§ 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 §§ 853–868. However, nonprivileged matter contained in a measure reported under rule XIII clause 5 destroys the privilege of the measure; and consideration must depend on one of the three remaining procedures. Manual §§ 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. §§ 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 § 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 §§ 4982– 4985, 5304. However, debate may be initiated without motion:

0

Under a reservation of the right to object to a unanimous-consent request. 4 Hinds § 3058.

0

When questions of personal privilege are raised. 3 Hinds § 2546.

0

When conference reports are considered, the question on agreeing being regarded as pending. Manual § 550; 5 Hinds § 6517.

0

When the Committee of the Whole reports its recommendation to the House, unless the previous question is ordered. 4 Hinds § 4896.

0

When personal explanations are made by unanimous consent. 5 Hinds § 5064.

0

When special rules providing for consideration of a measure have been adopted. Manual §§ 734, 972.

0

When a measure on a special calendar or on a special day has been called up. Rule XV.

§ 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 § 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 House. See §§ 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 §§ 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 § 885; see also §§ 4, 5, infra.

§ 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 § 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 § 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 ll.

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 §§ 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 § 1127.

§ 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 §§ 885, 887; 5 Hinds §§ 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 § 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.

§ 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 §§ 828, 829, 898. In addition, the House maintains a Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees. Manual §§ 830, 892. For a discussion of the various calendars and consideration of measures under the Corrections Calendar, see CALENDARS.

§ 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 §§ 381, 872, 956; 4 Hinds § 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.

§ 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 §§ 3214, 4705, 4822; Deschler Ch 19 §§ 1, 4.

For comprehensive discussion of consideration of measures in Committee of the Whole, see COMMITTEES OF THE WHOLE.

§ 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 § 427. This practice permits consideration of a measure under the five-minute rule rather than the hour rule, but without general debate. 4 Hinds § 4924; Manual § 424. For a discussion of consideration of measures in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, see COMMITTEES OF THE WHOLE.

§ 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 § 957), the 40-minute rule (Manual §§ 891, 995), the 20-minute rule (Manual § 892), the ten-minute rule (Manual § 987), the five-minute rule (Manual § 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 § 950). For a more detailed discussion of these time limitations, see §§ 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.

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. §§ 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:

0

A motion that the Journal be read in full. Manual § 621.

0

A motion for the previous question. Deschler Ch 23 § 21.

0

A motion to go into the Committee of the Whole. 4 Hinds §§ 3062, 3078; 6 Cannon § 716.

0

A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report. 4 Hinds §§ 4766, 4782; Deschler Ch 19 § 22.4.

0

A motion for a call of the House or incidental to a call of the House. Manual § 1024; 6 Cannon §§ 683, 688.

0

A resolution authorizing the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest absentees. 6 Cannon § 686.

0

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 § 913.

0

A resolution providing for a sine die adjournment or for adjournment to a day certain. Manual § 84.

0

A motion to adjourn. Manual § 911.

0

A motion to lay on the table. 6 Cannon § 415; 8 Cannon § 2465.

0

A motion to reconsider an undebatable proposition. 5 Hinds §§ 5694–5699.

0

A motion to close general debate or to limit five-minute debate. Manual § 979; 5 Hinds § 5203.

0

A motion to strike unparliamentary language from the Congressional Record. 6 Cannon § 617.

0

An incidental question of order after a demand for the previous question. Manual § 1000.

0

An incidental question of order arising during a division. 5 Hinds § 5926.

0

A motion that the Committee of the Whole take up a bill out of calendar order. 8 Cannon §§ 2331, 2333.

0

A motion for a change of reference of a bill. Manual § 825.

0

A question of consideration. Manual § 906.

0

A question relating to the priority of business. Manual § 884.

0

An appeal from a decision of the Chair on the priority of business. 5 Hinds § 6952; Manual § 884.

0

An appeal from a decision of the Chair on relevancy. 5 Hinds §§ 5056– 5063.

0

An appeal from a decision of the Chair on the dilatoriness of a motion. 5 Hinds § 5731.

0

An amendment to the title of a bill. Manual § 922; 8 Cannon § 2907.

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 28.18.

If the rule divides control of debate among a primary reporting committee and several sequentially reporting committees in a designated order,

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 § 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 § 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 § 959; § 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.

