senators. Rule XVII clause 1; 
  Manual Sec. 945. This principle, first enunciated in Jefferson's 
  Manual, was strictly applied in the House for many years. Manual 
  Sec. 371; 5 Hinds Sec. 5095; 8 Cannon Sec. 2501. However, the rule was 
  modified in 1987 and again in 1989 to provide for certain references 
  to the Senate as follows:

        (b)(2)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), debate may not 
    include characterizations of Senate action or inaction, references 
    to individual Members of the Senate, or quotations from Senate 
    proceedings.
        (B) Debate may include references to actions taken by the Senate 
    or by committees thereof that are a matter of public record; 
    references to the pendency or sponsorship in the Senate of bills, 
    resolutions, and amendments; factual descriptions relating to Senate 
    action or inaction concerning a measure then under debate in the 
    House; and quotations from Senate proceedings on a measure then 
    under debate in the House that are relevant to the making of 
    legislative history establishing the meaning of that measure.


[[Page 398]]



                References to the Senate or Its Proceedings

      A Member is permitted to refer to the existence of the Senate and 
  its functions in a general and neutral way. For example, a Member may 
  oppose a sine die adjournment resolution on the grounds that Congress 
  should stay in session to complete action on specified legislation 
  then pending in the Senate. 5 Hinds Sec. 5115. It is appropriate to 
  state whether or not the Senate has acted on House-passed legislation 
  as long as criticism is neither stated nor implied. If references to 
  the Senate are appropriate, the Member delivering them is not required 
  to use the term ``the other body,'' and the use of the term ``Senate'' 
  is not a per se violation of the rule of comity. Manual Sec. Sec. 371-
  374.
      On the other hand, it is not in order to criticize Senate actions. 
  5 Hinds Sec. 5114. Statements in debate questioning the intent of the 
  Senate with respect to legislation pending in the House remain a 
  violation of the rule of comity. It is a breach of order in debate to 
  refer to the motives of the Senate in passing certain legislation. 
  Manual Sec. 371. Although a Member in debate may refer to the pendency 
  of a House-passed bill in the Senate, it is a breach of order in 
  debate to refer to a House bill as ``languishing'' in the Senate. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 44.59. Furthermore, statements urging the 
  Senate to take action have been ruled out. Manual Sec. 371.
      On one occasion, before the amendment of rule XVII (regarding 
  references to the Senate), the Speaker entertained a unanimous-consent 
  request that a Member be permitted to refer in debate to certain 
  Senate proceedings. 96-2, June 4, 1980, p 13212. However, the Chair 
  will not entertain such a request where the references would 
  necessarily imply criticism of the Senate, such as to respond to 
  remarks in the Senate that were critical of Members of the House. 8 
  Cannon Sec. 2519; Manual Sec. 371.

                     References to Individual Senators

      Under rule XVII clause 1, remarks in debate may not include 
  references to individual Members of the Senate other than as sponsors 
  of measures; and the Chair enforces this principle on his own 
  initiative. Manual Sec. 374. Even complimentary or congratulatory 
  references to individual Members of the Senate are out of order. 
  Similarly, references to actions that might be taken by named Members 
  of the Senate, or Senators designated by position, are out of order. 
  The prohibition against such references to a Senator includes 
  references where the Senator is not identified by name or the 
  reference is to another person's criticism of a Senator. It also is a 
  violation of the rule to refer in debate to specific votes by 
  particular Senators, and the Chair also calls Members to order on his 
  own initiative when this occurs. Manual Sec. 371; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 44.41. A Senator's comments

[[Page 399]]

  in debate may be quoted in the House only when relevant to pending 
  legislation. Manual Sec. 945. The House has, by unanimous consent, 
  permitted tributes to a retiring Senator. Manual Sec. 371.
      References to former Members of the House who are presently 
  Senators are permissible only if they merely address prior House 
  service and do not implicitly characterize Senate service. References 
  to Members of the Senate in their capacity as nominated candidates for 
  the Presidency or other office are not prohibited, but references 
  attacking the character or integrity of a Senator even in that context 
  are not in order. Manual Sec. 371.
      Debate may not include references to a named Senator in his 
  capacity as a member of a conference committee. However, it is in 
  order in debate, while discussing a question involving conference 
  committee procedure, to state what actually occurred in a conference 
  committee session, without referring to or criticizing a named 
  Senator. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 44.10.
      In 1985, a Member was called to order for referring in debate to 
  remarks made by a Senator during a Senate committee hearing. 99-1, May 
  16, 1985, p 12229. In 1986, a Member, upon being cautioned by the 
  Chair not to refer to a Senator in debate, obtained unanimous consent 
  to refer to correspondence between the Senator and a Federal official. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 44.36. Remarks during an impeachment 
  proceeding may not include comparisons to personal conduct of sitting 
  Members of the Senate. Manual Sec. 370.

                            Duties of the Chair

      It is the duty of the Speaker to call to order a Member who 
  criticizes the actions of the Senate or its Members or committees. 
  Indeed, the Chair takes the initiative to prevent any debate in the 
  House that may tend to reflect improperly upon the Senate or its 
  Members in violation of the rule of comity and may deny an offending 
  Member further recognition. Manual Sec. Sec. 374, 945. Although he may 
  remind all Members not to make such references, he need not respond to 
  hypothetical questions as to the propriety of possible 
  characterizations of Senate actions before their use in debate. Manual 
  Sec. 628


  Sec. 24 . -- References to the Press, Media, or Gallery

                          References to the Media

      A Member should address his remarks to the Chair, and only the 
  Chair; it is not in order for a Member to address his remarks to ``the 
  press'' or to the ``television audience,'' including those who may be 
  watching by way

[[Page 400]]

  of closed circuit television. The Chair enforces the rule on his own 
  initiative. Manual Sec. 945.

                         References to the Gallery

      By rule of the House adopted in 1933, no Member may introduce or 
  refer to any occupant of the galleries of the House. Rule XVII clause 
  7; Manual Sec. 966. The rule is strictly enforced, and the Speaker 
  ordinarily intervenes on his own initiative to prevent infraction 
  thereof. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 45.4, 45.7. The rule may not 
  be suspended by permission to proceed out of order, even by unanimous 
  consent. Manual Sec. 966. The rule has been invoked to prevent a 
  Member from making references to:

     An honored guest in the gallery who had exhibited ``great 
         heroism.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 45.1.
     A Member's constituents sitting in the gallery. Deschler-Brown 
         Ch 29 Sec. 45.2.
     A Federal official present in the gallery who had an interest 
         in the pending bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 45.3.
     A ``disinterested, objective observer'' sitting in the 
         gallery. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 45.5.
     Family members present in the gallery. 99-2, July 29, 1986, p 
         17956.


  Sec. 25 . -- References to Executive Officials

      Jefferson wrote that in Parliament it was out of order to speak 
  ``irreverently or seditiously'' against the King. Manual Sec. 370. No 
  analogous constraint exists in the rules of the House. Members in 
  debate are permitted wide latitude in the use of language that is 
  critical of the President, other officials of the executive branch, 
  and the government itself. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5087-5091; 8 Cannon 
  Sec. Sec. 2499, 2500; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47. Such criticism is 
  considered as inherent in the exercise of legislative authority. As a 
  report adopted by the House in 1909 read, ``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 [them].'' 8 Cannon Sec. 2497. Members may 
  employ strong language in criticizing the government, government 
  agencies, and governmental policies. For example, it has been held in 
  order for a Member to:

     Refer to the government as ``something hated, something 
         oppressive.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.6.
     Refer to the President as ``using legislative and judicial 
         pork.'' 8 Cannon Sec. 2499.
     Refer to a Presidential message as a ``disgrace to the 
         country.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5091.

[[Page 401]]

     Refer to certain unnamed officials as ``our half-baked nitwits 
         who are handling the foreign affairs. . . .'' Deschler-Brown Ch 
         29 Sec. 47.3.
     Refer to a Federal agency as a ``Socialist, Communist'' 
         experiment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.4.
     Refer to the government as a ``labor dictatorship.'' Deschler-
         Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.5.

      On the other hand, the rules do not permit the use of language 
  that is personally offensive toward the President. Manual Sec. 370; 5 
  Hinds Sec. 5094. For example, it is out of order to call the President 
  a ``liar'' or a ``hypocrite'' or to refer to accusations of sexual 
  misconduct. Manual Sec. 370; 8 Cannon Sec. 2498; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 47.16. A Member may refer to political motives of the President 
  in debate. However, personal criticism, innuendo, ridicule, or terms 
  of opprobrium are not in order. 8 Cannon Sec. 2497. For example, a 
  Member may not in debate describe the President's veto of a bill as 
  ``cowardly'' (Manual Sec. 370), or charge that he has been 
  ``intellectually dishonest'' (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.15) or 
  refer to him as ``giving aid and comfort'' to the enemy (Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.17).
      Members must abstain from personally offensive language even 
  during impeachment proceedings. It is not in order to refer to 
  evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by the President contained in 
  a communication from an Independent Counsel pending before a House 
  committee but not before the House itself. Manual Sec. 370.
      The Speaker has advised that the traditional protections against 
  unparliamentary references to the President do not necessarily extend 
  to the President's family. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.18. 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 his capacity as a candidate. Manual Sec. 370.
      References in debate to the Vice President (as President of the 
  Senate) are governed by the standards of reference permitted toward 
  the President, rather than the more stringent prohibitions under rule 
  XVII clause 1 against references to sitting Senators. Therefore, a 
  Member may criticize in debate the policies or candidacy of the Vice 
  President but may not engage in personality. Manual Sec. 371.
      Under rule XVII a Member may be called to order for alleged 
  unparliamentary references to the President by a demand that the words 
  be taken down for a ruling by the Speaker. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 49.32.

[[Page 402]]

  Sec. 26 . Procedure; Calls to Order

                               In the House

      Procedures are available under rule XVII that enable the House to 
  deal with disorderly words or actions by Members. A Member 
  transgressing the rules may be called to order by the Speaker or by 
  another Member. Manual Sec. 960. The Member calling him to order may 
  demand that the words objected to be ``taken down'' and read to the 
  House by the Clerk. Manual Sec. 960.
      Briefly summarized, procedures available to deal with disorder 
  include:

     Point of order raised against alleged unparliamentary 
         language.
     Demand that words be ``taken down.''
     The Chair gavels the proceedings to a halt and directs the 
         offending Member to take his seat.
     Words taken down reported to the House by the Clerk.
     Unanimous-consent request to withdraw words taken down.
     Motion to allow Member to explain words taken down.
     Speaker rules whether words are out of order.
     Member ruled out of order must be seated and discontinue 
         debate.
     Motion to strike (or expunge) words.
     Censure or other disciplinary action by the House if (with 
         certain exceptions) there has been no intervening debate or 
         business.
     Motion that the Member be allowed to proceed in order.

      Not all cases involving disorderly words require the taking down 
  of words and other formal action by the House. In many instances, the 
  Chair will observe that debate is becoming personal and approaching a 
  violation of the rules, in which case he may simply request that 
  Members proceed in order. See, e.g., Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 48.1. 
  The Chair also may caution all Members, on his own initiative or in 
  response to a parliamentary inquiry, not to question the integrity or 
  motivation of other Members in debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 49.36. Likewise, where a Member objects to unparliamentary 
  remarks delivered in debate, but does not demand that the words be 
  taken down, it is appropriate for the Chair to sustain the point of 
  order and then direct the Member to proceed in order. Deschler-Brown 
  Ch 29 Sec. 49.34.

                                   Form

      Chair: For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
      Member: Mr. Speaker (or Mr. Chairman), I rise to a point of order.
      Chair: The gentleman will state his point of order.
      Member: Mr. Speaker (or Mr. Chairman), I make the point of order 
    that the gentleman from __________ is __________.

[[Page 403]]

      Chair: The point is well taken and the gentleman will proceed in 
    order.

      Ordinarily, a question of personal privilege may not be based upon 
  language uttered in debate, the proper course being the timely demand 
  that words be taken down under rule XVII. Manual Sec. 708.


