[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 5. The House Rules, Journal, and Record]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 297-300]
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
[[Page 297]]
A. House Rules and Manual
Sec. 1. In General; Printing
Sec. 2. Jefferson's Manual
Sec. 3. Background Information--Power of New House to Adopt Rules
Sec. 4. --Judicial Authority With Respect to Rules
Sec. 5. --Amendment
Sec. 6. --Applicability; Construction
Sec. 7. --Abrogation or Waiver
B. The House Journal
Sec. 8. In General; Purpose and Use
Sec. 9. The Journal as Evidence
Sec. 10. Entry of Particular Proceedings
Sec. 11. Reading the Journal
Sec. 12. --Propriety of Business Before and During Reading
Sec. 13. Effecting Corrections
Sec. 14. Approval
C. The Congressional Record
Sec. 15. In General; Purpose and Format
Sec. 16. Matters Printed in the Record; Civil Liability
Sec. 17. Deletion of Unparliamentary Remarks
Sec. 18. Correction of Errors
Sec. 19. Revision of Remarks
Sec. 20. Extension of Remarks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary and editing by Evan Hoorneman, J.D., and Roy Miller,
LL.B.
[[Page 298]]
Ch.5 DESCHLER'S PRECEDENTS
INDEX TO PRECEDENTS
Amending rules by resolution adopted after discharge of Rules
Committee, Sec. 5.11
Amending rules, rereferral of resolution, by unanimous consent,
Sec. 5.9
Amendment of rules by resolution, Sec. 5.1
Amendment of rules by unanimous consent, Sec. 5.2
Amendment to rules, effect of, Sec. 5.12
Amendments to resolution amending rules, Sec. 5.7
Approval of Journal
by unanimous consent, Sec. 14.10
delay in, Sec. 14.2
motion for, Sec. 14.3
reception of messages before, Sec. 14.13
requests entertained before, Sec. 12.10
Bills, entry of, in Journal, Sec. 10.8
Bills or resolutions, correction of errors in Record in listing of
cosponsors of, Sec. 18.17
Bills printed in Record, Sec. Sec. 16.1-16.4
Business, transaction of, before reading of Journal, Sec. 12.1
Change of votes printed in Record, Sec. 16.14
Committee reports printed in Record, Sec. Sec. 16.6, 16.7
Conference reports printed in Record, Sec. Sec. 16.8-16.12
Congressional Record and Journal, effect of variance between, Sec. 8.1
Correction of Journal
method of effecting, Sec. 13.4
time for making, Sec. 13.1
Correction of printing errors in Record
by Government Printing Office, notation of omissions, Sec. 18.11
by motion, Sec. Sec. 18.6-18.8
by resolution, Sec. Sec. 18.9, 18.10
by submission to reporters of minor corrections, Sec. 18.3
by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 18.4, 18.5
in listing of cosponsors of bills or resolutions, Sec. 18.17
in recording of votes, Sec. Sec. 18.13-18.15
prior to permanent edition, Sec. 18.12
Corrections of Congressional Record, recorded in Journal, Sec. 10.10
Deletion of remarks
by Government Printing Office, Sec. 17.23
by motion, Sec. Sec. 17.13-17.18
by resolution, Sec. Sec. 17.19, 17.20
by the Chair, Sec. Sec. 17.21, 17.22
by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 17.11, 17.12
Discharge of Rules Committee and adoption of resolution amending rules,
Sec. Sec. 5.10, 5.11
Electoral vote, recording of, in Journal, Sec. 10.5
Extension of remarks
by any Member, in final issue of Record, Sec. 20.36
by committee chairman and ranking minority members, Sec. 20.37
by motion, Sec. 20.11
consent of House required, Sec. Sec. 20.1, 20.2
consent of Member yielding floor required, Sec. 20.3
during adjournment to day certain, Sec. 20.32
in Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 20.12-20.18
on occasion of death of Member, Sec. Sec. 20.33-20.35
recognition for requests, Sec. Sec. 20.4-20.10
Extraneous matter in Record, limitations on insertion of,
Sec. Sec. 20.23-20.31
[[Page 299]]
Format changes in Record, Sec. 15.1
House Rules and Manual, resolution relating to, Sec. 1.1
Messages
reception of, before approval of Journal, Sec. 14.13
reception of, prior to reading of Journal, Sec. 12.12
Motions for approval of Journal, Sec. 14.3
Motions to extend remarks, Sec. 20.11
Pairs, correction of printing errors in recording of, Sec. 18.16
Petitions, entry of, in Journal, Sec. 10.7
Petitions printed in Record, Sec. 16.5
Presidential messages printed in Record, Sec. 16.13
Printing errors, question of personal privilege of House raised by,
Sec. Sec. 18.1, 18.2
Proceedings, entry of, in Journal, Sec. 10.1
Reading of Journal
dispensing with further, Sec. 11.11
in full, Sec. 11.3
matters not in order until completion of, Sec. 12.1
matters which may interrupt, Sec. 12.13
practices and customs, Sec. 11.1
reception of messages prior to, Sec. 12.12
resumption of, after interruption, Sec. Sec. 12.21, 12.22
transaction of business before, Sec. 12.1
Recognition for request to extend remarks, Sec. Sec. 20.4-20.10
Remarks affecting colloquies, revision of, Sec. Sec. 19.3, 19.4
Remarks affecting official House proceedings, revision of, Sec. 19.2
Remarks interjected by another Member, revision of, Sec. Sec. 19.5-19.9
Remarks made out of order, Sec. Sec. 17.6-17.10
Reporters of debate, insertion of ``applause'' by, Sec. 15.3
Reports from Committee on Rules
as privileged, Sec. 5.1
two reports on same resolution, Sec. 5.4
Reprints of matters printed in Record, Sec. 15.4
Rereferral of resolution amending rule, by unanimous consent, Sec. 5.9
Resolution amending rules, adoption of after discharge of Rules
Committee, Sec. Sec. 5.10, 5.11
Resolution amending rules, amendments to, Sec. 5.7
Resolution, amendment of rules by, Sec. 5.1
Resolutions or bills, correction of errors in listing of cosponsors of,
Sec. 18.17
Revision of remarks affecting colloquies, Sec. Sec. 19.3, 19.4
Revision of remarks affecting official House proceedings, Sec. 19.2
Revision of remarks interjected by another Member, Sec. Sec. 19.5-19.9
Rules
amendment of, by resolution, Sec. 5.1
amendment of, consideration of, by unanimous consent, Sec. 5.2
amendments to resolution amending, Sec. 5.7
effect of conflict between, Sec. 6.1
factors considered in construing, Sec. 6.3
proceedings not authorized by, Sec. 6.4
rereferral by unanimous consent of resolution amending the,
Sec. 5.9
Rules and legislation, effect of conflict between, Sec. 6.2
Rules changes, showing proposed, Sec. 5.5
Special orders, entry of, in Journal, Sec. 10.3
Type size of Record, Sec. 15.2
Unanimous consent, consideration of amendment of House rules by,
Sec. 5.2
Unanimous consent, approval of Journal by, Sec. 14.10
[[Page 300]]
Unanimous-consent request
authorized prior to reading or approval of Journal, Sec. 12.10
entry of in Journal, Sec. 10.2
Unparliamentary remarks
insertion of, prohibited, Sec. Sec. 20.19-20.22
question of personal privilege or privilege of House raised by,
Sec. Sec. 17.1-17.5
Votes
change of, printed in Record, Sec. 16.14
correction of printing errors in recording of, Sec. Sec. 18.13-
18.15
Withholding of remarks for revision, Sec. Sec. 19.10-19.12
Yeas and nays, recording of, in the Journal, Sec. 10.4
[[Page 301]]
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
A. HOUSE RULES AND MANUAL
Sec. 1. In General; Printing
The following sections discuss the House Rules and Manual, with
emphasis on certain general principles relating to the adoption and
application of the rules.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See also the general discussion of the rules in 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. Sec. 3376-3396.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House Rules and Manual is a House document.(2)
Included in it are the Constitution; Jefferson's Manual;(3)
the rules of the House; certain provisions of the Legislative
Reorganization Acts of 1946 and 1970; pertinent forms, such as forms of
putting questions, of petitions, resolutions, bills, reports from
committees, and the like; a description of the introduction of a bill
and its progress to final passage; a description of joint committees;
materials relating to the franking privilege and the assignment of
rooms in the House office buildings; and a comprehensive index. Also
included at appropriate points throughout the House Rules and Manual
are the commentary of the Parliamentarian and pertinent references to
the precedents of the House and to court cases and other materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thus, the House Rules and Manual used by the 92d Congress was H.
Doc. No. 439, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1971).
3. See Sec. 2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A statute(4) provides that each House may order printed
as many copies as it desires, of the Senate Manual and of the House
Rules and Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 44 USC Sec. 720. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution Relating to House Rules and Manual
Sec. 1.1 At the end of a Congress, a resolution is customarily adopted
providing for the printing and distribution of a revised edition of
the House Rules and Manual for the succeeding Congress.
A typical resolution relating to the printing and distribution of
the House Rules and Manual was that adopted in the 91st
Congress:(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 116 Cong. Rec. 44599, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 2, 1971.
Substantially the same form of resolution has been adopted in
other Congresses. See, as examples, 114 Cong. Rec. 31313, 90th
Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 14, 1968; 104 Cong. Rec. 19699, 85th Cong.
2d Sess., Aug. 23, 1958; and 94 Cong. Rec. 5746, 80th Cong. 2d
Sess., May 12, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 302]]
H. Res. 1339
Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the
House of Representatives for the Ninety-second Congress be printed
as a House document, and that 1,600 additional copies shall be
printed and bound for the use of the House of Representatives, of
which 700 copies shall be bound in leather with thumb index and
delivered as may be directed by the Parliamentarian of the House
for distribution to officers and Members of Congress.
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
A. HOUSE RULES AND MANUAL
Sec. 2. Jefferson's Manual
Jefferson's Manual was prepared by Thomas Jefferson for his own
guidance as President of the Senate in the years of his Vice
Presidency, from 1797 to 1801. In 1837, the House, by rule which still
exists, provided that the provisions of the Manual should govern the
proceedings of the House to the extent specified in the rule. The
present rule(6) states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Rule XLII, House Rules and Manual Sec. 938 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules of parliamentary practice comprised in Jefferson's
Manual and the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946, as amended, shall govern the House in all cases to which they
are applicable, and in which they are not inconsistent with the
standing rules and orders of the House and joint rules of the
Senate and House of Representatives.
The extent to which particular provisions of Jefferson's Manual are
applicable to present-day procedures in the House is indicated in the
notes thereto, including the citations of precedents, accompanying the
text as printed in the House Rules and Manual.
In addition to being traditionally incorporated in some degree in
the House rules, Jefferson's Manual serves as part of the basis of the
general parliamentary law that governs the House prior to adoption of
the rules.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
A. HOUSE RULES AND MANUAL
Sec. 3. Background Information--Power of New House to Adopt Rules
With respect to the importance of adopting rules of procedure in
legislative bodies, Jefferson stated in his Manual:(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 285 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or
not is really not of so great importance. It is much more material
that there should be a
[[Page 303]]
rule to go by than what that rule is; that there may be a
uniformity of proceeding in business not subject to the caprice of
the Speaker or captiousness of the members. . . .
The Constitution(9) provides that, ``Each House may
determine the Rules of its Proceedings. . . .'' Thus, the power of each
House of Representatives to make its own rules may not be impaired or
controlled by the rules of the preceding House or by a law passed by a
prior Congress.(10) As an example, the provisions of a
legislative reorganization act enacted into law in a previous Congress
cannot restrict the authority of a present House to adopt its own
rules.(11) But a law passed by an existing Congress with the
concurrence of the House has been recognized by that House as of
binding force in matters of procedure.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5.
10. See Ch. 1, supra.
11. See 117 Cong. Rec. 132, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971 (remarks
of Speaker Carl Albert [Okla.]).
12. See, generally, Ch. 1, supra. See also 59 Am. Jur. 2d,
Parliamentary Law Sec. 2 (adoption and suspension of rules of
procedure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some cases, Congress has enacted statutes containing provisions
relating to procedures to be followed in certain instances. Such
statutes have been enacted as an exercise of the rule-making power of
Congress and deemed a part of the rules of each House. Thus, Congress
has provided by statute for procedures to be followed with respect to
the consideration of certain resolutions relating to executive
reorganization plans.(13) Such statutes were enacted with
express recognition of the power of each House to change its rules, and
with specific limitations on the applicability of the
statute.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 5 USC Sec. Sec. 908-913.
14. See 5 USC Sec. 908.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint rules are rarely employed. It may be noted that, in the 91st
Congress, a law specifying that the counting of electoral votes for
President and Vice President should be conducted in a joint session was
made a joint rule of the two Houses by its incorporation by reference
in a concurrent resolution.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 115 Cong. Rec. 36, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3. 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House at any time may, by rules, provide new methods of
procedure so long as such rules do not conflict with constitutional
provisions.(16) With regard to the scope of the power of the
House to determine the rules of its proceedings, Jefferson stated in
his Manual:(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 4, infra.
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 387 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 304]]
Where the Constitution authorizes each House to determine the
rules of its proceedings, it must mean in those cases (legislative,
executive, or judiciary) submitted to them by the Constitution, or
in something relating to these, and necessary toward their
execution. But orders and resolutions are sometimes entered in the
journals having no relation to these, such as acceptances of
invitations to attend orations, to take part in procession, etc.
These must be understood to be merely conventional among those who
are willing to participate in the ceremony, and are therefore,
perhaps, improperly placed among the records of the House.
Propositions to adopt or change a rule are within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Rules.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Ch. 17, infra; see also Ch. 21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The action of the House taken with respect to a rule that has been
reported by the Committee on Rules is controlling. A rule having been
adopted, the Chair will thereafter look to the rule and direct the
House to proceed in accordance with its terms, unless the rule has been
superseded.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings in the House are not, of course, governed by the rules
exclusively. Thus, the procedure of the House is governed in some
instances by the custom or practice of the House rather than by express
rules. On the other hand, even where a matter or procedure is not
expressly prohibited by the rules, it may be considered unauthorized
thereby and therefore deemed improper.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See, for example, the discussion in 7 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 1029. See also 98 Cong. Rec. 1334, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.,
Feb. 25, 1952, in which Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.) stated, with
reference to the televising of committee meetings, that since
there was at that time no authority in the rules of the House
granting the privilege of televising the proceedings of the
House of Representatives, there was no authorization for
televising committee meetings. (Speaker Rayburn's rulings on
the subject were later relied upon by Speaker John W. McCormack
[Mass.], in 108 Cong. Rec. 267-269, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan.
16, 1962.) See Sec. 6.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the adoption of rules by a new House, that House is governed
by general parliamentary law. The Speakers have been inclined to give
weight to the precedents of the House in modifying the usual
constructions of general parliamentary law.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Ch. 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On occasion, the House has passed a bill of major importance prior
to the adoption of the rules.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. There was an instance in the 73d Congress (77 Cong. Rec. 75 et
seq., 73d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 9, 1933) in which the House by
unanimous consent agreed to consider, under a stringent
procedure with respect to debate and amendments, a bank bill
whose immediate passage had been recommended by President
Roosevelt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 305]]
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
A. HOUSE RULES AND MANUAL
Sec. 4. --Judicial Authority With Respect to Rules
The role that the courts play in adjudicating questions involving
the rules of either House must of necessity be a limited one, for the
manner in which a House or committee of Congress chooses to run its
business ordinarily raises no justifiable controversy.(3) On
the other hand, when the application or construction of a rule directly
affects persons other than Members of the House, the question presented
is of necessity a judicial one.(4) Thus, to a limited
extent, the rules of Congress and its committees are judicially
cognizable. Even where a judicial controversy is presented, however,
the function of the courts is generally a narrow one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Yellin v United States, 374 U.S. 109 (1963); United States v
Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892).
4. Yellin v United States, 374 U.S. 109 (1963); Christoffel v United
States, 338 U.S. 84 (1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution empowers each House to determine its rules of
proceedings.(5) The House may not by its rules ignore
constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there
should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of
proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be
attained. But within these limitations, all matters of method are open
to the determination of the House, and it is no impeachment of the rule
to say that some other way would be better, more accurate or even more
just.(6) In accordance with these principles, the question,
as was stated in one case,(7) is not what rules Congress may
establish, but rather what rules the House has established and whether
they have been followed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 3, supra.
6. Yellin v United States, 374 U.S. 109 (1963); United States v
Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892).
7. Christoffel v United States, 338 U.S. 84 (1949). In the Christoffel
case, the petitioner had been convicted of perjury before a
House committee under a statute punishing perjury before a
``competent'' tribunal. The petitioner contended that the
committee was not a ``competent'' tribunal in that a quorum was
not present at the time of the incident alleged. The court
reversed the conviction, citing an erroneous instruction that
would have allowed the jury to determine competency on the
basis of the situation existing at the time the committee
convened rather than at the time of the actual incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although rules adopted by the House or its committees have the
[[Page 306]]
force of law and are binding on those for whose use the rules were
established,(8) there is a point beyond which courts will
not venture in their disposition of cases concerning the rules. Thus,
in a controversy involving a House rule that required testimony to be
received by a committee in executive session only if the committee
determined that the testimony of the witness would tend to defame,
degrade, or incriminate any person, the court stated that it would be
an unwarranted interference with the powers conferred by the
Constitution upon the legislative branch for any court to presume to
dictate that determination.(9) It is worth noting that the
court in this case also cited a presumption in favor of the regularity
of all official conduct and stated that the presumption required that
it be assumed that a committee would not disregard its rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Yellin v United States, 374 U.S. 109 (1963); Christoffel v United
States, 338 U.S. 84 (1949); Randolph v Willis, 220 F Supp 355
(1963).
9. Randolph v Willis, 220 F Supp 355 (1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
A. HOUSE RULES AND MANUAL
Sec. 5. --Amendment
In the exercise of its rule-making power under the
Constitution,(10) the House may amend its rules at any time.
It has been said(11) that the question of changing the rules
of the House is a matter for decision by the House and not the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 3, supra.
11. See the proceedings at 104 Cong. Rec. 12121, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.,
June 24, 1958 (especially remarks of Speaker Rayburn).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, amendments are made by resolution, although, of course,
rules may be, in effect, rescinded or modified through the use of a
number of procedural devices, such as unanimous-consent
requests.(12) Similarly, statutes containing provisions as
to procedure may have the effect of changing a rule of the House where
the statute is the later reflection of the will of the
House.(13) In adopting the rules of the previous House, of
course, the House frequently amends such rules, either by incorporating
the amendments in the resolution adopting the rules, or adopting
amendments after a negative vote on ordering the previous question on
the resolution as first offered.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 5.2 (amendment by unanimous consent) and Sec. 7
(abrogation or waiver), infra.
13. Sec. 6.2, infra.
14. Generally, see Sec. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Rules has jurisdiction over the rules and joint
rules, other than rules or joint rules relating to the Code of Offi
[[Page 307]]
cial Conduct or relating to financial disclosure by a Member, officer,
or employee of the House.(15) Thus, the Committee on Rules
has jurisdiction over resolutions proposing amendments to the rules of
the House, and may report a resolution referred to it to change the
rules of the House except in a respect that would constitute violation
of constitutional provisions.(16) The Committee on Rules may
itself recommend an amendment to the rules of the House, for the House
to pass upon.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1973).
16. For further discussion of the scope of the rule-making power, see
Sec. 4, supra.
17. See 92 Cong. Rec. 5864, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., May 27, 1946 (remarks
of Speaker Rayburn speaking in response to a parliamentary
inquiry relating to the scope of authority of the Committee on
Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has jurisdiction
over measures amending the rules of the House relating to financial
disclosure by Members, officers and employees of the
House.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For an instance in which the Chairman of the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct inserted in the Record the text of a
resolution, referred to that committee, amending the financial
disclosure rule, see 116 Cong. Rec. 1077, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.,
Jan. 26, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A rule(19) provides that the Committee on Rules shall
have leave to report at any time on rules, joint rules, and the order
of business. In accordance with that principle, it has been held that
reports of the Committee on Rules on resolutions proposing amendments
to the rules of the House are privileged.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Rule XI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1973).
20. See Sec. 5.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules of the House have frequently been amended for purposes of
transferring jurisdiction over particular matters from one committee of
the House to another,(1) or for purposes of changing the
name of a committee.(2) In such cases, the changes in the
rules may be implemented by resolutions electing the members of the
committee under its former name to the newly named committee, and
transferring records, bills, and the like to that committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See 113 Cong. Rec. 29560, 29564-67, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 20,
1967.
2. See 115 Cong. Rec. 3723, 3745-47, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 18,
1969; 97 Cong. Rec. 883, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 2, 1951.
For discussion of standing committees and their
jurisdiction generally, see Ch. 17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 308]]
-------------------Amendment by Resolution
Sec. 5.1 Amendments to the rules are generally offered in the form of a
privileged resolution reported and called up by the Committee on
Rules.
Amendments to the rules are typically brought about by resolution
as in the following instance in the 90th Congress:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 113 Cong Rec. 10708, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 25, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Colmer:(4) Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 42 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. William M. Colmer (Miss.) was the Chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 42
Resolved, That paragraph 4 of rule XXII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following sentence: ``Two or more but not more than
ten Members may introduce jointly any bill, memorial, or
resolution to which this paragraph applies.''
[Mr. Colmer was recognized for one hour.]
Mr. Colmer: . . . Mr. Speaker, this resolution . . . provides
for a change in the rules of the House to provide that as many as
10 Members of the House may join in sponsoring a resolution or a
bill. . . .
Amendment by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 5.2 Propositions to make minor changes in the rules are frequently
considered by unanimous consent.
As an example of this practice, unanimous consent was asked in the
86th Congress(5) for the immediate consideration of a
resolution to amend the rules by renumbering certain paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 105 Cong. Rec. 1209, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 27, 1959.
The practice of amending the rules by unanimous consent,
and several examples thereof, are noted in 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. Sec. 3379-3381.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports of Committee on Rules as Privileged
Sec. 5.3 Reports of the Committee on Rules on resolutions proposing
amendments to the rules of the House are privileged.
In the 74th Congress, in the course of a discussion of a resolution
amending the Private Calendar rule, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, in responding to a point of order cited the
rule(6) that the Committee on Rules shall have leave to
report at any time on rules, joint rules, and
[[Page 309]]
the order of business, and then stated:(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Now Rule XI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1973).
7. 79 Cong. Rec. 4482, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pending resolution proposes to amend the rules of the
House, it relates to the order of business in the House, and, under
the rule the Chair has just read, is made a matter of privilege.
Multiple Reports on Same Resolution
Sec. 5.4 Two reports may not be filed from the Committee on Rules on
the same resolution.
In the 81st Congress, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules,
Adolph Sabath, of Illinois, reported a privileged resolution proposing
certain amendments to the rules, which was referred to the House
Calendar and ordered to be printed. Responding to a subsequent attempt
by another Member to file a report on the same resolution, Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, stated,(8) ``The Chair is of opinion that
two reports cannot be filed on the same resolution at the same time.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 96 Cong. Rec. 501, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 17, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: In this case, Mr. Edward E. Cox, of
Georgia, had been authorized to file the report because it was
evidently feared that the Chairman, Mr. Sabath, either would not
immediately do so or would not call it up within the seven days allowed
him under the rule. Mr. Cox stepped aside to permit Mr. Sabath to file
the report under an alleged understanding that Mr. Sabath would call it
up on a specified day. During discussion of the matter, Mr. Cox
attempted to file a report on the same resolution, whereupon Speaker
Rayburn expressed his opinion as indicated.
Showing Proposed Changes of Rules
Sec. 5.5 The Ramseyer rule(9) did not apply to reports of
the Committee on Rules on resolutions amending the rules of the
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Rule XIII, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1973), relating to the
requirement that a committee report on a bill amending existing
law show the proposed changes in existing law. The Ramseyer
rule is discussed in Ch. 17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 74th Congress, in the course of a discussion of a resolution
amending the Private Calendar rule, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, in response to a parliamentary inquiry,
stated:(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 4482, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ramseyer rule . . . has to do with reports of committees on
bills
[[Page 310]]
which amend the statutes. This resolution proposes to amend the
rules of the House, and therefore does not come within the
provisions of clause 2a of rule XIII, the so-called ``Ramseyer
rule.'' The Chair, therefore, does not think that the Ramseyer rule
applies to this report of the Committee on Rules.
Special Orders; Consideration in Committee of the Whole
Sec. 5.6 A resolution or bill amending the rules of the House may be
considered in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to the terms of
a special order reported from the Committee on Rules.
In the 90th Congress, a resolution amending the rules of the House,
eligible for consideration in the House as privileged business and
subject to the hour rule, was, pursuant to a special order, considered
in the Committee of the Whole and debated for two hours.(11)
Consideration of the resolution amending the rules proceeded in
accordance with the following separate resolution:(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 8776-812, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 3, 1968.
12. 114 Cong. Rec. 8776, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 3. 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 1119
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration
of the resolution (H. Res. 1099) amending H. Res. 418, Ninetieth
Congress, to continue the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct as a permanent standing committee of the House of
Representatives, and for other purposes. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the resolution and continue not to
exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, the resolution shall be read for amendment
under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration
of the resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and
report the resolution to the House with such amendments as may have
been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the resolution and amendments thereto.
The purpose of the Committee on Rules in reporting the separate
resolution relating to consideration of H. Res. 1099 was to afford the
opportunity for adequate debate and the offering of amendments; had H.
Res. 1099 come to the floor of the House without a special order, the
effect would have been the same as that of a closed rule under which
amendments could not be offered.(13) In
[[Page 311]]
the course of consideration of the substantive resolution, a committee
amendment was agreed to,(14) and other amendments were
offered.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 114 Cong. Rec. 8777, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 3, 1968 (remarks
of Mr. H. Allen Smith [Calif.]).
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 8803, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 3, 1968.
15. See, for example, the amendment offered by Mr. Wayne L. Hays [Ohio]
(114 Cong. Rec. 8804, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 3, 1968),
against which a point of order was sustained, the Chair ruling
that, to a resolution providing an official code of conduct for
Members, officers, and employees of the House, an amendment
making the code applicable to other persons not associated with
the House was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A resolution amending the rules of the House may be considered in
the Committee of the Whole under an open rule pursuant to provisions of
a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See, for example, 116 Cong. Rec. 17013, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., May
26, 1970 (H. Res. 971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some instances, a resolution has been reported from the
Committee on Rules providing a rule ``closed'' in part, for
consideration of a bill, also reported from that committee, amending
the rules of the House. Thus, in the 91st Congress, the House adopted a
resolution(17) providing for consideration of a bill
amending the rules of the House under a procedure prohibiting
amendments that would change the jurisdiction of any standing
committee. The proceedings in part were as follows:(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Res. 1093, providing for consideration of H.R. 17654
(Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970).
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 23901, 91st Cong. 21 Sess., July 13, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [B.F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1093, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 1093
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (H. R. 17654) to improve the
operation of the legislative branch of the Federal Government,
and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be
confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed four
hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, the bill
shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. No
amendment to the bill shall be in order which would have the
effect of changing the jurisdiction of any committee of the
House listed in rule XI. At the conclusion of the consideration
of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
[[Page 312]]
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
After some discussion, the following proceedings took
place:(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 23902.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. Allen] Smith [of California]: . . .