§ 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 §§ 5023, 5026. That practice began to change with the adoption of the hour rule for debate in 1841. 5 Hinds § 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 § 3383. The yielding of time for debate is discretionary with the Members who have control thereof. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 §§ 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 § 7.5.

A Member who seeks yielded time should address the Chair and request the permission of the Member speaking. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 § 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 § 29.5.

The time used by yielding is ordinarily charged against the yielding Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 29.5. Unused time reverts to the yielding Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 29.15. Of course, the yielding of time must be consistent with any division of time 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 § 31.24.

During five-minute debate Members may yield, as for a question or comment, but may not yield blocks of time. 5 Hinds §§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 31.21. A similar rule is followed in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 31.24.

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 § 31.19.

§ 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 §§ 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 § 946; 8 Cannon § 2474; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 §§ 2471, 2478; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 §§ 5021, 5030, 5031; 8 Cannon § 2476; Manual § 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 § 997. The previous question takes precedence over an amendment. Rule XVI clause 4; Manual § 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 § 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 § 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 § 19.25.

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 § 981.

§ 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 § 42.14; Manual § 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 § 957. A Member also may lose the floor if he is ruled out of order for disorderly language. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 33. Finally, a Member loses the floor if he yields for other legislative business (8 Cannon § 2468) or for an amendment (§ 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 § 6451; 8 Cannon § 3294. In addition, it is customary for the Speaker to request a Member to yield for the reception of a message. Manual § 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 § 3259. A Member having the floor may not be deprived of the floor and taken off his feet:

0

By a motion to adjourn. 5 Hinds §§ 5369, 5370; 8 Cannon § 2646.

0

By a demand for the previous question. 8 Cannon § 2609.

0

By a question of personal privilege. 5 Hinds § 5002; 8 Cannon § 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 § 628; 8 Cannon §§ 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 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 § 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 § 15.8.

§ 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 decorum and courtesy in debate, as set forth in rule XVII and by related provisions in Jefferson’s Manual. Manual §§ 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. § 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 § 962. Prohibited conduct under the rule includes:

0

Walking out of or across the hall while the Speaker is addressing the House.

0

Passing between the Chair and a speaking Member.

0

Wearing a hat.

0

Using a wireless phone or personal computer.

0

Remaining by the Clerk’s desk during roll calls.

0

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 § 41.2.

Demonstrations of approval or disapproval, such as applause, are not a part of the proceedings of the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 § 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 § 656; 1 Hinds § 257. On one occasion the Speaker requested the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist him in maintaining decorum disrupted by a former Member. Manual § 622. Former Members may be banned from the floor for indecorous behavior as a matter of privilege. Manual § 680.

Acts of physical violence by one Member or between two Members during or after heated debate have occurred. 2 Hinds §§ 1642–1644, 1655, 1656. Assaults or affrays in the Committee of the Whole are dealt with by the House. 2 Hinds §§ 1648–1651.

§ 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 § 960; 2 Hinds §§ 1254, 1259, 1305; 6 Cannon § 236. A Member may likewise be disciplined for the insertion of disorderly words in the Congressional Record. 6 Cannon § 236. Members have been cautioned against the use of vulgarity or profanity in debate. Manual § 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 §§ 361, 622. For a discussion of critical references to Members, see § 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 § 43.

§ 23. — References to Senate

§ 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 § 960. The words taken down may consist of a single phrase (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 61.3) or an entire colloquy between two Members (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 49.13). The demand should indicate the words excepted to and the identity of the Member who uttered them. Manual § 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 § 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 § 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 § 52.16; § 30, infra.

While a demand that a Member’s words be taken down is pending, that Member should be seated immediately. Manual § 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 § 41.2.

The business of the House is suspended until the words are reported to the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 §§ 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.

§ 29. — Withdrawal or Modification of Words

§ 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 §§ 960, 961; 2 Hinds § 1249; 5 Hinds §§ 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 § 50.7. The Chair judges the words as read by the Clerk and not as alleged to have been uttered. Manual § 961. No Member may engage the Chair until the demand has been disposed of. Manual § 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 §§ 5157, 5173, 5178, 5194, 5196, 5198, 5199. Such an appeal is subject to the motion to table. Manual § 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 § 5163. The Speaker considers the meaning of the words as well as the context in which they were used. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 §§ 51.1, 51.2. He also may put questions to the offending Member about the words and may consult dictionaries to determine the meaning of certain words or terms. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 §§ 50.3, 50.4.