  Sec. 27 . -- Procedure in the Committee of the Whole

      A point of order may be raised against the use of disorderly 
  language during debate in the Committee of the Whole. The Chairman of 
  the Committee may respond by sustaining the point of order and 
  admonishing the offending Member to proceed in order. Deschler-Brown 
  Ch 29 Sec. 49.34.
      The use of disorderly language in the Committee of the Whole also 
  is subject to a demand that the words be taken down and reported to 
  the House for a ruling by the Speaker. 8 Cannon Sec. 2539. The 
  Chairman does not rule on whether the words taken down are out of 
  order. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2533, 2540. There is no debate in the 
  Committee on the propriety of the words used. 8 Cannon Sec. 2538. The 
  Committee rises automatically to report the words to the House after 
  the words are reported by the Clerk. 2 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1257-1259, 
  1348; 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2533, 2538, 2539. The business of the 
  Committee is suspended until the words objected to are reported to the 
  House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 49.42.

                                   Form

      Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole House [on the 
    state of the Union] having under consideration the bill H.R. ____, 
    certain words used in debate were objected to and on request were 
    taken down and read at the Clerk's desk, and I herewith report the 
    same to the House.
      Speaker (after announcing report of Chairman): The Clerk will read 
    the words reported from the committee.

      All of the words objected to in the Committee of the Whole should 
  be reported to the House. The Speaker can pass only on the words as 
  reported; a demand that additional words uttered in Committee be 
  reported is not in order in the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 50.10.
      After the Speaker rules on the words objected to and the House has 
  disposed of any disciplinary proceedings, the Committee of the Whole 
  resumes its sitting without motion. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2539, 2541; 
  Manual Sec. 961.


  Sec. 28 . -- Taking Down Words

      The taking down of words objected to in debate was a practice of 
  the House even before the procedure became part of its formal rules in 
  1837. Rule XVII clause 4; Manual Sec. 960. The words taken down may 
  consist of

[[Page 404]]

  a single phrase (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.3) or an entire colloquy 
  between two Members (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 49.13). The demand 
  should indicate the words excepted to and the identity of the Member 
  who uttered them. Manual Sec. 960. The objecting Member may indicate 
  briefly the basis for his demand, such as impugning the motives of a 
  colleague; but the objecting Member may not at that time debate the 
  grounds for a finding that the words are disorderly. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 49.18.
      Ordinarily, debate on or interpretation of the words objected to 
  is not in order pending a ruling on them by the Speaker. Although 
  words objected to in debate may be withdrawn pursuant to a unanimous-
  consent request, no debate is in order pending such a request. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 49.20. However, the offending Member may by 
  unanimous consent (or on motion by another Member) be permitted to 
  explain his words. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 52.16; Sec. 30, infra.
      While a demand that a Member's words be taken down is pending, 
  that Member should be seated immediately. Manual Sec. 961. It is a 
  breach of decorum for a Member to ignore the Chair's gavel and his 
  instruction that the Member be seated. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 41.2.
      The business of the House is suspended until the words are 
  reported to the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 49.32. During that 
  time the Speaker may refuse to entertain a parliamentary inquiry or a 
  unanimous-consent request that a Member be allowed to proceed for one 
  minute. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 49.14, 49.15.

                                   Form

      Member: Mr. Speaker (or Mr. Chairman), I rise to a point of order, 
    and ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.
      Chair: The Clerk will transcribe the words.
      Chair: The Clerk will report the words.

                           Timeliness of Demand

      A demand that words be taken down is in order only if made in a 
  timely manner under rule XVII. Manual Sec. 960. The demand should be 
  made immediately after the words are uttered. Where debate has 
  intervened, the demand comes too late unless the objecting Member was 
  on his feet seeking recognition at the proper time. The Chair's 
  determination whether a Member's point of order constitutes a demand 
  that those words be ``taken down,'' is not such intervening debate or 
  business as to render the demand untimely. Manual Sec. 961; 8 Cannon 
  Sec. 2528. The Chair may not respond to a parliamentary inquiry 
  regarding the propriety of words pending a demand that words be taken 
  down or after the words have been uttered and no such demand has been 
  made. Manual Sec. 628.

[[Page 405]]

                    Taking Down Words Read From Papers

      Papers read during debate are subject to a timely demand that 
  words be ``taken down'' as an unparliamentary reference to other 
  sitting Members, but the demand must be made before subsequent reading 
  intervenes. That certain words may already have been published 
  elsewhere does not make them admissible in debate, and words not 
  admissible in debate may not be inserted in the Congressional Record. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 83.6.

                           Withdrawal of Demand

      Before a ruling by the Speaker, a demand in the House or in the 
  Committee of the Whole that words be taken down may be withdrawn by 
  the Member making the demand, and unanimous consent is not required. 
  Manual Sec. 961.


  Sec. 29 . -- Withdrawal or Modification of Words

                          Generally; In the House

      Words objected to in debate in the House may be withdrawn or 
  modified by unanimous consent, even after the words have been taken 
  down on demand and read by the Clerk. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2543, 2544; 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 51.1, 51.2.
      Pending a demand that words spoken in debate be taken down and 
  ruled unparliamentary, the Chair may inquire whether the Member whose 
  remarks are challenged wishes to request unanimous consent to modify 
  his remarks before directing the Clerk to read them. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 51.11. However, the withdrawal of unparliamentary language may 
  be made even after the Speaker has ruled the language out of order or 
  even recognized another Member on a motion to strike the words from 
  the Congressional Record. 8 Cannon Sec. 2539.
      The Speaker does not rule retrospectively on the propriety of 
  words withdrawn by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 628.

                       In the Committee of the Whole

      A Member may withdraw or modify words objected to in the Committee 
  of the Whole by unanimous consent. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2528, 2538. In 
  one instance, two Members demanded that each other's words be taken 
  down and then, by unanimous consent, withdrew their remarks in the 
  Committee before they were reported to the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 51.5.

                         Deletions From the Record

      Rule XVII clause 8 mandates that the Congressional Record be a 
  ``substantially verbatim'' account of debate and permits the deletion 
  of unparlia

[[Page 406]]

  mentary remarks only by order of the House. This clause establishes a 
  standard of conduct within the meaning of that provision of the rules 
  giving rise to the investigative jurisdiction of the Committee on 
  Standards of Official Conduct.


  Sec. 30 . -- Permission to Explain

      Ordinarily, a Member whose words are taken down must take his seat 
  and may not explain his remarks pending a ruling by the Speaker. 
  Manual Sec. 961. However, the rules specifically provide for a motion 
  to allow the Member to explain, which motion may be made only by 
  another Member. Rule XVII clause 4; Manual Sec. 960. Moreover, the 
  Speaker has the discretion, before ruling on the words, to request the 
  Member called to order to make a brief explanation of his remarks. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 52.16.


  Sec. 31 . -- Speaker's Ruling

      The Speaker (or Speaker pro tempore) has the sole power to rule 
  whether words objected to constitute a breach of order in debate. 
  Manual Sec. Sec. 960, 961; 2 Hinds Sec. 1249; 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5163-
  5169. This determination is made by the Speaker after the words have 
  been taken down (whether in the House or in the Committee of the 
  Whole) and have been reported by the Clerk. The question of whether 
  words taken down violate the rules is for the Speaker to decide and is 
  not debatable. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 50.7. The Chair judges the 
  words as read by the Clerk and not as alleged to have been uttered. 
  Manual Sec. 961. No Member may engage the Chair until the demand has 
  been disposed of. Manual Sec. 961.
      The Speaker's ruling on a question of order has been appealed in 
  the House in numerous instances, the Speaker generally being 
  sustained. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5157, 5173, 5178, 5194, 5196, 5198, 5199. 
  Such an appeal is subject to the motion to table. Manual Sec. 629. 
  Also, the House may, by voting on a proper motion, dictate the 
  consequences of that ruling by imposing disciplinary action or by 
  allowing the Member to proceed in order.
      The Speaker, in ruling on the words objected to, weighs the 
  importance of freedom in debate against the need to maintain the order 
  and dignity of the House. 5 Hinds Sec. 5163. The Speaker considers the 
  meaning of the words as well as the context in which they were used. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 50.6. Pending his ruling, the Speaker may 
  recognize the Member who made the statement to ask unanimous consent 
  to withdraw or modify the words. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 51.1, 
  51.2. He also may put questions to the offending Member about the 
  words and may consult dictionaries to de

[[Page 407]]

  termine the meaning of certain words or terms. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. Sec. 50.3, 50.4.


  Sec. 32 . -- Discipline; Post-Ruling Motions

                                 Generally

      Censure or other disciplinary action is a matter for the House and 
  not the Chair to decide. Manual Sec. 961. However, no House action is 
  in order until the Chair has ruled on the words objected to. Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.21. If the words used are ruled to be 
  unparliamentary, and if such words have not been withdrawn, the House 
  may entertain certain motions enabling it to dispose of the breach of 
  order.

                      Striking Words From the Record

      Under modern practice, words ruled out of order are normally 
  stricken from the Congressional Record by unanimous consent initiated 
  by the Chair. Manual Sec. 961. If there is an objection, a motion to 
  strike or expunge the words from the Record is in order. 8 Cannon 
  Sec. Sec. 2538, 2539; Manual Sec. 960. A motion to expunge is in order 
  even though the House by vote has authorized the Member to proceed. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.23. The motion, which is debatable within 
  narrow limits under the hour rule, is not in order until the Chair has 
  decided that the words are out of order. Manual Sec. 961; Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.21. The motion is not in order in the Committee of 
  the Whole. Manual Sec. 961.

                            Proceeding In Order

      After a Member's words have been ruled out of order, the Member 
  may be permitted to proceed in order on that same day either by 
  unanimous consent or by motion. Manual Sec. 961. It is the practice to 
  test the opinion of the House by a motion ``that the gentleman be 
  allowed to proceed in order.'' 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5188, 5189; 8 Cannon 
  Sec. 2534. This motion may be stated on the initiative of the Chair. 
  It is debatable within narrow limits of relevance under the hour rule, 
  and is subject to the motion to lay on the table. Manual Sec. 961. The 
  motion is privileged for consideration in the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 51.22. A motion to strike the objectionable words also 
  generally precedes a proposition to permit a Member to proceed in 
  order. See, e.g., Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 52.7.
      If a Member is not granted permission to proceed on that same day, 
  the Member cannot speak even on yielded time and may not insert 
  unspoken remarks in the Congressional Record. Manual Sec. 961; 5 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 5147, 5196-5199. However, the Member may exercise his right 
  to vote or to demand the yeas and nays. 8 Cannon Sec. 2546. Whether 
  the Member is to be

[[Page 408]]

  allowed to proceed in order or is to be subjected to censure or other 
  disciplinary measure is for the House to determine. Manual Sec. 960.


        E. Critical References to the House, Committees, or Members


  Sec. 33 . In General; Criticism of the House

                                 Generally

      In early Congresses it was held not in order to ``cast 
  reflections'' on the House or its membership, present or past. 5 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 5132-5138. Today, in the interests of free and full debate 
  in conducting legislative deliberations, Members are permitted to 
  voice critical opinions of Congress, of the House, and of the 
  political parties. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 53. Statements that are 
  critical of Congress or a portion of its membership will not be ruled 
  out of order for that reason alone. Thus, a statement in debate 
  claiming that the campaign expenses of Members were paid by certain 
  interest groups has been held to be in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 53.1.
      However, such criticism is subject to the rules and settled 
  practices of the House that require courtesy and decorum in debate. 
  Jefferson's Manual states that no one is permitted to use ``indecent 
  language'' in referring to the proceedings of the House. Manual 
  Sec. 360. The language used must not be offensive in itself. 5 Hinds 
  Sec. 5135. The words must be stated in such a way as to avoid personal 
  criticism of an individual Member. Sec. 37, infra.

