[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 6. Officers, Officials, and Employees]
[A. The Speaker]
[§ 3. Jurisdiction and Duties]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 435-471]
CHAPTER 6
Officers, Officials, and Employees
A. THE SPEAKER
Sec. 3. Jurisdiction and Duties
The Speaker's jurisdiction and duties are found in numerous
statutes and, of course, throughout the House rules.
Generally speaking, the Speaker's jurisdiction and duties relate to
the House rules, the Members, and the dignity and prerogatives of the
House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 3.1. infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the beginning of a Congress, the Speaker normally administers
the oath of office to the new Members.(2) When a Speaker pro
tem
[[Page 436]]
pore is elected or designated and approved, the Speaker, if he is
present, also administers the oath of office to the Speaker pro
tempore.(3) In addition, the Speaker has the power to
administer oaths to witnesses.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. 3.2, infra, and 2 USC Sec. 25 (1973). See Ch. 1, supra,
for treatment of the Speaker's role in the assembly of
Congress.
3. See Sec. 3.3, infra.
4. 2 USC Sec. 191. See Ch. 15, infra, for treatment of the Speaker's
role in House investigations and inquiries.
Parliamentarian's Note: This statutory power has rarely
been used by Speakers in modern times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under various House rules the Speaker presides over all regularly
scheduled House business:
(1) He calls the Members to order at the beginning of each daily
session.(5) Under the constitutional provisions dealing with
quorums(6) the Speaker then proceeds unless objection is
raised that a quorum is not present.(7~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Rule I clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (1973). See Ch.
20, infra, for the Speaker's role in the call of the House.
6. U.S. Const. art I, Sec. 5.
7. See Ch. 20, infra, for treatment of the Speaker's role in
determining the presence of a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) If a quorum is present, the Speaker, having examined the House
Journal, may announce his approval of it. It is ordinarily not read
unless such is insisted upon.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Rule I clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (1973). See Ch. 5,
supra, for treatment of the Speaker's duties with regard to the
House Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) The next item of business under the rules--though infrequently
applied--is the reference(9) or correction of reference of
bills, joint resolutions, etc., to appropriate
committees.(10) In this regard, the Speaker may defend his
reference of measures should they be challenged.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 3.5, infra. See also Sec. 4.3, infra. See Ch. 16, infra,
for fuller treatment of the Speaker's role in the reference of
bills, etc., to committees.
10. See Sec. 3.6, infra.
11. See Sec. 3.7, infra. See Ch. 29, infra, for fuller treatment of the
Speaker's participation in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) The Speaker next disposes of business on the Speaker's table.
Such business includes Presidential messages, communications from
department heads, and measures sent to the House by the
Senate.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XXIV clauses 1 and 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 878, et seq.
(1973. See also Sec. 2, supra, for examples of reports cleared
through the Speaker's office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) The Speaker then proceeds to unfinished
business.(13) Under the rules, then comes the morning hour
for the consideration of bills called up by committees;(14)
how
[[Page 437]]
ever, this procedure is not followed under present House practices,
since the House proceeds to business under other provisions of the
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Rule XXIV clauses 1 and 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 878 and
885-888 (1973)
14. Rule XXIV clauses 1 and 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 889,
890 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Next under the House rules, the Speaker is required to allow up
to one hour for the call of the committees under the regular order
before a motion can be entertained to go into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union.(15) Again, this is
largely an obsolete procedure, since by resolutions from the Committee
on Rules the House normally prescribes a different order of business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XXIV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 891, 892
(1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a motion is made for the House to resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker appoints the Chairman of the
Committee.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XXIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 861 (1973). See
also Sec. Sec. 6.1 and 6.2, infra. See Ch. 19, infra, for
fuller treatment of the Speaker's role in relation to the
Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) When the Committee of the Whole finally rises to report back to
the House, the Speaker resumes the Chair and proceeds to the orders of
the day.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule XXIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 878 (1973). See
also Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 384
(1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During a daily session if the Speaker desires to be absent from the
Chair momentarily, he has the right under the House rules to designate
a Speaker pro tempore.(18) He may also designate a Speaker
pro tempore for longer periods, or even invite the election of one,
under certain circumstances.(19) When the Speaker is
criticized during debate, it is considered proper for him to designate
a Speaker pro tempore to rule on whether the criticism is
unparliamentary.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule I clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 633 (1973).
19. See Sec. Sec. 9 et seq., infra, for treatment of Speakers pro
tempore.