§ 32. — Discipline; Post-Ruling Motions

Generally

In early Congresses it was held not in order to ‘‘cast reflections’’ on the House or its membership, present or past. 5 Hinds §§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 360. The language used must not be offensive in itself. 5 Hinds § 5135. The words must be stated in such a way as to avoid personal criticism of an individual Member. § 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:

0

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 § 53.4.

0

A statement that a Member was leading his party in a policy of opportunism. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 53.5.

0

A statement referring to ‘‘irresponsible actions by members of the President’s own party.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 53.2.

0

‘‘[Y]ou have your definition of consistency. My definition is that consistency is a virtue of small minds.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 62.2.

0

A reference to Members as having praised a foreign dictator in prior debate. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 60.10.

0

Words characterizing unnamed Members as taking ‘‘potshots’’ and as lacking judgment. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 51.16.

0

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:

0

‘‘Talk not to me of vindicating your insulted dignity.... You have no dignity to vindicate.’’ 5 Hinds § 5132.

0

‘‘[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 § 5133.

0

A statement declaring the opinions and decisions of the House ‘‘damnable heresies.’’ 5 Hinds § 5135.

0

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 § 5136.

0

‘‘Drunken Members have reeled about the aisles—a disgrace to the Republic. Drunken speakers have debated grave issues on the floor. . . .’’ 5 Hinds § 5186.

0

A statement alleging that the Republican Conference believed that lynching was a ‘‘proper means of justice.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 § 38, infra.

§ 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 § 54.1. Criticisms of committee procedure are also permitted. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 §§ 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 § 361.

Ruled In Order

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

0

A reference to the action of a committee as ‘‘more or less pusillanimous.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 54.7.

0

An editorial read by a Member charging a committee with ‘‘pigeon-holing’’ certain legislation. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 54.6.

0

‘‘Did the gentleman’s committee also find paid agents of Hitler on the congressional payroll?’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 54.12.

0

A reference to a committee investigation of ‘‘the recent wave of policy lynch murder in Mississippi.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 54.9.

0

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 § 54.1.

Ruled Out of Order

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

0

A statement that certain fascist organizations exercised extensive influence on a special House committee. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 54.3.

0

Language referring to ‘‘lies and half-truths’’ of a House committee report. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 54.4.

0

‘‘I cannot respect the actions or even the sincerity of some of the committee members.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 54.5.

0

A reference to the Committee on Un-American Activities as ‘‘the Un-American Committee.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 54.11.

§ 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 § 362. It is not in order in debate to refer invidiously to the Speaker. 8 Cannon § 2531. It also is not in order to speak disrespectfully of him. 2 Hinds § 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 § 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 § 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 § 362; 5 Hinds § 5188. Personal criticisms of the Speaker can be

challenged even after debate has intervened. 2 Hinds § 1248; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 57.1.

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 58.6.

Ruled In Order

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

0

A statement that ‘‘sinister influences’’ were working in the interest of certain unnamed Members opposing a bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 58.9.

0

A statement accusing unnamed colleagues who opposed a measure of talking ‘‘loosely and recklessly with the truth.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 58.8.

0

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.

0

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 § 58.3.

0

A reference accusing unnamed opponents of a proposal of ‘‘blind,’’ ‘‘slavish,’’ and ‘‘shameful’’ opposition. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 58.7.

0 A reference to an amendment ‘‘where I come from . . . the people . . . do not like slippery, snide, and sharp practices.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 58.5.

0

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 § 58.10.

0

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 § 58.4.

§ 37. Critical References to Members

Jefferson stressed the importance of preserving ‘‘order, decency and regularity . . . in a dignified public body.’’ Manual § 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 § 961. The Chair may announce his intention to take the initiative in calling Members to order during debate on disciplinary resolutions. Manual § 361.

The Speaker will hold language unparliamentary where it improperly reflects on another Member under rule XVII. Manual § 361. A Member may not in debate impugn the personal motives of another Member (§ 39, infra), charge him with falsehood or deception (§ 40, infra), or denigrate his intelligence (§ 41, infra). It also is not in order in debate to refer in a personally critical manner to the political tactics of a Member. Manual § 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 § 59.2; § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 59.8.