                              Ruled In Order

      Following are precedents in which criticism in debate was held 
  parliamentary or in order as not referring to any particular Member:

     A question whether it was a parliamentary inquiry to ask that 
         a bill be printed in ``words of one syllable so that [Members 
         of the opposing party] can understand it.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 
         29 Sec. 53.4.
     A statement that a Member was leading his party in a policy of 
         opportunism. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 53.5.
     A statement referring to ``irresponsible actions by members of 
         the President's own party.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 53.2.
     ``[Y]ou have your definition of consistency. My definition is 
         that consistency is a virtue of small minds.'' Deschler-Brown 
         Ch 29 Sec. 62.2.
     A reference to Members as having praised a foreign dictator in 
         prior debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 60.10.
     Words characterizing unnamed Members as taking ``potshots'' 
         and as lacking judgment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.16.

[[Page 409]]

     A reference to the consideration of a bill under procedures 
         representing ``a classic example of duplicity.'' 100-2, Apr. 
         19, 1988, pp 7330, 7335-39.

                            Ruled Out of Order

      Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held 
  unparliamentary:

     ``Talk not to me of vindicating your insulted dignity. . . . 
         You have no dignity to vindicate.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5132.
     ``[T]he proceedings of the House had been such as not only to 
         degrade it as a body, but also to degrade the country.'' 5 
         Hinds Sec. 5133.
     A statement declaring the opinions and decisions of the House 
         ``damnable heresies.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5135.
     A reference to ``[T]he right of the minority to stay 
         indefinitely the right of majority to legislate is as 
         disgraceful, as dishonorable. . . .'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5136.
     ``Drunken Members have reeled about the aisles--a disgrace to 
         the Republic. Drunken speakers have debated grave issues on the 
         floor. . . .'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5186.
     A statement alleging that the Republican Conference believed 
         that lynching was a ``proper means of justice.'' Deschler-Brown 
         Ch 29 Sec. 53.3.

      To show the distinction between words that are permissible and 
  language that may be ruled out, illustrations in this chapter are 
  drawn from debates from earlier as well as recent Congresses. However, 
  precedents from earlier eras must be evaluated in their historical and 
  cultural context; whether a word or expression is to be ruled out of 
  order depends on its current meaning and usage. See Sec. 38, infra.


  Sec. 34 . Criticism of Committees

      A Member in debate may express general criticism of the actions of 
  a committee, as by alleging an abuse of its powers. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 54.1. Criticisms of committee procedure are also permitted. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.6. However, a Member may not in debate 
  impugn the personal motives of a committee or its members or make 
  unparliamentary claims of unlawful activity. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. Sec. 54.2, 54.3. Debate may not include critical 
  characterizations of members of the Committee on Standards of Official 
  Conduct who have investigated a Member's conduct. Manual Sec. 361.

[[Page 410]]

                              Ruled In Order

      Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held 
  parliamentary:

     A reference to the action of a committee as ``more or less 
         pusillanimous.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.7.
     An editorial read by a Member charging a committee with 
         ``pigeon-holing'' certain legislation. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 54.6.
     ``Did the gentleman's committee also find paid agents of 
         Hitler on the congressional payroll?'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 54.12.
     A reference to a committee investigation of ``the recent wave 
         of policy lynch murder in Mississippi.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 54.9.
     A statement that a Member ``has been the victim of the 
         abusive, vicious, and irresponsible use of the power of a 
         congressional committee.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.1.

                            Ruled Out of Order

      Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held 
  unparliamentary:

     A statement that certain fascist organizations exercised 
         extensive influence on a special House committee. Deschler-
         Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.3.
     Language referring to ``lies and half-truths'' of a House 
         committee report. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.4.
     ``I cannot respect the actions or even the sincerity of some 
         of the committee members.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.5.
     A reference to the Committee on Un-American Activities as 
         ``the Un-American Committee.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.11.


  Sec. 35 . Criticism of Speaker

      The prescription of rule XVII clause 1 that Members confine 
  themselves to the question under debate, ``avoiding personality,'' has 
  been applied to critical references to the Speaker's personal conduct. 
  Manual Sec. 362. It is not in order in debate to refer invidiously to 
  the Speaker. 8 Cannon Sec. 2531. It also is not in order to speak 
  disrespectfully of him. 2 Hinds Sec. 1248. For example, it has been 
  held out of order to assert that he is ``kowtowing'' to persons who 
  would desecrate the U.S. flag or to refer to him as a ``crybaby.'' 
  Manual Sec. 362. It is not in order in debate to refer in a personally 
  critical manner to his political tactics or to arraign his personal 
  conduct. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 57. Any complaint as to the conduct 
  of the Speaker should be presented directly for the action of the 
  House and not by way of debate on other matters, such as the approval 
  of the Journal. Manual Sec. 362; 5 Hinds Sec. 5188. Personal 
  criticisms of the Speaker can be

[[Page 411]]

  challenged even after debate has intervened. 2 Hinds Sec. 1248; 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 57.7.
      It is not in order in debate for a Member to charge that the 
  Speaker, while presiding, committed a dishonest act or that the 
  Speaker repudiated and ignored the rules of the House. Deschler-Brown 
  Ch 29 Sec. 57.2. In one instance, however, an assertion of a personal 
  belief that a sufficient number had been standing to demand a recorded 
  vote was held parliamentary as not necessarily charging the Chair with 
  disregard of the rules, in the context of those words alone. Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 57.4. It is not in order to refer to official conduct 
  of the Speaker that is either under investigation or has been resolved 
  by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or by the House. 
  Manual Sec. 362.
      If words impugning the Speaker are uttered, the Speaker may choose 
  not to rule on the words himself but to appoint a Member to occupy the 
  Chair and deliver a decision. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 57.1.


  Sec. 36 . Criticism of Legislative Actions or Proposals

                                 Generally

      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. Manual Sec. 363. 
  Statements in debate, although critical of House action or of the 
  legislation at issue, may be ruled in order if they do not improperly 
  reflect on the House or a particular Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 58.4. Harsh words may be used to criticize a bill unless they 
  fail to ``avoid personality'' as mandated by rule XVII. Deschler-Brown 
  Ch 29 Sec. 58.1. For example, although it may be appropriate in debate 
  to characterize the effect of an amendment as deceptive or 
  hypocritical, to characterize the motivation of a Member in offering 
  an amendment with those terms is not in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 58.12. A statement in debate that ``it is only demagoguery or 
  racism which impel such an amendment'' was held by the Speaker to be 
  unparliamentary as impugning the motives of the Member offering the 
  amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.6.

[[Page 412]]

                              Ruled In Order

      Criticisms of legislative actions or proposals or political 
  motivations that have been held in order in debate include:

     A statement that ``sinister influences'' were working in the 
         interest of certain unnamed Members opposing a bill. Deschler-
         Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.9.
     A statement accusing unnamed colleagues who opposed a measure 
         of talking ``loosely and recklessly with the truth.'' Deschler-
         Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.8.
     A statement accusing unnamed Members of attempting to ``cut 
         off debate'' on important legislation in order to attend an 
         engagement at a hotel. 78-2, Feb. 3, 1944, p 1216.
     A statement that all lawyers know ``that the adoption of this 
         language neither adds to nor takes from a single item of the 
         substance of this bill.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.3.
     A reference accusing unnamed opponents of a proposal of 
         ``blind,'' ``slavish,'' and ``shameful'' opposition. Deschler-
         Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.7.
     A reference to an amendment ``where I come from . . . the 
         people . . . do not like slippery, snide, and sharp 
         practices.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.5.
     A statement referring to a tactic of ``withholding'' votes 
         until it could be determined whether they would be necessary on 
         the pending question. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.10.
     A statement that a Member ``has already admitted his amendment 
         does not make sense, and he will take any alternative that is 
         offered.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 58.4.


  Sec. 37 . Critical References to Members

      Jefferson stressed the importance of preserving ``order, decency 
  and regularity . . . in a dignified public body.'' Manual Sec. 285. 
  The House rules provide that a Member must confine himself to the 
  question under debate, ``avoiding personality.'' Rule XVII. The Chair 
  may interrupt a Member engaging in ``personalities'' with respect to a 
  fellow Member just as he would with respect to improper references to 
  the Senate or the President. However, under modern practice the Chair 
  normally awaits a point of order from the floor with respect to 
  references to other Members. Manual Sec. 961. The Chair may announce 
  his intention to take the initiative in calling Members to order 
  during debate on disciplinary resolutions. Manual Sec. 361.
      The Speaker will hold language unparliamentary where it improperly 
  reflects on another Member under rule XVII. Manual Sec. 361. A Member 
  may not in debate impugn the personal motives of another Member 
  (Sec. 39, infra), charge him with falsehood or deception (Sec. 40, 
  infra), or denigrate his intelligence (Sec. 41, infra). It also is not 
  in order in debate to refer in a personally

[[Page 413]]

  critical manner to the political tactics of a Member. Manual Sec. 361. 
  The truth of allegations involving unethical behavior of a Member is 
  not a defense to a point of order that the remarks are unparliamentary 
  as engaging in personalities explicitly or by innuendo. 104-1, Jan. 
  18, 1995, p 1444. On the other hand, it is recognized that free and 
  full debate is necessary in conducting legislative business, and a 
  Member is allowed considerable latitude in criticizing the position, 
  arguments, or contentions of another Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 59.2; Sec. 36, supra.
      It is not in order during debate to refer to a particular Member 
  of the House in a derogatory fashion, even though that Member is not 
  named, and the Chair may intervene to prevent improper reference where 
  it is evident that a particular Member is being described. Manual 
  Sec. 361. In one instance, after a Member had expressed an absence of 
  ``good faith on the other side,'' he was granted unanimous consent to 
  withdraw any reference to any individual Member. 100-1, June 18, 1987, 
  pp 16761-63.
      Members should refrain from references in debate to the official 
  conduct of other Members where such conduct is not under consideration 
  in the House by way of a report of the Committee on Standards of 
  Official Conduct or as a question of the privileges of the House. 
  Manual Sec. 361.
      The rule requiring Members to avoid ``personality'' during debate 
  prohibits reference to newspaper accounts whose criticism of a sitting 
  Member would be unparliamentary if uttered on the floor as the 
  Member's own words. Manual Sec. 361.
      It is not unparliamentary to describe in debate the effect that a 
  Member's remarks may have, especially where that description includes 
  a disclaimer disavowing any intention to impugn a Member's motives. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.8.

                              Ruled In Order

      Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held 
  parliamentary:

     A statement that if a certain Member were to sponsor a measure 
         it would receive only one or two votes. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 58.2.
     A reference to another Member's remarks as ``yapping.'' 
         Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.13.
     A statement accusing a Member of trying ``to becloud'' an 
         issue. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.1.
     A reference in debate to another Member as not representing a 
         certain class of people in his State. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 60.7.
     A reference to another Member's statement as ``intemperate.'' 
         Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.5.

[[Page 414]]

     A description of a Member's statement that ``this is an 
         example of the spurious reasoning that [an interest group] has 
         with regard to their opposition to this bill.'' Deschler-Brown 
         Ch 29 Sec. 43.2.
     A Member's statement that another Member's demand that words 
         be taken down during a special-order speech was ``an unfair 
         stealing of time.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.10.
     A Member's assertion that ``even though that may not be the 
         intention, I think [certain statements] have the tendency to 
         try to assassinate the character of the person making the 
         statement rather than to effectively assassinate the 
         argument.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.8.
     A Member's general reference that ``big donors'' receive 
         ``access to leadership power and decisions'' because it does 
         not identify a specific Member as receiving a contribution 
         specifically in exchange for votes or other legislative action. 
         Manual Sec. 361.

