[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6] [Chapter 5. The House Rules, Journal, and Record] [B. The House Journal] [§ 11. Reading the Journal] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov] [Page 328-333] CHAPTER 5 The House Rules, Journal, and Record B. THE HOUSE JOURNAL Sec. 11. Reading the Journal Prior to the 92d Congress, during which the present form of the applicable House rule(17) was adopted, the reading of the Journal of each legislative day was mandatory under the rule as then in force, and could be dispensed with only by unanimous consent(18) or by suspension of the rules.(19) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17. Rule I clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (1973), the present form of which is derived from Sec. 127 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140). 18. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 625. 19. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2747-2750. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under the modern practice, however, the Speaker, after examining the Journal, is authorized on the appearance of a quorum to announce his approval thereof, in which case the Journal is to be considered as read, unless its reading is ordered either by the Speaker himself or by the House. In the latter regard, it is in order to offer one motion that the Journal be read, which motion is of the highest privilege and must be determined without debate.(20) In either event, however, the Journal may not be ordered read, or approved, in the absence of a quorum,(1) and when a point of order as to the absence of a quorum is made prior to the reading of the Journal, the presence of a quorum is therefore ascertained before the reading is begun.(2) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20. Rule I clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (1973). 1. 4 Hinds Precedents Sec. Sec. 2732, 2733; 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 629. 2. See Sec. 12.6, infra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 329]] The Journal, if and when read, is ordinarily read in accordance with the practices and customs of the House,(3) as prepared by the Clerk.(4) Once begun, the reading thereof must be in full if so demanded by a Member.(5) However, when a demand that it be read in full is made after a portion thereof has been read, the Clerk begins detailed reading at the point where the demand is made and does not return to that portion which has been passed.(6) Of course, a reading of the Journal may be terminated by unanimous consent.(7) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. See Sec. 11.1, infra. 4. See Sec. 11.4, infra. 5. See Sec. 11.3, infra. 6. See Sec. 11.9, infra. 7. See Sec. 11.13, infra. ------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reading Practices and Customs Sec. 11.1 The Journal is read in accordance with the practices and customs of the House of Representatives. On Sept. 13, 1965,(8) a Member, having been recognized for the purpose of submitting a parliamentary inquiry, interrupted the reading of the Journal for the previous legislative day to ask whether the reading of the Journal in full would be concluded prior to the reading of the special orders and the referral of bills and rules on that day. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 23599, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Speaker(9) stated that the Journal was being read in accordance with the practices and customs of the House of Representatives. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec. 11.2 When the House reconvened after an adjournment to a day certain, the Journal of the last day's proceedings was read. When the House, pursuant to a Senate concurrent resolution,(10) met on Aug. 15, 1960,(11) after an adjournment of approximately six weeks, the Journal of the last day of meeting was read and approved. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. S. Con. Res. 112, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. 11. 106 Cong. Rec. 16457, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reading of Journal in Full Sec. 11.3 The Journal had to be read in full when demanded by a Member. On May 4, 1960,(12) before the Clerk had commenced the reading of the Journal of the previous [[Page 330]] day's proceedings, a Member demanded that the Journal be read in full. The Speaker(13) ordered the Clerk to read the Journal in full. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. 106 Cong. Rec. 9413, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. 13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Likewise, on Aug. 27, 1962,(14) before the Clerk could proceed with the reading of the Journal following a call of the House, a Member rose to demand that the Journal be read in full. The Speaker(15) directed the Clerk to read the Journal in full. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. 108 Cong. Rec. 17653, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. 15. John W. McCormack (Mass.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec. 11.4 Where demand was made that the Journal be read in full, the Clerk read the Journal in accordance with the way it was prepared. On Sept. 13, 1965,(16) the reading of the Journal for the previous legislative day was interrupted by a Member who, asserting that the Clerk had failed to read certain material, rose to demand that the Journal be read in full. The Speaker(17) advised that the Clerk was ``reading the Journal in accordance with its preparation.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16. 111 Cong. Rec. 23599, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. 17. John W. McCormack (Mass.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec. 11.5 When the Journal is read in full the names of those Members noted therein as responding on roll calls may also be read. On June 1, 1934,(18) a Member propounding a parliamentary inquiry interrupted the reading of the Journal in full to ask whether, in the 35 or 36 years of the Speaker's(19) connection with the Congress he had ever known of any requirement under the rule for reading every name of every roll call that occurred and every single word of every proceeding in the Journal. The Speaker replied that while he did not know of such comprehensive reading, it could be done and that the [former] rule so provided. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18. 78 Cong. Rec. 10226, 73d Cong. 2d Sess. 19. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec. 11.6 A message from the President of the United States, entered in the Journal, must be read in its entirety when the Journal is read in full. On May 4, 1960,(20) after the Speaker,(1) in response to the demand of a Member, had directed the Clerk to read the Journal of the last day's proceedings in full, the same Member interrupted the [[Page 331]] reading of the Journal with a parliamentary inquiry, asking whether the message from the President of the United States should be read as part of the Journal. The Speaker replied in the affirmative. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20. 106 Cong. Rec. 9413, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec. 11.7 The names of Members responding to roll calls for the yea and nay vote which had been entered in the Journal were read when the Journal was read in full. On Apr. 9, 1964,(2) after a Member had earlier demanded that the Journal be read in full, the reading of the Journal was interrupted by another Member who insisted, as a point of order, that the names of those voting on a certain roll call be read. The Speaker,(3) stating it to be his understanding that that was the next item in the Journal to be read, ordered the Clerk to continue to read the proceedings of the preceding session. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 110 Cong. Rec. 7355, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec. 11.8 The reading of the Journal was interrupted by a Member contending that the names of those who failed to answer on a roll call were not being read in full. On Sept. 13, 1965,(4) following a demand that the Journal be read in full, the Clerk, at the direction of the Speaker pro tempore(5) had continued the reading of the Journal when it was interrupted by a Member who contended that the names of those who failed to answer on a particular roll call were not being read in full. The Speaker pro tempore stated that the Clerk took up exactly where he left off. The Clerk then continued to read the Journal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. 111 Cong. Rec. 23598, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. 5. Carl Albert (Okla.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec. 11.9 Where a demand that the Journal be read in full was made after a portion thereof had been read, the Clerk began a detailed reading at the point where the demand was made and did not return to that portion which had been passed. On Sept. 13, 1965,(6) a Member interrupted the reading of the Journal for Sept. 9, 1965, with a parliamentary inquiry to ask whether the reading of the Journal in full as previously demanded by him included the reading of the roll call immediately preceding that which was then being read. The Speaker pro tempore(7) replied that that part of the Journal had been passed before the de [[Page 332]] mand had been made for the reading of the Journal in full, and that the question was therefore moot. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 23598, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. 7. Carl Albert (Okla.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following a further parliamentary inquiry and a renewed demand by the same Member that the Journal be read in full, the reading of the Journal was resumed at the direction of the Speaker pro tempore and continued until again interrupted by another Member, who submitted that the Clerk was not reading in full the names of those who failed to answer the roll call being read at the time of the previous interruption. The Speaker pro tempore advised that the Clerk took up at the point of interruption. The Clerk then continued the reading of the Journal. Sec. 11.10 It is presumed that the Journal, when read, is always read in full. On Sept. 11, 1968,(8) in response to a Member's demand that the Journal of the preceding session be read in full, the Speaker(9) said that there is a presumption that the Journal is always read in full. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 26454, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Similarly, on Oct. 8, 1968,(10) in reply to a demand that the Journal be read in full, the Speaker advised that the Chair assumes that the Journal is always read in full. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. 114 Cong. Rec. 30090, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dispensing With Further Reading of the Journal Sec. 11.11 Under the former rule, a motion that the further reading of the Journal be dispensed with was not in order because such action required unanimous consent. On Feb. 22, 1950,(11) in response to a Member who interrupted the reading of the Journal to move that the further reading thereof be dispensed with, the Speaker(12) said that could be done only by unanimous consent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. 96 Cong. Rec. 2152, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. 12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Similarly, on May 4, 1960,(13) the Speaker(14) ruled that a motion to dispense with the further reading of the Journal was not in order, noting that the reading of the Journal could be dispensed with only by unanimous consent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. 106 Cong. Rec. 9413, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. 14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, on Sept. 19, 1962,(15) in response to a Member who moved that the further reading of the [[Page 333]] Journal be dispensed with after objection was heard to his request that it be dispensed with by unanimous consent, the Speaker(16) stated that the motion was not in order. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15. 108 Cong. Rec. 19941, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. 16. John W. McCormack (Mass.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec. 11.12 Under the former rule, the House, by unanimous consent, could dispense with the further reading of the Journal and consider it as read and approved. On Aug. 8, 1964,(17) after a Member had interrupted the reading of the Journal to withdraw his demand that it be read in full, the Speaker(18) announced that without objection, the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day would be considered as read and approved. There was no objection. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17. 110 Cong. Rec. 18630, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. 18. John W. McCormack (Mass.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Likewise on Sept. 11, 1968,(19) after the Speaker(20) had directed the Clerk to continue with the reading of the Journal following an interruption thereof initiated by a call of the House, a Member requested that the further reading of the Journal be dispensed with by unanimous consent. There was no objection. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19. 114 Cong. Rec. 26456, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. 20. John W. McCormack (Mass.). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------