Ruled In Order

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

0

A statement that if a certain Member were to sponsor a measure it would receive only one or two votes. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 58.2.

0

A reference to another Member’s remarks as ‘‘yapping.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 61.13.

0

A statement accusing a Member of trying ‘‘to becloud’’ an issue. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 59.1.

0

A reference in debate to another Member as not representing a certain class of people in his State. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 60.7.

0

A reference to another Member’s statement as ‘‘intemperate.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 59.5.

0

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 § 43.2.

0

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 § 59.10.

0

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 § 59.8.

0

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 § 361.

Ruled Out of Order

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

0

A reference to the remarks of another Member as ‘‘malignant shafts’’ or as a ‘‘base insinuation.’’ 5 Hinds § 5162.

0

A reference to another Member as a ‘‘snooper.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 61.11.

0

‘‘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 § 59.3.

0

Referring to another Member as a demagogue or as a ‘‘president of the Demagogue Club.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 §§ 60.3, 60.4.

0

‘‘[D]on’t you start comparing anybody’s record, because I have got yours . . . with . . . the FBI.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 60.24.

0

A reference to another Member as a ‘‘pinko.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 61.9.

0

A reference to an identifiable group of sitting Members as the perpetrators of a crime, such as ‘‘stealing an election.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 60.22.

0

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.

§ 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 § 61.10. In another instance, a Member used the word ‘‘crime’’ in referring to another Member, but the Chair ruled the term 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 § 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 § 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 60.21.

Ruled Out of Order

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

0

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 § 1251.

0

‘‘[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 § 1258.

0

‘‘The devotion of the gentleman . . . to the truth is so notorious that I shall not reply.’’ 8 Cannon § 2545.

0

A reference to another Member as a ‘‘stool pigeon.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 61.12.

0

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 § 61.1.

0

A reference to another Member’s proceeding in a ‘‘cheap, sneaky, sly way.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 61.2.

§ 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 § 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 § 363. An opinion on the general motives of the House or a political party in adopting or rejecting a proposition may be expressed. § 36, supra. References to political motivation for legislative actions may be in order. Manual § 363. However, an assertion that a Member’s use of the legislative process is motivated by personal gain (5 Hinds § 5149) or by ‘‘the prospect of a junketing trip’’ (8 Cannon § 2546) is not in order. Merely to question the sincerity of a Member has been held to impugn his motives. 5 Hinds § 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 § 363.

Ruled Out of Order

0

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 § 5152.

0

Characterizing the motivation of a Member in offering an amendment as deceptive and hypocritical. Manual § 363.

0

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 § 59.9.

0

An observation that a Member was ‘‘one of the most impolite I have ever seen.’’ Manual § 361.

0

Characterizing another Member as ‘‘speaking out of both sides of his mouth.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 51.36.

0

A reference to an identifiable group of sitting Members as the perpetrators of a crime, such as ‘‘stealing an election.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 60.22.

§ 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 § 363; 5 Hinds §§ 5157, 5159, 5189; 8 Cannon § 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 § 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 § 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 § 63.2.

Ruled In Order

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

0

A Member’s statement that he did ‘‘not believe a word that [another Member] said.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 63.3.

0

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 § 63.2.

0

‘‘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:

0

A Member’s declaration that the words of another Member were ‘‘a base lie.’’ 2 Hinds § 1249.

0

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 § 5157.

0 ‘‘I cannot believe that the gentleman . . . is sincere in what he has just said.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 63.7.

0

A statement that the remarks of a Member were ‘‘false and slanderous.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 63.4.

0

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 § 63.6.

0

‘‘I cannot respect the actions or even the sincerity of some of the committee members.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 54.5.

0

Language read in the House that repudiated ‘‘lies and half-truths’’ in a House committee report. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 63.5.

0

Use of the word ‘‘canard’’—meaning falsehood—in referring to the statement of another Member. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 63.1.

0

Words accusing another Member of hypocrisy. Manual § 363.

§ 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 § 64. The Speaker has ruled that questioning a Member’s ability to ‘‘understand English’’ was not unparliamentary. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 64.1.

§ 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 § 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 §§ 65.5, 65.6.

§ 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 § 66. Words impeaching the loyalty of a portion of the membership also have been ruled out. 5 Hinds § 5139. However, if such language is directed at the House or at its membership in general, the remarks may not be improper. See § 33, supra.