This is a closed rule from the standpoint that no amendments to
the bill will be permitted so far as changing the jurisdiction of
any committee of the House as listed in rule XI is
concerned.(20) Other than that, it is an open rule. . .
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. As an example of the effect of the prohibition against amendments
that would change committee jurisdiction, an amendment
restricting the power of the Committee on Rules to report a
closed rule was ruled out of order as effecting a change in
that committee's jurisdiction. See 116 Cong. Rec. 26414, 91st
Cong. 2d Sess., July 29, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution was agreed to.
Amendments to Resolution
Sec. 5.7 On one occasion the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, after
calling up a privileged resolution reported by his committee
amending the rules of the House, offered an amendment not
previously agreed to by the committee.
In the 90th Congress, in the course of consideration of a
resolution amending the rules to permit joint sponsorship of bills, the
Chairman of the Committee on Rules offered an amendment as
follows:(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 113 Cong. Rec. 10711, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 25, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Colmer: On page 1, line 4, after
``than'' strike out ``ten'' and insert ``twenty-five''.
The amendment was agreed to.
Sec. 5.8 A resolution reported by the Committee on Rules proposing to
amend the rules may not be amended unless the Member in charge
yields for that purpose or the previous question is voted down, nor
is an amendment offered by the Member in charge subject to
amendment.
The following proceedings took place in the 82d
Congress:(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 97 Cong. Rec. 11394, 11397, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 14, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John E.] Lyle [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up H. Res. 386 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
[The Clerk read the resolution, which proposed an amendment to the
rules of the House.]
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to in
[[Page 313]]
quire, as a parliamentary inquiry, whether or not this resolution
would be subject to amendment if an amendment were offered for and
on behalf of the Rules Committee.
The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Lyle] has control of the time. The gentleman from Texas can
offer an amendment before he moves the previous question, which
amendment the Chair hopes will be offered.
Mr. Halleck: In other words, if the question that has been
raised is such as merits the attention of the House before we
finally act on this matter, then it could be reached by some sort
of amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lyle]?
The Speaker: Or he could yield to someone to offer an
amendment. . . .
Mr. [Clark E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: A parliamentary inquiry,
Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman: But unless the gentleman from Texas does offer
such an amendment the only way we could have an opportunity would
be to vote down the previous question.
The Speaker: That would be correct.
Mr. Lyle: Mr. Speaker, when I introduced the resolution I
called to the attention of the House the objection that had been
raised to the proviso that has been under discussion. I have drawn
an amendment which I expect to offer which would strike out lines
12, 13, and 14.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman desire to offer the amendment
now?
Mr. Lyle: Mr. Speaker, I now offer the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lyle: Strike out lines 1, 13, and
14.
Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman: Is an amendment to the amendment in order?
The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman from Texas yields for
that purpose.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Texas.
The amendment was agreed to.
Rereferral or Recommittal of Resolution Amending Rule
Sec. 5.9 A resolution reported by the Committee on Rules proposing an
amendment to the rules of the House was by unanimous consent
recommitted to the Committee on Rules, a motion to recommit not
being in order.
In the course of the proceedings described above(3)
relating to a resolution proposing an amendment to the rules, the
following exchange took place:(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sec. 5.8, supra.
4. 97 Cong. Rec. 11397, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 14, 1951 (Speaker
Sam Rayburn, Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
[[Page 314]]
Mr. Hoffman: Is a motion to recommit in order?
The Speaker: Not on a resolution from the Committee on Rules. .
. .
Mr. [John E.] Lyle [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the resolution may be re-referred to the Committee on
Rules.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Discharge of Committee on Rules; Adoption of Resolution
Sec. 5.10 The Committee on Rules was by motion discharged from further
consideration of a resolution amending the rules of the House.
In the 78th Congress, a resolution amending the rules was read with
respect to which Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
remarked:(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See 90 Cong. Rec. 629, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 24, 1944 (Speaker
Sam Rayburn, Tex.).
As to discharging matters from committee consideration
generally, see Ch. 18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, this resolution was introduced a little more than
a year ago, on January 6, 1943. We were unable to get it reported
from the Rules Committee. I am reliably informed the Committee on
Rules never had a chance to vote on it. It was never laid before
them for a vote. Therefore it was petitioned out. Two hundred and
eighteen Members of this House signed a petition bringing it before
the House at this time. . . .
A motion to discharge the Committee on Rules was agreed
to.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 90 Cong. Rec. 633, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 24, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 5.11 Where the Committee on Rules is discharged from further
consideration of a resolution amending the rules, the House
immediately votes on adoption of the resolution, and amendments are
not in order.
In the course of the proceedings described above concerning a
resolution to amend the rules,(7) the following exchange
took place:(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 5.10, supra.
8. 90 Cong. Rec. 631, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 24, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: I wish to be
advised for my own information and for the information of the House
as to whether or not this resolution will be subject to amendment
in the event of an affirmative vote on the motion to discharge.
There seems to be some uncertainty about it.
The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Chair will read the
rule, which is very clear:
If the motion should prevail to discharge the Committee on
Rules from any resolution pending before the committee the
House shall immediately vote on the adoption of said
resolution, the Speaker not enter
[[Page 315]]
taining any dilatory or other intervening motions except one
motion to adjourn.
Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: That is on the resolution
itself, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: On the resolution itself.
Mr. Cooley: My parliamentary inquiry was about the resolution
after the discharge of the committee.
The Speaker: That is exactly what the Chair was reading. It
reads: ``On the resolution.'' When the House votes to discharge the
committee then the resolution is before the House for a vote.
Mr. Cooley: Under the general rules of the House providing for
an amendment; or am I mistaken?
The Speaker: This is not under the general rules of the House;
this is under the discharge rule.
Discussion of Effect of Proposed Amendment
Sec. 5.12 The effect of a proposed amendment to the rules is a matter
for debate and not within the jurisdiction of the Chair to decide
on a parliamentary inquiry.
In the 90th Congress, in the course of debate on a resolution to
amend the rules to permit joint sponsorship of bills, the following
exchange took place:(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 113 Cong. Rec. 10710, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 25, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Durwood G.] Hall [of Missouri]: . . .
[W]ill the distinguished gentleman yield at this time for a
parliamentary inquiry of the Chair, inasmuch as it is important
that we try to envisage, in passing this legislation today,
what effect it will have on the future rules of procedure in
the House, and their application.
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: I yield to the
gentleman from Missouri.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(10) The Chair must advise
the distinguished gentleman from Missouri that this is a matter for
debate on a resolution pending and not a matter properly within the
jurisdiction of the Chair on a parliamentary inquiry. It is up to
the sponsor of the resolution to explain the terms of the
resolution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
A. HOUSE RULES AND MANUAL
Sec. 6. --Applicability; Construction
A rule(11) provides that the rules of proceeding in the
House shall be observed in Committees of the Whole House so far as they
may be applicable. Similarly, the rules of the House are the rules of
its committees and subcommittees so far as applicable.(12)
Thus, Members may appeal from decisions of the chairmen of their
respective committees in the same manner as Members have a right
[[Page 316]]
to appeal from a decision of the Speaker or presiding officer in the
House.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XXIII, House Rules and Manual Sec. 877 (1973).
12. Rule XI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 735 (1973).
13. 95 Cong Rec. 1212, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 15, 1949 (remarks of
Speaker Sam Rayburn [Tex.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been stated,(14) in response to objections raised
against certain rules changes, that it is not within the province of
the Chair in disposing of a point of order to consider the effect or
anticipated effect of the passage of any rule on legislation which may
be pending. A proposed rule having been reported by the Committee on
Rules, it is for the House to consider and act upon it, and such action
is controlling. It is the province of the Chair to look to the terms of
each existing rule and direct the House to proceed in accordance with
those terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 79 Cong Rec. 11265, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., July 16, 1935 (remarks of
Speaker Joseph W. Byrns [Tenn.].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where two rules of the House are in conflict, the last one adopted
controls.(15) Similarly, where the rules of the House and a
subsequent legislative enactment are not consistent, the enactment must
prevail.(16) On the other hand, a rule subsequently adopted
may supersede the provisions of such an enactment.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 6.1, infra.
16. See Sec. 6.2, infra.
17. In the 86th Congress, a provision in the mutual security
appropriation bill reappropriating unexpended balances was
conceded to be unauthorized, notwithstanding a section in the
Mutual Security Act of 1955 authorizing such reappropriations,
since the rules of the House adopted on Jan. 7, 1959 contained
a later, expression of Congress to the contrary. See 106 Cong
Rec. 13138, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17,
1960. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Rules
Sec. 6.1 Where two rules of the House are in conflict, the last one
adopted controls.
In the 74th Congress, in the course of holding that the House may,
by rule, provide for the consolidation into an omnibus bill of private
bills once objected to, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee,
stated:(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 79 Cong Rec. 11264, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., July 16, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman . . . in his argument today, has contended that
this rule conflicts with a number of rules to which he has
referred. Without passing upon the question of whether or not there
is a conflict, the Chair will state that if there is a conflict the
rule last adopted would control. The Chair assumes that if this
rule should be found to conflict with previous rules that the House
intended, at least by implication, to repeal that portion of the
previous rule with which it is in conflict.
Sec. 6.2 Where the rules of the House and a subsequent legislative
enactment are not
[[Page 317]]
consistent, the enactment must prevail, being a later expression of
the will of the House.
In the 87th Congress, it was held that a House rule prohibiting, on
general appropriation bills, provisions reappropriating unexpended
balances of appropriations, was not applicable to provisions in an
appropriation bill that were authorized by a legislative enactment
passed subsequently to the adoption of the rules.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 107 Cong Rec. 18133, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 5, 1961 (Speaker
pro tempore John W. McCormack, Mass.).
Of course, a rule subsequently adopted may supersede the
provisions of such an enactment. See Sec. 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factors Considered in Construing Rule
Sec. 6.3 In construing a rule, the Speaker may consider all the facts
and issues involved in a point of order arising under the terms of
the rule.
In the 75th Congress, a point of order was made against the
acceptance by the House of the report of an election committee, on the
grounds that the making of the report violated a rule specifying the
time within which election committees should make final reports to the
House in contested election cases. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, ruled that the provisions in question were directory and not
mandatory, and did not prevent an election committee from filing a
report after expiration of the specified time. In reaching such
decision, the Speaker indicated that he would look beyond the strict
terms of the rule to all the facts in the case in order to determine
the intention of the House in adopting the rule. Among the factors
considered by the Speaker in reaching his decision were the
constitutional power of the House to decide the qualifications of its
Members, and the fact that the time period between the election of
Members and the meeting of Congress was much shorter than it had been
at the time the rule in question was adopted.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See 81 Cong Rec. 8842-8846, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 13, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings Not Expressly Authorized by Rules
Sec. 6.4 On occasion, acts or proceedings not expressly authorized by
the rules may be deemed inconsistent with or in violation of the
rules.
Examples may be seen in the rulings of Speakers Sam Rayburn,
[[Page 318]]
of Texas, and John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, under the rules as
they existed at the time, in regard to televising committee
meetings.(21) The tenor of the rulings was that since there
was no authority in the rules of the House granting the privilege of
televising the proceedings of the House, there was no authorization for
televising committee meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See 98 Cong. Rec. 1334, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 25, 1952; 101
Cong. Rec. 628, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 24, 1955; 108 Cong.
Rec. 267-269, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 16, 1962; 113 Cong.
Rec. 8419, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 5, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
A. HOUSE RULES AND MANUAL
Sec. 7. --Abrogation or Waiver
In most cases, the requirements of the rules can be waived or
abrogated through the use of various procedures. The House, for
example, may by unanimous consent agree to a certain order of business,
or may vote to suspend the rules. These procedures are discussed in
detail elsewhere.(1) Generally, the Speaker may recognize
for unanimous-consent requests to waive the requirements of existing
rules unless the rule in question specifies that it is not subject to
waiver.(2) Similarly, the power of the House to change its
rules at any time, as by amendment or by provisions included in
legislative enactments, is recognized, as has been discussed
above.(3) Moreover, it appears that where a motion not in
order under the rules of the House is, without objection, considered
and agreed to, it controls the procedure of the House until carried
out, unless the House takes affirmative action to the
contrary.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Ch. 21, infra.
2. See Ch. 21, infra.
For debate of amendments under the five-minute rule, see
Ch. 29, infra.
3. See Sec. 5, supra.
Provisions in a legislative enactment may have the effect
of rendering inapplicable a House rule adopted earlier with
respect to the matters covered in the enactment. Being a later
expression of the will of the House, such enactment may, for
example, expressly authorize that which is prohibited by the
rule. See Sec. 6.2, supra.
4. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 9, 1968 (remarks of
Speaker John W. McCormack [Mass.], relating to motion of Mr.
Adams). See Ch. 23, infra, as to the use of motions generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The strict terms of a rule have been avoided where the Speaker,
having considered all of the facts and issues involved in a point of
order arising under the terms of the rule, has construed such rule
[[Page 319]]
to be directory and not mandatory.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 6.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A common means by which the rules may be circumvented is for the
Committee on Rules to report, and the House to adopt, a resolution
providing for a particular order of business and specifying the
conditions under which such business will be considered.(6)
Since the Committee on Rules has authority to report resolutions
providing for special orders of business, no point of order against
such a resolution can be based on the fact that adoption of the
resolution would have the effect of abrogating another standing rule of
the House.(7) Thus, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
a resolution may be called up waiving all points of order against a
particular bill. In such manner, a variety of points of order can be
waived. As examples, a resolution may waive points of order that could
otherwise be raised against legislative provisions in appropriation
bills,(8) points of order based on the requirement of
germaneness in amendments to bills,(9) and even points of
order based on the requirements of the Ramseyer rule,(10)
whether the resolution is general in its terms or expressly waives the
requirement of compliance with the Ramseyer rule.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Chs. 17, 21, infra.
7. Generally, see Ch. 21, infra.
8. See Ch. 26, infra.
For an example of a resolution waiving the provisions of
the house rule relating to unauthorized appropriations and
legislation on general appropriation bills, see 86 Cong. Rec.
3443, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 25, 1940 (H. Res. 436).
9. See, for example, 106 Cong. Rec. 10575, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May
18, 1960. For general discussion of the requirement of
germaneness in amendments to bills, see Ch. 28, infra.
10. As to the Ramseyer rule, requiring in certain circumstances that
committee reports show the effects of proposed bills on
existing law, see Ch. 17, infra.
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 1214, 1218, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 15, 1949
(response of Speaker Sam Rayburn [Tex.], to point of order
concerning the First Deficiency Appropriation Bill, 1949).
[[Page 320]]
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
B. THE HOUSE JOURNAL
Sec. 8. In General; Purpose and Use
The Constitution requires the House of Representatives to keep a
Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish it excepting
such parts as may in its judgment require secrecy.(1)
Accordingly, it is the Journal of the House and not the Corgressional
Record that is the official record of the proceedings of the
House,(2) and as such it is appropriately afforded judicial
notice by both federal and state courts.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, by which an identical requirement is
imposed upon the Senate.
2. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2727.
3. 31 CJS Evidence Sec. 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The object of the constitutional clause exacting the keeping of the
Journal is to ensure publicity to the proceedings of the House and a
correspondent responsibility of the Members to their respective
constituents.(4) And, in consonance with such purpose,
Jefferson's Manual, although providing that the Clerk is not to let the
Journal be taken out of his custody,(5) also emphasizes that
as an official record the Journal is open to inspection by every Member
and that anyone may take and publish votes therefrom.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 2 Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Sec. Sec. 837-839.
5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 352 (1973).
6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 582 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk is required to print and distribute the Journal at the
close of each session to the Members and others designated by the House
rules.(7) Further, various statutes provide for the
distribution of the Journal to the libraries and document rooms of both
Houses of Congress, and to the Secretary of the Senate, the Clerk of
the House, and several other governmental officials, agencies, and
departments.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Rule III clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 641 (1973) (which
also requires that the Clerk send a copy of the Journal to the
Executive and to each branch of the legislature of each state).
8. See, for example, 2 USC Sec. Sec. 145, 146; 44 USC Sec. Sec. 713,
1714, 1718.
-------------------Effect of Variance Between
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Journal and Congressional Record
Sec. 8.1 The Senate Journal is the official record of Senate pro
[[Page 321]]
ceedings, and where there is a variance between a Journal and a
Record entry, the Journal is controlling.
On Jan. 8, 11 165,(9) in response to a parliamentary
inquiry of a Senator who asked whether the record of the Journal Clerk
or the record of an official reporter of debates took precedence in the
event that there was any variance between them, the President pro
tempore(10) said that the Journal is mentioned in the
Constitution, and all the precedents support the Journal as the proper
record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 111 Cong. Rec. 452, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Carl Hayden (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
B. THE HOUSE JOURNAL
Sec. 9. The Journal as Evidence
In keeping with the Journal's status as the official record of the
House,(11) it is provided by statute(12) that
extracts therefrom certified by the Clerk(13) are to be
received in evidence with the same effect as the originals would have.
However, it has been held that with respect to matters not required by
the Constitution to be entered on the Journal, such provision is not a
statutory declaration that the Journal is the highest evidence of the
facts stated in it or complete evidence of all that occurs in the
progress of business in the House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 8, supra.
12. 28 USC Sec. 1736.
13. 2 USC Sec. 114 authorizes the Clerk to charge a nominal fee for
certified transcripts from the Journal except when required by
an officer of the United States in a matter relating to the
duties of his office.
14. Field v Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892), construing former Revised
Statutes Sec. 895, the provisions of which respecting the
admissibility and weight to be afforded certified copies of the
Journal were essentially the same as those of 28 USC Sec. 1736.
Collateral references: As to the extent to which resort may
be made to legislative journals as an aid in the construction
of constitutions or statutes generally, see 70 ALR 5. As to
judicial review of parliamentary proceedings generally, see 59
Am Jur 2d Parliamentary Law Sec. 15 (1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Constitution requires the objections of the President
to a bill returned by him to be entered upon the
Journal,(15) the failure of the Journal to show such
objections as of a certain time is not conclusive in determining
whether the bill was in fact returned within the period allowed by the
Constitution,(16) particularly since the President has no
control over the entries in the Journal.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 10, infra.
16. U.S. Const. art I, Sec. 7.
17. Prevost v Morganthau, 106 F2d 330 (70 App. D.C. 306, 1939).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 322]]
It is expressly provided by statute(18) that certified
copies of the Journal record of the oath of office personally
subscribed by Members are admissible in evidence in any court of the
United States as conclusive proof of the fact that the signer duly took
the oath of office in accordance with law.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 2 USC Sec. 25.
19. Generally, as to taking the oath, see Ch. 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
B. THE HOUSE JOURNAL
Sec. 10. Entry of Particular Proceedings
The Constitution provides for the keeping and publication of the
Journal,(20) and expressly requires the recording of certain
matters therein. Pursuant to its provisions, veto messages of the
President accompanying bills disapproved and returned by him to the
House must be entered on the Journal.(1) The Constitution
also specifies the circumstances under which the yeas and nays are to
be entered on the Journal.(2) And, because yea and nay votes
are thus always made a part of the Journal, a motion or request to that
effect is not necessary.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 8, supra.
1. U.S. Const. art I, Sec. 7.
2. See U.S. Const. art I, Sec. Sec. 5, 7.
3. See Sec. 10.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The specific content of the Journal is also governed to some extent
by legislative enactment.(4) For example, a statute requires
that the electoral vote be entered on the Journal(5)
together with a list of the votes by state in alphabetical order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See, for example, 2 USC Sec. 25, requiring each Member who takes
the oath of office to deliver a signed copy thereof to the
Clerk for recordation in the Congressional Record and in the
Journal.
As to the admissibility in evidence of certified copies of
the Journal entry, see Sec. 9, supra.
5. 3 USC Sec. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governing the content of the Journal to a far greater extent than
the relatively few constitutional and statutory provisions are the
rules and practice of the House itself. In this regard, it should be
noted that while the Constitution requires that certain matters be
recorded in the Journal, it does not specify the particular mode in
which, or indicate with what fullness, the Journal is to record those
proceedings of the House relating to matters not expressly required by
it to be entered therein; consequently the procedures to be followed
with respect to such matters are left to the discretion of the
House.(6) Thus, the House controls its Jour
[[Page 323]]
nal, even to the extent of omitting things actually done or recording
things not done.(7) For example, because the Journal
reflects only actions actually taken in the House, a request for
unanimous consent which meets with objection is not made part of the
Journal.(8) And, in the exercise of that discretion afforded
it by the Constitution with respect to the Journal, the House has by
its rules expressly provided for the entry therein of such diverse
matters as questions of order and the decisions thereon,(9)
the designation of a Clerk pro tempore,(10) the titles or
subject of reports of committees delivered to the Clerk for printing
and reference to the proper calendar under the direction of the
Speaker,(11) the hour of adjournment,(12) and
messages from the Senate and the President giving notice of bills
passed or approved.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Field v Clark, 143 U.S. 670 (1892).
7. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2784.
8. See Sec. 10.2, infra.
9. Rule III clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 641 (1973).
10. Rule III clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 647 (1973).
11. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 743 (1973).
12. Rule XVI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 790 (1973).
13. Rule XXXIX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 935 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitions, memorials and bills of a private nature, together with
the names of the Members presenting them, are entered in the
Journal,(14) as are all public bills, memorials, resolutions
and other documents referred under the rules.(15)
Additionally, when a bill, resolution or memorial is introduced ``by
request'', these words must also be entered upon the
Journal,(16) and although not expressly required to do so by
its rules, the House follows an identical practice with respect to
petitions so introduced.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Rule XXII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 849 (1973).
15. Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1973).
16. Rule XXII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 860 (1973), also
requiring that the quoted words be printed in the Record.
17. See Sec. 10.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every motion made to the House and entertained by the Speaker,
likewise must be entered on the Journal with the name of the Member
making it, unless it is withdrawn the same day.(18) A motion
to discharge a committee, however, is entered on the Journal only when
signed by a majority of the total membership of the
House.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XVI clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 775 (1973),
providing further that any such motion must be reduced to
writing on the demand of any Member.
19. Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1973),
further providing that a signature may be withdrawn by a Member
in writing at any time before the motion is entered on the
Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 324]]
Jefferson's Manual states that conference reports are to be entered
in the Journal,(20) but notes that where amendments are made
to a question they are not to be printed in the Journal separated from
the question, and that the Journal records only the question as finally
agreed to by the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. House Rules and Manual, Sec. 542 (1973).
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 580 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Journal also should record the result of every vote and state
its subject in general terms.(2) In this regard, the rules
provide that when a recorded vote is taken the names of those voting on
each side of the question and the names of those not voting are to be
entered in the Journal.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2804.
3. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The names of those Members counted to establish a quorum of record,
but not voting on a roll call, are also reported on the
Journal.(4) And when, in the absence of a quorum, a call of
the House in the old form is conducted, Members voluntarily appearing
report their names to the Clerk to be entered upon the Journal as
present.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Rule XV clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 772 (1973).
5. Rule XV clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 768 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, when a call of the House in the absence of a
quorum is ordered, those Members who fail to respond are recorded as
absent in the Journal,(6) as are those Members reported as
absentees during a call of the roll ordered upon the failure of a
quorum in the Committee of the Whole.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Rule XV clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 771b (1973).
7. Rule XXIII clause 2, Sec. 863, and Rule XV clause 2(b), Sec. 771b,
House Rules and Manual (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, whenever electronic voting equipment is used in
recording any roll call or quorum call, a list of the names of those
Members recorded as voting in the affirmative, of those recorded as
voting in the negative, and of those voting ``present'', as the case
may be, is to be entered in alphabetical order in each category in the
Journal as if their names had been called in the manner otherwise
provided for under the provisions of the applicable rule.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Rule XV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 774b (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 325]]
-------------------Entry of Proceedings,
Special Orders, and Unanimous-Consent Requests
Sec. 10.1 The Journal reflects the proceedings of the day.
On Oct. 8, 1968,(9) a Member propounded a parliamentary
inquiry as to whether due diligence was being paid to the proceedings
of that day with regard to what the Journal and the Corgressional
Record would show on the next day. The Speaker pro
tempore(10) stated that the Journal and the Record would
reflect the proceedings of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 114 Cong. Rec. 3097, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.2 The Journal reflects only the actions that are taken in the
House and therefore, where a unanimous-consent request is objected
to, such matter is not made part of the Journal.
On Feb. 15, 1950,(11) a Member interrupted the reading
of the previous day's Journal to make the point of order that the
Journal was incorrect because it noted neither his unanimous-consent
request that the House adjourn until a day certain nor the objection of
another Member thereto. The Speaker,(12) pointing out that
the Clerk was reading the Journal and not the Record, overruled the
point of order and declared that the Journal reflects only the actions
that are taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 1805, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.3 The Journal does not include the texts of special orders
because they do not constitute business.
On Sept. 13, 1965,(13) a Member rising to a
parliamentary inquiry interrupted the reading of the Journal for Sept.
9 to ask whether it included any part of certain special orders. In
response, the Speaker(14) stated that the Journal did not
include special orders because the same were not business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 23600, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recording Yeas and Nays
Sec. 10.4 Yea and nay votes are always made a part of the Journal and a
motion or request to that effect is not necessary.
On Feb. 21, 1950,(15) in response to a Member who
requested that the yea and nay votes just re
[[Page 326]]
corded be made a part of that day's Journal, the Speaker(16)
stated it to be his understanding that yea and nay votes are always
made a part of the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 2094, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recording Electoral Votes
Sec. 10.5 After the dissolution of a joint session of Congress called
for the purpose of counting the electoral vote, the Speaker calls
the House to order and directs that the electoral vote be spread at
large upon the Journal.
On Jan. 6, 1969,(17) after the President pro tempore of
the Senate(18) had declared dissolved the joint session of
Congress, called pursuant to a Senate concurrent
resolution(1) for the purpose of counting the electoral
vote, the House was called to order by the Speaker(2) who
then directed that the electoral vote be spread at large upon the
Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 172, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Richard B. Russell, Jr. (Ga.).
1. S. Con. Res. 1, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. (1969).
2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.6 The names of those Members of Congress whose signatures on an
objection to the electoral count are in excess of the minimum
number prescribed by statute(3) may be entered on the
Journal by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 3 USC Sec. 15, providing, inter alia, that such objection must be
in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one Member of
the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 6, 1969,(4) after the joint session of the two
Houses of Congress called to count the electoral vote was dissolved,
the Speaker,(5) having called the House to order and
directed that the electoral vote be spread at large upon the Journal,
announced that there were additional signatures of Members of the House
and Senate on the objection raised to the electoral vote of North
Carolina, and that without objection such signatures would appear in
the Journal and in the Record. There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 115 Cong. Rec. 172, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entry of Bills, Petitions, and Resolutions
Sec. 10.7 When a petition filed with the Clerk under Rule XXII clause 1
is introduced ``by request,'' these words are entered on the
Journal and printed in the Record fol
[[Page 327]]
lowing the name of the Member.
The presentation and reference under Rule XXII(6) of a
petition introduced ``by request'' on Apr. 13, 1961, was duly recorded
in both the Journal(7) and the Congressional
Record(8) for that date with the words ``by request'' noted
parenthetically immediately following the name of the Member
introducing the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Clauses 1 and 6, House Rules and Manual (1973).