                            Ruled Out of Order

      Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held 
  unparliamentary:

     A reference to the remarks of another Member as ``malignant 
         shafts'' or as a ``base insinuation.'' 5 Hinds Sec. 5162.
     A reference to another Member as a ``snooper.'' Deschler-Brown 
         Ch 29 Sec. 61.11.
     ``The gentleman took the floor in his self-appointed role as 
         spokesman for the committee [and] referred to me in my absence 
         in a disgraceful and unparliamentary manner.'' Deschler-Brown 
         Ch 29 Sec. 59.3.
     Referring to another Member as a demagogue or as a ``president 
         of the Demagogue Club.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 60.3, 
         60.4.
     ``[D]on't you start comparing anybody's record, because I have 
         got yours . . . with . . . the FBI.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 60.24.
     A reference to another Member as a ``pinko.'' Deschler-Brown 
         Ch 29 Sec. 61.9.
     A reference to an identifiable group of sitting Members as the 
         perpetrators of a crime, such as ``stealing an election.'' 
         Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 60.22.
     A reference suggesting that another Member ``did not have the 
         nerve'' to make a statement on the floor. 104-2, July 25, 1996, 
         p 19170.


  Sec. 38 . -- Use of Colloquialisms; Sarcasm

      The Members are allowed considerable latitude in the use of 
  colloquialisms, euphemisms, figures of speech, and even sarcastic 
  comments in debate. A statement in debate that ``you are going to skin 
  us'' was held merely a colloquialism that did not reflect on any 
  Member and was held in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.10. In 
  another instance, a Member used the word ``crime'' in referring to 
  another Member, but the Chair ruled the term

[[Page 415]]

  in order, finding that in the context of the debate, the term was 
  being used as a synonym for, or figure of, speech meaning ``wrong.'' 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.2. A statement in debate ``[h]ere is the 
  answer, if the gentleman can understand English'' also was held in 
  order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 64.1.
      The use in debate of colloquial expressions, figures of speech, or 
  sarcasm is governed by their current meaning and by the context in 
  which they are uttered. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5165, 5167. An 
  unparliamentary reference to another Member in debate is subject to a 
  point of order, even if it is veiled as a satiric compliment. 5 Hinds 
  Sec. 5168. The tone and mannerisms of a Member may be taken into 
  account by the Chair in determining whether the criticism voiced is 
  personally offensive to another Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 60.21.

                            Ruled Out of Order

      Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held 
  unparliamentary:

     A reference to another Member ``whose name is synonomous [sic] 
         with falsehood . . . who is the apologist of thieves; who is 
         such a prodigy of vice and meannesses that to describe him 
         would sicken imagination and exhaust invective.'' 2 Hinds 
         Sec. 1251.
     ``[N]obody but a gambler or cutthroat would have thought of 
         tacking such a thing as that to such a bill as this.'' 2 Hinds 
         Sec. 1258.
     ``The devotion of the gentleman . . . to the truth is so 
         notorious that I shall not reply.'' 8 Cannon Sec. 2545.
     A reference to another Member as a ``stool pigeon.'' Deschler-
         Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.12.
     References to a Member as having a ``hand like a ham,'' 
         grasping a microphone until it ``groaned from mad torture,'' 
         and striding the House floor ``like a wild man.'' Deschler-
         Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.1.
     A reference to another Member's proceeding in a ``cheap, 
         sneaky, sly way.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 61.2.


  Sec. 39 . -- Impugning Motives

      In the early practice of the House, the Speaker intervened in 
  debate to prevent even the mildest imputation on the motives of a 
  Member. 5 Hinds Sec. 5161. It is still the rule that Members may not 
  in debate impugn the personal motives of other named Members in the 
  performance of their legislative duties. Manual Sec. 363. An opinion 
  on the general motives of the House or a political party in adopting 
  or rejecting a proposition may be expressed. Sec. 36, supra. 
  References to political motivation for legislative actions may be in 
  order. Manual Sec. 363. However, an assertion that a Member's use of 
  the

[[Page 416]]

  legislative process is motivated by personal gain (5 Hinds Sec. 5149) 
  or by ``the prospect of a junketing trip'' (8 Cannon Sec. 2546) is not 
  in order. Merely to question the sincerity of a Member has been held 
  to impugn his motives. 5 Hinds Sec. 5148.
      Members should refrain from references in debate to the 
  motivations of Members who file complaints before the Committee on 
  Standards of Official Conduct. Manual Sec. 363.

                            Ruled Out of Order

     Charging another Member, in his capacity as custodian of 
         certain public money, with ``[m]aking a parade of his charity, 
         he has been gorging himself and speculating with this money.'' 
         5 Hinds Sec. 5152.
     Characterizing the motivation of a Member in offering an 
         amendment as deceptive and hypocritical. Manual Sec. 363.
     An observation that a Member stood in the well before an empty 
         House and challenged the Americanism of other Members, ``and it 
         is the lowest thing that I have ever seen in my 32 years in 
         Congress.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 59.9.
     An observation that a Member was ``one of the most impolite I 
         have ever seen.'' Manual Sec. 361.
     Characterizing another Member as ``speaking out of both sides 
         of his mouth.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 51.36.
     A reference to an identifiable group of sitting Members as the 
         perpetrators of a crime, such as ``stealing an election.'' 
         Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 60.22.


  Sec. 40 . -- Charging Falsehood or Deception

      During debate on the floor, an assertion by one Member may be 
  declared untrue by another. However, in so doing, an accusation of 
  intentional misrepresentation must not be implied. Manual Sec. 363; 5 
  Hinds Sec. Sec. 5157, 5159, 5189; 8 Cannon Sec. 2542. Any term or 
  language implying a deliberate misstatement of the truth, for whatever 
  motive, is unparliamentary, including allegations of lying, slander, 
  or hypocrisy. A Member's expression of disbelief may be construed as 
  meaning that the Member referred to was merely mistaken in his 
  conclusions. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.3. In one instance, a 
  Member's statement in referring to another Member that ``That is not 
  true, and he knows it,'' was held in order, the Speaker observing that 
  the words were not uttered in an offensive tone. 5 Hinds Sec. 5158.
      A Member may refer to falsehoods in the media without violating 
  the rules of the House, even though his remarks are made during debate 
  with another Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.2.

[[Page 417]]

                              Ruled In Order

      Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held 
  parliamentary:

     A Member's statement that he did ``not believe a word that 
         [another Member] said.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.3.
     A statement referring to another Member ``when he comes here 
         to defend some slime-monger who goes on the radio and lies 
         about me. . . .'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.2.
     ``Let us be sincere and honest about this thing.'' 78-2, Jan. 
         21, 1944, p 560.

                            Ruled Out of Order

      Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held 
  unparliamentary:

     A Member's declaration that the words of another Member were 
         ``a base lie.'' 2 Hinds Sec. 1249.
     The use of the words ``grossly false,'' as applied to 
         statements made by another Member in a pamphlet published by 
         him during a recess of Congress. 5 Hinds Sec. 5157.
    ``I cannot believe that the gentleman . . . is sincere in what 
         he has just said.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.7.
     A statement that the remarks of a Member were ``false and 
         slanderous.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.4.
     A statement in referring to another Member that ``pretexts are 
         never wanting when hypocrisy wishes to add malice to falsehood 
         or cowardice. . . .'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 63.6.
     ``I cannot respect the actions or even the sincerity of some 
         of the committee members.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 54.5.
     Language read in the House that repudiated ``lies and half-
         truths'' in a House committee report. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 63.5.
     Use of the word ``canard''--meaning falsehood--in referring to 
         the statement of another Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 63.1.
     Words accusing another Member of hypocrisy. Manual Sec. 363.


  Sec. 41 . -- Lack of Intelligence or Knowledge

      A Member in debate may be critical of the understanding or 
  knowledge of other Members or groups of Members in relation to pending 
  bills or amendments. However, such remarks should not denigrate the 
  intelligence of another Member because this would be personally 
  critical and offensive. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 64. The Speaker has 
  ruled that questioning a Member's ability to ``understand English'' 
  was not unparliamentary. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 64.1.

[[Page 418]]

  Sec. 42 . -- References to Race, Creed, or Racial Prejudice

      Gratuitous references in debate to the race or religion of another 
  Member are not in order. A reference to ``the Jewish gentleman from 
  New York,'' for example, has been ruled out by the Speaker. Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 65.4.
      It is not in order in debate to accuse a Member of bigotry or 
  racism. Remarks characterizing the motives behind certain legislation 
  as ``demagogic and racist'' have been ruled out of order, as has a 
  reference to another Member as having reached ``bigoted'' conclusions. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 65.5, 65.6.


  Sec. 43 . -- Charges Relating to Loyalty or Patriotism

      Unless the subject is relevant to disciplinary proceedings then 
  pending as the question before the House against a Member, remarks in 
  debate impugning the patriotism or loyalty of a Member are not in 
  order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66. Words impeaching the loyalty of a 
  portion of the membership also have been ruled out. 5 Hinds Sec. 5139. 
  However, if such language is directed at the House or at its 
  membership in general, the remarks may not be improper. See Sec. 33, 
  supra.

                              Ruled In Order

      Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held 
  parliamentary:

     A statement referring to all opponents of the Committee on Un-
         American Activities as communist enemies. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 66.2.
     A statement that another Member had been published in a 
         newspaper ``dedicated to the destruction of this Government.'' 
         Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.10.
     A statement referring to (unnamed) Members who give ``aid and 
         comfort'' to enemies and traitors. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 66.3.
     A statement referring to ``people'' who would rip down the 
         American flag and replace it with the Soviet flag. Deschler-
         Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.5.
     A statement characterizing the Committee of the Whole as an 
         agency of the Soviet Union. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.11.
     A statement accusing another Member of past opposition to 
         ``every bill necessary for the defense of our country.'' 
         Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 62.5.

[[Page 419]]

                            Ruled Out of Order

      Following are examples in which remarks in debate were held 
  unparliamentary:

     A statement that insertions in the Congressional Record by 
         another Member were taken from ``Nazi elements.'' Deschler-
         Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.6.
     A statement by a Member that internal fascist organizations 
         exercised extensive influence over a special House committee. 
         Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.7.
     A statement, in response to critical comments by another 
         Member, that ``I am not going to sit here and listen to these 
         communistic attacks made on me.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 66.1.
     ``There is nothing more subversive than the kind of red 
         baiting tactics [of] the gentleman from __________.'' Deschler-
         Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.8.
     A statement referring to another Member as attempting to 
         undermine the government. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.9.
     A reference to the Committee on Un-American Activities as 
         ``the Un-American Committee.'' Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.12.
     A reference to certain Members as ``apostles of doom'' whose 
         utterances would give ``great aid and comfort'' to the Soviet 
         Union. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 66.4.
     A reference to another Member as ``kowtowing'' to persons who 
         would desecrate the flag. Manual Sec. 362.


                      F. Duration of Debate in House


  Sec. 44 . In General

                      Limitations on Time for Debate

      Before 1841, there was no limit on the time that a Member might 
  occupy once in possession of the floor. 5 Hinds Sec. 5221. Under the 
  modern practice, the duration of debate in the House is invariably 
  limited. Such limitations are imposed pursuant to the standing rules 
  of the House, special rules from the Committee on Rules, and 
  unanimous-consent agreements adopted by the House. Certain types of 
  legislative propositions, such as concurrent resolutions on the 
  budget, are subject to statutory time limitations. Sec. 48, infra.
      On major bills, a special rule typically specifies the length of 
  time for general debate--usually a number of hours--and identifies the 
  Members who are to control that time. Sec. 48, infra. Such time limits 
  also may be imposed pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 67. If a bill or resolution comes to the 
  House floor without such a time limit, rule XVII clause 2 applies to 
  limit the time for debate to one hour.

[[Page 420]]

   Manual Sec. 957. A Member calling up a measure in the House pursuant 
  to a unanimous-consent request or special rule that does not specify 
  time for debate controls one hour of debate thereon. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 68.
      Other limitations on the duration of debate are found in those 
  standing rules of the House that authorize specific motions, such as 
  the motion to suspend the rules for which debate is limited to 40 
  minutes under rule XV clause 1(c). Manual Sec. 891. For a discussion 
  of 40-minute debate, see Sec. 46, infra.

             Discretion of Chair as Affecting Time for Debate

      On certain incidental questions of order, the duration of debate 
  is within the discretion of the Chair. This practice is followed with 
  respect to:

     Debate on points of order. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 6919, 6920; 8 
         Cannon Sec. Sec. 3446-3448; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 67.3.
     Debate under the five-minute rule on an appeal in the 
         Committee of the Whole. 8 Cannon Sec. 2347.

