Congress has always considered to norms of behavior such as courtesy and reciprocity to be critical to collective policymaking. These forms of behavior, which in recent years have come to be referred to as “comity”, have been understood to “both standards of behavior for members and the mutual respect of the two chambers for each others’ prerogatives”. During debate in the House, comity is to be preserved through the establishment, observance, and the enforcement of standards of decorum. These standards are in House rules, related sections of Jefferson’s Manual, the House’s precedents, and “announced policies” of the Speaker. The rules of the House also provide the chair and individual members with a range of mechanisms for enforcing decorum in floor debate. This report examines the standards governing decorum in House debate and discusses the different procedures available for enforcing them. Examples of alleged breaches of decorum during 103rd – 105^th Congresses are provided to illustrate the use of these enforcement procedures, and the interpretation of decorum standards through the chair’s rulings, admonitions and responses to parliamentary inquiries.

At the beginning of a daily session of the House, the Speaker may appoint a majority party representative to preside in the Speaker’s absence as Speaker pro tempore. When the House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker appoints a majority party representative to preside as chairman during consideration of a particular measure. In this report, the term “chair” refers to the presiding Representative in both the House and the Committee of the Whole. Though this report focuses on House floor debate, the House’s rules and precedents for decorum in debate generally apply as well in committees and subcommittees.

Internet: <http://www.house.gov/rules/98-572.pdf> (with adaptations).

Congress has always considered to norms of behavior such as courtesy and reciprocity to be critical to collective policymaking. These forms of behavior, which in recent years have come to be referred to as “comity”, have been understood to “both standards of behavior for members and the mutual respect of the two chambers for each others’ prerogatives”. During debate in the House, comity is to be preserved through the establishment, observance, and the enforcement of standards of decorum. These standards are in House rules, related sections of Jefferson’s Manual, the House’s precedents, and “announced policies” of the Speaker. The rules of the House also provide the chair and individual members with a range of mechanisms for enforcing decorum in floor debate. This report examines the standards governing decorum in House debate and discusses the different procedures available for enforcing them. Examples of alleged breaches of decorum during 103rd – 105^th Congresses are provided to illustrate the use of these enforcement procedures, and the interpretation of decorum standards through the chair’s rulings, admonitions and responses to parliamentary inquiries.

At the beginning of a daily session of the House, the Speaker may appoint a majority party representative to preside in the Speaker’s absence as Speaker pro tempore. When the House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker appoints a majority party representative to preside as chairman during consideration of a particular measure. In this report, the term “chair” refers to the presiding Representative in both the House and the Committee of the Whole. Though this report focuses on House floor debate, the House’s rules and precedents for decorum in debate generally apply as well in committees and subcommittees.

Internet: <http://www.house.gov/rules/98-572.pdf> (with adaptations).

Congress has always considered to norms of behavior such as courtesy and reciprocity to be critical to collective policymaking. These forms of behavior, which in recent years have come to be referred to as “comity”, have been understood to “both standards of behavior for members and the mutual respect of the two chambers for each others’ prerogatives”. During debate in the House, comity is to be preserved through the establishment, observance, and the enforcement of standards of decorum. These standards are in House rules, related sections of Jefferson’s Manual, the House’s precedents, and “announced policies” of the Speaker. The rules of the House also provide the chair and individual members with a range of mechanisms for enforcing decorum in floor debate. This report examines the standards governing decorum in House debate and discusses the different procedures available for enforcing them. Examples of alleged breaches of decorum during 103rd – 105^th Congresses are provided to illustrate the use of these enforcement procedures, and the interpretation of decorum standards through the chair’s rulings, admonitions and responses to parliamentary inquiries.

At the beginning of a daily session of the House, the Speaker may appoint a majority party representative to preside in the Speaker’s absence as Speaker pro tempore. When the House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker appoints a majority party representative to preside as chairman during consideration of a particular measure. In this report, the term “chair” refers to the presiding Representative in both the House and the Committee of the Whole. Though this report focuses on House floor debate, the House’s rules and precedents for decorum in debate generally apply as well in committees and subcommittees.

Internet: <http://www.house.gov/rules/98-572.pdf> (with adaptations).

Congress has always considered (A) to norms of behavior such as courtesy and reciprocity to be critical to collective policymaking. These forms of behavior, which in recent years have come to be referred to as “comity”, have been understood to (B) “both standards of behavior for members and the mutual respect of the two chambers for each others’ prerogatives”. During debate in the House, comity is to be preserved through the establishment, observance, and the enforcement of standards of decorum. These standards are (C) in House rules, related sections of Jefferson’s Manual, the House’s precedents, and “announced policies” of the Speaker. The rules of the House also provide the chair and individual members with a range of mechanisms for enforcing decorum in floor debate. This report examines the standards governing decorum in House debate and discusses the different procedures available for enforcing them. Examples of alleged breaches of decorum during 103rd – 105^th Congresses are provided to illustrate the use of these enforcement procedures, and the interpretation of decorum standards through the chair’s rulings, admonitions and responses to parliamentary inquiries.