7. H. Jour. 424, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
8. 107 Cong. Rec. 5900, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.8 The printing of the text of a bill in the Journal may be
dispensed with by unanimous consent.
On Apr. 26, 1965(9) after the passage of a
bill(10) providing for the codification of the general and
permanent laws relating to decedents' estates and fiduciary relations
in the District of Columbia, a Member asked unanimous consent that the
printing of the bill in the Journal and in the Congressional Record be
dispensed with because of the cost involved. There was no response to
the Speaker's(11) call for objections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 111 Cong. Rec. 8375, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H.R. 4465, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. (1965).
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.9 When a resolution has been adopted providing for the
consideration of a bill by the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, and the bill is then called up and considered
by unanimous consent in the House as in the Committee of the Whole,
the Journal indicates the discharge of the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union from the further consideration of
such bill.
On June 28, 1966,(12) after the adoption of a
resolution(13) providing for the consideration of a certain
bill(14) in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union under an open rule with one hour of general debate, a Member,
by direction of the cognizant Committee, called up the bill and at his
request was granted unanimous consent that it be considered in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole. The Journal for that
day(15) indicated the discharge of the Committee of
[[Page 328]]
the Whole in the following language: ``On motion of Mr. Hebert by
unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union was discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 5256.
. . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 14547, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. H. Res. 895, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (1966).
14. H.R. 5256, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (1966).
15. H. Jour. 650, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections of the Congressional Record
Sec. 10.10 When remarks and extraneous matter inserted in the
Congressional Record by a Member are, by unanimous consent, ordered
expunged from the permanent edition thereof, the Journal records
such fact.
The Journal of June 5, 1962,(16) records the fact that
at the request of a Member his remarks and certain extraneous material
appearing in the Congressional Record for a particular date were by
unanimous consent ordered expunged from the permanent Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H. Jour. 372, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
B. THE HOUSE JOURNAL
Sec. 12. --Propriety of Business Before and During Reading
The reading and approval of the Journal rank second in the daily
order of business prescribed by the rules of the House, coming
immediately after the prayer by the Chaplain.(1) It is
therefore well established that the transaction of business is not in
order before the Journal is approved.(2) However, the simple
motion to adjourn(3) and the administration of the oath to a
Member-elect(4) are both in order prior to the reading of
the Journal, and since the Journal may neither be ordered read nor
approved in the absence of a quorum,(5) a point of no quorum
may also be properly made before the Journal is read.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule XXIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 878 (1973). As to
approval of the Journal, see Sec. 14, infra.
2. See Sec. 12.1, infra.
3. See Sec. 12.3, infra.
4. See Sec. 12.5, infra.
5. See Sec. 11, supra.
6. See Sec. 12.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once begun, the reading of the Journal may not be interrupted even
by business as highly privi
[[Page 334]]
leged as the presentation of a conference report(7) or the
consideration of a privileged report from the Committee on
Rules.(8) It may be interrupted, however, by a point of no
quorum,(9) a parliamentary inquiry,(10) an
arraignment of impeachment,(11) and a question of privilege
of the House.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Rule XXVIII clause 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 909 (1973).
8. See Sec. 12.2, infra.
9. See Sec. 12.13, infra.
10. See Sec. 12.15, infra.
11. 6 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 469.
12. See Sec. 12.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, certain matters may be authorized before or during the
reading of the Journal by unanimous consent. For example, the Speaker
may be so authorized to declare a recess subject to the call of the
Chair prior to the reading of the Journal.(13) Likewise, a
Member may be granted unanimous consent to extend his remarks and
include extraneous matter in the Record prior to the reading of the
Journal.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 12.8, infra.
14. See Sec. 12.9, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transaction of Business Before Reading
Sec. 12.1 The transaction of business, however highly privileged, is
not in order before the reading and approval of the Journal.
On Oct. 8, 1968,(15) in response to a parliamentary
inquiry, the Speaker pro tempore(16) held that it would not
be in order to recognize a member of the Committee on Rules to present
a rule before the completion of the reading of the Journal of the
previous day, noting that even with respect to such a highly privileged
matter as a conference report it had been previously
ruled(17) that no business was in order until the Journal
had been read and approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 114 Cong. Rec. 30096 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
17. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.2 A privileged report from the Committee on Rules may not be
called up for consideration before the reading and approval of the
Journal.
On Oct. 8, 1968,(18) before the reading of the Journal
had been completed, a Member propounded as a parliamentary inquiry the
suggestion that under the House rule(19) making it always in
order to call up for consideration a re
[[Page 335]]
port from the Committee on Rules, and in light of the construction
given that rule by an early precedent,(1) it would be in
order at that time for the Chair to recognize a member of the Committee
on Rules for the purpose of calling up a special order. The Speaker pro
tempore,(2) however, noting that the precedent referred to
had been superseded by the subsequent ruling(3) that no
business was in order until the Journal had been read and approved,
held that it thus would not be in order for him to recognize a member
of the Committee on Rules to present a rule before the reading of the
previous day's Journal had been completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 114 Cong. Rec. 30095, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Rule XI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973).
1. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2754.
2. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
3. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matters Taking Precedence Over Reading
Sec. 12.3 A simple motion to adjourn is in order prior to the reading
and approval of the Journal.
On July 25, 1949,(4) before the Journal of the last
day's proceedings was read, a Member moved that the House then adjourn,
which motion, after the yeas and nays were ordered thereon, was decided
in the negative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 95 Cong. Rec. 10092, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, on Dec. 7, 1963,(5) prior to the reading of the
Journal and while a point of order that a quorum was not present was
pending, a Member moved that the House adjourn. The motion was then
agreed to and the House accordingly adjourned until Dec. 9, 1963, at 12
o'clock noon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 109 Cong. Rec. 23752, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.4 The House may adjourn before the Journal is read and
approved.
On Dec. 7, 1963,(6) before the Journal was read and
pending the point of order that a quorum was not present, a Member
moved that the House adjourn. The motion was agreed to, and the House
accordingly adjourned until Monday, Dec. 9, 1963, at 12 o'clock noon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.5 The oath of office may be administered to a Member-elect
before the Journal is read.
On Apr. 26, 1948,(7) before the Clerk had begun to read
the Journal and after a point of no quorum was, at the request of the
Speaker,(8) withheld in order that he
[[Page 336]]
might swear in a new Member, the Speaker laid before the House a
communication from the Clerk attesting to the credentials of the
Member-elect concerned, who then appeared at the bar of the House and
took the oath of office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 94 Cong. Rec. 4834, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
8. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.6 The point of no quorum may be made before the Journal is read
and approved.
On Apr. 26, 1948,(9) before the Clerk had begun to read
the Journal, a Member making the point of order that a quorum was not
present refused to withhold it until after the Journal was read,
although agreeing to do so until after a new Member was sworn, and
therefore, following the administration of the oath by the
Speaker,(10) a call of the House was ordered. After a quorum
had appeared, the House dispensed with further proceedings under the
call and the Journal of the previous day was then read and approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 94 Cong. Rec. 4834, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 26, 1965,(11) before the Clerk had commenced the
reading of the Journal, a Member making the point of order that a
quorum was not present answered in the affirmative when asked by the
Speaker(12) whether he was making such point of order before
the Journal was read. A call of the House was then ordered, and after a
quorum had appeared, further proceedings under the call were dispensed
with and the Clerk read the Journal of the previous day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 6094. 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.7 When a point of order as to the absence of a quorum is made
before the reading of the Journal, the presence of a quorum is
established before the reading begins.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(13) after the Clerk had been directed
by the Speaker(14) to read the Journal of the previous day
but before he had begun to do so, a Member made the point of order that
a quorum was not present. A call of the House was then ordered, and
after a quorum had appeared in response thereto and further proceedings
thereunder had been dispensed with, the Clerk read the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 6093, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matters Authorized by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 12.8 A recess subject to the call of the Chair may be de
[[Page 337]]
clared by the Speaker, if properly authorized, prior to the reading
and approval of the Journal.
On Apr. 9, 1964,(15) before the Clerk had begun to read
the Journal of the previous day's proceedings, the
Speaker(16) (pursuant to authorization by unanimous
consent)(17) declared a recess, subject to the call of the
Chair, for the purpose of permitting Members to proceed to the Rotunda
to witness the conclusion of the lying-in-state ceremonies for the late
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. After the expiration of the
recess, the House was called to order by the Speaker, and at his
direction, the Clerk read the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 7354, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 7119, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.9 A Member's request for unanimous consent to extend his
remarks and include extraneous matter in the Record may be
entertained and acted upon prior to the reading and approval of the
Journal.
On Dec. 7, 1963,(18) after the prayer by the Chaplain
and before the Journal of the previous day's proceedings had been read,
a Member asked unanimous consent to extend his remarks at that point in
the Record and include extraneous matter therein. There was no response
to the Speaker's(19) call for objections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 23751, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests Entertained Before Reading
Sec. 12.10 A request that Calendar Wednesday business be dispensed with
by unanimous consent may be entertained prior to the reading and
approval of the Journal.
On Sept. 19, 1962,(20) before the Clerk had begun to
read the Journal and pending the renewal of a point of no quorum which
was being withheld, a Member asked unanimous consent that the business
in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on that
day. Following the Speaker's(1) interrogative, an objection
was heard and the request accordingly denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.11 The Speaker may decline requests for unanimous consent to
insert material in the Record until after the
[[Page 338]]
Journal has been read and approved.
On Sept. 19, 1962,(2) before the Clerk had begun to read
the Journal of the preceding session, a Member, having unsuccessfully
sought unanimous consent for dispensing with Calendar Wednesday
business on that day, asked unanimous consent to insert in the Record
with his own remarks a letter from the Secretary of State addressed to
the Speaker of the House. The Speaker(3) stated that
unanimous-consent requests would have to wait until after the Journal
had been read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 108 Cong. Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reception of Messages Prior to Reading
Sec. 12.12 A message from the Senate may be received before the reading
of the Journal.
On Sept. 19, 1962,(4) before the Clerk had begun to read
the Journal of the preceding session, a point of order that a quorum
was not present was made and, at the request of the
Speaker,(5) then withheld in order to permit the reception
of a message from the Senate. Following the communication of the
message to the Chair, the point of no quorum was renewed, and after a
call of the House had been ordered and a motion to dispense with
further proceedings thereunder agreed to, the Clerk commenced the
reading of the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 108 Cong. Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, on Apr. 9, 1964,(6) a message from the Senate was
received after a point of no quorum made before the Clerk had begun to
read the Journal was withheld solely for that purpose at the request of
the Speaker.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 110 Cong. Rec. 7353, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And on Sept. 11, 1968,(8) following a call of the House
ordered before the reading of the Journal was begun, and while a motion
to dispense with further proceedings under the call was pending, the
Speaker(9) received a message from the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 114 Cong. Rec. 26453, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matters Which May Interrupt Reading
Sec. 12.13 A point of order of no quorum is in order during the reading
of the Journal.
On Dec. 18, 1970,(10) after a Member had interrupted the
read
[[Page 339]]
ing of the Journal to make the point of order that a quorum was not
present, the Speaker pro tempore(11) announced the intention
of the Chair to conduct a count, thereby prompting another Member to
ask, by way of parliamentary inquiry, whether it was in order for a
Member to be recognized during the reading of the Journal. The Speaker
pro tempore replied that a point of order that a quorum is not present
is always in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 42505, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
11. W.J. Bryan Dorn (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.14 The reading of the Journal may be interrupted by a call of
the House.
On Aug. 27, 1962,(12) after the reading of the Journal
had been interrupted by a Member making the point of order that a
quorum was not present and the Speaker(13) had confirmed
such fact by making a count, a call of the House was ordered. Following
the appearance of a quorum, further proceedings under the call were
dispensed with, and the Clerk then concluded the reading of the
Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, on Nov. 3, 1967,(14) after the Clerk had begun to
read the Journal of the preceding day, a Member made the point of order
that a quorum was not present. A call of the House was then ordered,
and after a quorum had appeared in response thereto and further
proceedings thereunder had been dispensed with by unanimous consent,
the Clerk read the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 31081, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.15 A Member may interrupt the reading of the Journal to
propound a parliamentary inquiry.
On Apr. 9, 1964,(15) a Member who interrupted the
reading of the Journal to submit a parliamentary inquiry was recognized
for that purpose by the Speaker.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 7356, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.16 The status of the Clerk's progress in reading the Journal of
proceedings of the previous day is a proper subject for a
parliamentary inquiry.
On Oct. 8, 1968,(17) in response to a parliamentary
inquiry asking how many pages of the Journal had been read and how many
remained to be read, the Speaker(18)
[[Page 340]]
characterized the inquiry as a proper one, and following a further
expression of interest in the reading by the Member making the inquiry,
advised him of the total number of pages to be read and the number
already read by the Clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 30100, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.17 The reading of the Journal may be interrupted by a question
of privilege affecting the House collectively.
On Oct. 9, 1968,(19) in declining recognition to a
Member who interrupted the reading of the Journal with a point of
personal privilege, the Speaker(20) advised that a question
of personal privilege should be made after the Journal had been
disposed of but that a matter of privilege of the House was an entirely
different situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.18 A Member, by unanimous consent, may secure recognition
during the reading of the Journal.
On Apr. 9, 1964,(1) a Member propounding a parliamentary
inquiry interrupted the reading of the Journal to ask whether there was
any way under the rules by which he might at that point be recognized
for one minute. The Speaker(2) advised that such recognition
might be obtained by unanimous consent, and after the Member had made a
request to that end without any objection thereto being heard, declared
him so recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 110 Cong. Rec. 7356. 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reception of Messages During Interruption of Reading
Sec. 12.19 A message from the Senate may be received during an
interruption in the reading of the Journal which is occasioned by a
point of no quorum.
On Aug. 27, 1962,(3) after the reading of the Journal
had been interrupted by a point of no-quorum which at the request of
the Speaker(4) was then withheld, a message from the Senate
was communicated to the Chair. A call of the House was then conducted,
and after proceedings thereunder had been dispensed with, the Clerk
continued with the reading of the Journal at the direction of the
Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 108 Cong. Rec. 17651, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.20 A message from the President may be received
[[Page 341]]
during an interruption of the reading of the Journal for a call of
the House.
On Aug. 27, 1962,(5) following the interruption of the
reading of the Journal for a call of the House, the
Speaker(6) received a message from the President prior to
ordering the Clerk to resume the reading of the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 108 Cong. Rec. 17653, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resumption of Reading After Interruption
Sec. 12.21 Once the reading of the Journal has been interrupted for a
call of the House under Rule XV,(7) it may not be
resumed even though a quorum has responded to such call until the
House has agreed to dispense with further proceedings thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Rule XV clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 768 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 8, 1968,(8) in response to a parliamentary
inquiry as to whether or not the reading of the Journal could proceed
if a quorum was present after a call of the House had been made under
Rule XV clause 2, the Speaker(9) replied that the reading of
the Journal could not be resumed until further proceedings under the
call had been dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 114 Cong. Rec. 30094, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.22 When the reading of the Journal is resumed after having been
interrupted, the Clerk continues to read from the point of
interruption.
On Sept. 19, 1962,(10) a Member interrupted the reading
of the Journal to make the point of order that the Clerk had not
resumed the reading of the Journal at the point where he concluded when
interrupted by a call of the House. The Speaker(11) ordered
the Clerk to continue the reading of the Journal from the point of the
first interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 19943, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, on Sept. 13, 1965,(12) following several
parliamentary inquires and a demand that the Journal be read in full,
the reading of the Journal was resumed and continued until again
interrupted by a Member who submitted that the Clerk was not reading in
full the names of those who failed to answer the particular roll call
being read at the time of the previous interruption. The Speaker pro
tempore(13) ad
[[Page 342]]
vised that the Clerk took up the reading exactly where first
interrupted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 23598, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matters Not in Order Until Reading Completed
Sec. 12.23 A request that the Record be corrected is not in order
during the reading of the Journal.
On June 1, 1934,(14) in response to a Member who
interrupted the reading of the Journal with a parliamentary inquiry as
to the propriety of asking at that time that the Record be corrected,
the Speaker(15) advised that it would not be proper at that
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 78 Cong. Rec. 10226, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.24 The motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business is
not in order during a reading of the Journal.
On Sept. 19, 1962,(16) before the Clerk had completed
his reading of the Journal, a Member moved that business in order under
the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with after an objection was
voiced to his request that such business be dispensed with by unanimous
consent. The Speaker(17) ruled that the motion was not in
order until after the Journal was read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 19943, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
B. THE HOUSE JOURNAL
Sec. 13. Effecting Corrections
Jefferson's Manual(18) states that on information of an
incorrect or omitted entry in the Journal, a committee may be appointed
to examine and rectify it, and report it to the House. However, in
practice, the correction of the Journal is accomplished without
utilizing such procedure, being done simply either by
motion(19) or unanimous consent.(20) The latter
method is employed usually, if not exclusively, when the Journal to be
corrected is that of a day prior to the previous legislative
day.(1) For example, when the Journal of a day preceding the
previous legislative day fails through oversight to indicate that the
Speaker signed a particular enrolled bill,(2) or which shows
an incorrect placement of an amendment to a bill,(3) it may
be corrected by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. House Rules and Manua1 Sec. 583 (1973).
19. See, for example, Sec. 13.1, infra.
20. See, for example, Sec. 13.4, infra.
1. See Sec. Sec. 13.4 et seq., infra.
2. See Sec. 13.5, infra.
3. See Sec. 13.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 343]]
The motion to amend the Journal takes precedence of the motion to
approve it,(4) but is not in order before the reading of the
Journal has been completed,(5) and will be denied after the
previous question has been demanded on the motion to approve the
Journal.(6) However, the motion to commit provided for in
the rule for the previous question(7) may be applied to a
motion to amend the Journal.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2760; 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 633.
5. See Sec. 13.2, infra.
6. See Sec. 13.3, infra.
7. Rule XVII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 804 (1973).
8. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.
5574. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time for Making Corrections
Sec. 13.1 A motion to amend the Journal is not in order prior to a
reading of the Journal.
On May 4, 1960,(9) prior to the commencement of the
reading of the Journal, a Member stating a parliamentary inquiry asked
whether a motion to amend the Journal was in order at that point or
during the reading of the Journal or at the conclusion of the reading
of the Journal. The Speaker(10) ruled that such a motion was
not in order at that point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 106 Cong. Rec. 9413, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.2 A motion to amend the Journal is not in order until the
reading thereof has been completed.
On Sept. 13, 1965,(11) a Member rising to a
parliamentary inquiry interrupted the reading of the Journal to ask
whether it would be in order to move to amend the Journal at that time
or after completion of the reading of the Journal. In response, the
Speaker(12) stated that the effort of any Member to amend
the Journal would have to be at the conclusion of the reading of the
Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 23598, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.3 A motion to amend the Journal, made after the previous
question is demanded on a motion to approve, will be denied.
On June 1, 1934,(13) following the reading of the
Journal, a Member moved that the Journal be approved, and on that
motion demanded the previous question. Another Member then moved to
amend the Journal, making the point of order that such motion
[[Page 344]]
had precedence. The Speaker,(14) citing an earlier
precedent,(15) ruled that a motion to amend the Journal
might not be had after the moving of the previous question on a motion
to approve the Journal. The previous question was then ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 78 Cong. Rec. 10226, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
14. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
15. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, on Sept. 13, 1965,(16) after the reading of the
Journal had been completed, a Member moved that it be approved as read
and moved the previous question thereon, whereupon another Member moved
to lay on the table the motion to approve and attempted to offer an
amendment to the Journal. The Speaker(17) ruled that the
motion to lay on the table was in order, but that the amendment was
not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 23600, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method of Effecting Corrections
Sec. 13.4 When the Journal erroneously shows a Member as absent during
a roll call, it may be corrected by unanimous consent.
On June 29, 1966,(18) at the request of a Member, the
Journal of June 27, 1966, was corrected by unanimous consent to show
him as present and answering to his name in response to a roll call
conducted on that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Jour. 655, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.5 Where the Journal of a day preceding the previous legislative
day fails through oversight to indicate that the Speaker signed a
particular enrolled bill, it may be corrected by unanimous consent.
On June 24, 1968,(19) the Journal of the proceedings of
Thursday, June 20, having been read and approved, the
Speaker(20) announced that although he had signed a
particular enrolled bill(1) on Wednesday, June 19, through
accident or oversight that fact was not noted in either the Journal or
the Record, and that therefore, without objection, the Journal and
Record of June 19 would be amended to reflect such action. There was no
objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Jour. 591, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (1968).
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
1. H.R. 4566, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.6 Where the Journal contains an error with respect to an
appointment made by the Speaker, it may be corrected by unanimous
consent.
[[Page 345]]
On Feb. 4, 1963,(2) the Speaker,(3) calling
attention to an error in the list of those appointed by him on Jan. 31,
1963, to the Board of Visitors to the U.S. Military Academy, asked
unanimous consent that the Journal and Record be corrected accordingly.
There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. H. Jour. 177, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. (1963).
3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.7 The Journal may, by unanimous consent, be corrected to show
the proper place for an adopted amendment in a bill.
On Aug. 30, 1957,(4) a Member asked unanimous consent
that the Journal of June 17, 1957, which erroneously showed a certain
amendment to a reported bill(5) as having been adopted
following a particular line therein, be corrected to properly reflect
the action taken by the House and show that such amendment was instead
adopted as a specific subsection and inserted immediately following a
different line of the reported bill. There was no response to the call
of the Speaker pro tempore(6) for objections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 103 Cong. Rec. 16760, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
5. H.R. 6127, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. (1957).
6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precedence of Motion to Amend Journal in Senate
Sec. 13.8 In the Senate, a motion to amend the Journal made after the
reading thereof takes precedence of a motion to lay a House bill
before the Senate and make it the pending business.
On July 26, 1962,(7) following a quorum call conducted
immediately after the reading of the Journal, a Senator moved that the
Senate turn to the consideration of a certain House bill(8)
and that it be laid down and made the pending business. Another
Senator, however, pointing out that because of the quorum call there
had been no opportunity to offer amendments to the Journal, raised the
point of order that such motion was not in order until such time as
amendments to the Journal had been offered and consideration thereof
completed. The presiding officer(9) sustained the point of
order, noting that under Senate Rule III(10) any motion to
amend or correct the Journal was privileged and to be proceeded
[[Page 346]]
with until disposed of, but that there had been no opportunity to
present such a motion because the Senate found itself without a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 108 Cong. Rec. 14857, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
8. H.R. 11040, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. (1962).
9. Lee Metcalf (Mont.).
10. Rule III clause 1, Senate Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
B. THE HOUSE JOURNAL
Sec. 14. Approval
In ordinary practice the Journal is approved by the House without
the formality of a motion,(11) after the Speaker, in
accordance with the applicable House rule,(12) has examined
it and announced that it meets with his approval. But when objection is
raised to the approval of the Journal by unanimous consent, the Speaker
may immediately put the question thereon to the House.(13)
Moreover, even though the Speaker announces his approval of the
Journal, he or the House may order it read.(14) And, in this
regard, a motion that the Journal be approved as read, in the absence
of timely objection thereto, may be entertained and acted upon even
though offered before the reading of the Journal has been
completed.(15) On the other hand, the motion to amend the
Journal, although taking precedence over the motion to approve it, may
not be admitted after the previous question has been demanded on the
motion to approve.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 14.10, 14.11, infra.
12. See Sec. 11, supra.
13. See Sec. 14.12, infra.
14. See Sec. 11, supra.
15. See Sec. Sec. 14.4 et seq., infra.
16. See Sec. 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a long-established rule that the transaction of business, no
matter how highly privileged, is not in order before the approval of
the Journal.(17) Thus, even a matter of such high privilege
as a report from the Committee on Rules may not be called up for
consideration before the Journal has been approved.(18)
However, the Journal's approval yields to, and thus may be delayed by,
the simple motion to adjourn,(19) the administration of the
oath,(20) a point of no quorum,(1) an arraignment
of impeachnent,(2) a parliamentary inquiry,(3)
and questions of privilege of the House.(4) And, of course,
those matters sanctioned by unanimous consent prior to or during the
reading of the Journal are at the same time necessarily in order before
the approval of the Journal also.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 12, supra.
18. See Sec. 12.2, supra.
19. See Sec. 12.3, supra.
20. See Sec. 12.5, supra.
1. See Sec. Sec. 12.6, 12.13, supra.
2. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 469.
3. See Sec. 12.15, supra.
4. See Sec. 12.17, supra.
5. See Sec. 12, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 347]]
It is the uniform practice in the House to approve the Journal for
each legislative day.(6) Even when the House is reconvening
after an adjournment to a day certain of several weeks duration, the
Journal of the last day of meeting is taken up for
approval.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2731.
7. See Sec. 11.2, supra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order of Approval of Journals
Sec. 14.1 When the Journals of more than one session remain unread and
unapproved, they are taken up for approval and disposed of in
chronological order.
On Dec. 9, 1963,(8) following the prayer by the
Chaplain, the Journal of the proceedings of Dec. 6, 1963, was read and
approved. The Journal of the proceedings of Dec. 7, 1963, was then read
and, after a Member had reserved the right to object thereto,
eventually approved when the Speaker(9) put the question
thereon to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 109 Cong. Rec. 23830, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delay in Approval
Sec. 14.2 The failure of the Record to show an action taken in the
House does not justify a delay in the approval of the Journal which
correctly recorded such action.
On June 7, 1948,(10) a Member questioning the accuracy
of the Journal as read reserved the right to object thereto, and
pointing out by way of explanation that the Record for the day in
question showed the adoption of only one Senate amendment to a certain
House joint resolution(11) when there were in fact two such
amendments to be considered, requested that the approval of the Journal
therefore be put off until the next day in order that the matter might
be investigated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 7281, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H.J. Res. 296, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. (1948).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker pro tempore(12) declared that the Journal as
prepared and read stated the true facts and the true record of the
situation, and that the Record, which he had examined and found to be
in error, could be corrected by unanimous consent to state the true
facts in conformity with the Journal. He concluded that in his opinion
the Journal should be approved as read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Charles A. Halleck (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 348]]
Motion That Journal Be Approved as Read
Sec. 14.3 A motion that the Journal be approved as read which
interrupts the reading thereof is subject to a point of order when
made.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(13) after a Member had interrupted the
reading of the Journal to move that it be approved as read, debate was
had on the motion and the previous question was ordered thereon. Then,
in responding to a series of parliamentary inquiries, the
Speaker(14) advised that a point of order against the motion
at that particular stage would come too late, but emphasized that he
would not want the inference to be drawn that the point could not be
made under other circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 6095, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.4 A motion that the Journal be approved as read, in the absence
of timely objection thereto, may be entertained by the Speaker and
acted upon by the House, even though offered before the reading of
the Journal has been concluded.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(15) after a Member had interrupted the
reading of the Journal to move that it be approved as read, debate was
had on the motion and the previous question was ordered thereon.