                                Timekeeping

      The Chair monitors the time of Members who take the floor in 
  debate. The Chair announces when their time has expired under the 
  rules, and that announcement is not subject to challenge. See, e.g., 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 67.1. For a discussion of extensions of 
  time, see Sec. 48, infra.


  Sec. 45 . The Hour Rule

      Rule XVII clause 2 limits to one hour the amount of time that a 
  Member may occupy in debate on a pending question. Manual Sec. 957. 
  However, no Member may address the House for more than one hour, even 
  by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 68.3, 68.73; 
  Sec. 48, infra.
      The practice under the hour rule often serves to limit the total 
  time for debate on the measure itself to one hour. This is because, at 
  the conclusion of the controlling Member's hour, ordering the previous 
  question cuts off further debate. Manual Sec. 994. If the Member 
  controlling the hour successfully moves the previous question, all 
  debate is terminated and the measure is voted on by the House.
      If the House rejects the previous question, the measure is then 
  open to further debate. Recognition passes to an opponent of the 
  measure, who may offer an amendment and be recognized for one hour. 
  See Previous Question. A Member recognized under the hour rule may 
  yield the floor upon expiration of his hour without moving the 
  previous question, thereby permitting another Member to be recognized 
  for a successive hour. Manual Sec. 957.

[[Page 421]]

      The hour rule is one of general applicability; it is often 
  overtaken by an order of the House or a special rule from the 
  Committee on Rules, nor is it applicable where another rule of the 
  House specifies otherwise. The hour rule applies to the following:

     A resolution presenting a question of the privileges of the 
         House, subject to the division of time specified in rule IX. 
         Manual Sec. 698.
     A resolution reported as a question of the privileges of the 
         House, such as a resolution presenting impeachment charges. 
         Manual Sec. 699.
     A question of personal privilege. Manual Sec. 713.
     A privileged resolution reported from committee, such as a 
         rule, joint rule, or order of business reported from the 
         Committee on Rules or a committee funding resolution reported 
         from the Committee on House Administration. Deschler-Brown Ch 
         29 Sec. Sec. 68.32, 68.37.
     A resolution of inquiry. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.33.
     A District of Columbia bill on the House Calendar called up on 
         District Day under rule XV clause 4. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 68.5.
     A private bill called up in the House by unanimous consent. 
         Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.9.
     A measure not requiring consideration in the Committee of the 
         Whole before the House pursuant to a motion to discharge. 
         Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.34.
     A motion to refer, or the direct consideration of, a vetoed 
         bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 68.55, 68.56.
     A motion to reconsider (if debatable). Manual Sec. 1010.
     A motion to discharge a committee from further consideration 
         of a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan. Deschler-
         Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.64.
     A motion to expunge from the Congressional Record certain 
         remarks used in debate and ruled out of order. Deschler-Brown 
         Ch 29 Sec. 68.61.
     A motion to send a bill to conference under rule XXII clause 
         1. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.26.
     A motion to instruct House managers at a conference, subject 
         to the division of time specified in rule XXII clause 7(b). 
         Manual Sec. 1078.
     A conference report or a motion to dispose of a Senate 
         amendment reported in disagreement by a conference committee, 
         subject to the division of time specified in rule XXII clause 
         8(d). Manual Sec. 1086.
     A preferential motion to insist on disagreement to a Senate 
         amendment reported in disagreement by a conference committee, 
         subject to the division of time specified in rule XXII clause 
         8(b)(3). Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.12.
     A Senate amendment considered in the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 
         29 Sec. 68.12.
     A bill called up from the Corrections Calendar. Manual 
         Sec. 898.

      The hour rule applies even before the adoption of the rules at the 
  inception of a Congress. Manual Sec. 60. Thus, a Member offering a 
  resolution on

[[Page 422]]

  the seating of a Member-elect is entitled to one hour of debate. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 68.1


  Sec. 46 . Ten-minute, 20-minute, and 40-minute Debate

      The House rules specify fixed periods of time for debate, equally 
  divided between the proponents and opponents, on certain motions and 
  questions.

                             Ten-minute Debate

      The House rules permit the proponent and an opponent each five 
  minutes of time for debate on an amendment offered after closing of 
  general debate in the Committee of the Whole, subject to additional 
  pro forma or second-degree amendments. Similarly, 10 minutes for 
  debate is permitted on an amendment offered after the closing of five-
  minute debate by the Committee under rule XVIII clause 8 if printed as 
  required in the Congressional Record and if not dilatory. Manual 
  Sec. Sec. 978, 981, 987.
      In addition, the House rules permit five minutes in support and 
  five minutes in opposition to the following motions:

     A motion to recommit with instructions a bill or joint 
         resolution under rule XIX clause 2, with the time subject to 
         extension under some circumstances. Manual Sec. 1001.
     A motion to dispense with the call of the Private Calendar 
         under rule XV clause 5(c). Manual Sec. 895.
     A motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business under 
         rule XV clause 7. Manual Sec. 900.

                           Twenty-minute Debate

      The House rules permit 20 minutes of time for debate on motions to 
  discharge a committee, the time to be equally divided under rule XV 
  clause 2. Manual Sec. 892. The right to close such debate is reserved 
  to the proponents of the motion. 7 Cannon Sec. 1010a. The chairman of 
  the committee being discharged, if opposed to the motion, is 
  recognized to control the 10 minutes in opposition. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 69.3. If the motion to discharge is successful, and the 
  measure is properly before the House rather than the Committee of the 
  Whole, the Member moving its consideration is recognized in the House 
  under the hour rule. Manual Sec. 892.
      Twenty minutes of debate also is permitted where a point of order 
  is raised against an unfunded Federal intergovernmental mandate under 
  section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act. Manual Sec. 1127. Points 
  of order under the Act are disposed of by putting the question of 
  consideration, debatable

[[Page 423]]

  for 20 minutes--10 by the Member making the point of order, 10 by a 
  Member in opposition. Sec. 426(b)(4) of the Congressional Budget Act.

                            Forty-minute Debate

      The House rules permit 40 minutes of time for debate, to be 
  divided between proponents and opponents, on the following:

     A motion to suspend the rules under rule XV clause 1. Manual 
         Sec. 891.
     A debatable proposition on which there has been no debate 
         before the ordering of the previous question under rule XIX 
         clause 1. Manual Sec. 994; 5 Hinds Sec. 6821.
     A motion to reject certain portions of a conference report or 
         Senate amendment objected to as nongermane under rule XXII 
         clause 10. Manual Sec. 1089.

      Other chapters in this work dealing with specific motions and 
  questions should be consulted. See, e.g., Previous Question; 
  Conferences Between the Houses; and Suspension of Rules.


  Sec. 47 . Debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole

      Debate on a bill being considered in the House as in the Committee 
  of the Whole is under the five-minute rule, with no general debate. 
  Manual Sec. Sec. 424-427. Five minutes in favor of and five in 
  opposition to an amendment are permitted. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 70.7. Members also may gain five minutes of debate by offering 
  pro forma amendments and motions to strike the enacting clause. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 70.11, 70.12.
      Normally, five-minute debate on a bill considered in the House as 
  in the Committee of the Whole may be extended by unanimous consent. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 70.6. However, the Chair does not recognize 
  for such extensions of time during consideration of a private bill in 
  the House as in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 70.10.


  Sec. 48 . Limiting or Extending Time for Debate

                                 Generally

      The House may by unanimous consent or by special rule limit or 
  extend the time for debate on propositions considered in the House. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71. However, a motion to extend the time for 
  debate in the House is not in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 73.17.

                              By Special Rule

      A special rule from the Committee on Rules may extend the time for 
  debate that may be devoted to a proposition to be considered in the 
  House.

[[Page 424]]

   Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.1. It may specify, for example, that 
  debate shall not exceed a certain number of hours. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 25.17. Similarly, though conference reports are ordinarily 
  considered under the hour rule, a special rule may provide for more 
  extended debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.18.

                           By Unanimous Consent

      Time for debate in the House under the hour rule may be modified 
  by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71. For example, by 
  unanimous consent, debate has been extended on a resolution presenting 
  articles of impeachment (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.13) and on a 
  disciplinary resolution (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.6; 107-2, July 
  24, 2002, p ____).
      Debate on a privileged resolution in the House is ordinarily under 
  the hour rule, but such debate may be extended beyond one hour by 
  unanimous consent or by rejecting the motion for the previous 
  question. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 68.41, 68.42; Sec. 49, infra. 
  Thus, the House may agree to a unanimous-consent request to extend the 
  time for the debate in the House on a special rule reported from the 
  Committee on Rules. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.4.
      Unanimous-consent agreements extending time may further provide 
  for a division of time between various Members. However, a Member may 
  not extend a special-order speech (or debate on a question of personal 
  privilege) for more than one hour, even by unanimous consent. Manual 
  Sec. 957; Deschler Ch 11 Sec. 22.1; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.20.

                   Effect of Statutory Time Limitations

      Time for debate on certain kinds of legislative propositions is 
  limited by statute. Manual Sec. 1130. Examples include:

     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (limits debate on concurrent 
         resolutions on the budget to 10 hours; specifies up to four 
         hours for debate on economic goals and policies; amendments 
         considered under five-minute rule). Sec. 305(a); 2 USC 
         Sec. 636.
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (limits debate on rescission 
         bill or impoundment resolution to not more than two hours). 
         Sec. 1017(c); 2 USC Sec. 688.
     Trade Act of 1974 (limits debate on implementing bills and 
         certain resolutions to 20 hours). 19 USC Sec. 2191.
     Pension Reform Act (limits debate on joint resolutions 
         approving certain schedules to not more than 10 hours). 
         Sec. 4006(b)(6); 29 USC Sec. 1306(b).
     Marine Fisheries Conservation Act (limits debate on fishery 
         agreement resolutions to not more than 10 hours). 
         Sec. 203(d)(4); 16 USC Sec. 1823(d).
     Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (limits debate on certain 
         resolutions of approval to not more than two hours). 
         Sec. 115(e)(4); 42 USC Sec. 10135(e).


[[Page 425]]



      Such statutory provisions (compiled in Manual Sec. 1130) are 
  enacted as an exercise of the rule-making power of both Houses, with 
  full recognition of the ability of either House to change them at any 
  time. In one instance, the Committee of the Whole was considering a 
  resolution disapproving a reorganization plan pursuant to the 
  Reorganization Act of 1949, which limited time for debate to 10 hours. 
  The House agreed by unanimous consent to limit debate in the Committee 
  to five hours and subsequently consented to limit further debate to 30 
  minutes. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 71.7.


  Sec. 49 . Terminating Debate

      The usual motion for closing debate in the House (as distinguished 
  from the Committee of the Whole) is the motion for the previous 
  question under rule XIX. Manual Sec. 994; 5 Hinds Sec. 5456; 8 Cannon 
  Sec. 2662. This motion also is used to close debate in the House as in 
  the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 72.7. The Member 
  controlling debate on a proposition in the House may move the previous 
  question and (if ordered by the House) thereby terminate further 
  debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 72.2. However, the House may by 
  unanimous consent vacate the ordering of the previous question in 
  order to extend debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 72.4. If the 
  previous question is ordered on a debatable proposition, and that 
  proposition has not in fact been debated, then, under rule XIX clause 
  1, 40 minutes of debate is permitted. Manual Sec. 994; 5 Hinds 
  Sec. 6821; 8 Cannon Sec. 2689.
      Other methods of terminating or precluding debate in the House 
  include the use of the motion to lay on the table and the raising of 
  the question of consideration. For a discussion of such methods, see 
  Previous Question, Lay on the Table, and Question of Consideration.


  Sec. 50 . One-minute and Special-order Speeches; Morning-hour Debates

                                 Generally

      The ability of Members to address matters not on the daily 
  legislative agenda is facilitated by allowing ``one-minute speeches'' 
  and ``special-order speeches.'' Neither procedure is specifically 
  provided for in the standing rules. Their use is permitted by a long-
  standing custom regarded as beneficial to the democratic processes of 
  the House and is based on the Speaker's discretionary power of 
  recognition under rule XVII clause 2. Manual Sec. 950.