Ruled In Order

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

0

A statement referring to all opponents of the Committee on Un-American Activities as communist enemies. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 66.2.

0

A statement that another Member had been published in a newspaper ‘‘dedicated to the destruction of this Government.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 66.10.

0

A statement referring to (unnamed) Members who give ‘‘aid and comfort’’ to enemies and traitors. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 66.3.

0

A statement referring to ‘‘people’’ who would rip down the American flag and replace it with the Soviet flag. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 66.5.

0

A statement characterizing the Committee of the Whole as an agency of the Soviet Union. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 66.11.

0

A statement accusing another Member of past opposition to ‘‘every bill necessary for the defense of our country.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 62.5.

Ruled Out of Order

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

0

A statement that insertions in the Congressional Record by another Member were taken from ‘‘Nazi elements.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 66.6.

0

A statement by a Member that internal fascist organizations exercised extensive influence over a special House committee. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 66.7.

0

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 § 66.1.

0

‘‘There is nothing more subversive than the kind of red baiting tactics [of] the gentleman from lllll.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 66.8.

0

A statement referring to another Member as attempting to undermine the government. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 66.9.

0

A reference to the Committee on Un-American Activities as ‘‘the Un-American Committee.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 66.12.

0

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 § 66.4.

0

A reference to another Member as ‘‘kowtowing’’ to persons who would desecrate the flag. Manual § 362.

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 § 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. § 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. § 48, infra. Such time limits also may be imposed pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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.

Manual § 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 § 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 § 891. For a discussion of 40-minute debate, see § 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:

0

Debate on points of order. 5 Hinds §§ 6919, 6920; 8 Cannon §§ 3446–3448; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 67.3.

0

Debate under the five-minute rule on an appeal in the Committee of the Whole. 8 Cannon § 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 § 67.1. For a discussion of extensions of time, see § 48, infra.

§ 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 § 957. However, no Member may address the House for more than one hour, even by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 §§ 68.3, 68.73; § 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 § 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 § 957.

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:

0

A resolution presenting a question of the privileges of the House, subject to the division of time specified in rule IX. Manual § 698.

0

A resolution reported as a question of the privileges of the House, such as a resolution presenting impeachment charges. Manual § 699.

0

A question of personal privilege. Manual § 713.

0

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 §§ 68.32, 68.37.

0

A resolution of inquiry. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 68.33.

0

A District of Columbia bill on the House Calendar called up on District Day under rule XV clause 4. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 68.5.

0

A private bill called up in the House by unanimous consent. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 68.9.

0

A measure not requiring consideration in the Committee of the Whole before the House pursuant to a motion to discharge. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 68.34.

0

A motion to refer, or the direct consideration of, a vetoed bill. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 §§ 68.55, 68.56.

0

A motion to reconsider (if debatable). Manual § 1010.

0

A motion to discharge a committee from further consideration of a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 68.64.

0

A motion to expunge from the Congressional Record certain remarks used in debate and ruled out of order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 68.61.

0

A motion to send a bill to conference under rule XXII clause 1. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 68.26.

0

A motion to instruct House managers at a conference, subject to the division of time specified in rule XXII clause 7(b). Manual § 1078.

0

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 § 1086.

0

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 § 68.12.

0

A Senate amendment considered in the House. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 68.12.

0

A bill called up from the Corrections Calendar. Manual § 898.

The hour rule applies even before the adoption of the rules at the incep

tion of a Congress. Manual § 60. Thus, a Member offering a resolution on

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

§ 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 §§ 978, 981, 987.

In addition, the House rules permit five minutes in support and five minutes in opposition to the following motions:

0

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 § 1001.

0

A motion to dispense with the call of the Private Calendar under rule XV clause 5(c). Manual § 895.

0

A motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business under rule XV clause 7. Manual § 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 § 892. The right to close such debate is reserved to the proponents of the motion. 7 Cannon § 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 § 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 § 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 § 1127. Points of order under the Act are disposed of by putting the question of consideration, debatable for 20 minutes—10 by the Member making the point of order, 10 by a Member in opposition. § 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:

0

A motion to suspend the rules under rule XV clause 1. Manual § 891.

0

A debatable proposition on which there has been no debate before the ordering of the previous question under rule XIX clause 1. Manual § 994; 5 Hinds § 6821.

