The Rule XIX Call to Order for Disorderly Language in Senate Debate
Released: 2018-06-27T00:00:00

"Disorderly" Language in Senate Debate

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Senate Rule XIX identify language that is considered to violate standards of decorum in debate. Such "disorderly" language includes directly or indirectly imputing to another Senator or Senators "any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator" (paragraph 2) and referrin g "offensively to any State of the Union" (paragraph 3). Rule XIX prohibits imputing conduct or motive "by any form of words" to a sitting Senator. The presiding officer has stated that this prohibition includes language taken from "quotes, articles, or other materials," not just original words spoken by a Senator in debate.

From a historical standpoint, these explicit statements of words that constitute disorderly language are relatively recent additions to the Senate's standing rules. The language of paragraph 2 related to impugning motives and of paragraph 3 against speaking offensively of any state were both adopted on April 8, 1902. While these explicit examples of disorderly language are newer to Senate rules, the prohibitions they codify are not. The Senate has, from its earliest days, stressed the importance of decorum in debate and had a mechanism in its rules to sanction Senators who use disorderly language. Senators could have been, and were, called to order for imputing motives or maligning a state prior to the adoption of these paragraphs. The concepts of decorum in debate made explicit by Rule XIX are clearly stated in Section XVII of Thomas Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice (" Jefferson's Manual ") and stem from English parliamentary practice prior to the 1 st Congress under the Constitution.

The statements listed in Rule XIX are not considered to be a comprehensive recitation of language that may be considered disorderly and violate decorum in Senate debate. For example, while there is no specific Senate rule governing such statements, chamber precedents indicate that the body has, on occasion, ruled certain references made in debate to the character or conduct of the House of Representatives and its Members to be disorderly.

The application of Rule XIX does not, however, "extend to remarks made about the President of the United States, the Vice President, or Administration officials," and a Senator cannot be called to order under the rule for comments or remarks made in debate about such individuals. Likewise, general criticism of the action of a congressional committee does not constitute a violation of the rule as to motives.

As is discussed below, the presiding officer decides if a Senator has used disorderly language in debate in violation of Rule XIX, subject to an appeal to the full Senate.

Procedures for Calling a Senator to Order

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Rule XIX establish a parliamentary mechanism whereby a Senator who engages in the type of disorderly language described in the rule (discussed above) can be "called to order" by the presiding officer or by another Senator. These paragraphs of the rule state:

4. If any Senator, in speaking or otherwise, in the opinion of the Presiding Officer transgress the rules of the Senate the Presiding Officer shall, either on his own motion or at the request of any other Senator, call him to order; and when a Senator shall be called to order he shall take his seat, and may not proceed without leave of the Senate, which, if granted, shall be upon motion that he be allowed to proceed in order, which motion shall be determined without debate. Any Senator directed by the Presiding Officer to take his seat, and any Senator requesting the Presiding Officer to require a Senator to take his seat, may appeal from the ruling of the Chair, which appeal shall be open to debate.

5. If a Senator be called to order for words spoken in debate, upon the demand of the Senator or of any other Senator, the exceptionable words shall be taken down in writing, and read at the table for the information of the Senate.

In current practice, the Rule XIX call to order is rarely formally invoked. It is far more common for the presiding officer, acting on his or her own initiative, to issue a "warning" to a Senator who has violated standards of decorum in debate or to simply read the provisions of Rule XIX aloud as a general reminder to the Senate in cases where debate has become heated. Occasionally, however, a formal call to order is made. The steps used to invoke the Rule XIX call to order are as follows:

Any Senator who believes that another Senator has transgressed the rules of decorum in debate under Rule XIX may call that Senator to order. A Senator would do so by saying:

Mr. (or Madam) President, I call the Senator to order under Rule XIX.

The presiding officer may also, on his or her own initiative, call a Senator to order without any call to order being raised from the floor. Senate precedents state that a Senator or the presiding officer may call a Senator to order "without the latter yielding for that purpose." That is, a Senator properly in possession of the floor may be interrupted by another Senator who wishes to call the first to order for his or her remarks. Senate precedents further indicate that Rule XIX "can be invoked at any time upon its violation" and that a Senator may call another Senator who is addressing the Senate to order "at any time."

Under paragraph 5 of Rule XIX, any Senator may demand that the allegedly objectionable words be read aloud, although this step is optional. To do so, a Senator would say:

Mr. (or Madam) President. I demand that the words of the Senator from [STATE] be read aloud for the information of the Senate.