Thereafter the Speaker,(16) noting in response to a
parliamentary inquiry that a point of order against the motion would at
that stage come too late, put the question of approval to the House,
and the motion then being agreed to, the Journal as read was approved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 6095, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.5 A point of order against a motion that the Journal be
considered as read and approved came too late after there had been
debate on the motion and the previous question had been ordered
thereon, notwithstanding that such motion was made before the
reading of the Journal was completed.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(17) a Member interrupted the reading
of the Journal to move that it be approved, after which debate was had
on the motion and the previous question was ordered thereon.
Thereafter, in responding to a
[[Page 349]]
series of parliamentary inquiries, the Speaker(18) said that
the reading of the Journal had not been completed, and that a motion
had been made that the Journal be considered as read and approved; he
stated that while he would not want the inference to be drawn that a
point of order could not be made against the motion under other
circumstances, at that particular stage the point of order came too
late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 6095, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.6 A motion that the Journal be approved as read is not subject
to the point of order that the reading of the Journal has not been
completed after the vote on the question of approval has been
taken.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(19) after a Member had interrupted the
reading of the Journal to move that it be approved, debate was had on
the motion and the previous question was then ordered thereon.
Subsequently, in response to a number of parliamentary inquiries, the
Speaker(20) conceded that the reading of the Journal had not
been completed, but said, inter alia, that a point of order would not
lie against the motion once the vote on the question of approval had
been taken, because the will of the House would then have been
expressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 6095, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.7 Whenever the previous question has been ordered on a motion
to approve the Journal on which there has been no debate, a Member
may demand the right to debate the motion under the
rules(1) of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule XXVII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1973),
providing, inter alia, that 40 minutes of debate shall be
allowed whenever the previous question has been ordered on any
proposition on which there has been no debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 13, 1965,(2) a Member moved that the Journal be
approved, and without any debate on such motion, the previous question
was ordered thereon. The Speaker,(3) in response to a
parliamentary inquiry, then ruled that debate on the motion might be
had at that time under Rule XXVII clause 3 if a Member claimed the
right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 111 Cong. Rec. 23602, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.8 The motion to lay on the table is applicable to a motion that
the Journal be ap
[[Page 350]]
proved as read and takes precedence over a prior demand for the
previous question thereon.
On Sept. 13, 1965,(4) after the Clerk had finished the
reading of the Journal, a Member made the motion that it be approved as
read and then moved the previous question thereon, whereupon another
Member moved to table the motion to approve and offered an amendment to
the Journal. The Speaker(5) ruled that the amendment was not
in order, but recognized a Member to move to table the motion to
approve the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 111 Cong. Rec. 23600, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.9 The yeas and nays may be had on ordering the previous
question on a motion that the Journal be approved as read.
On July 25, 1949,(6) after the Clerk had finished the
reading of the Journal of the previous legislative day, a Member moved
that the Journal as read stand approved, and on that motion moved the
previous question. The question was then stated by the
Speaker(7) to be on ordering the previous question, and
following the demand of another Member for the yeas and nays thereon,
the yeas and nays were so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 95 Cong. Rec. 10092, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 14.10 Under the old rule, under which the Journal was read, the
Journal was customarily approved as read by unanimous consent.
On Oct. 18, 1965,(8) after the Clerk had read the
Journal of the proceedings of the preceding session, the
Speaker(9) announced that without objection the Journal, as
read, would stand approved. There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 111 Cong. Rec. 27170, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.11 Under the new rule, the Journal is normally approved by the
House without the formal putting of a motion to approve.
On Feb. 21, 1972,(10) the Speaker,(11) having
announced to the House his examination and approval of the Journal of
the last day's proceedings, declared that, without objection, the
Journal
[[Page 351]]
would stand approved. There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 118 Cong. Rec. 4748, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.12 Where objection was raised to the approval of the Journal by
unanimous consent, the Speaker could immediately put the question
of approval to the House.
On Dec. 9, 1963,(12) in response to a Member's
reservation of the right to object to the Journal as read for the
previous legislative day, the Speaker(13) immediately
declared the question to be on the motion to approve the Journal for
that day, and after the motion was agreed to announced that the Journal
stood approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 109 Cong. Rec. 23831, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reception of Messages Before Approval
Sec. 14.13 The Speaker may receive a message from the Senate prior to
the approval of the Journal.
On Sept. 13, 1965,(14) while a motion to approve the
Journal was under debate, a Member rising to a point of order objected
to the reception by the Speaker of a message from the Senate as the
transacting of business of the House prior to the completion of the
reading of the Journal. The Speaker(15) stated that it is
always proper to receive a message from the President of the United
States, or from the other body, as quickly as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 23604, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.14 A message from the Senate may be received while the motion
to approve the Journal is under debate.
On Sept. 13, 1965,(16) while the motion to approve the
Journal as read was under debate, a Member made the point of order that
the receipt of a message from the Senate then being communicated to the
House constituted the transacting of business of the House prior to the
completion of the reading of the Journal. The Speaker(17)
replied that it is always proper, as well as courteous, to receive a
message from the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 23607, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 352]]
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
C. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Sec. 15. In General; Purpose and Format
The Congressional Record is ``substantially a verbatim report of
proceedings'' in the two Houses of Congress.(1) While the
House Journal(2) is the official record of the proceedings
of the House,(3) it contains only minutes of official
actions, and is not a record of debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 44 USC Sec. 901 (1970).
The origin, publication, and distribution of the Record is
discussed in 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6959.
2. See Sec. Sec. 8-14, supra.
3. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2727.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statutory provisions and rules which govern the
format(4) and content(5) are discussed below. In
addition, it should be noted that although the Record is
``substantially a verbatim report,'' the rules of the Joint Committee
on Printing and the general practices of the House permit Members to
extend their remarks so as to include matters not spoken on the
floor,(6) and to edit remarks actually delivered on the
floor.(7) The House may also order the deletion from the
Record of remarks made by a Member without recognition by the Speaker,
and unparliamentary remarks which reflect unfavorably upon the House,
its membership, or institutions.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. Sec. 15.1, 15.2, infra.
5. See Sec. 16, infra.
6. See Sec. 20, infra.
7. See Sec. 19, infra.
8. See Sec. 17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control over the arrangement and style of the Record is vested in
the Joint Committee on Printing(9) by
statute.(10) The Joint Committee on Printing has adopted
rules to provide for the prompt publication and delivery of the
Record.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The Joint Committee on Printing is composed of three Members of
the Senate and three Members of the House. The House elects its
members from the Committee on House Administration, and the
Chairman of that committee must be one of the three selected.
House Rules and Manual Sec. 1001 (1973).
10. 44 USC Sec. 901 (1970). See also 44 USC Sec. Sec. 902-910 (1970)
for other statutory provisions relative to the Congressional
Record.
11. The rules of the Joint Committee on Printing are frequently
reprinted in the daily edition of the Congressional Record in
the section entitled ``Laws and Rules for Publication of the
Congressional Record,'' which precedes the section entitled
``Daily Digest.'' The individual rules will be considered
herein as they pertain to the subject matter under discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each House of Congress separately controls the content of its
[[Page 353]]
portion of the Record.(12) By House rule, the Committee on
House Administration has jurisdiction over ``[m]atter relating to
printing and correction of the Congressional Record.''(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2503.
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 693 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Rule XXXIV clause 1(14) provides for the
appointment and removal of the official reporters of debate, and vests
in the Speaker the manner of the execution of their duties. The
reporters of debates have played a significant role in the evolution by
which the House has developed a system of daily verbatim reports of its
proceedings.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. House Rules and Manual Sec. 923 (1973).
15. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has statutorily mandated that the Record be published in
daily form during each session, and be revised, printed, and bound
promptly in permanent form for distribution during and after the close
of each session of Congress.(16) Thus a daily edition is
published and distributed on each working day while Congress is in
session, and a softbound edition, known as the ``greenbound'' edition
is published and distributed biweekly while Congress is in session. The
hardbound permanent edition is generally ready for publication and
distribution sometime subsequent to the conclusion of a session of
Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 44 USC Sec. 903 (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Record for each day is divided into four main sections:
Proceedings of the House; Proceedings of the Senate; Extensions of
Remarks;(17) and Daily Digest. The Joint Committee on
Printing has directed the Public Printer to arrange the contents of the
daily edition of the Record so as to alternate the placement in
consecutive issues of the House and Senate proceedings insofar as such
an arrangement is feasible.(18) The House and Senate
proceedings directly precede the ``Extensions of Remarks'' section,
which is followed by the ``Daily Digest.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 20, infra, for a discussion of the content of the
``Extensions of Remarks'' section.
18. Rule 1 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has directed the Joint Committee on Printing to provide
for the preparation and publication of an index to the Congressional
Record semimonthly while Congress is in session, and a complete index
to the entire session subsequent to the close of each session of
Congress.(19) The index consists generally of two main
[[Page 354]]
parts, an index to proceedings, and a history of bills and resolutions,
which is arranged by bill and resolution number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 44 USC Sec. Sec. 901, 902 (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946,(20) Congress adopted the following provision, which is
the statutory authority for the Daily Digest:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See 44 USC Sec. 905 (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Committee on Printing shall provide for printing in
the daily Record the legislative program for the day together with
a list of congressional committee meetings and hearings, and the
place of meeting and subject matter. It shall cause a brief resume
of congressional activities for the previous day to be incorporated
in the Record, together with an index of its contents prepared
under the supervision of the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk
of the House of Representatives, respectively.
The Daily Digest regularly contains the following subsections:
Highlights; Senate Chamber Action; Senate Committee Meetings; House
Chamber Action; House Committee Meetings; and Joint Committee Meetings.
A list of House and Senate committee meetings scheduled for the morning
of which the Record is published concludes the Daily Digest. In
addition, the Friday issues contain a section entitled ``Congressional
Program Ahead'' which discusses the activities scheduled in the House
and Senate and their committees for the coming week.
The Joint Committee on Printing has specified to the Public Printer
the type size and printing style that is to be used in the publication
of the Record.(1) Neither the Speaker nor the House may
order changes in the type size or printing style without the approval
of the Joint Committee on Printing.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Rule 2 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23,
1972.
2. See Sec. Sec. 15.1, 15.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member, upon payment of the cost, may receive from the Public
Printer extracts from the Congressional Record for his personal use and
distribution.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 44 USC Sec. 907 (1970). See 44 USC Sec. 908 (1970) for the
statutory procedure by which the Sergeant at Arms may deduct
the cost of printing the extracts from the salary of a Member
or Delegate who is delinquent in paying for the extracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When reprints are to be made of material in the Record by the
Government Printing Office, it is customary to obtain the approval of
those Members whose remarks are to be reprinted.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 15.4, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Format Changes
Sec. 15.1 A unanimous-consent request to change the format of
[[Page 355]]
the Record to permit a comparative print of three versions of a
legislative enactment to be printed in three parallel columns
should be submitted subject to the approval of the Joint Committee
on Printing.
On Oct. 30, 1939,(5) Mr. Lawrence Lewis, of Colorado,
requested unanimous consent that a comparative print showing the
Neutrality Act of 1937, together with House Joint Resolution
306,(6) as passed by the House, and the same joint
resolution as amended and passed by the Senate, be printed in the
Record in three parallel columns. At the time of this request the
proceedings of Congress were being printed in the Record in double
parallel columns. The Speaker(7) responded to this request
to deviate from the basic format of the Record as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 85 Cong. Rec. 1059, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
6. 76th Cong. 2d Sess. (1939).
7. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair thinks it proper, in order to conform to
the established rules of practice in the House with reference to
the matter covered by the request of the gentleman from Colorado,
to state to the gentleman that in the conference he had with the
Chair this morning relative to this matter the information was not
disclosed that the request would require a change in the usual
format of the Record. The Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian
that it would be contrary to the law with reference to printing of
the Record to submit the request.
The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from Colorado that he
submit his request subject to the approval of the Joint Committee
on Printing.
Mr. Lewis amended the request to incorporate the suggestions of the
Speaker, but an objection was raised. Later in the same meeting,
however, a substantially similar request was agreed to by the House
without objection, and the comparative print was inserted in the
Record.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 85 Cong. Rec. 641 (appendix), 76th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 30, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Size
Sec. 15.2 The Speaker will not entertain a unanimous-consent request to
permit a letter inserted in the Record to be printed in larger type
than that provided in the regulations of the Joint Committee on
Printing.
On Feb. 25, 1936,(9) Mr. Joseph P. Monaghan, of Montana,
re
[[Page 356]]
quested unanimous consent to have the Record corrected so that the
letter he had previously inserted would be printed in 7\1/2\-point type
in the permanent Record, rather than the type size that was specified
for such documents in the rules of the Joint Committee on
Printing.(10) The Speaker(11) responded as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 80 Cong. Rec. 2767, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. The current rules of the Joint Committee on Printing still require
such documents and ``all matter included in the remarks for
speeches of Members of Congress, other than their own words,''
to be printed in 6\1/2\-point type. See Rule 2 of the Joint
Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972.
11. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that
letters, no matter by whom they are written, are printed in small
type. The gentleman from Montana made no request that his letter be
printed in any other form of type. That is a matter which rests
entirely with the Joint Committee on Printing, and that committee
has formulated certain rules, and the Chair assumes that the Public
Printer is following the rules as laid down by the Joint Committee
on Printing. What is the request of the gentleman?
Mr. Monaghan: I ask unanimous consent that the Record be
corrected and that this letter be reprinted in 7\1/2\-point type,
inasmuch as aged people are the ones who will read it.
The Speaker: The Chair does not think he has a right to even
recognize the gentleman to make a unanimous consent request on that
matter, because that is fixed by law.
Reporters--Insertion of Applause
Sec. 15.3 Demonstrations in the House are not part of the Record, and
the reporters are instructed not to insert ``applause'' or ``loud
applause.''
On Mar. 6, 1945,(12) the Speaker,(13) in
response to a parliamentary inquiry, stated his reasoning for
instructing the reporters not to insert ``applause'' or ``loud
applause'' in the Record where such demonstrations have occurred on the
floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 1789, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In times past there appeared in the Record the word
``Applause'' where a Member spoke. In another place there was
``Loud applause.'' In another place there was ``Loud and prolonged
applause.'' In another place there was ``Loud and prolonged
applause, the Members rising.'' If I had made a speech and had
received ``applause,'' and some Member had followed me immediately
and had received ``loud and prolonged applause, the Members
rising,'' my opponent in the next primary might have called
attention to how insignificant I was because I only received
``applause'' and the other Member had received ``loud and prolonged
applause, the Members rising.''
[[Page 357]]
The Chair has held that demonstrations in the House are not a
part of the Record, and shall continue to hold that until the rules
of the House are changed.
Later in the same discussion,(14) Mr. Charles L.
Gifford, of Massachusetts, called the attention of the House to the
fact that in the Record of Mar. 1 there appeared an address in which
the word ``applause'' appeared 20 times, and seemed to be a part of the
proceedings of the House. Speaker Rayburn responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 91 Cong. Rec. 1790, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The present occupant of the Chair was not here; and,
furthermore, that was a joint session of the two Houses of
Congress.
Reprints
Sec. 15.4 It is the policy of the Joint Committee on Printing and the
Public Printer to request the approval of Members, whose remarks
appear in the Record, before those remarks are reprinted and
distributed pursuant to the request of another Member. (A Member
requesting a reprint sometimes announces to the House that Members'
remarks on a particular subject will be included in a reprint
unless they register objection.)
On Feb. 28, 1950,(15) Senator Harry P. Cain, of
Washington, read to the Members of the Senate a letter from the Public
Printer to Senator William F. Knowland, of California, dated Aug. 13,
1946, which explained the policy of the Joint Committee on Printing and
the Public Printer concerning the reprinting and distribution of
materials appearing in the Congressional Record. The letter, in
relevant portion, is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 2490, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply, I am pleased to advise that, since the Congressional
Record is a public document, it is not copyrighted, and matter
appearing in the Record may be reprinted by outside sources without
obtaining a clearance from anyone. As to reprints by the Government
Printing Office, it has long been the policy of the Joint Committee
on Printing and this Office to ask for the approval of the Member
whose remarks are to be reprinted before reprinting and
distributing the same. . . .
This is purely for the protection of each individual Member, as
it not only protects the Members whose remarks are to be reprinted,
but it also protects the Member who would order and distribute the
same against charges of abuse of the franking privilege,
unauthorized use of Federal funds, and so forth.
On Mar. 7, 1968,(16) Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of
Pennsylvania, made
[[Page 358]]
the following announcement on the floor of the House, which illustrates
a procedure by which the consent of Members, whose remarks are to be
reprinted, is obtained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 114 Cong. Rec. 5764, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the 50th anniversary of Ukrainian
independence, a private order is being submitted for reprint
publication of all statements and other insertions made by Members
of the House of Representatives prior, during, and after the
January 22, 1968, event, which was observed in the House on January
23, 1968.
If there is no objection from any such Member, his or her
statement or insertion will be incorporated in the reprint
brochure, which has been requested by the Ukrainian Congress
Committee of America.
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
C. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Sec. 16. Matters Printed in the Record; Civil Liability
Statutory law, House rules, and the practices of the House regulate
the content of the House portion of the Record. In addition, the House
frequently agrees by unanimous consent to permit specific items to be
inserted in the Record which would not ordinarily be included.
The oath of office subscribed to by Members and Delegates is
required by statute(17) to be printed in the Record. A list
of Members filing the oath with the Clerk of the House is then recorded
following the text of the oath.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 2 USC Sec. 25 (1970).
18. An example of the form of entry in the Record of the oath and the
listing of Members subscribing to it may be found at 94 Cong.
Rec. 5750, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., May 12, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occasionally an act of Congress requires a governmental activity to
report to Congress and specifies that ``the Clerk of the House . . .
shall cause to be published in the Congressional Record all reports
submitted pursuant to this law.''(19) Where publication of
such reports in the Record is required by statute, the Parliamentarian
furnishes a copy of the report to the Clerk at the time the
communication is referred to committee, and the Clerk submits the
report for printing in the Record.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sec. 4(b) of Pub. L. No. 85-804, an act to authorize the making,
amendment, and modification of contracts to facilitate the
national defense, is an example of such a statutory provision.
This act is codified at 50 USC 1434 (1970).
20. For an example of the form of entry in the Record of such reports,
see 107 Cong. Rec. 4816-18, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24,
1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The insertion of certain types of materials in the Record is
prohibited. For example, maps, diagrams, or illustrations may not be
[[Page 359]]
inserted in the Record without the approval of the Joint Committee on
Printing.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 44 USC Sec. 904 (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain significant matters are printed in the Record under the
House rules. The list includes the following: petitions or memorials or
bills of a private nature;(2) bills, resolutions and
documents referred to committee under the rules;(3)
amendments to be protected for debate time under the five-minute
rule;(4) the filing of committee reports;(5)
committee expenditures;(6) conference reports and
accompanying statements;(7) messages received from the
Senate and President of the United States, giving notice of bills
passed or approved;(8) voting pairs;(9) and
motions (with signatures) to discharge a committee from further
consideration of a bill.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Rule XXII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 849 (1973).
3. Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1973).
When a bill or resolution is introduced by request, that
fact is noted in the Record. Rule XXII clause 6, House Rules
and Manual Sec. 860 (1973).
4. Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1973).
5. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 743 (1973).
6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 738 (1973).
7. Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1973).
8 Rule XXXIX House Rules and Manual Sec. 935 (1973).
9. Rule VIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 660 (1973).
10. Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain matters are traditionally printed in the Record pursuant to
the practices of the House. For example, notations of the following
occurrences are usually printed: bills signed by the Speaker subsequent
to adjournment sine die, by title;(11) bills ``pocket
vetoed'' by the President during adjournment to a day certain, and
supporting memoranda;(12) delivery of bills and joint
resolutions to the President by the Committee on Enrolled
Bills;(13) the delivery of bills to the White House endorsed
``held for presentation to the President upon his return to the United
States,''(14) or ``delivered to the White House for
forwarding to the President'' by the Committee on House
Administration;(15) reference by the Speaker
[[Page 360]]
of House bills with Senate amendments to committee;(16)
reference to more than one committee of executive
communications;(17) appointment by the Speaker of Members to
a commission subsequent to adjournment;(18) and submission
of the report of the Board of Visitors, U.S. Coast Guard
Academy.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 88 Cong. Rec. 9620, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 26, 1942.
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 755, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 19, 1943.
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 10539, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 9, 1943.
14. 105 Cong. Rec. 17637, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 1, 1959.
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 11792, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 26, 1963.
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 8987, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1951.
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 10625, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 18, 1960.
18. 97 Cong. Rec. 13783, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 31, 1951.
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 13639, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House frequently agrees by unanimous consent to permit the
insertion in the Record of materials at the request of Members. The
occasions are so numerous and the types of materials so varied, that
the following insertions serve only as examples: a communication from
the Chamber of Deputies, Peru, expressing condolences on the Alaskan
earthquake;(20) rules and regulations governing the use of
the House office buildings,' the House garages, and the Capitol power
plant, adopted by the House Office Building Commission;(1)
and the Speaker's analysis of a session of Congress and the
accomplishments of the House.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 110 Cong. Rec. 7962, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 15, 1964.
1. 111 Cong. Rec. 23926, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 15, 1965.
2. 109 Cong. Rec. 25556, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 24, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The protection afforded matters printed in the Record by the Speech
or Debate Clause of the Constitution(3) has been the subject
of several court decisions. In Hentoff v Ichord,(4) the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia enjoined the
publication or distribution of a congressional committee report by the
Public Printer because it was held to be without any proper legislative
purpose and an infringement upon first amendment rights. The court,
however, stated that publication in the Congressional Record of the
report could not be enjoined, because of the protection afforded by the
Speech or Debate Clause. A more extensive discussion of this subject is
found elsewhere in this work.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 6.
4. 318 F Supp 1175 (D.D.C. 1970).
5. See Ch. 7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speech or Debate Clause does not immunize a Member from a civil
libel action for the reprinting and distribution of allegedly libelous
statements which have appeared in the Record. In Long v
Ansell,(6) the Supreme
[[Page 361]]
Court stated this proposition in dictum. In McGovern v
Martz,(7) the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia held that remarks made on the floor and published in the
Record were absolutely privileged, and approved the dictum in Long v
Ansell to the effect that such privilege would not extend to the
republication and distribution by a Member of remarks he had made on
the floor of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 293 U.S. 76 (1934).
7. 182 F Supp 343 (D.D.C.
1960). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bills
Sec. 16.1 The House, in the interest of economy, occasionally agrees by
unanimous consent to dispense with the printing in the Record of
the text of an especially lengthy bill.
On June 17, 1963,(8) the House was considering a bill to
enact part II of the District of Columbia Code, entitled ``Judiciary
and Judicial Procedure.''(9) In view of the high cost of
printing such a lengthy bill, the House agreed by unanimous consent to
dispense with the printing of the text of the bill in the
Record.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 109 Cong. Rec. 10910, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
9. H.R. 4157, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. (1963).
10. 109 Cong. Rec. 10911, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Apr. 2, 1962,(11) the House, while considering a bill
to revise and codify the general and permanent laws relating to the
Canal Zone,(12) agreed by unanimous consent to permit the
insertion of a statement in the Record explaining the bill in lieu of
printing the entire bill.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 5531, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. H.R. 10931, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. (1962).
13. For additional illustrations of this precedent, see 111 Cong. Rec.
8375, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 26, 1965; 109 Cong. Rec.
18044, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 25, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 16.2 Upon the rejection by the House of an amendment in the nature
of a substitute that the Committee of the Whole had reported to the
House in place of the bill as reported by a committee, the text of
the original bill was printed in the Record.
On Dec. 16, 1970,(14) a bill to amend the Food Stamp Act
of 1964,(15) as reported with standing committee amendments,
was being considered in the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of
the Whole agreed to and
[[Page 362]]
reported to the House an amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
amended.(16) The House, by a roll call vote, then rejected
the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.(17)
After the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, the
text of the original bill was printed in the Record.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 41981, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
15. H.R. 18582, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970).
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 42032, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 16, 1970.
17. Id. at p. 42033.
18. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 16.3 After a bill was reported back to the House by a standing
committee with an amendment, in accordance with a motion to
recommit with instructions, the entire text of the bill, as
amended, was printed in the Record, instead of the usual notation
of the third reading of the bill by title.
On Apr. 16, 1970,(19) the House, while considering the
Family Assistance Act of 1970,(20) adopted a motion to
recommit with instructions to report the bill back with specific
amendments forthwith. The committee reported back the bill as
instructed, the House agreed to the amendment, and the
Speaker(1) then put the question of the engrossment and
third reading of the bill to the House. At this point the full text of
the bill, as amended, was printed in the Record.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 12092, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H.R. 16311, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970).
1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
2. 116 Cong. Rec. 12093, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 16, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The adoption of a motion to recommit with
instructions does not ordinarily require the printing of the complete
text of the bill, as amended, in the Record. The third reading of the
bill is by title, and usually this is so indicated in the Record. In
this instance, due to the widespread public interest in the bill, the
Speaker requested that the bill be printed in full, as amended, in the
Record.
Sec. 16.4 The text of a House amendment to a Senate bill was, by
unanimous consent, ordered printed in the Record on the following
legislative day rather than at the point in the proceedings at
which it was adopted.
Parliamentarian's Note: On Mar. 19, 1970, the House discharged the
Committee on the District of Columbia from further consideration of the
Senate bill for District of Columbia court reorganization and criminal
law re
[[Page 363]]
form,(3) and substituted an amendment containing the text of
a bill which had already passed the House.(4) Because of the
length of the bill and the lateness of the hour on Mar. 19, the House
expressed unanimous consent that the text and the amendment be printed
in the Record for the next legislative day, Monday, Mar. 23, in order
not to delay the printing of the Record for Mar. 19.(5) The
Government Printing Office, however, misinterpreted this request and
deferred the printing of the entire proceedings surrounding the
adoption of the amendment to Mar. 23, as well as the text of the
amendment itself.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. S. 2601, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970).
4. H.R. 16196, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970).
5. 116 Cong. Rec. 8221, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 19, 1970.
6. See 116 Cong. Rec. 8495-8550, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 23, 1970,
for the entire proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitions
Sec. 16.5 Neither the Speaker nor the Committee on Printing has
jurisdiction over the manner of printing of petitions of Members in
the Record under clause 1 of Rule XXII; appeal must be made to the
individual Member concerned.
On Apr. 30, 1935,(7) the following discussion occurred
concerning the propriety of repeated insertions in the Record by a
Member of petitions covering subject matter that had been dealt with
legislatively by the House in the current session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 79 Cong. Rec. 6631, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry I
wish to direct to the Chair is whether the Committee on Printing
cannot control the matter of inserting such petitions in the
Record, after a measure passes, when it is clearly apparent the
petitions can accomplish no useful purpose?
The Speaker:(8) The gentleman understands that the
Chair has no right to judge . . . the sufficiency or propriety of
petitions Members may insert in the Record; nor, in the opinion of
the Chair, does the Committee on Printing have any jurisdiction in
the matter. Appeal must be made to the individual Member concerned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Blanton: And control is not within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Printing.
The Speaker: No; the Chair just stated that the Committee on
Printing does not have jurisdiction.
Paragraph 1, rule XXII, provides as follows:
Members having petitions or memorials or bills of a private
nature to present may deliver them to the Clerk, endorsing
their names and the reference or disposition to be
[[Page 364]]
made thereof; and said petitions and memorials and bills of a
private nature, except such as, in the judgment of the Speaker,
are of an obscene or insulting character, shall be entered on
the Journal, with the names of the Members presenting them, and
the Clerk shall furnish a transcript of such entry to the
official reporters of debates for publication in the Record.