[[Page 426]]

                            One-minute Speeches

      The practice of limiting recognition before legislative business 
  to one minute began on August 2, 1937 and was reiterated by Speaker 
  Rayburn on March 6, 1945. 75-1, Aug. 2, 1937, p 8004; Deschler Ch 21 
  Sec. 6.1. One-minute speeches are normally entertained at the 
  beginning of the legislative day, although the Speaker has discretion 
  to recognize Members to proceed for one minute after legislative 
  business has been completed or at some other time or place in the 
  legislative day (for example, to follow a scheduled recess). Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 73.6. Indeed, when the House has a heavy legislative 
  schedule, the Speaker may refuse all requests to recognize Members for 
  one-minute speeches. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 73.5. More commonly, 
  the Speaker limits one-minute speeches to a certain number for each 
  side of the aisle, entertaining any remaining requests at the end of 
  legislative business before special-order speeches.
      The evaluation of the time consumed on a one-minute speech is a 
  matter for the Chair and is not subject to challenge on a point of 
  order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 73.3. He has refused to put to the 
  House unanimous-consent requests for extensions of that time. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 73.10. Moreover, under the Speaker's power 
  of recognition as traditionally exercised before legislative business, 
  a Member can be recognized for a one-minute speech only once, and a 
  second unanimous-consent request on that day will not be entertained. 
  Manual Sec. 950.
      The order of recognition for one-minute speeches before 
  legislative business is within the discretion of the Chair and is not 
  subject to challenge on a point of order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 10.55. However, the Chair endeavors to recognize majority and 
  then minority members by allocating time in a nonpartisan manner. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 10.50. In 1984, the Speaker instituted the 
  policy of requiring alternate recognition of majority and minority 
  members in the order in which they seek recognition. Manual Sec. 950.

                           Morning-hour Debates

      Morning-hour debates were first initiated in the second session of 
  the 103d Congress. The House by unanimous consent agreed that on 
  Mondays and Tuesdays the House would convene 90 minutes earlier than 
  the time otherwise established by order of the House, solely for the 
  purpose of conducting morning-hour debates, to be followed by a recess 
  declared by the Speaker. In the 104th Congress, the House extended and 
  modified that order to accommodate earlier convening times after May 
  14 of each year. Debate was limited and allocated to each party, with 
  initial and subsequent recognition alternating daily between parties 
  pursuant to lists submitted by the lead

[[Page 427]]

  ership. Under the customary order of the House establishing morning-
  hour debate, a Member may not be recognized for more than five 
  minutes. The Chair does not entertain a unanimous-consent request to 
  extend this five-minute period. Manual Sec. 951.

                          Special-order Speeches

      The Chair normally recognizes Members for special orders to 
  address the House at the conclusion of business of the day. The 
  Speaker may reserve the right to return to business. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 10.69. Under rule XVII clause 2, no Member may be recognized 
  beyond one hour, even by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 957. 
  Furthermore, a Member may not be recognized for two special-order 
  speeches on the same legislative day, even though special orders have 
  been interrupted by legislative business. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 73.15.
      The Speaker has announced the following policies for recognition 
  of special-order speeches:

     Recognition alternates between majority and minority members.
     Recognition for special-order speeches of five minutes or 
         less, which are obtained by unanimous consent no earlier than 
         one week in advance, before longer speeches.
     Recognition for longer speeches only pursuant to lists 
         submitted by the leadership rather than by separate permission 
         of the House.
     Recognition does not extend beyond midnight.
     Recognition for speeches longer than five minutes is limited 
         (except on Tuesday) to four hours equally divided between the 
         majority and minority.
     The first hour for each party is reserved to its respective 
         Leader or his designees.
     The first recognition within a category alternates between the 
         parties from day to day, regardless of when requests were 
         granted.
     The respective Leaders may establish additional guidelines for 
         entering requests.

  Manual Sec. 950.

      The Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent request to extend 
  a special order beyond midnight. The Chair will recognize for 
  subdivisions of the first hour reserved for special orders only on 
  designations (and reallocations) by the leadership concerned. A Member 
  who is recognized to control time during special orders may yield to 
  colleagues for such amounts of time as the Member may deem appropriate 
  but may not yield blocks of time to be enforced by the Chair. Members 
  regulate the duration of their yielding by reclaiming the time when 
  appropriate. Manual Sec. 950.

[[Page 428]]

            G. Duration of Debate in the Committee of the Whole


  Sec. 51 . In General; Effect of Special Rules

      At one time, there was no limit on the time that a Member might 
  occupy in debate in the Committee of the Whole when once in possession 
  of the floor. A Member might speak an unlimited time, whether in 
  general debate or on an amendment. 5 Hinds Sec. 5221. Today time 
  limitations on general debate are imposed on measures by unanimous 
  consent or special rule. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 74. In the unlikely 
  event a measure is considered in the Committee of the Whole without 
  fixing the time for general debate, each Member may be recognized for 
  one hour. Sec. 52, infra.
      The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole monitors the time used 
  by each Member for debate and announces the expiration thereof.


  Sec. 52 . General Debate

      The duration and allocation of time for general debate in the 
  Committee of the Whole is controlled by the House; and the Committee 
  may not, even by unanimous consent, extend the time for general debate 
  fixed by the House. Manual Sec. 993; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 75.7. 
  The House establishes such time for general debate through the 
  adoption of a unanimous-consent agreement or the adoption of a special 
  rule from the Committee on Rules. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 74.
      If the House does not limit the time for general debate in the 
  Committee of the Whole, such debate is under the hour rule. Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 75.1. A Member having control of such time may not 
  consume more than one hour. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 75.5.
      Normally, the House order limiting time for general debate in the 
  Committee of the Whole also will divide the control of the time 
  between certain Members, such as the chairman of the reporting 
  committee and its ranking minority member. Although under the special 
  rule a Member may have control of more than one hour of general debate 
  on a bill in the Committee, he may not, under the general rules of the 
  House, yield himself more than one hour for debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 74.4. It also is not in order for a Member to whom time has 
  been yielded to ask unanimous consent for additional time, for time is 
  controlled by those to whom it is allotted by the House and is not 
  subject to extension by the Committee. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 75.8.
      The Committee of the Whole may not, even by unanimous consent, 
  change the control of general debate to Members other than those 
  specified by the House. However, unanimous consent has been permitted 
  in the Com

[[Page 429]]

  mittee to permit one of two committees controlling time under a 
  special order to yield control of its time to the other. Manual 
  Sec. 993.

                  Effect of Absence of Members in Control

      Where no member of the reporting committee is present at the 
  appropriate time during general debate in the Committee of the Whole, 
  the Chair may presume the time to have been yielded back. Manual 
  Sec. 979.


  Sec. 53 . Limiting General Debate

                     By Unanimous Consent in the House

      Pending a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole, the 
  House may by unanimous consent limit general debate to a time certain. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 76.8. If objection is raised to the 
  unanimous-consent request, the Speaker puts the question on the 
  initial motion to go into the Committee. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 3.5.

                          By Motion in the House

      After unlimited general debate has begun in the Committee of the 
  Whole and the Committee rises, a motion in the House to close or limit 
  further general debate is in order. Manual Sec. 979; 5 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 5204-5206. The motion is not in order until after debate in 
  the Committee has begun and is made in the House pending the motion 
  that the House resolve itself into Committee for further consideration 
  of the bill, and not after the House has voted to go into Committee. 5 
  Hinds Sec. Sec. 5204, 5208. The motion may not apply to a series of 
  bills, and the motion must apply to the whole and not to a part of a 
  bill. 5 Hinds Sec. Sec. 5207, 5209. The motion may not be made in the 
  Committee. 5 Hinds Sec. 5217; 8 Cannon Sec. 2548.

                   By Unanimous Consent in the Committee

      Although the motion to close general debate is not in order in the 
  Committee of the Whole, the Committee may, in the absence of an order 
  of the House, close debate by unanimous consent. 8 Cannon 
  Sec. Sec. 2553, 2554.
      Although a bill is being considered in the Committee of the Whole 
  under a special rule specifying the time for general debate, the 
  managers of the bill need not use all of the prescribed time. The 
  Members in control of the time are permitted to yield it back and 
  thereby shorten general debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 76.1.

[[Page 430]]

  Sec. 54 . Five-minute Debate

                                 Generally

      When general debate is closed in the Committee of the Whole, 
  debate on amendments proceeds under the five-minute rule. Rule XVIII 
  clause 5, which provides:

      When general debate is concluded or closed by order of the House, 
    the measure under consideration shall be read for amendment. A 
    Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who offers an amendment 
    shall be allowed five minutes to explain it, after which the Member, 
    Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who shall first obtain the floor 
    shall be allowed five minutes to speak in opposition to it. There 
    shall be no further debate thereon, but the same privilege of debate 
    shall be allowed in favor of and against any amendment that may be 
    offered to an amendment.

      Under this rule the proponent of an amendment is entitled to five 
  minutes of debate in favor of the amendment before a perfecting 
  amendment may be offered thereto. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 30.20. If, 
  after a speech in favor of an amendment, no one claims the floor in 
  opposition, the Chairman may recognize another Member favoring the 
  amendment. 8 Cannon Sec. 2557.

                          Speaking More Than Once

      Generally, a Member may speak only once for five minutes on a 
  pending amendment, although a point of order under this rule comes too 
  late after that Member has been recognized and has begun to speak. 92-
  1, June 9, 1971, p 18988. Even when the Committee of the Whole resumes 
  consideration of an amendment that has been debated by its proponent 
  on a prior day, the proponent may speak again for five minutes on his 
  amendment only by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 980. A Member 
  recognized for five minutes on an amendment may not extend his time by 
  offering another amendment. 8 Cannon Sec. Sec. 2560, 2562. However, a 
  Member who has offered an amendment and spoken thereon is not 
  precluded from seeking recognition to speak to a proposed amendment to 
  his amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 21.16. Where there is pending 
  an amendment and a substitute therefor, the Member offering the 
  substitute may debate it for five minutes and subsequently be 
  recognized to speak for or against the original amendment. Moreover, 
  if debate on the pending amendment is limited, the five-minute rule is 
  abrogated and Members who have already spoken on an amendment may be 
  recognized again under the limitation. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 22.9.

[[Page 431]]

              Precluding Amendments; Effect of Special Rules

      The House, and not the Committee of the Whole, controls the extent 
  to which the offering of amendments may be precluded under the five-
  minute rule. The Committee cannot, even by unanimous consent, prohibit 
  the offering of amendments otherwise in order under the rule. Manual 
  Sec. 993.
      A special rule or order of the House providing for the 
  consideration of a bill may preclude the offering of amendments under 
  the five-minute rule. For example, if a special rule permits only 
  designated amendments and prohibits amendments to amendments, then 
  only two five-minute speeches are in order on each designated 
  amendment, one speech in support and one in opposition. Deschler-Brown 
  Ch 29 Sec. 77.19. A Member may obtain additional time for debate only 
  by unanimous consent. Because only the two five-minute speeches are in 
  order, pro forma amendments are not permitted, and a third Member may 
  be recognized only by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 993. A third 
  Member is not entitled to recognition, notwithstanding the fact that 
  the second Member, recognized in opposition, actually spoke in favor 
  of the amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 21.23.

                               Yielding Time

      A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not reserve 
  time or yield his time to another Member. Manual Sec. 980; 5 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 5035-5037. He may yield a portion of his time while 
  remaining on his feet, but he may not yield to another to offer an 
  amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 21.5. If a Member resumes his 
  seat before expiration of the five minutes, another may not be 
  recognized for the remainder of that time. 8 Cannon Sec. 2571.
      A Member may yield during debate under the five-minute rule while 
  remaining standing to permit another Member to question him, to make a 
  comment, or to make a unanimous-consent request. However, the time 
  consumed thereby comes out of that of the Member holding the floor. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 29.6. Time consumed in yielding for a 
  parliamentary inquiry also is charged against the five minutes. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 31 Sec. 15.6.