The chair would then rule on whether or not the words in question were disorderly and transgressed Rule XIX. If the presiding officer ruled that a speaking Senator had transgressed Rule XIX, he or she would direct the speaking Senator to take his or her seat. Senate precedents indicate that the "penalty" for violating "Rule XIX, is that the speaking Senator take his seat." If, on the other hand, the presiding officer, in response to a call to order from the floor, ruled that the speaking Senator had not violated Rule XIX, the speaking Senator would be allowed to proceed in order.

The ruling of the presiding officer under Rule XIX that a Senator has used disorderly words in debate is subject to an appeal by any Senator, including by a Senator who has been directed to take his or her seat. If such an appeal is raised, the presiding officer would state:

The question before the Senate is, 'Shall the decision of the Chair to hold the Senator from [STATE] in violation of rule XIX stand as the judgment of the Senate?'

Such an appeal is debatable but subject to a nondebatable motion to lay the appeal on the table.

A speaking Senator who has been found to have violated Rule XIX by using disorderly language may not proceed in debate without the permission of the Senate. Senate precedents suggest that, unless lifted by unanimous consent or by motion, the prohibition on debate is in force during consideration of the pending question. Senate precedents state, however, that a Senator who has been called to order "would be entitled to recognition to speak on another matter subsequently taken up by the Senate."

Permission for a sanctioned Senator to proceed in order could be granted by unanimous consent or by the adoption of a nondebatable motion. If a motion to proceed in order is adopted, the speech of the offending Senator is not terminated: He or she would retain possession of the floor and could continue speaking. The motion to proceed in order can be made only by a Senator in possession of the floor or when a Senator in possession of the floor yields for the purpose of making the motion. Such a motion cannot be made after the Senate has taken up other business. To make such a motion, a Senator would say:

Mr. (or Madam) President, I move that the Senator from [STATE] be permitted to proceed in order.

If a Senator has been found to have violated decorum in debate under Rule XIX, his or her objectionable words may be stricken from the Congressional Record either by unanimous consent or by motion. Senate precedents indicate that matters that have, by such a motion, been stricken from the Record as having violated Rule XIX include not only remarks or language reflecting on a sitting Senator but also a chart, a letter, or a telegram doing so. CRS identified one instance in which a Senator sought a ruling that language used in debate earlier in the day by a colleague had violated Rule XIX, and when the chair indicated that, in his opinion, it had, the Senator asked and received unanimous consent to strike the offending language from the Record .

History of the Call to Order for Disorderly Language

A mechanism for calling Senators to order for the use of disorderly language in debate has existed in Senate rules since the 1 st federal Congress (1789-1790), beginning with the Senate's adoption of 19 standing rules governing its operation on April 16, 1789. Of these, Rule XVI, stated:

When a member shall be called to order, he shall sit down until the President shall have determined whether he is in order or not; and every question of order shall be decided by the President, without debate; but, if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for the sense of the Senate.

The rule was rewritten in 1856 to state:

If any member, in speaking, or otherwise, transgress the rules of the Senate, the presiding officer shall, or any member may, call to order, and when a member shall be called to order by the President, or a Senator, he shall sit down, and shall not proceed without leave of the Senate. And every question of order shall be decided by the President, without debate, subject to an appeal to the Senate; and the President may call for the sense of the Senate on any question of order.

Rule XIX was amended to its present form on June 14, 1962, by Senate adoption of S.Res.37. The 1962 amendment made a significant change in the operation of the call-to-order mechanism. Under the 1856 amendment described above, the mechanism had been interpreted to require a Senator to immediately take his or her seat when called to order by another Senator, even before any ruling had been made as to whether the words spoken by the Senator were, in fact, disorderly. This interpretation is illustrated in an exchange Majority Leader Scott Lucas had with the presiding officer on the Senate floor on May 8, 1950:

Sen. Lucas: Mr. President. Can a Senator, at any time when another Senator is speaking, merely rise and say in substance that the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Illinois, or whoever might be speaking, is violating rule XIX, and that he therefore demands the Senator take his seat? Under those circumstances, is it necessary for the Senator who is speaking to take his seat? And can one Senator discipline another Senator under those circumstances, whether the Senator is guilty of violating Rule XIX or is not guilty?