After further debate, the Speaker stated:
The Chair may say to the gentleman from Texas that as a matter
of practice there is not the slightest objection to a Member
lumping all of the petitions together. Then they would be in the
Record. But this is up to the Member.
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, the
situation, as I understand it, is this, and I have talked to the
members of the Printing Committee: A member files petitions at the
desk. On the same day he may file 100 or 200 of them, reading,
``The petitioner, John Jones, and others.'' Each one of those
petitions is referred to in the Appendix. I think the desk itself
at the close of the day might lump together the petitions of each
Member as to the same subject. There would then be only one
reference in the Appendix or in the Record, instead of sometimes 10
pages. I do not see why it cannot be done mechanically by the
Clerk.
The Speaker: Under the rules no one at the desk has authority
to lump the petitions together. It is a matter either for the
House, under the rule which has just been read, or else an appeal
must be made to the individual Member. No one at the desk has
authority to combine them without the consent of the Member who
introduces them. The House, of course, could control the matter.
Committee Reports
Sec. 16.6 The Public Printer refused to print in the Record the text of
a congressional committee report that had already been printed in
pamphlet form, citing a ruling by the Joint Committee on Printing
that prohibits such duplication of printing.
On Mar. 29, 1949,(9) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
stated that on the preceding day he had asked and received the
unanimous consent of the House to extend his remarks in the Record and
to include a report on spies issued by the Committee on Un-American
Activities. Mr. Rankin further stated that he had been informed by the
Government Printing Office that the report would not be printed in the
Record, because to do so would violate a ruling by the Joint Committee
on Printing that prohibits the printing of committee reports in the
Record that have previously been printed in pamphlet
form.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 95 Cong. Rec. 3396, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
10. This rule, which applies to committee and subcommittee reports but
not to conference reports, is rule 9 of the rules adopted by
the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 365]]
Sec. 16.7 The House agreed by unanimous consent to permit the printing
of a committee activity report in both pamphlet form and in the
Congressional Record notwithstanding the rule of the Joint
Committee on Printing that prohibits the printing of committee
reports in both forms.
On Sept. 1, 1960,(11) the House agreed by unanimous
consent to permit the printing of an activity report of the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in the Record. Immediately
thereafter Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, requested unanimous consent
that the same report be printed in pamphlet form for distribution
notwithstanding the rule of the Joint Committee on Printing that
prohibits committee reports to be printed in both pamphlet form and in
the Record.(12) The House agreed to the request without
objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 19139, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. This rule is often reprinted in the daily edition of the
Congressional Record in the section entitled ``Laws and Rules
for Publication of the Congressional Record'', which
immediately precedes the section entitled ``Daily Digest''. See
for example rule 9 of the rules of the Joint Committee on
Printing, effective May 23, 1972, that are reprinted in the
daily edition of the Congressional Record for Thursday, Apr.
19, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Reports
Sec. 16.8 The consideration of conference reports is privileged
business, and the calling up of such a report does not require
unanimous consent after the report has been printed in the Record.
On Sept. 2, 1959,(13) the House was considering a
conference report on a bill relating to the power of the states to
impose net income taxes on income derived from interstate commerce and
establishing a Commission on State Taxation of Interstate Commerce and
Interstate and Inter-governmental Taxation Problems.(14)
After Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, reserved the right to object to a
request that the statement of the managers of the bill be read in lieu
of the report, the following discussion occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 105 Cong. Rec. 17769, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 2524, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Patman: If I do not object to the reading, that does not
foreclose me from objecting to the consideration of the conference
report?
[[Page 366]]
The Speaker:(15) This is a privileged matter. No
objection lies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Patman: No objection lies on this? The Speaker is talking
about the reading?
The Speaker: The Chair is talking about the conference report,
which is a privileged matter.
Mr. Patman: And one objection would not lie to it?
The Speaker: No objection would.
Sec. 16.9 A conference report was called up as a privileged matter even
though it had not been printed in the Record because the House had
not been in session the previous day when the report was filed.
On Tuesday, May 12, 1959,(16) the House agreed by
unanimous consent to give the conferees on a bill making supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959,(17)
until midnight Wednesday, May 13, to file a conference report on the
disagreeing of votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendments to the
bill. The House adjourned from Tuesday, May 12 until Thursday, May 14.
Since there were no House proceedings to be printed in the Record for
Wednesday, May 13, the conference report was not printed at the time it
was filed. On Thursday, May 14,(18) the conference report
was called up as a privileged matter, and no objection was made to the
fact that it had not been printed in the Record as required by House
Rule XXVIII clause 2.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 8006. 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 5916, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 8167, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1973). At the time of the
consideration of this conference report the controlling House
rule required only that a conference report be printed in the
Record prior to its consideration by the House. 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 6516. The provision in Rule XXVIII clause 2(a),
which requires the conference report to be printed in the
Record three days before being considered by the House, was
added by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, section
125(p), and made part of the rules in 1971. H. Res. 5, 92d
Cong. 1st Sess. (1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 16.10 The House has agreed by unanimous consent to order the
printing of a conference report in the Record for a day in which
the House was not in session.
On Aug. 3, 1961,(20) the House agreed, by unanimous
consent, to permit the managers on the part of the House to have until
mid
[[Page 367]]
night the following day, Friday, Aug. 4, to file a conference report on
a bill,(1) and to order the report to be printed in the
Record for Aug. 4, notwithstanding the fact that the House would not be
in session. On Friday, Aug. 4, the conference report was printed in the
daily edition of the Record under the heading ``House of
Representatives,'' which immediately followed the Senate proceedings.
In the bound edition of the Record for Friday, Aug. 4,(2)
however, there appears under the heading ``House of Representatives''
only a notation indicating that the conference report had been
submitted on that date. The full text of the report does not appear
until it was Considered by the House on Aug. 7, 1961.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 14544, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
1. H.R. 7445, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. (1961).
2. 107 Cong. Rec. 14727, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
3. 107 Cong. Rec. 14757-59, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. For other occasions
on which the House has ordered a conference report to be
printed in the Record for a day that the House was not in
session, see, e.g., 108 Cong. Rec. 14841, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.,
July 26, 1962; 107 Cong. Rec. 18642, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.,
Sept. 7, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 16.11 The House, by unanimous consent, has provided for the
consideration of a conference report notwithstanding the fact that
it had not been printed in the Record as required by the House
rules.
On July 14, 1970,(4) the House agreed to the following
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 116 Cong. Rec. 24030, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it shall be in order on tomorrow, Wednesday, July 15,
to consider the conference report on the bill S. 2601, the District
of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970,
notwithstanding rule 28, clause 2.
Mr. Speaker, I make this request because of the high cost of
printing the voluminous conference report in the Congressional
Record. I am informed that it might cover as many as 160 pages of
the Record. I can assure the Members that printed copies of the
report, in pamphlet form, will be available for their consideration
before this report is called up.
On several occasions the House has agreed, by unanimous consent,
that it shall be in order during the week to consider any conference
report at any time.(5) The House has also agreed, by
unanimous consent, to permit a conference report to be considered on
[[Page 368]]
the same day it was filed, even though it had not been printed in the
Record.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 100 Cong. Rec. 14670, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 16, 1954; 94 Cong.
Rec. 10258, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 25, 1947.
6. 108 Cong. Rec. 19258, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 12, 1962. Although
the conference report had not previously been printed in the
daily edition of the Record, it does appear in the permanent
edition immediately preceding the consideration of the report
by the House. Id. at p. 19278.
Conference reports generally, see Ch. 33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 16.12 The House agreed by unanimous consent to permit 40 minutes
of debate on a conference report subsequent to its adoption, and to
have the text of the debate inserted in the Record preceding the
adoption of the report.
On May 22, 1968,(7) the House agreed, without debate, to
the conference report(8) on the Consumer Credit Protection
Act.(9) Subsequent to the adoption of the report, Mr. Carl
Albert, of Oklahoma, made the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 114 Cong. Rec. 14396, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
8. H. Rept. No. 1397, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (1968).
9. S. 5, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 40 minutes of debate
may be had on this matter, to be equally divided between the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Patman) and the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Cahill), and that it appear in the Record prior to the
adoption of the conference report.
The House agreed to the request.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 114 Cong. Rec. 14405, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., May 22, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presidential Messages
Sec. 16.13 A designated Speaker pro tempore may refer a Presidential
message and order it printed in the Record only with the unanimous
consent of the House.
On Oct. 9, 1969,(11) the Speaker pro
tempore(12) laid before the House the Second Annual Report
of the National Advisory Committee on Adult Basic Education, a message
from the President of the United States.(13) The message
was, without objection, referred by the Speaker pro tempore to the
Committee on Education and Labor and ordered to be printed in the
Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 29347, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
13. H. Doc. No. 176, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. (1969).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change of Vote
Sec. 16.14. The change of a vote by a Member after the con
[[Page 369]]
clusion of a roll call and before the announcement of the result is
noted in the Record.
On Mar. 16, 1934,(14) the following exchange occurred
relating to a parliamentary inquiry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 78 Cong. Rec. 4691, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: As I understand it, the
practice has been for some time that when a Member changes his vote
from ``no'' to ``aye'' or from ``aye'' to ``no'' there is nothing
in the Record to show it. The reporters do not take it down.
I make the point of order at this time that every word that is
uttered in this House should appear in the Congressional Record,
and I make the point of order that when a Member changes his vote,
as was done 2 days ago, when 40 or 50 Members on the majority and
minority sides changed their votes, that change should appear in
the Congressional Record.
The Speaker:(15) The gentleman from New York is
correct as to the practice that has prevailed heretofore. The Chair
thinks that if a Member changes his vote it ought to appear in the
Record, and hereafter the reporters will see that all Members who
change their votes are reported in the Congressional Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 20, 1969,(16) several Members changed their vote
on the conference report(17) concerning a foreign assistance
appropriation bill.(18) The changes were noted in the
Record, immediately following the announcement of pairs, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 40456, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H. Rept. No. 779, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. (1969).
18. H.R. 15149, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. (1969)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Davis of Georgia, Mr. Bow, Mrs. Reid of Illinois, Mr.
Minshall, and Mr. Kuykendall changed their votes from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Scheuer, Mr. Culver, and Mr. Tiernan changed
their votes from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. Scheuer changes his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
C. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Sec. 17. Deletion of Unparliamentary Remarks
Although the Congressional Record is ``substantially a verbatim
report of proceedings,''(19) the House frequently excludes
from the Record remarks made out of order or unparliamentary remarks
which reflect unfavorably upon the House, its committees, or individual
Members. Remarks made on the floor by a Member after he has been called
to order, without recognition by the Chair, or without the consent of
the Member occupying the floor, are frequently deleted from the Record
by the House, the Speaker, or the Member in revising his
remarks.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 44 USC Sec. 901 (1970).
20. See Sec. Sec. 17.7-17.10, infra.
Disorder in debate generally, see Ch. 29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 370]]
A Member occasionally makes a remark in the heat of debate which
reflects unfavorably upon the House, its membership, or its committees,
and which he immediately regrets. In such instances the Member who has
spoken the words may request the unanimous consent of the House that
they be deleted from the Record or such request may be made by another
Member. The House frequently agrees to these requests made in the
spirit of apology.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. Sec. 17.11, 17.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During floor debate a Member will sometimes demand that words
spoken by another Member be taken down. The Speaker(2) then
determines whether the words spoken in debate reflect unfavorably upon
the House, its membership or institutions. If the Speaker rules the
words unparliamentary, a Member frequently makes a motion or introduces
a resolution to delete the unparliamentary remarks from the
Record.(3) Occasionally the Speaker will immediately order
the unparliamentary remarks deleted from the Record, without awaiting
action by the House.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. If the words are taken down in the Committee of the Whole they must
be reported to the House for a decision by the Speaker. See
Sec. 17.17, infra.
3. See Sec. 17.13, infra.
4. See Sec. Sec. 17.21, 17.22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member may also challenge unparliamentary remarks that were not
deleted from the reporter's notes prior to publication of the daily
edition of the Record. The usual procedure is similar to the procedure
employed in challenging remarks that were inserted in the Record under
leave to extend. In such instances a Member is recognized on a question
of privilege.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 17.19, infra.
For a general discussion of questions of privilege, see Ch.
11, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedure; Deletion or Expungement Generally
Sec. 17.1 The insertion in the Record of unparliamentary remarks is
sufficient to raise a question of the privilege of the House.
On Sept. 5, 1940,(6) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
was recognized on a question of the privilege of the House, and offered
a resolution(7) to expunge from the daily edition of the
Record for the
[[Page 371]]
previous day words spoken on the floor of the House by Mr. Beverly M.
Vincent, of Kentucky, which impugned the patriotism of Mr. Martin L.
Sweeney, of Ohio. The House agreed to the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 86 Cong. Rec. 11552, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
7. H. Res. 591, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. (1940).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.2 The Speaker held that the question of whether an allegedly
unparliamentary remark inserted in the Record under leave to extend
violated the privileges granted the Member who made the insertion
was not subject to a point of order, but was a question for the
House.
On Feb. 27, 1946,(8) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
made a point of order alleging that Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois,
had inserted in the Record an attack on the Committee on Un-American
Activities.(9) The Speaker(10) responded as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 92 Cong. Rec. 1725, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
9. Mr. Sabath had referred to the Committee on Un-American Activities
as ``the House Un-American Committee.''
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair thinks the remedy of the gentleman from Mississippi
is not a point of order. This is an extension of remarks and
whether or not it violated the privileges granted the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Sabath] would be a question for the House to
pass on, not the Chair.
Mr. Rankin then made a motion to delete the remarks of Mr. Sabath from
the permanent Record. The House rejected the motion for the previous
question on Mr. Rankin's motion, but the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request by Mr. Sabath that the remarks referring to the
Committee on Un-American Activities be deleted from the Record. Mr.
Rankin then withdrew his motion.
Sec. 17.3 The action of the House in ordering the entire speech of a
Member and the proceedings under a call to order expunged from a
permanent Record does not give rise to a question of personal
privilege or privilege of the House; the proper method of reopening
the matter is by a motion to reconsider the vote whereby such
action was taken.
On Feb. 13, 1941,(11) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
rose to state a question of personal privilege and privilege of the
House. He offered a resolution stating that on Feb. 11, Mr. Samuel
Dickstein, of New York, had, during the course of his remarks on the
House floor, impugned the integrity of a committee of the
[[Page 372]]
House. Mr. Hoffman had interrupted Mr. Dickstein's remarks with a point
of order that such remarks were out of order and in violation of the
Constitution. The Speaker(12) refused to rule the words out
of order and permitted Mr. Dickstein to continue speaking. A few
moments later Mr. Dickstein's remarks were again interrupted, this time
by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, who demanded that the words be
taken down. The words were taken down, and Mr. Rankin moved ``to
expunge the entire speech of the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Dickstein] from the Record.'' The House agreed to the motion, and the
Record of the House proceedings for Feb. 11 did not contain either the
remarks of Mr. Dickstein or the proceedings by which the words were
taken down. Mr. Hoffman stated in his resolution that the deletion of
the entire proceedings from the Record raised a question of personal
privilege and privilege of the House, and requested that the permanent
edition for Feb. 11 be corrected so as to include a portion of Mr.
Dickstein's remarks and the entire proceedings by which his words were
taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 979. 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Mr. Hoffman's argument in support of the resolution
that the omission of the proceedings referred to violates the First
Amendment freedom of speech and of the press, the Speaker stated that
the Constitution also gives the House the authority to establish rules
for its own procedure. After Mr. Hoffman further argued in support of
the question of the privilege of the House which he had raised, the
Speaker responded as follows:
The House would have to decide that, and, in the opinion of the
Chair, the House did decide the matter when it expunged the remarks
from the Record. The Chair thinks, under the circumstances, that
the proper way to reopen the question would be by a motion to
reconsider the vote whereby the motion of the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] was adopted. The Chair is of the opinion
that inasmuch as the question raised by the gentleman from Michigan
was decided by a vote of the House on a proper motion, that he does
not now present a question of privilege of the House or of personal
privilege.
Sec. 17.4 The Speaker declined to rule on a question of personal
privilege arising from the insertion in the Record of allegedly
unparliamentary remarks because the transcript of the insertion had
not been submitted for the inspection of the Chair.
On Apr. 7, 1943,(13) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
was rec
[[Page 373]]
ognized on a question of personal privilege. He stated that several
days earlier a Member had inserted in the Record remarks which
reflected upon his integrity, and requested an opportunity to respond
to that charge. The Speaker(14) requested that the original
transcript of the remarks be submitted for his inspection. Mr. Celler
replied that he did not have a copy of the transcript in his possession
at that time, and asked the permission of the Chair to proceed
nevertheless. With respect to the question of personal privilege, the
Speaker stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 3065, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is not going to rule on this question without seeing
the original transcript and it is not here. If there is no
objection, the gentleman may proceed for 10 minutes.
Sec. 17.5 The Speaker ruled that a delay of several months did not
preclude a Member from being recognized on a question of personal
privilege concerning remarks appearing in the Record.
On June 30, 1939,(15) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
requested recognition on a question of personal privilege. He cited in
support of his question of privilege remarks made on the floor of the
Senate by a Member of that body on Jan. 17, 1939, which were highly
critical of a statement he had previously made in the House. Mr. John
E. Rankin, of Mississippi, then made the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 8468, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the statement that
the gentleman from Michigan is making does not in any way
constitute a question of high constitutional privilege. . . . [T]he
statement made in the Senate was months and months ago. It has been
in the Congressional Record all this time, and the gentleman from
Michigan knew it. Now he is guilty of what is called laches in our
courts. He is not entitled to rise to the question of high
constitutional privilege at this time in order to use it to
filibuster against the bill before the House. I make the point of
order that the gentleman is not entitled to rise to a question of
high constitutional privilege.
The Speaker, William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled against Mr.
Rankin's point of order, and recognized Mr. Hoffman on the question of
personal privilege.
Remarks Made Out of Order
Sec. 17.6 The Chair may direct the exclusion or deletion, from the
Record, of words held to be out of order. (See Sec. 17.21, infra.)
[[Page 374]]
Sec. 17.7 Remarks made by a Member on the floor of the House after he
has been called to order by the Chair are excluded from the Record.
On June 17, 1936,(16) Mr. Robert F. Rich, of
Pennsylvania, was propounding a question to the Member occupying the
floor, under a reservation of the right to object, when the regular
order was demanded by Mr. Claude A. Fuller, of Arkansas. Mr. Rich,
however, ignoring the announcement by the Speaker that the regular
order had been demanded, made an additional statement. The
Speaker(17) stated that Mr. Rich had been out of order in
extending his statement after the Chair announced that the regular
order was demanded. The following parliamentary inquiry and response by
the Speaker then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 9694, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Fuller: Mr. Speaker, under the ruling of the Chair I
suppose it is to be taken for granted that the remarks of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania should be stricken from the Record. If
they are not I want to object, because he was speaking out of
order, speaking after the Chair had cautioned him, as is his custom
all the time.
The Speaker: The remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, or
any other gentleman who interjects remarks into the Record after he
has been called to order by the Chair upon a demand for the regular
order, are not entitled to be incorporated in the Record.
Sec. 17.8 Remarks made by a Member subsequent to his point of order
that a quorum is not present are ordinarily excluded from the
Record, because the point of order is not debatable and only
remarks that are made in order are included in the Record.
On Apr. 15, 1940,(18) Mr. John Taber, of New York, was
recognized on a question of the privilege of the House. He stated that
earlier in the debate Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, had made a
point of order that a quorum was not present, and thereafter had made
additional statements. Mr. Taber made the point of order that Mr.
Rankin had not been recognized for the purpose of making those
statements and that they should not be in the Record. The Speaker pro
tempore(19) made the following ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 4517, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rules of the House, remarks should only be included
in the Record that are made in order. After a
[[Page 375]]
point of order is made, which is not debatable, any further remarks
should not be included in the Record. Therefore the Chair rules
that any remarks that may have been made after the point of order
that a quorum was not present was made should not be included in
the Record.
Sec. 17.9 The reporters are instructed to take down and include as part
of the Record of the proceedings remarks interjected by a Member to
whom the Member occupying the floor has refused to yield.
The reporters are instructed to take down such interjections even
though they are out of order and may be stricken from the permanent
Record by the House, the Speaker, or the Member in revising his
remarks.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. This ruling is discussed in Sec. 19.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.10 A parliamentary inquiry may not be used to place statements
in the Record.
On Jan. 6, 1933,(1) the following parliamentary inquiry
was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 76 Cong. Rec. 1362, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry. Would it be in order to state that the
Republican organization voted silently against the previous
question?
The Speaker(2) responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is not a parliamentary inquiry, and the gentleman ought
not to take advantage of a parliamentary inquiry to make a
statement.
Deletion by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 17.11 The House occasionally agrees to a unanimous-consent request
by a Member to have certain unparliamentary remarks spoken in
debate by another Member deleted from the Record.
On Aug. 4, 1970,(3) Mr. Page H. Belcher, of Oklahoma,
referred to Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, as ``the other guy''
who was horning in. Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, requested
unanimous consent that ``the other guy'' as spoken by Mr. Belcher in
debate be deleted from the Record and that there be inserted in lieu
thereof ``the gentleman from Massachusetts.'' The House agreed to the
request.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 116 Cong. Rec. 27130, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
4. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.12 A Member may, with the unanimous consent of the House, have
his own remarks, which had been inserted under leave to extend,
deleted from the permanent Record.
[[Page 376]]
On Sept. 20, 1966,(5) a speech delivered by Mr. Arnold
Olsen, of Montana, which was made in Montana and was highly critical of
another Member, appeared in the Record. The following day, Mr. Olsen,
in requesting the unanimous consent of the House that the speech be
deleted from the permanent Record, stated that it had been inserted by
his staff, without his permission or knowledge. The House agreed to the
unanimous-consent request.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 21, 1966.
6. On several other occasions the House has agreed by unanimous
consent to permit a Member to delete his remarks from the
Record. See, e.g., Cong. Rec. daily ed.), Aug. 12, 1970
(remarks critical of a United States Senator); Cong. Rec.
(daily ed.), Sept. 14, 1967 (remarks critical of another
Member); 86 Cong. Rec. 1124, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 6, 1940
(letters that were later found to have been forged); Cong. Rec.
(daily ed.), Mar. 18, 1965 (an extension of remarks by a Member
that had been lost by the Public Printer, rediscovered nine
years later, and inserted as if it were current).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deletion Pursuant to Motion
Sec. 17.13 After the Speaker ruled certain words spoken by a Member in
debate to be out of order, the House agreed to a motion deleting
his entire speech from the Record.
On Feb. 11, 1941,(7) the Speaker(8) ruled
that certain words spoken by a Member in debate on a
resolution(9) to continue an investigation by a Special
Committee on Un-American Activities impugned the motives and actions of
a committee and its individual members, and were therefore out of
order. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved to expunge the entire
speech from the Record. The House agreed to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 87 Cong. Rec. 894-899, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
9. H. Res. 90, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. (1941).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.14 The Speaker ruled that a motion to strike from the Record
would have to be put in writing where the material to be stricken
gave rise to a question of privilege of the House.
On Apr. 25, 1944,(10) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
introduced a resolution to strike from the Record a statement inserted
by another Member that impugned the integrity and patriotism of Mr.
Hoffman and which mentioned various Senators and Representatives.
During debate on the resolution the Speaker(11) in
[[Page 377]]
dicated that there was an inconsistency in the
resolution,(12) and Mr. Hoffman requested permission to
withdraw the resolution on the condition that he be permitted to reword
it and offer it again later in the day. At that point Mr. John E.
Rankin, of Mississippi, requested the opinion of the Chair as to
whether a motion to strike the matter under discussion from the Record
must be in writing, or whether it could be done orally. The Speaker
responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 90 Cong. Rec. 3696-98, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
12. The resolution directed both that the words be stricken from the
Record and that the resolution be referred to the Committee on
Rules for such action as it may deem proper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is going to demand that any motion to strike from the
Record be put in writing. The gentleman withdraws the resolution.
Later in the same day Mr. Hoffman introduced a modified
resolution.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The resolution provided for its referral to the Committee on Rules
and directed the committee to consider the offensive statement
and to take such action as it deemed proper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.15 Debate on a motion to expunge from the Record words taken
down and ruled out of order is under the hour rule.
On June 12, 1947,(14) after Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, was recognized on his motion to strike words from the
Record that had been held out of order by the Speaker,(15)
he made the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 6895, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I am recognized now for 1 hour and I have a right
to yield to any other Member I desire in this discussion?
The Speaker responded affirmatively.
Sec. 17.16 A Member who has been called to order for words spoken in
debate is not entitled to be recognized by the Speaker during
debate on a motion to expunge his words from the Record.
On Feb. 11, 1941,(16) during debate on a
resolution(17) to continue an investigation by a special
Committee on Un-American Activities, the Speaker(18) ruled
that words spoken by Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, impugned the
motives and actions of a committee and the members thereof and were
therefore not in order. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved to
expunge the entire speech of Mr. Dickstein from
[[Page 378]]
the Record. During the debate on the resolution Mr. Dickstein sought
recognition for the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry. The
Speaker replied that he could not be recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 87 Cong. Rec. 894-899, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H. Res. 90, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. (1941).
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.17 A motion to expunge words from the Record is not in order in
the Committee of the Whole; words taken down in debate in the
Committee must be reported to the House by the Chairman.
On Feb. 18, 1941,(19) during debate in the Committee of
the Whole, Mr. Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania, demanded-that certain
words spoken by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, be taken down. The
Clerk, upon the order of the Chairman,(20) read the words
objected to. Mr. Rich then requested that the words be expunged from
the Record. The Chairman stated that it was a matter for the House to
decide, and he directed the Committee to rise. The Committee then rose
and Mr. Magnuson reported to the House that certain words in debate had
been objected to, taken down upon request, and read at the Clerk's
desk. After listening to the Clerk's reading of the words objected to,
the Speaker(1) ruled that they did not reflect in an
unparliamentary manner upon any Member, and that they did not violate
the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 87 Cong. Rec. 1126, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
On May 31, 1934, in a similar situation, a Member moved to
expunge from the Record words taken down during a debate in the
Committee of the Whole. A point of order was made that the
words would have to be first reported to the House. The
Chairman, John H. Kerr (N.C.), agreed and directed the
Committee to rise. 78 Cong. Rec. 10167-70, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
20. Warren G. Magnuson (Wash.).
1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.18 A motion to delete from the Record certain words reported to
the House by the Committee of the Whole is in order subsequent to a
ruling by the Speaker holding them unparliamentary.
On Mar. 24, 1961,(2) the Committee of the Whole reported
to the House that certain words used in debate had been objected to
and, on request, taken down and read at the Clerk's desk. When the
House resumed sitting, the Clerk reported the words objected to, and
the Speaker(3) ruled them out of order. The following
parliamentary inquiry and response by the Speaker then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: The ruling means that
these
[[Page 379]]
words will be stricken from the Record?
The Speaker: If a motion is made to strike them from the
Record.
Mr. Curtis then made a motion to strike the words from the Record, and
the House agreed to the motion.