20. See 3.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many more or less routine functions of the Speaker are of course
accomplished off of the floor of the House. Examples of these are:
(1) The Speaker certifies the salary and mileage accounts of
Members as required by statute.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2 USCA Sec. 48. See Ch. 7, infra, for treatment of the
compensation, allowances, perquisites, and emoluments of
Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The Speaker has the statutory duty to certify to the
appropriate U.S. District Attorney the names of persons found to be in
contempt of House committees for prosecution(2) when the
House has formally authorized such ac
[[Page 438]]
tion.(3) Likewise, he certifies names of persons who have
purged themselves of the contempt charges to the U.S. District
Attorneys after formal House authorization.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 2 USC Sec. 194.
3. See Sec. 3.40, infra.
4. See Sec. 3.43, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Whenever a vetoed measure is approved by two-thirds of both
Houses of Congress, the Speaker sends the original measure to the
General Services Administration for promulgation, if the House was the
last body to act on the measure.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 1 USC Sec. 106a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker generally informs the House of actions taken pursuant
to House authorization. For instance, the Speaker will inform the House
when he has signed enrolled bills during an adjournment of the
House,(6) or when, acting in his official capacity as
spokesman of the House, he has accepted a subpena served on the
House.(7) It is also considered the Speaker's duty to inform
the House when a Speaker pro tempore has acted for him during an
adjournment.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 3.9, infra.
7. See Sec. 3.39, infra.
8. See Sec. 3.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In certain unusual circumstances, the Speaker is considered to have
the inherent power to act on the Members' behalf without House
authorization. For example, in emergency situations, the Speaker is
considered to have the inherent power to declare the House in recess,
subject to the call of the Chair.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 3.44, infra. See Ch. 39, infra, for treatment of House
recesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the consideration of the various measures, the Speaker
normally assumes the primary responsibility on the part of the House
for enforcing the customary rules of comity between the two Houses of
Congress.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 3.45. infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To facilitate the consideration of measures, the House rules
provide the Speaker with three major functions: (1) recognizing Members
who seek to address the House,(11) (2) construing and
applying the House rules,(12) and (3) putting the question
to or stating a motion for the Members for their vote.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 749 et seq.
(1973).
12. See Rule I clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 624, 627
(1973).
13. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 629 (1973). See also
the forms of putting the question, House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 960-965 (1973). See Ch. 29, infra, for fuller
treatment of the Speaker's power of recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker has held that in construing the rules he may look
[[Page 439]]
to all pertinent facts concerning the matter to which the rules would
be applied.(14) In ruling on a matter brought to his
attention by a point of order, the Speaker normally will wait until the
matter is completely before him.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 3.29, infra.
15. See Sec. 3.30, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In certain circumstances the presiding officer may make inquiries
of a Member having the floor.(16) But it is the more
frequent case that the Speaker answers inquiries from the Members. For
example, he answers questions regarding the applicability of the House
rules to standing committees.(17) However, he does not
answer hypothetical inquiries or general questions relating to
committee procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 3.32, infra.
17. See Sec. 3.33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker may decline to answer immediately a parliamentary
inquiry(18) or he may simply ask a Member to withhold his
inquiry until the Speaker has sufficient time to ascertain certain
facts.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 3.34, infra.
19. See Sec. 3.35, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duties Generally
Sec. 3.1 In general, as the elected presiding officer of the House, the
Speaker has duties relating to the House rules, to the Members, and
to the dignity and prerogatives of the House.
On Jan. 10, 1962,(20) Speaker elect John W. McCormack,
of Massachusetts, addressed the House from the Chair regarding his
duties as Speaker of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 6, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: Members of the House of Representatives . . . [in]
the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the
Speaker, parliamentary or otherwise, I shall perform such duties
impartially with fair treatment to all Members in interpreting and
enforcing the rules, but above all protecting the rights of all
Members without regard to party affiliation.
While as leader in this body of my party, I have my political
responsibilities, in the performance of my duties as Speaker, my
responsibility is to the House itself and to all of its Members.
As majority leader I always considered that one of my primary
duties was to protect the rights, under the rules and also in
accordance with the customs of the House, of the minority party. I
shall follow that course as Speaker. . . .
I will continue to maintain the dignity of the House of
Representatives, protecting its prerogatives and maintaining the
right and privileges of its members.
Administering Oaths
Sec. 3.2 It is the normal practice for the Speaker to admin
[[Page 440]]
ister the oath of office to Members at the opening of a session of
Congress.
On Jan. 3, 1945,(1) the following procedure regarding
the swearing in of Members took place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 91 Cong. Rec. 14, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Chair understands that
two or three Members with certificates on file with the Clerk were
not here when the other Members were sworn in, were unable to get
here at the hour of meeting on account of late trains. At least two
such Members are here now.
Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt [of South Dakota]: Mr. Speaker, I am one of
those detained by late trains. I took the oath of office but I was
not here in time to answer to the first roll call.
The Speaker: The statement of the gentleman from South Dakota
will stand.
The Members who have not taken the oath of office will present
themselves in the well of the House and all others will clear the
well of the House.