The Vice President: The Chair is bound to say that the language of the rule gives the Chair no authority whatever to pass on the question of whether a Senator is violating rule XIX. It provides that whenever a Senator is speaking, and another Senator calls him to order on the ground that he is violating the rule, he must take his seat. No matter what he has said, no matter what he is talking about, no matter whether there is any offense given or any violation of the rule, the Senator must take his seat until the Senate permits him to proceed in order. The Chair would not hesitate to say that it is a rather peculiar rule, but even if a Senator is repeating the Lord's Prayer, some other Senator may call him to order, and the Senator must take his seat until he is permitted to proceed in order.

The 1962 amendment to the call-to-order provision changed the interpretation of Rule XIX so that, when called to order by a colleague, the presiding officer would first have to rule whether the words were disorderly (with that ruling subject to an appeal) before a Senator was required to be seated. The amendment was designed to ensure that a Senator could not be taken off his or her feet by a simple allegation that he or she had transgressed Rule XIX, something supporters of amending the rule argued had occurred. The Rules Committee report accompanying S.Res.37, quoting its author, Senator Joseph S. Clark, stated:

[S.Res.37] would modify Senate Rule XIX, requiring a Senator to take his seat without a ruling by the Chair that he has spoken disparagingly of another Senator, which has become a deterrent to frank and free debate.... Rule XIX ... has been construed to permit a Senator at any time to interrupt another Senator, raise a point of order and require that Senator to take his seat without any ruling on the part of either the Presiding Officer or the Senate that the Senator called to order had violated the rule. All Senators will recall the several instances of abuse of the rule which have occurred during the August session of Congress.

Senate rules governing the call to order mechanism have seen a number of other, smaller changes over the years. Table 1 , below, outlines the evolution of the Senate's call to order rule from its inception in 1789 to the present. It provides the dates that amendments to the rule were adopted, the text of the rule at that time, and notes providing additional context.

Use of the Senate Rule XIX Call to Order

As previously mentioned, the Rule XIX call to order is rarely formally invoked. However, references to the rule in floor debate have been a much more common occurrence and served as warnings or reminders that decorum should be maintained. Both methods of practice are examined in more detail below.

Formal Calls to Order

CRS conducted full-text searches of the Congressional Record and the Senate Journal using the Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress (LIS) and the ProQuest Congressional database in order to identify instances in which a call to order under Senate Rule XIX had been formally invoked since June 14, 1962. These instances are identified in Table 2 .

The most recent example of a formal call to order being made occurred on February 7, 2017. In that case, a Senator was called to order by the majority leader for quoting a former Senator and reading passages from a letter written to the Committee on the Judiciary by a notable private individual, both of which negatively characterized a sitting Senator. The presiding officer had previously warned the speaking Senator that her remarks could be in violation of the Rule XIX provisions regarding disorderly language. When called to order, the speaking Senator asked unanimous consent to proceed in order, but objection was heard to the request. The presiding officer then instructed the Senator in question to take her seat, and she appealed the ruling of the chair. After a quorum was established, the ruling of the chair was upheld on appeal. A subsequent motion to allow the speaking Senator to proceed in order was rejected by a vote of 43-50.

Informal References to Rule XIX

In practice, Senators have utilized a number of different techniques to draw a speaker's attention to Rule XIX without formally invoking a call to order. Senators have, for example, stated that they considered raising a Rule XIX call to order, indicated their belief that certain words transgressed the rule, cautioned their colleagues to be mindful of Rule XIX when speaking, made parliamentary inquiries of the chair about the application of the call to order mechanism, or directly asked the chair to read from the rule. These practices afforded Senators the opportunity to express their displeasure with a speaker's remarks without having to formally call a colleague to order. This informal manner of lessening tensions and enforcing decorum in debate is perhaps unsurprising in a chamber that has traditionally valued comity and senatorial courtesy over a rigid adherence to procedure.

Most recently, at the urging of a Senator, the presiding officer of the Senate, on January 21, 2018, read paragraph 4 of Rule XIX aloud to the Senate immediately following a request by a Senator that it be read aloud. While it is not clear what specific words prompted the request that the rule be read, the incident occurred in the course of an animated floor debate regarding government funding during a lapse in appropriations. In another example, on October 4, 2013, a Senator stated in debate that, in his judgment, certain statements made by another Senator violated Rule XIX standards of decorum but that he was not going to raise a call to order related to them. In response to the Senator's statement, the presiding officer read paragraph 2 of Rule XIX aloud "for the edification of all Senators." There have been numerous other examples in recent years in which Rule XIX was mentioned in floor debate but a call to order was not formally invoked.