Deletion Pursuant to Resolution
Sec. 17.19 The insertion in the Record of unparliamentary remarks is
sufficient to give rise to a question of privilege, which is
frequently presented in the form of a resolution to expunge such
remarks from the permanent Record.
On May 13, 1946,(4) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
rose to a question of the privilege of the House and offered a
resolution(5) stating that on May 10, Mr. Frank E. Hook, of
Michigan, had caused to be inserted in the Congressional Record an
address delivered by the President of the Michigan CIO Council, which
impugned the integrity of Congress and the individual Members thereof.
The resolution requested that the entire speech be expunged from the
permanent Record. On a roll call vote, the House agreed to the
resolution and the speech was expunged from the permanent
Record.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 92 Cong. Rec. 4922-24, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
5. H. Res. 616, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. (1946).
6. See 93 Cong. Rec. 2461-63, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1947, for
another occasion on which the House agreed to a resolution
expunging from the permanent Record unparliamentary remarks
which had been inserted under leave to extend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.20 A resolution, which proposes to strike from the Record
language inserted under leave to extend, and which provides that
such resolution is to be referred to the Committee on Rules for
such action as it may deem proper, is privileged.
On Apr. 25, 1944,(7) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
rose to a question of privilege and introduced a
resolution(8) instructing the Committee on Rules to consider
a statement impugning the integrity and patriotism of Mr. Hoffman, that
had been inserted in the Record by another Member. Subsequent to the
Speaker's(9) statement that without objection
[[Page 380]]
the resolution was agreed to, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 90 Cong. Rec. 3698, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
8. H. Res. 516, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. (1944)
9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object----
The Speaker: It is a privileged resolution.
Mr. Rankin: I understand, but anything that goes to the
Committee on Rules is not a privileged resolution.
The Speaker: The Chair recognized the gentleman from Michigan
on the theory that it is a privileged resolution, and holds that it
is a privileged resolution. The Chair has already recognized the
gentleman to offer it.
Deletion by the Chair
Sec. 17.21 The Speaker, after ruling certain words taken down in debate
out of order, immediately ordered them deleted from the Record,
without awaiting action by the House.
On Feb. 22, 1945,(10) Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, requested that certain words spoken in debate by Mr. Frank
E. Hook, of Michigan, be taken down. The Speaker pro
tempore,(11) after hearing the words read by the Clerk, made
the following ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 1371, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair rules the words out of order and they will be
stricken from the Record.
Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, then asked the Chair, in the
form of a parliamentary inquiry, what had become of the request that
the words be taken down. The Speaker pro tempore responded as follows:
The Chair has already ruled on that. The words were stricken
from the Record.
Sec. 17.22 Although the Speaker may strike from the Record of the
proceedings remarks made by a Member to whom the Member occupying
the floor has refused to yield, the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may not.
Although it has been said that the Speaker has no control over the
official record of debates,(12) it is well established that
he may exclude from the Record flagrantly disorderly
words,(13) words spoken by a Member after he has been called
to order,(14) and remarks made by a Member who has not been
recognized and to whom the Member having the floor has declined to
yield.(15) The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole,
however, does not share even the Speaker's limited control over the
[[Page 381]]
Record, since it is well established that the Committee of the Whole
itself has no control over the Congressional Record.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7017.
13. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3471.
14. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6975-6978.
15. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3466.
16. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Apr. 20, 1937,(17) the Speaker(18) stated
that only the Speaker, and not the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole, has the authority to direct the reporters to delete certain
improper remarks from the Record. The Speaker cited this principle as
partial support for a ruling by which the reporters were instructed to
take down and include as part of the Record of the proceedings remarks
made by a Member to whom the Member having the floor had declined to
yield.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 3670, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
19. This ruling is discussed in Sec. 19.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deletion by Government Printing Office
Sec. 17.23 The Government Printing Office edits materials inserted in
the ``Extension of Remarks'' section of the Record so as to delete
profane words, and indicates such deletions with dashes.
On Feb. 24, 1970,(20) Mr. Ken Hechler, of West Virginia,
directed the attention of the House to the fact that he had inserted in
the ``Extension of Remarks'' section of the Record for the previous day
a printed newspaper interview with George Titler, who was then the vice
president of the United Mine Workers of America, in which Mr. Titler
was quoted as making a number of critical remarks against the character
of the late Joseph Yablonski. Mr. Hechler noted that the Government
Printing Office had properly deleted several profane remarks made by
Mr. Titler in the text of the interview, because such profanity in the
Record would not be in conformity with the rules of the
House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 116 Cong. Rec. 4543, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
1. The text of the interview appears at 116 Cong. Rec. 4457, 91st
Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 24, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The Government Printing Office has been
authorized by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing to delete
profane extraneous material inserted in the Record, and to indicate
such deletions with dashes.
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
C. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Sec. 18. Correction of Errors
The House may correct errors in the printing of the Congressional
Record in order to ensure that the
[[Page 382]]
proceedings of the House are accurately recorded.(2) This
prerogative of the House, however, does not permit it to revise remarks
that are correct and in order, because the House may not change the
Record merely to show what a Member should have said on the
floor.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6972.
3. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3469, 3498; 6 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 583; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6974. The right of the House
to delete from the Record unparliamentary remarks or remarks
made out of order is discussed in Sec. 17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although a Member may edit and revise his own remarks without the
consent of the House,(4) and the Speaker may order
unparliamentary remarks or remarks made out of order deleted from the
Record,(5) only the House, and not the
Speaker,(6) may order the correction of printing errors in
the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 19, infra.
5. See Sec. 17.21, supra.
6. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The correction of printing errors in the Record is frequently
raised as a question of privilege of the House.(7) While the
correction of the Record is usually proposed informally, by the
submission of minor corrections to the official
reporters,(8) or by unanimous-consent requests for more
significant changes,(9) a motion or resolution must be
submitted if a question of order(10) is raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Sec Sec. Sec. 18.1, 18.2, infra.
8. See Sec. 18.3, infra.
9. See Sec. Sec. 18.4, 18.5, infra.
10. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3464.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question of privilege concerning an error in the Record may not
be raised until the daily edition has appeared.(11) Under
the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing,(12) once the
daily edition is published, the House has 30 days to submit corrections
for the permanent edition, before it is made up for printing and
binding. No corrections may be submitted after the permanent edition of
the particular volume is published.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 5 Hinds Precedents Sec. 7020.
12. Rule 8 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972.
These rules are frequently reprinted in the daily edition of
the Congressional Record in the section entitled ``Laws and
Rules for Publication of the Congressional Record,'' which
precedes the section entitled ``Daily Digest.''
13. See Sec. 18.2, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question of Privilege of the House
Sec. 18.1 An error in the printing of the Congressional Record, by
which the remarks of one Member are attributed to an
[[Page 383]]
other, gives rise to a question of privilege.
Parliamentarian's Note: An error in the printing of the
Congressional Record by which the remarks of one Member are attributed
to another, raises a question of the privilege of the House.
(Generally, see Ch. 11, infra.)
Sec. 18.2 An error in the printing of the Congressional Record, by
which a Member's remarks were quoted in the text of an insertion
made by another Member and were not printed in smaller type as
required by a rule of the Joint Committee on Printing, gives rise
to a question of the privilege of the House.
On May 11, 1936,(14) Mr. John Taber, of New York, was
recognized on a question of the privilege of the House. He stated that
certain remarks attributed to him had been inserted in the Record of
May 7, 1936,(15) but did not appear in small type as
required by the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing in the case of
quotations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 7019-21, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber introduced a resolution to correct the Record, but it was
defeated on a roll call vote. Mr. John A. Martin, of Colorado, sought
unanimous consent to correct the Record so as to reduce the quotation
to small type; this request was objected to.
Submitting Corrections to Reporters
Sec. 18.3 A Member may submit minor corrections of the Record to the
official reporters, but controversial questions or matters that
might involve another Member must be submitted to the House.
On Feb. 9, 1937,(16) the following exchange occurred
concerning a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 1013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: In the matter of correcting
the Record, as I understand it, unless it is a matter that involves
the Journal or would adversely affect another Member, these minor
corrections can be made by the Member going to the desk in front of
the Speaker and taking it up with the reporters.
The Speaker:(17) Answering the gentleman from New
York, the rule is that upon insignificant or minor matters such
corrections may be made at the request of the Member by submitting
it to the reporter at the desk; but if it involves any substantial
matter
[[Page 384]]
that might bring into controversy some other Member or some other
controversial question, the Member must rise and ask for such
correction from the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correction by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 18.4 The House agreed, by unanimous consent, to correct the Record
so as to reflect the actual content of a Presidential message which
had been transmitted to the House.
On Mar. 12, 1963,(18) the House agreed to the unanimous-
consent request of Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, that the Record of the
previous day be corrected so as to reprint accurately the text of a
Presidential message, as transmitted to the House by the President of
the United States.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.). 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
1. The House must approve the correction of most errors in the
printing of the Congressional Record, since only minor
corrections may be submitted to the official reporters by a
Member. See Sec. 18.3, supra. The House frequently manifests
its consent to changes in the Record by agreeing to unanimous-
consent requests made by an individual Member. For example, see
Sec. Sec. 18.13-18.16, infra (correction of errors in recording
of vote).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The original copy of the message relating
to the International Rules of Judicial Procedure, which was transmitted
to the House by the President, was correct in all respects. One of the
attached copies, however, contained a message on an unrelated subject
which had been attached before the message had left the White House. It
was the submission of this erroneous copy to the official reporters at
the desk that caused the error in the Record.
Sec. 18.5 Although a Member's words have been taken down and read to
the House, the Speaker may recognize him for a unanimous-consent
request to withdraw or modify the words objected to.
On June 5, 1962,(2) Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan,
during the course of his remarks on the House floor, referred to Mr.
Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, as a ``mouthpiece'' for the American
Medical Association. Mr. Curtis requested that the words be taken down,
and the Speaker(3) ordered the Clerk to report the words
objected to. Following the reading by the Clerk, Mr. Dingell requested
unanimous consent of the House to change the word ``mouthpiece''
[[Page 385]]
to ``self-appointed spokesman.'' The request was agreed to without
objection, and Mr. Curtis withdrew his point of order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 108 Cong. Rec. 9739, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
4. See 93 Cong. Rec. 6895, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., June 12, 1947, for an
occasion on which Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.) ruled
that a Member who has had his words taken down may be
recognized to propound a unanimous-consent request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correction by Motion
Sec. 18.6 A motion to correct the Record is privileged after the
approval of the Journal.
On Jan. 24, 1936,(5) Mr. Joseph P. Monaghan, of Montana,
requested unanimous consent that an error in the Record of the previous
day, by which only part of an amendment he had submitted was printed in
the Record, be corrected so as to include the entire text of the
amendment. Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, then obtained recognition,
on a reservation of objection to the unanimous-consent request, in
order to praise the clerks for the conscientious and efficient manner
in which they usually performed their duties. Mr. Clifton A. Woodrum,
of Virginia, made a point of order to the effect that a motion to
correct the Record would be in order, and that the unanimous consent of
the House was not required. The Speaker(6) agreed. Thereupon
Mr. Monaghan moved that the Record be corrected. Mr. Blanton again rose
to state that he had obtained recognition on a reservation of objection
to the unanimous-consent request, and the regular order was demanded.
The Speaker presented the unanimous-consent request, and an objection
was raised against it. Mr. Monaghan immediately moved that the Record
be corrected in the manner in which he had previously described. The
previous question was ordered, and the House agreed to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See 80 Cong. Rec. 977, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
6. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 18.7 Debate on a motion to correct the Record is under the hour
rule.
On July 5, 1945,(7) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia,
made a motion to correct the Record so as to include the exact colloquy
which had occurred between himself and Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, which had been modified by Mr. Rankin in the process of
revising his remarks. After Mr. Tarver had concluded his remarks
[[Page 386]]
in support of this motion, Mr. Rankin requested to be heard on the
motion. Upon being recognized by the Speaker,(8) Mr. Rankin
inquired as to how long he would be permitted to speak. The Speaker
advised him that he would be permitted to speak under the hour
rule.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 91 Cong. Rec. 7221-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
9. 91 Cong. Rec. 7222, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 18.8 The House agreed to a motion to refer a motion to correct the
Record to the Committee on Rules.
On July 5, 1945,(10) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia,
made a motion to correct the Record so as to include the language
actually spoken in debate by himself and Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, on July 2, 1945. Mr. Tarver stated in support of his
motion that the colloquy which had occurred on the floor, as taken down
by the reporters, had been changed substantially by Mr. Rankin in
revising the text of his remarks. Subsequently, a motion was made to
refer Mr. Tarver's motion to the Committee on Rules. The House, by a
division vote, agreed to the motion to refer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 7221-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correction by Resolution
Sec. 18.9 Upon objection being raised to a unanimous-consent request
that the Record be corrected to show remarks as reported by the
official reporters, the House agreed to a resolution so correcting
the Record.
On Mar. 23, 1949,(11) Mr. William J. Green, Jr., of
Pennsylvania, requested unanimous consent that the Record be corrected
to indicate the exact language that had occurred in the colloquy
between himself and Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, the previous
day. In support of his request Mr. Green alleged that Mr. Rankin had
altered the language of their exchange in revising the text of his
remarks. Mr. Rankin raised an objection to the unanimous-consent
request, and Mr. Green thereupon offered the following
resolution:(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 3041, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H. Res. 164, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. (1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the Record of Tuesday, March 22 be amended by
printing the colloquy between Mr. Rankin and Mr. Green as reported
by official reporters.
The House agreed to the resolution.
Sec. 18.10 Debate on a resolution to correct the Record is under the
hour rule.
[[Page 387]]
On Feb. 13, 1946,(13) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia,
introduced a resolution to delete from the Record of the previous day
remarks spoken on the floor and inserted in the Record by Mr. Charles
R. Savage, of Washington, which reflected unfavorably upon Virginia
state officials. Mr. Smith was recognized to speak on the resolution,
and the following parliamentary inquiry and response by the
Speaker(14) then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 1274, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry; for how long is the gentleman from Virginia
recognized?
The Speaker: The gentleman from Virginia is under the 1-hour
rule.
The House agreed to the resolution.
Government Printing Office Omissions
Sec. 18.11 Where a committee report is ordered printed in the Record
and certain illustrations are omitted from the Record version due
to mechanical limitations at the Government Printing Office, such
omissions are noted in the Record.
On Feb. 2, 1966,(15) H. Rept. No. 1241(16)
was reprinted in the Record. The following notation of omissions was
printed immediately following the House report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 1742, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illustrations identified as Robert Shelton, Exhibits Nos. 1, 3,
and 7 are omitted because of mechanical limitations in printing the
Congressional Record. All of the referenced exhibits, however, are
fully illustrated in House Report No. 1241 which was filed and
printed this date.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 112 Cong. Rec. 1754, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time for Correction
Sec. 18.12 The Record is not subject to correction after the permanent
edition has been printed.
On Jan. 23, 1969,(18) Mr. William F. Ryan, of New York,
made a unanimous-consent request that a correction be made in the
Record for Oct. 15, 1968. The Speaker(19) refused to
recognize Mr. Ryan for this purpose because an error in the Record of a
previous Congress cannot be corrected when the permanent edition has
already been printed.(20)
[[Page 388]]
The Speaker did indicate, however, that Mr. Ryan's statement of the
error would appear in the Record of the proceedings for the current
day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
20. The principle that the Record is not subject to correction after
the permanent edition has been printed is a long-standing one.
See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Corrections
Sec. 18.13 The correction of a Member's erroneously recorded roll call
vote can be made only with the unanimous consent of the House; the
insertion in the Record, with the unanimous consent of the House,
of remarks in which such an error is recited, does not constitute
the consent of the House to effect a change in the Record.
On June 28, 1966,(1) Mr. Lawrence H. Fountain, of North
Carolina, with the unanimous consent of the House, had inserted in the
Record the following remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, the Record of yesterday's rollcall No. 153 has me
recorded as being absent. I was present and so answered to my name.
I ask unanimous consent that the journal be so corrected.
I ask unanimous consent that the Congressional Record of June
27, 1966, be corrected, in that, on rollcall No. 153 I am recorded
as absent, I was present and so answered to my name.
Sec. 18.14 The House may agree to a unanimous-consent request by a
Member to correct the permanent edition of the Record so as to
correctly record his vote, but a request by a Member to change his
vote is not in order after the announcement of the result.
On May 28, 1959,(2) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request of Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania, who had been
incorrectly recorded as not voting on roll call No. 59, to correct the
Record so as to indicate that he had been present and had voted
``aye''. The following subsequent parliamentary inquiry and reply by
the Speaker pro tempore(3) illustrates the distinction
between correcting an erroneously recorded vote in the Record and
changing a vote after the announcement of the result:(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 105 Cong. Rec. 9335, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
4. A Member may not change his vote after the announcement of the
result. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3070, 3123, 3124, 3160;
5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5931-5933, 6093, 6094.
Generally, see Ch. 30, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: I did not hear how the
gentleman
[[Page 389]]
stated he had voted. Is it permissible to change a vote, on a roll
call, a aye-and-nay vote? May a Member change from one to the other
the next day?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Of course it is not permissible to
change a vote, but it is permissible for a Member to correct the
Record.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. For a similar occasion on which the House agreed by unanimous
consent to correct an error in the recording of a Member's vote
in the Record, see Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), Jan. 8, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 18.15 A request by a Member to correct his incorrectly recorded
vote on a roll call is noted in the Record, provided the request is
made before the announcement of the result.
On Sept. 6, 1961,(6) Mr. Peter F. Mack, Jr., of
Illinois, following a roll call vote(7) and prior to the
announcement of the result, announced that his vote had been
incorrectly recorded, and requested that he be recorded as having voted
``aye.'' Following the announcement of the result of the vote, Mr. Mack
made the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 107 Cong. Rec. 18256, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
7. The vote was on the question of whether to suspend the rules and
pass H.R. 9000, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. (1961).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I was incorrectly recorded on the last roll call.
I am wondering if the Record will show that I was incorrectly
recorded or whether it will show that I changed my vote.
The Speaker pro tempore(8) responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the Chair can state is that the Record will show what
actually transpired.
Pairs
Sec. 18.16 Although as a general rule the House does not take
cognizance of pairs, a Member may request the unanimous consent of
the House that the Record be corrected where pairs are erroneously
recorded or omitted.
On Aug. 3, 1965,(9) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, to correct the Record
so as to indicate that the live pairs recorded at the conclusion of
roll call No. 215 the previous day(10) should have been
recorded as general pairs. On other occasions the House has similarly
agreed by unanimous consent to delete from the Record pairs erroneously
recorded(11) and to include pairs erroneously
omitted.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 18976, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1965.
11. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), Aug. 14, 1967.
12. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), Dec. 10, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 390]]
Cosponsors of Bill or Resolution
Sec. 18.17 An error in the listing of the cosponsors on a bill or
resolution that has been introduced in the House cannot be
subsequently corrected, but a Member's statement that an error has
occurred will appear in the Record.
On Oct. 9, 1969,(13) Mr. Jeffery Cohelan, of California,
announced to the House that the name of Mr. Michael J. Kirwan, of Ohio,
was incorrectly included as a cosponsor of a House joint resolution for
the funding of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under a
continuing resolution.(14) In response to Mr. Cohelan's
unanimous-consent request that the Record stand corrected, the Speaker
pro tempore(15) stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 29347, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
For an example of another occasion on which the statement
of a Member that the listing of the cosponsors of a particular
bill was in error, see 114 Cong. Rec. 1873, 90th Cong. 2d
Sess., Feb. 1, 1968.
14. H.J. Res. 927, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. (1969).
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman's statement will appear in the Record. There is
no way of correcting the resolution.
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
C. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Sec. 19. Revision of Remarks
Although the Record is ``substantially a verbatim report of
proceedings'',(16) it has been the practice of the House to
permit a Member, with the approval of the Speaker, but without
permission from the House, to edit and revise his remarks before
publication in the Record.(17) The consent of the House,
however, is required for the correction of major errors,(18)
and the deletion of unparliamentary remarks or remarks made out of
order.(19) In addition a Member may not extend his remarks
without permission from the House.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 44 USC Sec. 901 (1970).
17. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6971.
18. See Sec. 18, supra.
19. See Sec. 17, supra.
20. See Sec. 20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing(1) a
revision shall consist only of corrections of the original copy and
shall not include deletions of correct material, substitutions for
correct
[[Page 391]]
material, or additions of new subject matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule 8 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972.
These rules are frequently reprinted in the daily edition of
the Congressional Record in the section entitled ``Laws and
Rules for Publication of the Congressional Record,'' which
precedes the section entitled ``Daily Digest.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The official reporters of debate frequently submit to Members for
their inspection and editing remarks they have made on the floor of the
House that day. In order to ensure publication in the Record for the
following morning, manuscripts must be returned to the Government
Printing Office not later than 9 o'clock p.m.(2) A Member
may withhold his remarks from the Record for a period not to exceed 30
calendar days from the date when its printing was
authorized.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Rule 3 of the Joint Committee on Printing.
3. Rule 7 of the Joint Committee on Printing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of significant limitations upon the right of a
Member to edit and revise his remarks. For example, a Member may not
delete from the Record the proceedings by which his words were taken
down,(4) remarks interjected by another Member to whom he
has yielded(5) or to whom he has responded.(6) A
Member may not revise remarks which alter the context of colloquys with
other Members, without their consent.(7) A Member may,
however, withhold his remarks from the Record for revision up to 30
days notwithstanding the fact that such remarks contain a colloquy with
another Member.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 19.2, infra.
5. See Sec. 19.7, infra.
6. See Sec. 19.6, infra.
7. See Sec. Sec. 19.3, 19.4, infra.
8. See Sec. 19.10, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member's Own Remarks
Sec. 19.1 A Member may revise his own remarks without obtaining
permission from the House, but he must have permission to extend
his remarks.
On Jan. 25, 1939,(9) the following exchange occurred on
the floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 84 Cong. Rec. 791, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hugh] Peterson of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to revise my own remarks. I am asking not to extend my
remarks in the Record but to revise them.
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Reserving the
right to object, Mr. Speaker, I may say that under the rules of the
House the gentleman has the right to revise his remarks, but he
does not have the right to extend them.
The Speaker:(10), In the opinion of the Chair, the
gentleman has the right to revise his remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 392]]
Remarks Affecting Official House Proceedings
Sec. 19.2 A Member's revision of his remarks, so as to delete from the
Record the proceedings by which his words were taken down, gives
rise to the question of the privilege of the House.
On Apr. 26, 1940,(11) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
was recognized on a question of the privilege of the House, and
submitted a resolution requesting that the Record of the previous day
be corrected so as to include the proceedings by which words spoken by
Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, had been taken down and ruled out of
order. Mr. Cox, after his words were ruled out of order, had requested
and received the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw them from
the Record. In revising his remarks, however, Mr. Cox deleted the
entire proceedings by which his remarks had been taken down, and ruled
out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 5111-14, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman's resolution was rejected by the House. Mr. Cox, after
explaining that the proceedings had been deleted inadvertently,
requested the unanimous consent of the House that the permanent edition
of the Record be corrected so as to include them. The House agreed to
the request.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For a ruling by Speaker William B. Bankhead (Ala.) that a question
of the privilege of the House is raised by the action of a
Member in withholding from the Record for up to 30 days the
proceedings by which his words were taken down and ruled upon
by the Speaker, see Sec. 19.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remarks Affecting Colloquys
Sec. 19.3 A Member may edit the reporters' transcript of remarks he has
made on the floor of the House, provided he does not alter the
remarks of other Members.
On Aug. 5, 1941,(13) the Chair was asked to clarify the
conditions under which a Member may re
[[Page 393]]
vise his remarks without the consent of the House. The proceedings were
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 87 Cong. Rec. 6801, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
The principle that permits a Member to revise his remarks
without permission as long as the change does not affect the
remarks of another Member is a long-standing one. See 8
Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3461, 3463, 3497; 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 6972. For a ruling by Speaker William B.
Bankhead (Ala.) to the effect that a Member, under the rules of
the House, need not secure the permission of the House to
revise his remarks, but that such permission was required to
extend his remarks, see Sec. 19.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [David L.] Powers [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, can a
Member without unanimous consent, revise and extend his remarks in
the Record?
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(14) He may not extend his
remarks without permission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Powers: Another parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Powers: The Speaker said he may not extend his remarks. May
a Member revise his remarks without unanimous consent?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: He may make corrections, as I
understand it. The Chair will read the rule:
The practice is to allow Members to edit the reporters'
transcription of their remarks before it is sent to the
printer, but such revision shall not alter language affecting
the context of colloquies with other Members without their
approval. Where the remarks of another are not affected, a
Member in revising his speech for the Record may strike out any
portion or may edit the speech in its entirety, but alterations
which place a different aspect on the remarks of a colleague
require authorization by the House.
Sec. 19.4 Members who desire to revise for the permanent Record remarks
that affect each other, but who cannot agree upon the appropriate
revision, should submit the matter to the Speaker for decision.
On May 9, 1934,(15) the following parliamentary inquiry
was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 78 Cong. Rec. 3562 et seq., 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, in the
course of debate on yesterday . . . I entered into a colloquy with
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Lewis], who had made a statement
in regard to certain occurrences in my State with which I felt
obliged to take issue.
The gentleman from Colorado later in the correction of the
stenographic copy of his remarks, I am sure in good faith, because
I know the gentleman would not willingly do an injustice to anyone,
having ascertained that his statements were not in accord with the
facts, undertook to correct, and did correct, the stenographic
record so as to eliminate the statements of which I complained. The
difficulty lies in the fact that my own remarks made in the Record
immediately after his statement have remained unchanged, and the
effect is to place me in a false light and in the attitude of
questioning statements of the gentleman appearing in the Record
which were not made on the floor at all.
May I inquire whether or not I am entitled to have the Record
corrected to show the statements made by the gentleman from
Colorado in the course of this colloquy?
The Speaker(16) responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 394]]
No Member has the right in revising his own remarks to change
them in such a way as to affect another Member without the consent
of the other Member concerned. The Members involved should try to
adjust the matter among themselves, but if they cannot agree, the
matter should be submitted to the Speaker for decision.
Remarks Interjected by Another Member
Sec. 19.5 Remarks made by a Member without recognition from the Chair
or the permission of the Member occupying the floor at that time
may be deleted from the Record by the latter in revising his
remarks.
On Apr. 14, 1936,(17) Mr. Marion A. Zioncheck, of
Washington, made a point of order to the effect that Mr. John J.
Boylan, of New York, had deleted from the text of his remarks certain
remarks interjected by Mr. Zioncheck without the authority to do so.
Mr. Boylan had been addressing the House the previous day when Mr.
Zioncheck requested that he be yielded time to speak. Mr. Boylan
refused, immediately prior to the expiration of his speaking time.
After the gavel fell, and without recognition by the Chair, Mr.
Zioncheck made the remarks which were later deleted from the Record by
Mr. Boylan. The Speaker(18) made the following ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 5478, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair may say to the gentleman that no Member of the House
has the right to have his remarks inserted in the Record unless he
has obtained the consent of the House or the Chair or the gentleman
addressing the House.
Sec. 19.6 A Member may not delete from the Record of the proceedings
remarks improperly interjected by a Member to whom he has declined
to yield, if he has offered any response to those remarks.