At the beginning of a daily session of the House, the Speaker may appoint a majority party representative to preside in the Speaker’s absence as Speaker pro tempore. When the House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker appoints a majority party representative to preside as chairman during consideration of a particular measure. In this report, the term “chair” refers to the presiding Representative in both the House and the Committee of the Whole. Though this report focuses on House floor debate, the House’s rules and precedents for decorum in debate generally apply as well in committees and subcommittees.

Internet: <http://www.house.gov/rules/98-572.pdf> (with adaptations).

Congress has always considered (A) to norms of behavior such as courtesy and reciprocity to be critical to collective policymaking. These forms of behavior, which in recent years have come to be referred to as “comity”, have been understood to (B) “both standards of behavior for members and the mutual respect of the two chambers for each others’ prerogatives”. During debate in the House, comity is to be preserved through the establishment, observance, and the enforcement of standards of decorum. These standards are (C) in House rules, related sections of Jefferson’s Manual, the House’s precedents, and “announced policies” of the Speaker. The rules of the House also provide the chair and individual members with a range of mechanisms for enforcing decorum in floor debate. This report examines the standards governing decorum in House debate and discusses the different procedures available for enforcing them. Examples of alleged breaches of decorum during 103rd – 105^th Congresses are provided to illustrate the use of these enforcement procedures, and the interpretation of decorum standards through the chair’s rulings, admonitions and responses to parliamentary inquiries.

At the beginning of a daily session of the House, the Speaker may appoint a majority party representative to preside in the Speaker’s absence as Speaker pro tempore. When the House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker appoints a majority party representative to preside as chairman during consideration of a particular measure. In this report, the term “chair” refers to the presiding Representative in both the House and the Committee of the Whole. Though this report focuses on House floor debate, the House’s rules and precedents for decorum in debate generally apply as well in committees and subcommittees.

Internet: <http://www.house.gov/rules/98-572.pdf> (with adaptations).

Congress has always considered (A) to norms of behavior such as courtesy and reciprocity to be critical to collective policymaking. These forms of behavior, which in recent years have come to be referred to as “comity”, have been understood to (B) “both standards of behavior for members and the mutual respect of the two chambers for each others’ prerogatives”. During debate in the House, comity is to be preserved through the establishment, observance, and the enforcement of standards of decorum. These standards are (C) in House rules, related sections of Jefferson’s Manual, the House’s precedents, and “announced policies” of the Speaker. The rules of the House also provide the chair and individual members with a range of mechanisms for enforcing decorum in floor debate. This report examines the standards governing decorum in House debate and discusses the different procedures available for enforcing them. Examples of alleged breaches of decorum during 103rd – 105^th Congresses are provided to illustrate the use of these enforcement procedures, and the interpretation of decorum standards through the chair’s rulings, admonitions and responses to parliamentary inquiries.

At the beginning of a daily session of the House, the Speaker may appoint a majority party representative to preside in the Speaker’s absence as Speaker pro tempore. When the House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker appoints a majority party representative to preside as chairman during consideration of a particular measure. In this report, the term “chair” refers to the presiding Representative in both the House and the Committee of the Whole. Though this report focuses on House floor debate, the House’s rules and precedents for decorum in debate generally apply as well in committees and subcommittees.

Internet: <http://www.house.gov/rules/98-572.pdf> (with adaptations).

Congress has always considered (A) to norms of behavior such as courtesy and reciprocity to be critical to collective policymaking. These forms of behavior, which in recent years have come to be referred to as “comity”, have been understood to (B) “both standards of behavior for members and the mutual respect of the two chambers for each others’ prerogatives”. During debate in the House, comity is to be preserved through the establishment, observance, and the enforcement of standards of decorum. These standards are (C) in House rules, related sections of Jefferson’s Manual, the House’s precedents, and “announced policies” of the Speaker. The rules of the House also provide the chair and individual members with a range of mechanisms for enforcing decorum in floor debate. This report examines the standards governing decorum in House debate and discusses the different procedures available for enforcing them. Examples of alleged breaches of decorum during 103rd – 105^th Congresses are provided to illustrate the use of these enforcement procedures, and the interpretation of decorum standards through the chair’s rulings, admonitions and responses to parliamentary inquiries.