0

A motion to reject certain portions of a conference report or Senate amendment objected to as nongermane under rule XXII clause 10. Manual § 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.

§ 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 §§ 424–427. Five minutes in favor of and five in opposition to an amendment are permitted. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 70.10.

§ 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 § 71. However, a motion to extend the time for debate in the House is not in order. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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.

Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 71.1. It may specify, for example, that debate shall not exceed a certain number of hours. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 § 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 § 71. For example, by unanimous consent, debate has been extended on a resolution presenting articles of impeachment (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 71.13) and on a disciplinary resolution (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 71.6; 107–2, July 24, 2002, p ll).

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 §§ 68.41, 68.42; § 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 § 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 § 957; Deschler Ch 11 § 22.1; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 71.20.

Effect of Statutory Time Limitations

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

0

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). § 305(a); 2 USC § 636.

0

Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (limits debate on rescission bill or impoundment resolution to not more than two hours). § 1017(c); 2 USC § 688.

0

Trade Act of 1974 (limits debate on implementing bills and certain resolutions to 20 hours). 19 USC § 2191.

0

Pension Reform Act (limits debate on joint resolutions approving certain schedules to not more than 10 hours). § 4006(b)(6); 29 USC § 1306(b).

0

Marine Fisheries Conservation Act (limits debate on fishery agreement resolutions to not more than 10 hours). § 203(d)(4); 16 USC § 1823(d).

0

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (limits debate on certain resolutions of approval to not more than two hours). § 115(e)(4); 42 USC § 10135(e).

Such statutory provisions (compiled in Manual § 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 § 71.7.

§ 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 § 994; 5 Hinds § 5456; 8 Cannon § 2662. This motion also is used to close debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 994; 5 Hinds § 6821; 8 Cannon § 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.

§ 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 § 950.

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 73.3. He has refused to put to the House unanimous-consent requests for extensions of that time. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 § 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 § 10.55. However, the Chair endeavors to recognize majority and then minority members by allocating time in a nonpartisan manner. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 § 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 leadership. 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 § 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 § 10.69. Under rule XVII clause 2, no Member may be recognized beyond one hour, even by unanimous consent. Manual § 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 §73.15.

The Speaker has announced the following policies for recognition of special-order speeches:

0

Recognition alternates between majority and minority members.

0

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.

0

Recognition for longer speeches only pursuant to lists submitted by the leadership rather than by separate permission of the House.

0

Recognition does not extend beyond midnight.

0

Recognition for speeches longer than five minutes is limited (except on Tuesday) to four hours equally divided between the majority and minority.

0

The first hour for each party is reserved to its respective Leader or his designees.

0

The first recognition within a category alternates between the parties from day to day, regardless of when requests were granted.

0

The respective Leaders may establish additional guidelines for entering requests. Manual § 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 § 950.

§ 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 § 5221. Today time limitations on general debate are imposed on measures by unanimous consent or special rule. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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. § 52, infra.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole monitors the time used by each Member for debate and announces the expiration thereof.

§ 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 § 993; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 § 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 § 75.1. A Member having control of such time may not consume more than one hour. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 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 § 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 § 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 Committee to permit one of two committees controlling time under a special order to yield control of its time to the other. Manual § 993.

§ 53. Limiting General Debate

§ 54. Five-minute Debate

§ 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 §§ 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 § 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 §§ 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 § 78.69.

§ 59. Timekeeping; Charging Time

§ 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 § 964; 5 Hinds § 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 § 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 § 963.

§ 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 § 963.

For procedures under the former rule, see Manual § 963.

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 § 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:

0

A pair of oversized dice. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 84.2.

0

Models prepared by the Committee on Science and Astronautics. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 84.4.

0

Electronic voting equipment to be installed in the House Chamber. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 84.

0

A bottle of liquor alleged to be ‘‘government rum.’’ Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 84.1.

0

A chart showing complex funding formulas. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 84.5.

0

Photographs of missing children. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 84.14.

0

A display of dismantled weapons. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 § 84.17.

0

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 §§ 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 § 80.8. The Speaker has disallowed the use of a person on the floor as a guest of the House as an ‘‘exhibit.’’ Manual § 622.

§ 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 § 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 § 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 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 § 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 § 622.

§ 63. In General