On Apr. 20, 1937,(19) Mr. Edward W. Curley, of New York,
made a parliamentary inquiry(20) concerning the right of a
Member in revising his remarks to delete from the Record those remarks
improperly interjected by a Member to whom he has declined to yield.
Mr. Curley stated that on Apr. 15, during an address by Mr.
[[Page 395]]
James W. Wadsworth, Jr., of New York, in the Committee of the Whole, he
was twice recognized by the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole(1) for the purpose of requesting Mr. Wadsworth to
yield the floor. On both occasions Mr. Wadsworth refused to yield.
Immediately subsequent to the second refusal Mr. Curley stated the
following: ``The gentleman is making a wrong statement.'' Mr. Wadsworth
continued his remarks without responding to that statement. The daily
edition of the Record for Apr. 15 contained the remarks of Mr.
Wadsworth without any reference to either the requests to yield or the
subsequent statement made by Mr. Curley. Mr. Curley stated that he had
been informed by the reporter that the omitted remarks had been
included in the reporter's original notes, and that the omission from
the daily edition of the Record was in error.(2) Mr. Curley
contended that the Record should be corrected so as to include the
omitted exchanges. The Speaker,(3) after discussing the
applicable precedents on the subject, which indicate that a Member may
delete from his remarks those remarks made by another Member to whom he
has declined to yield, ruled against the request of Mr. Curley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 81 Cong. Rec. 3669, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Mr. Curley's parliamentary inquiry was first made on Apr. 19, 1937,
and was withdrawn at the suggestion of several Members, in
order to permit Mr. Wadsworth, a significant participant in the
proceedings, to be present for the Speaker's ruling. 81 Cong.
Rec. 3589, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
1. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
2. It should be noted that at the conclusion of the discussion Mr.
Wadsworth indicated that he had not deleted from the text of
his remarks any words interjected by another Member. 81 Cong.
Rec. 3670, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 20, 1937.
3. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Curley then made a further parliamentary inquiry concerning the
fact that a similar interruption of the same speech by another Member
had occurred, and that exchange had appeared in the Record. That
exchange was as follows:
Mr. [Joseph A.] Gavagan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Wadsworth: I cannot yield
.Mr. Gavagan, despite the rule that prohibits a Member from speaking
under these circumstances, then stated:
I am sure if the gentleman had read the bill he would not have
made that statement.
Thereupon Mr. Wadsworth recognized Mr. Gavagan's statement and
responded to it by saying:
I have read the language.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The entire exchange between Mr. Wadsworth and Mr. Gavagan is
reprinted at 81 Cong. Rec. 3521, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 15,
1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Curley requested the opinion of the Chair as to why Mr.
Gavagan's exchange with Mr.
[[Page 396]]
Wadsworth had appeared in the Record, and his similar exchange with Mr.
Wadsworth had been deleted. The Speaker responded as follows:
So it seems from the particular circumstances of these two
incidents that although neither the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Curley] nor the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gavagan], under the
rules, had any right to make any statement whatever, the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Wadsworth], occupying the floor, agreed to
recognize the interpolation of the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Gavagan] and voluntarily replied to it.
This ruling of the Speaker was further clarified by the following
parliamentary inquiry and response of the Speaker:
Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: In the event a Member
interrupts some other Member who is occupying the floor, without
the Member having the floor specifically giving the other Member
the right to interpose a question, and the Member having the floor
answers the question, as the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Wadsworth] did with respect to the question of the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Gavagan], could the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Wadsworth] as a matter of right then delete that portion of his
remarks?
The Speaker: The Chair will state in answer to the question of
the gentleman from Wisconsin that if a Member occupying the floor
voluntarily decides to respond to a question asked by another
Member, he thereby waives any right to interpose the objection that
it is a violation of the rule and under those circumstances the
transcript of the Record should show actually what did occur.
Sec. 19.7 A Member, in revising his remarks, may not delete or alter
the meaning of remarks actually spoken by another Member to whom he
has yielded, without such Member's consent
On Mar. 27, 1935,(5) a discussion occurred on the floor
of the House with respect to the right of a Member, who had yielded the
floor to another Member for the purpose of asking a question, to delete
that Member's words from the Record, whether spoken from the floor or
inserted with the unanimous consent of the House. The
Speaker(6) had held that a Member to whom the floor was
yielded must, in correcting his remarks, obtain the consent of the
Member who yielded, especially if the correction changes the meaning of
the question asked. The following parliamentary inquiry was then made
concerning the right of a Member who has yielded the floor to strike
from the Record words spoken by the Member to whom he has yielded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 79 Cong. Rec. 4540, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
6. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: As I understand, the
gen
[[Page 397]]
tleman from California [Mr. Kramer] attempts to justify his
striking out what I wrote in on the ground that he had authority to
do that. My inquiry is, has any Member the right to strike out any
portion of any other Member's remarks, whether it is in there by
his permission or not?
The Speaker: No. If those remarks were made in the course of
the debate and with the consent of the Member.
Sec. 19.8 The reporters are instructed to take down and include as part
of the Record of the proceedings remarks interjected by a Member to
whom the Member occupying the floor has refused to yield, even
though such remarks are out of order and may be stricken from the
permanent Record by the House, the Speaker, or the Member in
revising his remarks.
On Apr. 20, 1937,(7) the Speaker(8) made a
ruling by which the reporters were instructed to take down and include
as part of the Record of the proceedings the remarks of a Member, even
though the Member occupying the floor had declined to yield and those
remarks were not in order. That ruling was a revision of a ruling made
the previous day(9) in which the Speaker had instructed the
reporters not to record remarks made under such circumstances. The
Speaker's revised ruling was made in response to a renewed
parliamentary inquiry that had been made and withdrawn the previous
day.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 81 Cong. Rec. 3670, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
9. 81 Cong. Rec. 3588, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 19, 1937.
10. A Member requested the opinion of the Chair as to whether the
Record might be corrected so as to include remarks he had made
after the Member occupying the floor at the time had refused to
yield to him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker gave the following reasons in support of the revised
ruling:
The Chair has been induced to change his position upon that
question, for two reasons: In the first place, upon more mature
consideration, the Chair is of the opinion that it places upon the
reporters of the House what might be termed a species of censorship
of editing of the remarks the Members make, however improvidently
made or improperly stated. The Chair does not think that this type
of burden should be imposed upon the reporters of the House. In the
second place, as was the instance here referred to, the remarks
were made while we were in Committee of the Whole, presided over by
a Chairman and not by the Speaker of the House; and under the rule
only the Speaker-and not a Chairman of the Committee--has the
authority to direct the reporters to delete certain improper
remarks from the Record.
So in order that full justice may be done to all Members,
although they
[[Page 398]]
may be in small measure violating the rules of the House, and in
order that the Record may definitely show what actually transpired
in haec verba, the Chair withdraws that part of his ruling
directing the reporters hereafter not to take down such improvident
remarks, and will conform to the old practice which the Chair
thinks probably the best, leaving to the Members themselves, after
the speeches are transcribed, the right and privilege to strike
from the transcript any remarks made by a Member where the Member
speaking and sought to be interrupted has declined to yield.
Previous rulings of the Chair indicate that where a Member is
occupying the floor at the time of an unauthorized interruption of his
speech,(11) the Speaker,(12) the House or the
Member himself,(13) may strike the remarks of the
interrupting Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3465.
12. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3466.
13. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3467.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 19.9 A question of privilege arises when a Member, in revising his
remarks for the permanent Record, strikes out remarks made by
another Member after he had reserved the right to object to a
unanimous-consent request.
On Aug. 3, 1939,(14) the following exchange occurred
concerning a question of privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 10966, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, this
involves the integrity of the Record. Under date of July 27, when
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Keller] had the floor, certain
remarks were made by me under a reservation of the right to object.
I send to the Speaker's desk a printed copy of the Record and a
transcript from the Official Reporters, which shows that all of
those remarks made by me were stricken from the Record by the
gentleman from Illinois. That is the question of personal privilege
and of the privilege of the House I now present. . . .
The Speaker:(15) The Chair is of the opinion that
the gentleman presents a question affecting the privileges of the
House and he is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
Following a discussion of the deleted material, the House agreed to a
motion reinserting that material in the permanent
Record.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 10968, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Withholding of Remarks
Sec. 19.10 A Member who controlled the floor has the right to withhold
remarks he made at that time from the Record for revision up to 30
days notwithstanding the fact that such remarks contain a colloquy
with another Member.
On Mar. 26, 1940,(17) Mr. Compton I. White, of Idaho,
raised a
[[Page 399]]
question of privilege. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 86 Cong. Rec. 3451, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. White of Idaho: Mr. Speaker, on yesterday, when an
appropriation bill was being considered by the House, the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] and I had quite a colloquy on the
National Labor Relations Board. I find on inspection of the Record
this morning that nothing appears of that debate. I appreciate the
courtesy of the gentleman in yielding to me, and I would like to
have the statements made on the floor appear in the Record. I find
the matter has been withheld. . . .
The Speaker:(18) The Chair may say to the gentleman
from Idaho [Mr. White] that when a Member who has the floor in his
own right engages in colloquy with another Member, under the rules
he has the right to withhold the remarks from the Record
temporarily. The Chair may add that he has 30 days, under the rules
of the House, in which to revise his remarks and place them in the
Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 19.11 Although under the general practice of the House, a Member
who controlled the floor has the right to withhold his remarks from
the Record for revision [up to 30 days], he may not withhold that
part of the proceedings whereby his remarks were taken down.
On June 1, 1939,(19) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
introduced a resolution(20) raising a question of the
privilege of the House. Mr. Hoffman stated in his resolution that on
the previous day, during debate in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Sam
C. Massingale, of Oklahoma, had intimated that in the future the action
of the House Committee on Ways and Means on the bill which was under
consideration would be regarded as ``pusillanimous.'' A Member demanded
that the words be taken down and the Committee rose. When the House
convened, the Speaker(1) ruled upon the point of order, and
Mr. Massingale was permitted to proceed. Thereafter the House again
resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole, and Mr. Massingale
continued his remarks.(2) Subse
[[Page 400]]
quently, Mr. Massingale withheld from the Record of May 31 not only the
remarks by which he had impugned the integrity of the Committee on Ways
and Means, but also the entire proceedings by which the words were
taken down and ruled upon by the Speaker. The resolution requested that
the following action be taken:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 84 Cong. Rec. 6531, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H. Res. 208, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. (1939).
1. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
2. When Mr. Massingale continued his remarks in the Committee of the
Whole, he went on to make certain charges involving the
integrity of another Member of the House. The words were taken
down, the Committee again arose, the House convened, and the
Speaker this time sustained the point of order. Mr. Massingale,
however, obtained the unanimous consent of the House to have
those remarks deleted from the Record. In addition, the House
agreed to a unanimous-consent request by Mr. Sam Rayburn (Tex.)
that the entire proceedings by which the remarks of Mr.
Massingale with reference to another Member, be deleted from
the Record, and that Mr. Massingale be permitted to revise and
extend his remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the Speaker
of the House, or in the discretion of the Speaker, make reference
to a standing committee of the House, to ascertain from the
reporters of the House and from such other sources as they may deem
trustworthy a true and correct record of what did occur, deleting
from such record all such matters which the gentleman from Oklahoma
[Mr. Massingale] was given permission to delete, and retaining in
the Record all such other transactions and proceedings which
occurred on the floor of the House and for the withdrawal of which
permission was not given; and thereupon to report its conclusions
to the House, together with such recommendations as it may deem
desirable.
Mr. Hoffman, in support of his resolution, emphasized that in his
opinion the record of the proceedings of May 31 was not a true and
accurate text of what had occurred on the floor, because Mr. Massingale
had not obtained permission to withhold the entire proceedings by which
his remarks reflecting upon the integrity of another Member had been
taken down and ruled upon by the Speaker. The Speaker stated:
The Record shows that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Massingale] did obtain unanimous consent to revise and extend his
remarks. Under the general practice of the House that gave to the
gentleman from Oklahoma the right to withhold revision of his
remarks from the Record. The Chair is of the opinion that the other
subject matter stated in the resolution of the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] probably does raise a question of the
privileges of the House.
The resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules.
Sec. 19.12 The Committee on Rules has jurisdiction of a resolution that
proposes the creation of an investigating committee to determine
whether a Member has wrongfully withheld remarks from the Record.
On June 1, 1939,(3) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
introduced a resolution(4) that proposed that
[[Page 401]]
a committee ascertain from the reporters of the House whether Mr. Sam
C. Massingale, of Oklahoma, had wrongfully withheld from the Record in
revising his remarks the entire proceedings by which his remarks were
taken down and ruled upon by the Speaker. The Speaker(5)
asked Mr. Hoffman whether he desired to have the resolution referred to
a committee. Mr. Hoffman responded that, in the discretion of the
Speaker, he would like it referred to either a special committee or to
any standing committee. The Speaker stated that the Committee on Rules
would have jurisdiction over the resolution. The resolution was so
referred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 84 Cong. Rec. 6531, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
4. H. Res. 208, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. (1939).
5. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, Journal, and Record
C. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Sec. 20. Extension of Remarks
The practice in the House of permitting Members to extend their
remarks so as to insert in the Record speeches that were not delivered
on the floor of the House and extraneous materials related to the
subject under discussion is a long-standing one.(6) A Member
must obtain the consent of the House to extend his
remarks,(7) and authorizations to extend remarks in the
Record are strictly construed.(8) The Speaker will only
entertain requests for permission to extend remarks at certain times
during the conduct of House business,(9) and such requests
will be granted only to the individual whose remarks are to be
inserted.(10) The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
recognize a Member to extend his own remarks,(11) but the
Committee of the Whole lacks the power to permit the inclusion of
extraneous materials(12) or to permit insertions at a later
date.(13) The insertion of unparliamentary remarks is
prohibited, and violations of this rule give rise to a question of
privilege of the House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. For a discussion of the reasons underlying the development of the
practice, see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6990-6996, 6998-
7000.
7. See Sec. 20.1, infra.
8. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3479.
9. See Sec. Sec. 20.4 et seq., infra.
10. House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication of the
Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970. These rules
are frequently reprinted in the daily edition of the
Congressional Record in the section entitled ``Laws and Rules
for Publication of the Congressional Record'', which precedes
the section entitled ``Daily Digest''.
11. See Sec. 20.12, infra.
12. See 20.13, infra.
13. See Sec. 20.18, infra.
14. See Sec. 20.19, infra; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3495; 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 7005-7008. Questions of privilege
generally, see Ch. 11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 402]]
While the inclusion of extraneous materials is permitted, a Member
must conform to the limitations imposed by statute and the rules of the
Joint Committee on Printing. For example, only the Joint Committee on
Printing, and not the House, can permit the insertion in the Record of
maps, diagrams, or illustrations.(15) When permission is
obtained to insert extraneous materials, the insertions must conform to
the descriptions in the request for permission to which the House has
consented.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 44 USC Sec. 904 (1970).
16. See Sec. Sec. 20.25, 20.26, infra; 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. Sec. 3462, 3479, 3480; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing,(17)
a Member may not insert extraneous matter in excess of two printed
Record pages, unless he announces coincident with the request for leave
to print or extend the estimate in writing from the Public Printer of
the probable cost of publishing the insertion, and the House agrees to
permit its inclusion notwithstanding the cost. If a Member submits an
extension of remarks containing extraneous matter in excess of two
pages, it is the duty of the Public Printer to return the insertion
with an estimate of cost.(18) In constructing the
``Extensions of Remarks'' section, the Public Printer is authorized to
withhold any extensions of remarks which exceed economical press fill
or exceed production limitations.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule 12 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23,
1972.
18. For a discussion on the House floor of regulations concerning the
inclusion of extraneous material, see 91 Cong. Rec. 839-841,
79th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 6, 1945.
19. Rule 4, House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication of the
Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970. Extensions
withheld for such reasons will be printed in succeeding issues,
at the direction of the Public Printer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules of the Joint Committee on Printing and the House
Supplement to those rules delineate the types of insertions which are
permitted in the body of the Record and those permitted only in the
``Extensions of Remarks'' section. The only extraneous materials
permitted in the body of the Record are as follows: excerpts from
letters, telegrams, or articles presented in connection with a speech
delivered in the course of debate; communications from state
legislatures; addresses or articles by the President and the members of
his Cabinet, the Vice President, or a Member of Con
[[Page 403]]
gress.(20) Newspaper or magazine articles, or other matter
not germane to the proceedings, may be inserted only in the
``Extensions of Remarks'' section, but this rule does not apply to
quotations which form part of a speech of a Member, or to an authorized
extension of his own remarks.(1) In addition, any extraneous
matter which is inserted pursuant to permission granted to extend at
this point in the Record, or pursuant to a request to address the House
for one minute prior to the morning business of the House, may be
printed only in the ``Extensions of Remarks'' section.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule 12 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972.
Section three of the same rule authorizes the official
reporters of the House or the Public Printer to return to the
Member any matter submitted for the Congressional Record which
is in contravention of the provisions of this rule.
1. Rule 1 of House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication of
the Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970.
2. Rule 2 of House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication of
the Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970. One-minute
speeches delivered during the morning business of Congress are
not permitted to exceed 300 words. Statements exceeding this
limit are printed following the business of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several different circumstances in which requests are
made for permission for more than one Member to extend remarks. Such
requests may or may not be limited to certain subject matters. For
example, prior to adjournment to a day certain,(3) or
adjournment sine die,(4) all Members are permitted to extend
their remarks.(5) Floor managers of specific legislation are
permitted to request permission for all Members to insert their remarks
relative to the legislation.(6) The House usually grants
permission
[[Page 404]]
for all Members to extend their remarks on the occasion of the death of
a Member.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sec. 20.32, infra.
4. Sec. 20.36, infra.
5. With respect to extensions in the last edition of the Record for a
session of Congress, no address, speech, or article delivered
or released subsequent to the sine die adjournment of a session
may be printed in the Record. Rule 1 of House Supplement to
``Laws and Rules for Publication of the Congressional Record'',
effective Dec. 29, 1970. However, committee chairmen and
ranking minority members frequently are permitted to insert
reports concerning the activities of their respective
committees in the last edition of the Record for a session. See
Sec. 20.37, infra.
6. Rule 3 of the House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication
of the Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970. Only
matter pertaining to the specific legislation may be included
pursuant to this request. Tables and charts pertinent to the
legislation may be included, but not newspaper clippings and
editorials.
7. See Sec. 20.33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules of the Joint Committee on Printing provide that a Member
may withhold his extension of remarks for a period not exceeding 30
calendar days from the time he has obtained permission to
extend.(8) Where the two Houses of Congress have, by
concurrent resolution, authorized a special printing of material
extracted from the Record, the Joint Committee sometimes extends the
normal 30day limit for insertions in the Record.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Rule 7 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972.
9. The Joint Committee on Printing extended the deadline for the
publication of eulogies to Dwight David Eisenhower. 115 Cong.
Rec. 18382, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 7, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensions Requiring Consent of House
Sec. 20.1 A Member must have permission from the House to extend his
remarks, but he may revise his own remarks without obtaining
permission.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. A discussion of this rule appears in Sec. 19.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.2 The extension of remarks in the Record by a Member without
the permission of the House constitutes grounds for a question of
the privilege of the House, and the House may expunge such remarks
from the permanent Record.
On Aug. 27, 1940,(11) Mr. Jacob Thorkelson, of Montana,
was recognized to state a question of privilege of the House. He
introduced a resolution stating that on Aug. 14, 1940, Mr. Adolph J.
Sabath, of Illinois, inserted in the Congressional Record remarks
charging him with having inserted in the Record ``scurrilous matter''
and a forged letter. In addition, Mr. Thorkelson alleged in the
resolution that the remarks had been inserted by Mr. Sabath without
permission from the House. The House agreed by unanimous consent to
permit Mr. Sabath to withdraw the word ``scurrilous'' from his
extension of remarks,(12) and the Speaker(13)
ruled that the statement of Mr. Sabath did not charge Mr. Thorkelson
with having forged the letter or introduced it knowingly, and that the
statement did not constitute a matter of privilege.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 11046-49, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
12. Id. at p. 11048.
13. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 11048, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 405]]
The Speaker stated that the only question of privilege remaining
concerned whether Mr. Sabath had obtained the permission of the House
to extend his remarks in the Record.(15) Mr. Sabath had
previously stated that if any question remained, he would be willing to
withdraw his remarks from the Record with the unanimous consent of the
House.(16) Mr. Thorkelson, however, objected to that
request, because he sought an opportunity to explain his position
during the debate on the resolution. At the conclusion of debate, the
resolution expunging the remarks from the Record of Aug. 14 was agreed
to by the House.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 11156, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 28, 1940.
16. Id. at 11153.
17. Id. at 11158. See 80 Cong. Rec. 7019-21, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., May
11, 1936, for an example of an occasion on which the House
refused to agree to a resolution to expunge from the Record
remarks which the proponent contended had been inserted in the
Record without the permission of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consent of Member Yielding Floor
Sec. 20.3 A Member who has been yielded to for the purpose of asking a
question may not, without the consent of the Member controlling the
floor, and the House, extend his remarks by inserting an additional
statement in such a way as to change the meaning of what was said.
On Mar. 27, 1935,(18) a discussion occurred on the floor
of the House concerning the question of whether a Member, who has been
yielded to for the purpose of asking a question, may extend his remarks
so as to include statements not made on the House floor. Mr. Albert E.
Carter, of California, stated that Mr. Charles Kramer, of California,
had yielded to him for the purpose of asking a question during a floor
debate several days earlier Mr. Carter subsequently obtained the
unanimous consent of the House to revise and extend his remarks, but he
did not inform Mr. Kramer that he intended to alter the colloquy that
had occurred between them on the floor. Upon receiving the transcript
of the proceedings for that day, Mr. Carter inserted in the Record
several additional statements that he had not made on the floor. When
the transcript was later submitted to Mr. Kramer, he realized that Mr.
Carter had not made those statements during debate, and crossed them
out before returning them to the printer. Mr.
[[Page 406]]
Carter contended that Mr. Kramer had no right to delete those remarks
from the Record because they had been inserted as a result of his
having received the unanimous consent of the House to revise and extend
his remarks. Mr. Kramer then requested the opinion of the Chair as to
whether a Member who was yielded to for the purpose of asking a
question is permitted to extend his remarks so as to include additional
statements. The Speaker(19) responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 79 Cong. Rec. 4541, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He must have the consent of the Speaker and of the Member, if
he is undertaking to change the Import of what a Member said who
had addressed the House. The Chair states that a Member making a
revision must have the consent of the Member who has yielded to him
in order to make the correction, especially if the correction is
such as to change the import of the question which he has asked.
The Speaker, in response to a further parliamentary inquiry, stated
that a Member who has yielded may not, however, strike out remarks that
were actually made on the floor by a Member to whom he had yielded.
Requests to Extend
Sec. 20.4 The Speaker will not entertain unanimous-consent requests to
insert materials in the Record prior to the reading and approval of
the Journal.
On Sept. 19, 1962,(20) prior to the completion of the
reading of the Journal, Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, requested
unanimous consent to insert in the appendix of the Record his own
remarks and a letter from the Secretary of State addressed to the
Speaker of the House. The Speaker(1) refused to entertain
such a request until after the Journal had been read and acted upon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.5 Brief remarks of a Member, who receives permission from the
House to extend his remarks following the approval of the Journal,
will be placed in the Record before the business of the day, but
not necessarily immediately following the approval of the Journal.
On Oct. 25, 1967,(2) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request that Mr. Philip Burton, of California, be permitted to
extend his remarks following the approval of the Journal. The fol
[[Page 407]]
lowing proceedings then occurred concerning that request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 113 Cong. Rec. 30022, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(3) The gentleman will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Roman C. Pucinski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hall: A most unusual request has been granted, I full well
agree, by unanimous consent, for a gentleman to extend his remarks
after the reading of the Journal. Does that mean anywhere after the
Journal for this date certain?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: After the approval of the Journal.
Mr. Hall: My inquiry is, was the gentleman granted unanimous
consent to insert his remarks today in the Record, which will be
delivered tomorrow, at any time after the reading of the Journal
today?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It was a 1-minute speech, and it will
be printed in the Record after approval of the Journal.
Mr. Hall: I thank the Chair.
The remarks of Mr. Burton were printed in the Record for Oct. 25,
1967,(4) following a number of other one-minute speeches.
This group of one-minute speeches was printed subsequent to the
approval of the Journal and messages from the President and the Senate,
and prior to the business of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 113 Cong. Rec. 29915, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Extensions of remarks which exceed the 300-
word limitation appear following the business of the day in the portion
of the Record devoted thereto.
Sec. 20.6 The Speaker has recognized Members to extend their remarks
``at this point in the Record'' regardless of the number of words
on those occasions when there was no legislative program for the
day.
On Feb. 6, 1945,(5) the following parliamentary inquiry
and response by the Speaker(6) occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 91 Cong. Rec. 839, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: I wish to ask the Chair
how it is that if a Member on this side asks for a minute in which
to address the House he is permitted to insert 300 words or less,
but that when some Members on the other side of the aisle make
similar requests they are permitted to put in 7\1/2\ pages, or some
8,000 words? How does the discrimination come about?
The Speaker: There is no discrimination because there was no
legislative program on yesterday and anyone had the right to extend
his remarks ``at [that] point'' in the Record.
Sec. 20.7 The Speaker, while a motion to discharge a committee is
pending, declines to recognize a Member who
[[Page 408]]
wishes to request unanimous consent to extend his remarks.
On June 11, 1945,(7) the House was considering a motion
to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of a
resolution(8) providing for the consideration of a
bill(9) making unlawful the requirement for the payment of a
poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in a primary' or other election
for national officers. After the Clerk read the resolution, Mr. John E.
Rankin, of Mississippi, requested unanimous consent to extend his
remarks at that point in the Record. The Speaker(10) replied
that the Chair could not recognize Members to extend their remarks
until the pending motion to discharge the Committee on Rules had been
disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
8. H. Res. 139, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. (1945).
9. H.R. 7, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. (1945).
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.8 The Speaker, while a motion to suspend the rules was pending,
refused to recognize a Member who wished to request permission from
the House to insert materials in the Record.
On July 21, 1947,(11) the House was considering a motion
to suspend the rules and pass a bill(12) to make unlawful
the requirement for the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to
voting in a primary or other election for national officers. During the
debate on the motion Mr. Thomas Pickett, of Texas, sought recognition
for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request to insert
materials in the Record.(13) The Speaker(14)
refused to recognize Mr. Pickett for such a purpose at that time, and
stated that the request should be made immediately following the vote
on the motion to suspend the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 93 Cong. Rec. 9522, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 29, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. (1947).
13. 93 Cong. Rec. 9525, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.9 Immediately subsequent to the agreement by the House to a
motion to discharge a committee from the consideration of a bill,
the Speaker announced the intention of the Chair to entertain
unanimous-consent requests for extensions of remarks, without
interfering with the right of a Member to move that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole.