                              Extending Time

      A motion to require a certain amount of debate under the five-
  minute rule is not in order in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.101. A Member recognized under the five-minute 
  rule may extend his time for debate only by unanimous consent, and a 
  motion to that effect is not in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 21.13; Sec. 57, infra.
      Where debate on an amendment is limited and allocated to a 
  proponent and an opponent, the Members controlling the debate may 
  yield and reserve

[[Page 432]]

  time, whereas time for debate on amendments cannot be reserved under 
  the five-minute rule. Manual Sec. 980.

                           Pro Forma Amendments

      The pro forma amendment--to ``strike the last word''--is used 
  under the five-minute rule only for purposes of debate or explanation, 
  the proponent having no intent to offer a substantive amendment. A 
  Member who has been recognized for five minutes on a pro forma 
  amendment cannot thereafter extend his time by offering a second pro 
  forma amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 77.8. A Member who has 
  consumed five minutes in support of an amendment that he has offered 
  cannot, except by unanimous consent, obtain additional time by 
  offering a pro forma amendment to his own amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 77.9. A pro forma amendment may be offered after a substitute 
  has been adopted and before the vote on the amendment, as amended, by 
  unanimous consent only, because the amendment has been amended in its 
  entirety and no further amendments, including pro forma amendments, 
  are in order. A Member recognized on a pro forma amendment may not 
  allocate or reserve time, though he may in yielding indicate to the 
  Chair when he intends to reclaim his time. The Chair endeavors to 
  alternate recognition to offer pro forma amendments between majority 
  and minority Members (giving priority to committee members) rather 
  than between sides of the question. Manual Sec. 981.

                   Motions to Strike the Enacting Clause

      The preferential motion to rise and report back to the House with 
  the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken is sometimes 
  used to gain an additional five minutes for debate in the Committee of 
  the Whole. Rule XVIII clause 9; Manual Sec. Sec. 988, 989. Debate on 
  the preferential motion is limited to two five-minute speeches, and 
  the Chair declines to recognize for requests for extensions of that 
  time. Deschler Ch 19 Sec. 13.2. Only two five-minute speeches are 
  permitted, notwithstanding the fact that the second Member, recognized 
  in opposition to the motion, spoke in favor thereof. Deschler Ch 19 
  Sec. 13.3. Time for debate may not be reserved. Manual Sec. 989. 
  Debate may go to the merits of the underlying bill. 5 Hinds Sec. 5336.
      Members of the committee managing the bill have priority in 
  recognition for debate in opposition to the motion. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 23.43. However, the Chair will not announce in advance who 
  will be recognized in opposition. Manual Sec. 989.
      If the House acts to strike the enacting clause as recommended by 
  the Committee of the Whole, the bill is considered rejected. Manual 
  Sec. 989; 5

[[Page 433]]

  Hinds Sec. 5326. For a general discussion of this motion, see 
  Committees of the Whole.


  Sec. 55 . -- Limiting or Extending Five-minute Debate-- By House 
            Action

                           By Unanimous Consent

      The House, by unanimous consent, may agree to limit or extend 
  debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole, 
  whether or not that debate has commenced. The House may by unanimous 
  consent agree to an extension of time for such debate even after the 
  Committee has previously agreed to terminate debate at an earlier 
  time. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.41.

                                 By Motion

      A timely motion to limit debate on a matter pending in the 
  Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule has been held to lie 
  in the House as well as in the Committee once that debate has begun. 
  In an early decision Speaker Crisp held that the Committee did not 
  have the exclusive right to limit debate on matters pending before it, 
  and that a motion to limit debate on a section of a bill pending in 
  Committee would lie in the House. 5 Hinds Sec. 5229. However, in 
  modern practice the motion is made in the Committee under rule XVIII 
  clause 8. Sec. 56, infra.


  Sec. 56 . -- By Motion in the Committee of the Whole

                         Generally; When in Order

      A motion in the Committee of the Whole to limit or close five-
  minute debate is permitted by rule XVIII clause 8. Manual Sec. 987. 
  The motion may propose to close debate at once or at the expiration of 
  a designated time. 8 Cannon Sec. 2572. As noted above, a motion to 
  extend debate is not in order in the Committee. Sec. 54, supra.
      Until a bill has been read for amendment in full or its reading 
  dispensed with by unanimous consent or special rule, a motion to close 
  or limit debate on the entire bill is not in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 78.27. Likewise, a motion to close debate on a portion of a 
  bill not yet reached in the reading of the bill for amendment is not 
  in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.29. A motion to close debate on 
  a portion of a bill that has been read and on which there has been 
  debate is in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.34. For a discussion 
  of unanimous-consent requests to close or limit debate, see Sec. 57, 
  infra.

[[Page 434]]

      A motion to limit or close debate under the five-minute rule is 
  not in order until debate has begun. 5 Hinds Sec. 5225. Thus, a motion 
  to close debate on a section of a bill or on an amendment is not in 
  order until there has been some debate thereon. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 78.22. However, the motion to close debate has been held in order 
  after only one speech, even though brief (5 Hinds Sec. 5226), and 
  although the Member making the speech, after gaining recognition to 
  strike the last word, obtained consent to speak out of order 
  (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.25).
      Under rule XVIII clause 8, a motion in the Committee of the Whole 
  to close debate under the five-minute rule is privileged. However, the 
  motion cannot deprive another Member of the floor. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 78.14. Once pending, the motion must be disposed of before 
  further recognition by the Chair. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 22.1.
      Although it is customary for the Chair to recognize the manager of 
  the pending bill to offer motions to limit debate, any Member may, 
  pursuant to rule XVIII clause 8, move to limit debate at an 
  appropriate time in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 23.28. However, the Member managing the bill is entitled to prior 
  recognition to move to close debate on a pending amendment (after the 
  proponent has had his time) over other Members seeking to debate or 
  amend the amendment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 24.16.
      It is in order in the Committee of the Whole to move to limit or 
  close debate under the five-minute rule with respect to:

     The portion of the text that is pending and all amendments 
         thereto. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.7.
     An amendment and all amendments thereto. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 78.65.
     All amendments to the bill (after the bill has been read) and 
         all amendments thereto. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.30.

      A proposition to control or divide the time is not in order as a 
  part of a motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule. 8 Cannon 
  Sec. 2570.
      Where there is a time limitation on debate on a pending amendment 
  in the nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto, but not on 
  the underlying original text, debate on perfecting amendments to the 
  original text proceeds under the five-minute rule, absent another time 
  limitation. Where the time for debate on a pending amendment in the 
  form of a motion to strike and all amendments thereto has been 
  limited, a subsequently offered perfecting amendment considered as 
  preferential to (rather than as an amendment to) the motion to strike 
  remains separately debatable outside the limitation. Manual Sec. 987.

[[Page 435]]

      A limitation on debate on a section of a bill and amendments 
  thereto does not affect debate on an amendment adding a new section to 
  the bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.31. The Chair may decline to 
  recognize a Member to offer such an amendment until perfecting 
  amendments to the pending section have been disposed of under the 
  limitation. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.137.

              Consideration of Motion; Debate and Amendments

      A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule must be 
  reduced to writing if demanded by any Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 78.52. The motion is not debatable (Manual Sec. 987), although it 
  is subject to amendment (5 Hinds Sec. 5227; 8 Cannon Sec. 2578).
      The motion in the Committee of the Whole to limit debate is not 
  subject to a motion to reconsider because the motion to reconsider 
  does not lie in the Committee. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.79. 
  However, the Committee may by unanimous consent rescind or modify such 
  an agreement. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.84.


  Sec. 57 . -- By Unanimous Consent in the Committee of the Whole

                                 Generally

      Debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole 
  may be closed or limited by the Committee by unanimous consent, even 
  on portions of the bill not yet read. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.29. 
  However, such request should include the condition that the portion of 
  the bill sought to be limited be considered as read and open to 
  amendment at any point. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.93. Similarly, 
  the Committee may limit and allocate control of time for debate on 
  amendments not yet offered by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 987.
      In limiting debate by unanimous consent under the five-minute 
  rule, the Committee of the Whole may include provisions to control and 
  allocate the time. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.37. For example, the 
  Committee may, by unanimous consent, limit debate to a certain number 
  of hours, or to a time certain, to be equally divided and controlled 
  by the managers of the bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.62.

                 Rescission or Modification of Limitation

      A time limitation on debate imposed by the Committee of the Whole 
  may be rescinded or modified by the Committee by unanimous consent 
  (but not by motion). Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 78.42, 78.43. The 
  Committee may by unanimous consent permit additional debate on an 
  amendment before it is offered, notwithstanding a previous limitation 
  imposed by the

[[Page 436]]

  Committee on all amendments to the bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 79.63. The Committee can effect minor changes in procedures set 
  by a special order of the House only by unanimous consent and only 
  where congruent with the terms of the special order. Manual Sec. 993.


  Sec. 58 . Motions Allocating or Reserving Time

      A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule on a pending 
  amendment in the Committee of the Whole is not in order if it includes 
  a provision for allocation or division of time. Time for debate can be 
  allocated between Members only by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. Sec. 78.37, 78.61. Thus, the Committee may, during the reading 
  of a bill under the five-minute rule, limit debate by unanimous 
  consent and include in the request a reservation of the last portion 
  of time to the committee handling the bill or to specific Members. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.69.
      A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule in the 
  Committee of the Whole is not in order if it includes a reservation of 
  time for any special purpose, including a reservation of time for a 
  particular Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 78.67, 78.72. 
  However, the Committee may limit debate and include a reservation of 
  time by unanimous consent. For example, part of the time under a 
  limitation may be reserved for the reporting committee by unanimous 
  consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.69.


  Sec. 59 . Timekeeping; Charging Time

                                 Generally

      A limitation on debate under the five-minute rule may take the 
  form of a restriction on time for debate (for example, ``for 60 
  minutes'') or as a limitation on debate to a time certain (for 
  example, ``until 5 p.m.''). The form of the limitation is particularly 
  significant in determining how the time is to be accounted for under 
  the limitation.
      When time for debate on a proposition is limited to a fixed 
  period, such as 60 minutes, the time consumed for purposes other than 
  debate is not counted or charged against the allowable time for debate 
  (such as votes, quorum calls, maintaining order, points of order, 
  reading amendments, or offering and debating preferential motions to 
  strike the enacting clause). Manual Sec. 987; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. Sec. 79.10, 79.13. However, if time is limited to a fixed period 
  on the entire bill and all amendments thereto, the time for the 
  preferential motion does consume time under the limitation. Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.17.
      On the other hand, where the time for debate has been fixed to a 
  time certain, such as 5 p.m., the time consumed by matters other than 
  debate

[[Page 437]]

  (such as parliamentary inquiries, points of order, rereading of 
  amendments, maintaining order, votes, quorum calls, or offering and 
  debating preferential motions to strike the enacting clause) is 
  charged against the time remaining. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. Sec. 79.5, 79.9. Such a limitation terminates all debate at the 
  time specified, notwithstanding any allotted time remaining. Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.8. In such cases, no point of order lies against 
  the inability of the Chair to recognize each Member desiring 
  recognition. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 22.31. The time specified can 
  be rescinded or modified only by unanimous consent. Manual Sec. 987. A 
  unanimous consent-request or motion to close debate at a time certain 
  should specify that the debate cease at a certain time, and not that 
  the Committee of the Whole vote at a certain time, because the Chair 
  cannot control time consumed by quorum calls or votes on other 
  intervening motions. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.75. If the Committee 
  rises before the expiration of such a limitation, and does not resume 
  consideration before the time certain arrives, no further time for 
  debate remains. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.128.
      If debate is closed instantly on the entire bill and all 
  amendments thereto, no further debate is in order for any purpose 
  (including the preferential motion that the enacting clause be 
  stricken); and further amendments may be offered but not debated 
  unless they have been printed in the Congressional Record. Deschler-
  Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 79.1, 79.23.