At the beginning of a daily session of the House, the Speaker may appoint a majority party representative to preside in the Speaker’s absence as Speaker pro tempore. When the House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker appoints a majority party representative to preside as chairman during consideration of a particular measure. In this report, the term “chair” refers to the presiding Representative in both the House and the Committee of the Whole. Though this report focuses on House floor debate, the House’s rules and precedents for decorum in debate generally apply as well in committees and subcommittees.

Internet: <http://www.house.gov/rules/98-572.pdf> (with adaptations).

Congress has always considered (A) to norms of behavior such as courtesy and reciprocity to be critical to collective policymaking. These forms of behavior, which in recent years have come to be referred to as “comity”, have been understood to (B) “both standards of behavior for members and the mutual respect of the two chambers for each others’ prerogatives”. During debate in the House, comity is to be preserved through the establishment, observance, and the enforcement of standards of decorum. These standards are (C) in House rules, related sections of Jefferson’s Manual, the House’s precedents, and “announced policies” of the Speaker. The rules of the House also provide the chair and individual members with a range of mechanisms for enforcing decorum in floor debate. This report examines the standards governing decorum in House debate and discusses the different procedures available for enforcing them. Examples of alleged breaches of decorum during 103rd – 105^th Congresses are provided to illustrate the use of these enforcement procedures, and the interpretation of decorum standards through the chair’s rulings, admonitions and responses to parliamentary inquiries.

At the beginning of a daily session of the House, the Speaker may appoint a majority party representative to preside in the Speaker’s absence as Speaker pro tempore. When the House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker appoints a majority party representative to preside as chairman during consideration of a particular measure. In this report, the term “chair” refers to the presiding Representative in both the House and the Committee of the Whole. Though this report focuses on House floor debate, the House’s rules and precedents for decorum in debate generally apply as well in committees and subcommittees.

Internet: <http://www.house.gov/rules/98-572.pdf> (with adaptations).

Since independence Brazil has experimented with almost every possible electoral system: single and multimember districts, and proportional representation with various formulas. Only the so-called mixed systems are yet to be tried. Election day is always a national holiday. Until 1965 national and state elections were held on October 3, but the military moved the date to November 15 (Day of the Republic, a military holiday). The constitution of 1988 re-established October 3 (ninety days before the inauguration of executive-branch elected officials) for the first round of voting, and November 15 for runoff elections when needed.

Brazilian election laws are very complex and detailed. The law requires that all candidates who hold executive positions resign six months before the election. No “write-in” candidacies are allowed; only candidates officially presented by a registered political party may participate. Parties choose their candidates in municipal, state, or national conventions. Although the legislation does not recognize party primaries officially, on occasion they have been used informally.

Voting is considered both a right and a duty in Brazil; thus registration and voting are compulsory between the ages of eighteen and seventy. Illiterates vote, but their voting registration card identifies their status, and they sign the voting list with a fingerprint on election day. The 1988 constitution lowered the voting age, permitting sixteen- and seventeen year-olds to vote on a voluntary basis. In 1994 these young voters (who cannot legally drink or drive) totalled 2,132,190 (2.2% of the electorate). For these reasons, turnouts for all elections in Brazil are very high, usually more than 85%. At certain times, voters have cast blank and void ballots as a means of protest, especially in 1970, when the military oppression was at its height.

Internet: <http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy>. Access in 5/Aug./2002 (with adaptations).

Since independence Brazil has experimented with almost every possible electoral system: single and multimember districts, and proportional representation with various formulas. Only the so-called mixed systems are yet to be tried. Election day is always a national holiday. Until 1965 national and state elections were held on October 3, but the military moved the date to November 15 (Day of the Republic, a military holiday). The constitution of 1988 re-established October 3 (ninety days before the inauguration of executive-branch elected officials) for the first round of voting, and November 15 for runoff elections when needed.

Brazilian election laws are very complex and detailed. The law requires that all candidates who hold executive positions resign six months before the election. No “write-in” candidacies are allowed; only candidates officially presented by a registered political party may participate. Parties choose their candidates in municipal, state, or national conventions. Although the legislation does not recognize party primaries officially, on occasion they have been used informally.

Voting is considered both a right and a duty in Brazil; thus registration and voting are compulsory between the ages of eighteen and seventy. Illiterates vote, but their voting registration card identifies their status, and they sign the voting list with a fingerprint on election day. The 1988 constitution lowered the voting age, permitting sixteen- and seventeen year-olds to vote on a voluntary basis. In 1994 these young voters (who cannot legally drink or drive) totalled 2,132,190 (2.2% of the electorate). For these reasons, turnouts for all elections in Brazil are very high, usually more than 85%. At certain times, voters have cast blank and void ballots as a means of protest, especially in 1970, when the military oppression was at its height.

Internet: <http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy>. Access in 5/Aug./2002 (with adaptations).