[[Page 409]]
On Apr. 26, 1948,(15) the House agreed to a motion to
discharge the Committee on Agriculture from further consideration of a
bill to repeal the tax on oleomargarine.(1) Immediately
after the vote the Speaker, Joseph W. Martin, Jr. of Massachusetts,
made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 4841, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
1. H.R. 2245, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. (1948).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without interfering with the rights of the gentleman from South
Carolina to move to go into the Committee of the Whole, the Chair
will entertain consent requests for extensions of remarks only.
Sec. 20.10 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize a
Member who has spoken to revise and extend his own
remarks.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. 20.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to Extend
Sec. 20.11 A motion to permit a Member to extend his remarks in the
Record is not a privileged motion.
On Feb. 8, 1950,(3) the following parliamentary inquiry
was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 96 Cong. Rec. 1661, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: If I object to a unanimous-
consent request that a Member be permitted to extend his remarks in
the Record, is it proper to move that he be permitted to extend his
remarks?
The Speaker(4) replied that the motion to permit an
extension of remarks is not a privileged motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Committee of the Whole
Sec. 20.12 The Committee of the Whole lacks the power to permit the
inclusion of extraneous materials in an extension of remarks.
Sec. 20.13 The Committee of the Whole can permit a Member to revise and
extend only his own remarks, and excerpts from other materials are
considered extraneous and not part of the Member's own remarks even
though they may be relevant to the subject under consideration.
On Apr. 14, 1937,(5) during the debate on a
bill(6) to amend the Interstate Commerce Act, the following
exchange occurred concerning a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 81 Cong. Rec. 3463, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
6. H.R. 1668, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. (1937).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Walter M.] Pierce [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous
[[Page 410]]
consent that I may have the privilege of revising and extending my
remarks and including therein such letters and telegrams as I have
here denying or repudiating their appearance as proponents of the
Pettengill bill.
The Chairman:(7) The Chair will remind the gentleman
from Oregon that the request to extend his own remarks to include
extraneous matter must be submitted in the House and not in
Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. J. Mark Wilcox (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order. Is this extraneous matter? It is matter that is
very pertinent, in the opinion of the majority.
The Chairman: It is the understanding of the Chair that in
Committee of the Whole a Member may extend his own remarks but may
not include therein any extracts from other matters than his own
particular remarks.
Mr. Bulwinkle: Except what he has read?
The Chairman: Of course, what he has already read is in the
Record, or supposed to be.
Mr. Bulwinkle: I wish to call attention to the fact that this
is not extraneous matter, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: It is the opinion of the Chair that the inclusion
of telegrams, letters, or other writings other than those actually
read in Committee of the Whole will have to be inserted in the
Record with the consent of the House and not the Committee of the
Whole.
Sec. 20.14 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole will entertain a
unanimous-consent request by a Member to revise and extend his own
remarks, but a request to include an article, even one written by
another Member, is in order only in the House and not in the
Committee of the Whole.
During the debate on the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970(8) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Frederick
Schwengel, of Iowa, requested unanimous consent to insert in the Record
an article written by a House colleague on the subject of minority
staffing.(9) At this point in the debate the following
exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. H.R. 17654, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970). See for debate 116 Cong.
Rec. 24586, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 16, 1970.
9. The text of the proceedings surrounding this unanimous-consent
request by Mr. Schwengel was printed in the daily edition of
the Record for July 16, 1970. Permission to insert the article
was obtained at a later time in the House, and the permanent
edition of the Record contains a reprint thereof. 116 Cong.
Rec. 24591, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 16, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman [William H. Natcher, of Kentucky]: Is the
statement that the gentleman is requesting to be printed in the
Record his own statement?
Mr. Schwengel: Yes.
[[Page 411]]
The Chairman: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Hays: I thought the gentleman said that it was the
statement of somebody else.
Mr. Schwengel: It is.
The Chairman: The Chair inquired of the gentleman if it was his
own statement. Is it the statement of the gentleman in the well?
Mr. Schwengel: It is not.
The Chairman: Then the gentleman from Iowa will have to request
permission for that statement to be printed in the Record when we
go back in the House.
Mr. Schwengel: At the proper time I will make that request.
Sec. 20.15 A unanimous-consent request to extend remarks in the Record
by incorporating extraneous materials, by a Member who has not
spoken on the bill under consideration in the Committee of the
Whole, is in order only in the House and not in the Committee of
the Whole.
On Jan. 23, 1936,(10) during the consideration of the
Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 1936,(11) the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 950, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H.R. 10464, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. (1936).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis D.] Culkin [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Record, if the
request is in order at this time, and to include in the extension
copies of resolutions of various agricultural bodies and other
organizations of the United States protesting against these
reciprocal tariff treaties.
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point that cannot be done in Committee.
The Chairman:(12) The Chair will invite the
gentleman's attention to the fact he has not spoken on the bill,
and such permission would have to be granted in the House rather
than in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.16 Although a Member may not obtain permission in the Committee
of the Whole to extend his remarks so as to include extraneous
materials, he may be permitted to read those extraneous materials
if he is yielded time and the Committee consents.
On Apr. 18, 1944,(13) during the debate in the Committee
of the Whole on a bill to extend lend lease,(14) Mr. Clare
E. Hoffman, of Michigan, requested permission from the Committee to
extend his remarks and insert several letters in the Record. The
Chairman(15)
[[Page 412]]
refused Mr. Hoffman's request, and stated that such permission would
have to be obtained from the House. Mr. Hoffman then requested the
opinion of the Chairman as to whether he could read those letters into
the Record. The Chairman replied that if Mr. Hoffman were yielded time
the letters could be read with the consent of the Committee of the
Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 90 Cong. Rec. 3558, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H.R. 4254, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. (1944).
15. Warren G. Magnuson (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.17 The Committee of the Whole agreed by unanimous consent to
permit a Member to insert in the Record as part of his remarks the
text of an amendment he had drafted, but which could not be
submitted for consideration under a closed rule.
On Aug. 31, 1965,(16) during the consideration of a bill
providing for the implementation of the Automotive Products Trade Act
of 1965,(17) the following exchange occurred concerning a
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 22385, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 9042, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. (1965).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: . . . Now, Mr. Chairman, I
had intended to offer an amendment, if the rule were an open rule
and if we had the opportunity to offer such an amendment.
However, I do ask leave to attach at the conclusion of my
remarks the amendment that I would offer if I had the opportunity
to do so at the appropriate time. . . .
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to attach my
proposed amendment as a part of my remarks.
The Chairman:(18) The Chair wishes to inquire if the
statement is the gentleman's own statement?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Harold D. Donohue (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McClory: Yes; it is my own statement. It relates to an
amendment that I would offer if I had an opportunity to offer it.
It merely qualifies the acquiescence of the Congress with respect
to this legislation, with the proviso that is contained in the
proposed amendment, which I have explained.
The unanimous-consent request was agreed to by the Committee of the
Whole, and the text of the amendment was printed in the Record
following the remarks of Mr. McClory.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 22385, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.18 A unanimous-consent request to permit all Members five days
to revise and extend their remarks on a particular subject is not
in order in the Committee of the Whole.
On Sept. 19, 1967,(20) during the debate on a
bill(1) to amend the
[[Page 413]]
Public Health Service Act, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 26032, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
1. H.R. 6418, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I detect a
strange change in the nature of debate on this subject today from
the one that took place a few days ago. . . . I am wondering if
this is not because the subject has come up suddenly as an
amendment rather than as a bill that was announced ahead of time. .
. . Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend. . . .
Mr. [Burt L.] Talcott [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman:(2) That request is properly made in
the House and not in the Committee of the Whole. Objection is not
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unparliamentary Insertions
Sec. 20.19 The insertion in the Record of unparliamentary remarks is
sufficient to raise a question of the privilege of the House.
This ruling, which was rendered on Sept. 5, 1940, is discussed
elsewhere in this chapter.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. 17.1, supra. See Sec. 17.4, supra, for an occasion on
which Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.) declined to rule on a question
of personal privilege arising from the insertion in the Record
of allegedly unparliamentary remarks because the transcript of
the insertion had not been submitted for his inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.20 A Member cannot extend his remarks so as to insert in the
Record anything that could not be stated on the House floor.
On July 3, 1946,(4) the Speaker(5) called to
the attention of the House the fact that several Members had recently
extended their remarks so as to insert language that reflected
adversely on a Member or Members of the Senate. The following
parliamentary inquiry was then made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 92 Cong. Rec. 8299, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: In other words, Mr.
Speaker, under the rules no Member can insert in the Appendix of
the Record under Extension of Remarks that which could not be
stated on the floor of the House.
The Speaker responded affirmatively to the parliamentary inquiry.
Sec. 20.21 It is a violation of the rule of comity between the two
Houses for a Member to insert in the Record an editorial critical
of a Member of the Senate.
On June 25, 1956,(6) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made
the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 102 Cong. Rec. 10924, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 414]]
There has always existed complete comity between the Senate and
the House of Representatives. The rules of the House provide that
no Member of the House shall criticize a Senator on the floor of
the House. It has been called to the attention of the Chair that in
recent days editorials highly critical of Members of the other body
have been placed in the Record. That is a violation of the rules.
As far as the present occupant of the Chair is concerned, he is not
going to tolerate it any more.
Sec. 20.22 The Speaker announced that extensions of remarks should be
submitted to the Chair if there is any question as to whether they
refer adversely to Members of the Senate.
On July 3, 1946,(7) the Speaker(8) made the
following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 92 Cong. Rec. 8299, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has had called to his attention in the last few days
some extensions of remarks by Members of the House that the Chair
thinks are a reflection on a Member or Members of the Senate. The
Chair trusts that that does not happen any more. If there is any
question as to whether or not an extension of remarks refers to a
Member of the Senate in any way that might be offensive to him, the
Chair hopes the matter will be submitted to the Chair before the
remarks go to the printer.
Limitations on Extraneous Matter
Sec. 20.23 A Member who has secured unanimous consent to address the
House for one minute and revise and extend his remarks may not
without the consent of the House include in such remarks extraneous
matter such as a speech made by another person.
On Jan. 18, 1946,(9) Mr. Emerson H. De Lacy, of
Washington, requested and received unanimous consent to address the
House for one minute, and to revise and extend his remarks. At the
conclusion of his remarks on the House floor, Mr. De Lacy requested
unanimous consent to insert a speech delivered by an Under Secretary of
Commerce. When this request was objected to, Mr. John J. Cochran, of
Missouri, made the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 92 Cong. Rec. 129, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The gentleman from Washington
arose and asked permission of the Chair to speak for 1 minute and
to revise and extend his remarks. That permission was granted. I
take the position that under that request to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks the gentleman has a
right to include what he desires in the Record.
[[Page 415]]
The Speaker pro tempore(10) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is of the opinion that the unanimous-consent request
to speak for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks related
to the remarks that the gentleman from Washington might make during
the period that he addressed the House and that it did not include
any specific extraneous matter which might be in addition to what
he said himself or what he might add as his own remarks. The Chair,
of course, was hopeful that the unanimous-consent request to
include this specific matter would not be objected to. With
reference to the point of order made by the gentleman from
Missouri, the Chair must rule that . . . the unanimous-consent
request of the gentleman from Washington did not include the
specific matter which has previously been referred to.
Sec. 20.24 A Member who extends his remarks pursuant to an expression
of unanimous consent by the House permitting Members to extend
their own remarks on a specific bill, must confine his remarks to
the subject matter of the bill and must not include extraneous
materials such as letters, editorials or articles.
In the 74th Congress, debate on the Revenue Bill of 1936 was
conducted in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to a special order
that limited debate to the subject matter of the bill.(11)
The House had agreed to a unanimous-consent request permitting all
Members to have five legislative days in which to extend their own
remarks in the Record on the bill. On Apr. 27, 1936,(12) an
inquiry was made in the House concerning the extent to which a Member
who extends his remarks on the bill in the Committee of the Whole
pursuant to the unanimous-consent request can deviate from the subject
matter of the bill and whether extraneous materials such as letters,
editorials, or articles can be inserted. The proceedings were in part
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 80 Cong. Rec. 6204, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 27, 1936.
12. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: . . . My inquiry is, is
there any limitation upon the right of a Member to extend his
remarks made in the Committee of the Whole on any subject or in any
way he sees fit, and if there is, what the limitation is, keeping
in mind the special order of the House that debate be confined to
the bill, which I assume carries with it the assumption that
extensions of remarks shall also be confined to the bill? . . .
The Speaker:(13) After all, the Chair must be guided
by the rule of reason. Under the circumstances under which the bill
is being considered, if we ad
[[Page 416]]
here to the orders of the House debate must be confined to the
subject matter of the bill, and any debate which does not confine
itself to the subject matter of the bill or which is not in some
way related to the tax matters under consideration would not be in
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair does not think the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union, under the orders previously made, and to
which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Mapes] has referred, would
have the right to permit the inclusion of articles, editorials in
newspapers, or magazine articles as a part of one's remarks, unless
specific permission has been obtained from the House for that
purpose.
Under the [unanimous-consent] request . . . all Members of the
House have 5 legislative days within which to extend their own
remarks in the Record. The Chair calls attention of the House to
the fact that the request was so worded and so granted, as appears
in the Record, so as to limit such extensions to the subject of the
tax bill. It is clear to the Chair that if any Member desires to
insert editorials, articles in newspapers and magazines, or any
matter other than the remarks uttered by him on the floor he would
have to secure that permission from the House. The Committee of the
Whole has no power to authorize the extension of matters which do
not in some way relate to the tax bill under discussion.
Does that answer the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, I think the Chair has answered the
question as definitely as it can be answered. I take the answer of
the Chair to mean that matters that are clearly extraneous to the
tax bill cannot be included in extension of remarks, even though
they are the Member's own statements.
The Speaker: That is true. Of course, as the Chair intimated at
the outset, it is largely a matter of common sense in the
application of the rule and its construction.
Sec. 20.25 A Member who has obtained permission from the House by
unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the Record cannot insert
extraneous materials that were not designated in the request.
On Feb. 21, 1936,(14) Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New
York, made a motion to expunge from the Record materials that had been
inserted in the Record on Feb. 19, 1936, by Mr. Marion A. Zioncheck, of
Washington, and which had not been specified in the unanimous-consent
request to extend that had been agreed to by the House. Two days
earlier, Mr. Zioncheck made three unanimous-consent requests to extend
his remarks and to include the text of certain House resolutions. An
objection was raised each time.(15)
[[Page 417]]
Subsequently Mr. Zioncheck made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 2537, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 2372, 2400, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to extend my own
remarks in the Record.
To that request no objection was made. Mr. Zioncheck, however, in
extending his remarks in the Record, did include a quotation from one
of the resolutions to which he had referred in the three earlier
requests that had been objected to.
The Speaker,(16) prior to submitting the motion to a
vote, cited the well-established principle that authorizations to
extend remarks in the Record are strictly construed. He added that it
is not in order under leave to print to insert other material than that
designated in the request,(17) and commented:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
17. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3479. For several more recent examples
of this principle see 95 Cong. Rec. 12344, 81st Cong. 1st
Sess., Aug. 26, 1949; 89 Cong. Rec. 10958, 78th Cong. 1st
Sess., Dec. 21, 1943; 80 Cong. Rec. 9250, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.,
June 8, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair thinks the request for permission to extend remarks
should and must apply only to the remarks of the gentleman who
makes the request, and that it does not authorize the insertion of
newspaper articles or any other matter outside of his own remarks.
If a Member desires to quote or to include in his remarks
statements of the kind referred to, specific authority should be
asked of the House and should be obtained before that insertion is
made.
Sec. 20.26 A Member who has obtained permission from the House by
unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the Record and include a
newspaper article cannot insert a letter, and such an unauthorized
insertion gives rise to the question of privilege.
On July 6, 1942,(18) Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York,
received permission from the House to extend his remarks and include
therein a newspaper article. The extension of remarks by Mr. Bloom that
appeared in the appendix to the daily edition of the Congressional
Record for July 9, 1942, however, contained a letter from a
constituent, which was not mentioned in the unanimous-consent request.
On July 13, 1942,(19) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
who had been recognized on a question of the privileges of the House,
offered a resolution to strike the remarks of Mr. Bloom from the
permanent edition of the Record, and to prohibit the Public Printer
from
[[Page 418]]
issuing copies thereof from the daily edition of the
Record.(20) The House agreed to the
resolution.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 88 Cong. Rec. 5991, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. 88 Cong. Rec. 6102, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H. Res. 518, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. (1942).
1. For further illustrations of this principle, see 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 3479 and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.27 The Public Printer refused to print a Member's extension of
remarks in the Record because those remarks included a newspaper
editorial that had been printed in the Record as part of the
remarks of another Member.
On Sept. 26, 1949,(2) Mr. Henry D. Larcade, Jr., of
Louisiana, and Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, received the
unanimous consent of the House to extend their remarks and include a
newspaper editorial. The remarks of Mr. Larcade along with a newspaper
editorial appeared in the appendix of the Record of Sept. 26, 1949. The
remarks of Mr. Hoffman, however, did not appear in the Record of that
date, and were returned to Mr. Hoffman by the Public Printer along with
a letter explaining that his remarks had not been printed in the Record
because they contained the same editorial that had been reprinted as
part of the remarks of Mr. Larcade.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 95 Cong. Rec. 13273, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
3. The letter from the Public Printer to Mr. Hoffman is reprinted at
95 Cong. Rec. 13361, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following day Mr. Hoffman made a parliamentary inquiry in which
he expressed dissatisfaction with the policy that permitted the Public
Printer to exclude from the Record three pages of his own remarks
because they contained an editorial previously printed, and requested
the opinion of the Chair as to what might be done about that policy.
The Speaker(4) advised Mr. Hoffman that the matter was
entirely within the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Printing,
and that it should be taken up there.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
5. 95 Cong. Rec. 13361, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.28 The Speaker will decline to recognize a Member who wishes to
obtain permission to insert in the Record materials for which such
permission has already been obtained from the House by another
Member, but which have not as yet appeared in the Record.
On Nov. 17, 1943,(6) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 89 Cong. Rec. 9626, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 419]]
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Record and to print
therewith a radio address delivered by the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Patman] on Monday night.
The Speaker:(7) That has already been printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman: It has not been printed in the Record.
The Speaker: Consent has been given, and the Chair would not
like to entertain a request to reprint it.
Mr. Hoffman: I do not want to reprint it. With all due
deference, Mr. Speaker, we were expecting to get that radio address
today. I had it yesterday.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] has asked
unanimous consent to place it in the Record.
Mr. Hoffman: But he did not print it.
The Speaker: That is in the hands of the gentleman from Texas.
Appeals
Sec. 20.29 An appeal from a ruling of the Joint Committee on Printing
prohibiting the insertion in the Record of a government document
which has already been printed is within the jurisdiction of the
Joint Committee and not the House.
On Mar. 29, 1949,(8) a parliamentary inquiry was made
concerning the appropriate procedure to be followed in appealing a
ruling of the Joint Committee on Printing. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 95 Cong. Rec. 3396, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker:(9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin: On yesterday I asked and received unanimous consent
to extend my remarks in the Record and to include a very fine and a
very valuable report on spies issued by the Committee on Un-
American Activities. The Government Printing Office informs me that
there is a ruling by the Joint Committee on Printing that
Government documents which have already been printed cannot go into
the Record.
I wish to know if it is necessary to take any steps other than
to appeal to the Joint Committee on Printing. There is nothing the
House can do about it, as I understand.
The Speaker: The Chair understands that is the proper
procedure.
Mr. Rankin: To appeal to the Joint Committee on Printing?
The Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Rankin: I thank the Speaker.
Sec. 20.30 Appeals from a decision by the Public Printer not to print a
Member's remarks because those remarks included an editorial
previously printed in the Record are within the sole jurisdic
[[Page 420]]
tion of the Committee on Printing, and not the House.
On Sept. 27, 1949,(10) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of
Michigan, rose to a parliamentary inquiry. He stated that although he
had, on the previous day, secured permission from the House to extend
his own remarks in the Record and insert a newspaper editorial, those
remarks had not been printed in the Record. He read to the House a
letter he had received from the Public Printer stating that his remarks
had not been printed in the Record because they included an editorial
which had already been printed in conjunction with the remarks of
another Member. Mr. Hoffman then continued his remarks as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 13361, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That course is commendable where the second extension is merely
a duplication, but in this particular case, Mr. Speaker, I had
three pages of my own remarks. Now, just because I quote from an
editorial, or use something that someone else has used, is no
reason why a gentleman down in the Printing Office should take it
upon himself to censor or exclude a part of my remarks from the
Record.
My parliamentary inquiry . . . is, what do I do about this
situation?
The Speaker(11) responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The matter is entirely up to the Joint Committee on Printing.
The Chair would suggest that the gentleman take it up with the
Joint Committee on Printing, because they are the policy makers
with reference to matters of this kind.
Sec. 20.31 Under the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing, a Member
who requests the unanimous consent of the House to insert in the
Record remarks including extraneous matter in excess of two printed
Record pages, must submit coincident with that request the estimate
in writing from the Public Printer of the probable cost of
publishing those remarks.
On Apr. 18, 1939,(12) Mr. John M. Houston, of Kansas,
stated that he had in his possession an estimate of the probable cost
of printing an address by a former Member of the House, and requested
unanimous consent that he be permitted to insert it in the Record
notwithstanding the estimate of cost, and the fact that its length
exceeded two printed Record pages. The Speaker, William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, after quoting from the rules of the Joint Committee on
Printing,(13)
[[Page 421]]
called for any objections. There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 4403, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. The current rule 12 of the Joint Committee on Printing, which is
similar to the rule in effect at the time of this unanimous-
consent request, reads in part as follows: ``No extraneous
matter in excess of two printed Record pages, whether printed
in its entirety in one daily issue or in two or more parts in
one or more issues, shall be printed in the Congressional
Record unless the Member announces, coincident with the request
for leave to print or extend, the estimate in writing from the
Public Printer of the probable cost of publishing the same.''
Rule 12 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23,
1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During Adjournment to Day Certain
Sec. 20.32 The House frequently agrees by unanimous consent to permit
Members to extend their remarks and make insertions in the section
of the Record entitled ``Extensions of Remarks'' in those editions
of the Record scheduled for publication during an adjournment of
Congress to a day certain.
On Apr. 10, 1968,(14) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request which was similar(15) to those frequently
agreed to just prior to an adjournment to a day certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 9621, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. For other recent examples see 116 Cong. Rec. 36650, 91st Cong. 2d
Sess., Oct. 14, 1970; 116 Cong. Rec. 28919, 91st Cong. 2d
Sess., Aug. 14, 1970; and 114 Cong. Rec. 25065, 90th Cong. 2d
Sess., Aug. 2, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that notwithstanding the adjournment of the House until
April 22, 1968, all Members of the House shall have the privilege
to extend and revise their own remarks in the Congressional Record
on more than one subject, if they so desire, and may also include
therein such short quotations as may be necessary to explain or
complete such extension of remarks; but this order shall not apply
to any subject matter which may have occurred or to any speech
delivered subsequent to the said adjournment.
On Occasion of Death of Member
Sec. 20.33 The House, on the occasion of the death of a Member,
frequently agrees by unanimous consent to permit all Members who
desire to do so to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material in the Record and in the section entitled
``Extension of Remarks.''
On Mar. 2, 1970,(16) the House, as it has on other
occasions after
[[Page 422]]
the death of a Member,(17) agreed to the following
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 5456, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
17. For a recent example see 108 Cong. Rec. 8, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.,
Jan. 10, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members who desire to do so may have permission
today to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
material in the Record and also in that portion of the Record
entitled ``Extensions of Remarks.''
Sec. 20.34 The rule of the Joint Committee on Printing that requires a
Member to submit an estimate of the cost of printing an insertion
exceeding two pages in length has been applied to remarks inserted
in the Record on a day devoted to eulogies for deceased Members.
On Oct. 9, 1962,(18) a day devoted to eulogies for a
deceased Member, Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, requested the unanimous
consent of the House that all Members be permitted to extend their
remarks in the Appendix of the Record and include extraneous matter. In
addition, Mr. Albert made a special request that Mr. John R. Pillion,
of New York, be permitted to extend his remarks and include extraneous
matter, notwithstanding the fact that it exceeded the two-page limit
and was estimated by the Public Printer to cost $270. The House agreed
to both aspects of the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.35 On one occasion, when the House adjourned out of respect to
a deceased Member, in addition to granting the customary permission
for all Members to extend their remarks in the Appendix of the
Record, the House agreed, by unanimous consent, to permit Members
who had obtained special orders to extend their remarks in the body
of the Record, and to permit Members who had spoken on legislative
matters that day to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous matters.
On Sept. 16, 1961,(19) a day on which the House
adjourned out of respect to a deceased Member, the House agreed, by
unanimous consent, to permit all Members to extend their remarks in the
Appendix of the Record and to include extraneous matters. The House
also agreed to a request by the Speaker pro tempore(20) that
[[Page 423]]
those Members who had obtained special orders to speak on the floor
would be permitted to insert their remarks in the body of the Record,
and to the following unanimous-consent request made by Mr. Carl Albert,
of Oklahoma:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 107 Cong. Rec. 19812, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members who spoke
today on the various conference reports and other legislative
matters may have permission to revise and extend their remarks and,
if they desire to include extraneous matter, they may have that
permission; also that all Members may have 5 legislative days in
which to extend their remarks in the Record.
In Final Issue of Session
Sec. 20.36 The House, just prior to adjournment at the end of a session
of Congress, frequently agrees by unanimous consent to permit each
Member to extend his remarks in the Record on any subject occurring
prior to adjournment, until the publication of the last edition of
the Record.
On Oct. 14, 1968,(1) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request similar(2) to those generally adopted near
the end of a session of Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 114 Cong. Rec. 31313, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
2. For other recent examples see 116 Cong. Rec. 44599, 44600, 91st
Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 2, 1971; 113 Cong. Rec. 37190, 90th Cong.
1st Sess., Dec. 15, 1967; and 112 Cong. Rec. 28893, 89th Cong.
2d Sess., Oct. 22, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members of the House have the privilege of
inserting their own remarks in the Extensions of Remarks section of
the Congressional Record and to include therewith brief related
extraneous material on one or more subjects; this order to be
effective until publication of the last edition of the Record
authorized by the Joint Committee on Printing, but it shall not
apply to any subject matter which may have occurred, or to any
speech delivered after adjournment of Congress.
Sec. 20.37 The House, prior to the final adjournment at the conclusion
of a session of Congress, frequently agrees by unanimous consent to
permit the chairman and a ranking minority member of each standing
committee and subcommittee to extend their remarks in the Record
and to include separate summaries of the work of their committees,
up until the publication date of the last volume of the Record.
On Jan. 2, 1971,(3) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent re
[[Page 424]]
quest similar(4) to those frequently adopted at the final
meeting of a session of Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 116 Cong. Rec. 44600, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
4. For other recent examples see 115 Cong. Rec. 40982, 91st Cong. 1st
Sess., Dec. 23, 1969; 114 Cong. Rec. 31313, 90th Cong. 2d
Sess., Oct. 14, 1968; and 111 Cong. Rec. 28564, 89th Cong. 1st
Sess., Oct. 22, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the Chairmen of all the standing committees and the
subcommittees of the House may extend their remarks up to and
including the publication of the last Record and to include a
summary of the work of their committees; also that the ranking
minority Member of such standing committee or any subcommittee may
have the same permission to extend their remarks and to include a
summary, if they desire, from their point of view, separately from
that of the Chairman.