                    Role of Chairman in Allocating Time

      Where debate on an amendment has been limited, the Chair has 
  several options in allocating the remaining time. He may (1) continue 
  to recognize under the five-minute rule; (2) divide the time between 
  Members indicating a desire to speak; or (3) as is increasingly the 
  case under the modern practice, divide time between the proponent of 
  the amendment and an opponent (giving priority in recognition among 
  opponents to committee members) and allow them in turn to yield time 
  to other Members. Manual Sec. 987.
      The Chair also may, in his discretion, give priority in 
  recognition under a limitation to those Members seeking to offer 
  amendments, over other Members standing at the time the limitation was 
  agreed to. Where time for debate on a bill and all amendments thereto 
  has been limited to a time certain several hours away, the Chair may, 
  in his discretion, continue to proceed under the five-minute rule 
  until he desires to allocate remaining time on possible amendments. 
  The Chair may then divide that time among proponents of anticipated 
  amendments and committee members opposing those amendments. The Chair 
  also has discretion to reallocate time to conform to the limit set by 
  unanimous consent of the Committee of the Whole. Manual Sec. 987.

[[Page 438]]

                   Time Remaining After Committee Rises

      The adoption of a motion to rise during debate on an amendment in 
  the Committee of the Whole does not affect the time remaining on the 
  amendment when the bill is resumed as unfinished business in the 
  Committee of the Whole, where debate is limited to a number of minutes 
  and not to a time certain. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 79.131. However, 
  where a measure has been limited to a time certain, and the Committee 
  rises before that time without having completed action on the pending 
  measure, no time is considered to be remaining when the Committee, on 
  a later day, resumes consideration of the measure. Deschler-Brown Ch 
  29 Sec. 79.127. The Committee may extend debate on the subsequent day 
  only by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 78.84.
      Where after limiting debate under the five-minute rule the 
  Committee of the Whole is about to rise on motion, the Chair may, in 
  his discretion, defer his allocation of that time until the Committee 
  resumes consideration of the bill on a subsequent day. Deschler-Brown 
  Ch 29 Sec. 79.52.


                 H. Reading Papers; Displays and Exhibits


  Sec. 60 . Reading Papers

      In the early practice of the House, the reading of papers, 
  including a Member's own written speech, was usually permitted without 
  question; and a Member usually read such papers as he pleased. Manual 
  Sec. 964; 5 Hinds Sec. 5258. However, that privilege was subject to 
  the authority of the House if another Member objected under a former 
  version of rule XVII clause 6. Manual Sec. 964. If objection was made 
  to such a reading under the former rule, the question was determined 
  by the House without debate. The rule was amended in 1993 to apply 
  only to exhibits and not to readings and the question no longer must 
  be submitted to the House. Manual Sec. 963.


  Sec. 61 . Use of Exhibits

                                 Generally

      Members often use relevant exhibits in debate for the information 
  of other Members. The display of exhibits in debate was automatically 
  subject to House consent under rule XVII clause 6 if objection is 
  made. However, the clause was amended in the 107th Congress to permit 
  the Chair in his discretion to submit the question of its use to the 
  House. Manual Sec. 963.
      For procedures under the former rule, see Manual Sec. 963.

[[Page 439]]

      It is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to judge 
  the accuracy of the content of an exhibit. It is not in order to 
  request that the electronic voting display be turned on during debate 
  as an exhibit to accompany a Member's debate. Manual Sec. 963.
      Exhibits that have been permitted by the House or the Committee of 
  the Whole, either by vote or because no objection was raised, include:

     A pair of oversized dice. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.2.
     Models prepared by the Committee on Science and Astronautics. 
         Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.4.
     Electronic voting equipment to be installed in the House 
         Chamber. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.
     A bottle of liquor alleged to be ``government rum.'' Deschler-
         Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.1.
     A chart showing complex funding formulas. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 84.5.
     Photographs of missing children. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 84.14.
     A display of dismantled weapons. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
         Sec. 84.17.
     A chart showing stockpiled weaponry. 99-1, June 19, 1985, p 
         16359.

      The Speaker or Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may under 
  rule I direct the removal of an exhibit from the well if the exhibit 
  is not being used in debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 84.9, 
  84.10.
      The Speaker has denied a request that a Member be permitted to use 
  a video recorder on the floor of the House during a special-order 
  speech, as an audio-visual display of comments by non-Members would be 
  contrary to precedents limiting the privilege of debate to Members. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 80.8. The Speaker has disallowed the use of 
  a person on the floor as a guest of the House as an ``exhibit.'' 
  Manual Sec. 622.


  Sec. 62 . -- Decorum Requirements

      The Speaker's responsibility under rule I clause 2 to preserve 
  decorum requires that he disallow the use of exhibits in debate that 
  would be demeaning to the House or that would be disruptive of the 
  decorum thereof. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.16. Thus he may inquire 
  of a Member's intentions as to the use of exhibits before conferring 
  recognition to address the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 84.11. In 
  one instance, the Chair declined to permit a bumper sticker to be 
  attached to the lectern in the House Chamber. 101-1, Sept. 13, 1989, p 
  20362. In 1995, a caricature of the Speaker presented during debate 
  was ruled out of order. 104-1, Nov. 16, 1995, p 33393-95. In another 
  instance, where a Member during debate on a bill funding the arts 
  indicated his intention to show as exhibits certain photographs--some 
  innocuous and some alleged to be pornographic--the Chair announced 
  that he would prevent the display of all such exhibits on the

[[Page 440]]

  pending bill. The Chair observed that although the first amendment to 
  the Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law abridging 
  the freedom of speech, the Constitution also provides in article I 
  that the House may determine the rules of its proceedings, and in rule 
  I clause 2 the House has assigned to the Chair the responsibility of 
  preserving order and decorum. Manual Sec. 622.
      At the request of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
  the Speaker announced that (1) all handouts distributed on or adjacent 
  to the floor must bear the name of a Member authorizing the 
  distribution; (2) the content of such handouts must comport with the 
  standards applicable to words used in debate; (3) failure to comply 
  with these standards may constitute a breach of decorum and thus give 
  rise to a question of privilege; (4) staff are prohibited in the 
  Chamber or rooms leading thereto from distributing handouts and from 
  attempting to influence Members with regard to legislation; and (5) 
  Members should minimize the use of handouts to enhance the quality of 
  debate. Manual Sec. 622.


                            I. Secret Sessions


  Sec. 63 . In General

                     Generally; Historical Background

      In the early days of the Congress, secret sessions of the House 
  were frequent. The sessions of the Continental Congress were secret. 
  Up to and during the War of 1812, secret sessions of the House were 
  held often. Normally, the House sat with galleries open. When the 
  occasion required, as on receipt of a confidential communication from 
  the President, the galleries were cleared by House order. 5 Hinds 
  Sec. Sec. 7247, 7251 (note). Following that period, the practice fell 
  into disuse, remaining dormant for almost a century, and there have 
  been but few secret sessions in the modern era. 6 Cannon Sec. 434.
      It has been held that each House has a right to hold secret 
  sessions whenever in its judgment the proceedings should require 
  secrecy. In 1848, the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia upheld 
  a Senate contempt proceeding conducted in a secret session arising out 
  of the publication of a treaty pending before the Senate in executive 
  session. Nugent v. Beale, 18 F. Cas. 141 (C.C.D.C., 1848) (No. 10375); 
  2 Hinds Sec. 1640.

                                 Procedure

      The oath of office taken by elected House officers obligates them 
  to ``keep the secrets of the House'' under rule II clause 1. Manual 
  Sec. 640. Rule

[[Page 441]]

  XVII clause 9, dating from 1792, mandates the holding of a secret 
  session (1) whenever confidential communications are received from the 
  President, or (2) whenever the Speaker or any Member informs the House 
  that he has communications that he believes ought to be kept secret. 
  Manual Sec. 969.
      The House, and not the Committee of the Whole, determines whether 
  to conduct a secret session under rule XVII clause 9. Manual Sec. 969; 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.6. Provision for the session is generally 
  made pursuant to a motion considered in the House. See Sec. 64, infra. 
  The material to be presented in the secret session is not required to 
  be relevant to any particular legislation. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 85.9. No point of order lies in the secret session that the 
  material in question must be produced for the Members in advance to 
  determine whether secret or confidential communications are involved. 
  Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.14.
      For procedures governing a secret session of the House called to 
  resolve a conflict between the Permanent Select Committee on 
  Intelligence and the President with respect to disclosure of 
  classified information, see rule X clause 11(g). Manual Sec. 785.

                     Use of Special Orders of Business

      In 1983, for the first time, a secret session was held pursuant to 
  a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules and adopted by the 
  House. The special rule provided for preliminary general debate on a 
  bill in secret session of the Committee of the Whole and for further 
  consideration of the bill in open session of the Committee of the 
  Whole. 98-1, H. Res. 261, July 14, 1983, p 19133. Following the secret 
  session, the Speaker stated that Members were bound not to release or 
  revise or make public any of the transcript thereof until further 
  order of the House, and that pursuant to the special rule the 
  transcript would be referred to the two committees reporting the bill. 
  98-1, July 19, 1983, pp 19776, 19777. Six months later, the Speaker 
  laid before the House communications transmitting the recommendations 
  of those committees that the transcript of the secret session not be 
  publicly released. 98-2, Jan. 23, 1984, p 84.


  Sec. 64 . Motions; Debate

      A motion to go into a secret session is in order when any Member 
  informs the House that he has communications that he believes should 
  be considered in confidence. The motion takes precedence over a motion 
  to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of 
  nonprivileged legislative business, such as a special appropriation 
  bill. 8 Cannon Sec. 3630.
      The motion to resolve into secret session may be made only in the 
  House and not in the Committee of the Whole. Manual Sec. 969; 
  Deschler-

[[Page 442]]

  Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.6. The Member offering the motion must qualify by 
  asserting that he himself has a secret communication to make to the 
  House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.5. The motion is not debatable, 
  although the Chair may explain the operation of the rule and respond 
  to parliamentary inquiries after the motion has been agreed to and 
  before the secret session commences. Manual Sec. 969; Deschler-Brown 
  Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 85.7, 85.9.
      After a motion to resolve into a secret session has been adopted, 
  the Member who offered the motion may be recognized for one hour of 
  debate. The normal rules of debate, including the principle that 
  motions are in order only when the Member in control yields for that 
  purpose, apply. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.13.
      A motion in secret session to make the proceedings public is 
  debatable for one hour, within narrow limits of relevancy. At the 
  conclusion of debate in secret session, a Member may be recognized to 
  offer a motion that the session be dissolved. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 
  Sec. 85.18.


  Sec. 65 . Secrecy Restrictions and Guidelines

      The Speaker may announce before a secret session commences that 
  the galleries will be cleared. The Speaker also may announce that the 
  Chamber will be cleared of all persons except Members and those 
  officers and employees whose attendance is essential to the 
  functioning of the secret session and so specified by the Speaker, and 
  that all proceedings in the secret session must be kept secret until 
  otherwise ordered by the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. Sec. 85.8, 
  85.9. In one instance, the Speaker directed all officers and employees 
  designated by him as essential to the proceedings to come to the desk 
  and sign an oath of secrecy. The Speaker announced that violation of 
  the oath was punishable by the House and that Members and employees 
  were subject to standards of conduct and disciplinary proceedings 
  under House rules. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.9. Where the House has 
  concluded a secret session and has not voted to release the 
  transcripts of that session to the public, the injunction of secrecy 
  remains and the Speaker may informally refer the transcripts to 
  appropriate committees for their evaluation and report to the House as 
  to their ultimate disposition. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 85.10. Under 
  rule XXIII clause 13 (which was added to the Code of Official Conduct 
  in the 104th Congress), all Members, officers, and employees are 
  required to execute an oath before they are given access to classified 
  information. The list of Members signing this oath is published weekly 
  in the Congressional Record. For a discussion of committee meetings in 
  executive session, see Committees.