Mr. Gorski and Mr. Stefan appeared at the bar of the House and
took the oath of office.
Sec. 3.3 If the Speaker is present when the House has elected a Speaker
pro tempore, it is normally the Speaker who administers the oath of
office to the Speaker pro tempore.
On Aug. 26, 1949,(2) a resolution was introduced as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 95 Cong. Rec. 12344, 81st Cong. 1st. Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 351) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved, That Hon. E.E. Cox, a Representative from the
State of Georgia, be, and he is hereby, elected Speaker pro
tempore during the absence of the Speaker.
Resolved, That the President and the Senate be notified by
the Clerk of the election of Hon. E.E. Cox as Speaker pro
tempore during the absence of the Speaker.
The resolution was agreed to.
The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Cox] will present himself at the bar of the House and take the
oath.
Mr. Cox appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath of
office.
Meeting Time and Place
Sec. 3.4 When the House is to meet in a place other than the House
Chamber, the Speaker normally is the one who informs the Members of
the time and place of the meeting.
On July 1, 1949,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made
an announcement concerning the time and place of the meeting of the
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 95 Cong. Rec. 8808, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the House stands
ad
[[Page 441]]
journed to meet on Tuesday, July 5, 1949, at 12 o'clock noon, in
the caucus room in the New House Office Building.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Parliamentarian's Note: The House moved to the New House Office
Building pending remodeling of the House Chamber in the Capitol
caused by an insecure ceiling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referring Measures to Committees
Sec. 3.5 The Speaker examines and refers to committees all bills and
resolutions introduced by Members of the House.
On Jan. 10, 1967,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, indicated the procedure by which bills introduced on the
opening day of a Congress are examined and referred to committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 113 Cong. Rec. 34, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair would like to make a statement
concerning the introduction and reference of bills today.
As Members are aware, they have the privilege today of
introducing bills. Heretofore on the opening day of a new Congress
several thousand bills have been introduced. It will be readily
apparent to all Members that it may be a physical impossibility for
the Speaker to examine each bill for reference today. The Chair
will do his best to refer as many bills as possible, but he will
ask the indulgence of Members if he is unable to refer all the
bills that may be introduced. Those bills which are not referred
and do not appear in the Record as of today will be included in the
next day's Record and printed with a date as of
today.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Parliamentarian's Note: On the opening day of the first session of
the 90th Congress a total of 2,247 bills and resolutions were
introduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.6 Having the authority to refer Presidential messages and bills
to committees, a Speaker may change a reference to another
committee if appropriate.
On Jan. 27, 1958,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
announced a change of reference of matters from one committee to
another:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 104 Cong. Rec. 1112, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: After further examination of the President's
message and the recommendations made therein, the Chair believes
that the proper committee to which to refer the President's message
is the Committee on Education and Labor instead of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, because on the Science Foundation
no new law is suggested, simply more appropriations. The other part
of the President's message deals with education. Therefore the
Chair is going to change the reference of the President's message
and whatever bills are introduced on that subject, to the Committee
on Education and Labor.
[[Page 442]]
Sec. 3.7 Although the Speaker has the power to refer bills to proper
committees in the first instance, such references may later be
challenged and the Speaker may defend his decision.
On Mar. 2, 1966,(8) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, took the floor in the Committee of the Whole to indicate
his responsibility regarding the reference of public bills to proper
committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 112 Cong. Rec. 4579, 4580, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCormack: . . . Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks by
the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Cleveland] about the
reference of this bill, and overhearing them and confining myself
to that aspect of his remarks, I simply want to advise the Members
of the House that in my judgment as the Speaker, this bill was
properly referred to the Committee on Public Works.
In the original bill, the bill calls for the participation in
the 1967 exposition, jointly with the State of Alaska through
economic development projects such as industrial, agricultural,
educational, research, or commercial facilities, and so forth.
Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly respect the views of my friend, the
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Cleveland], but I cannot be on
the floor and listen to one challenge the reference of a bill that
I made. I realize that I might make mistakes occasionally, but I
will always make the reference of a bill that the rules call for.
In my clear judgment this bill was properly referred to the
Committee on Public Works(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Parliamentarian's Note: As introduced the bill in question was
primarily an economic development measure. In this form, the
bill was primarily within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Public Works. As reported, however, the primary emphasis of the
bill was federal recognition of and participation in the
centennial celebration of the Alaska purchase. In this form,
the bill was similar to centennial bills that have been
traditionally, under the precedents, referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Reference generally, see Ch. 16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Informing the House of Actions Taken
Sec. 3.8 The Speaker informs the House when he has accepted a
resignation and appointed a successor to a committee during an
adjournment.
On Jan. 3, 1957,(10) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made
the following announcement concerning a committee appointment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 47, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair desires to announce that pursuant to the
provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 244, 84th Congress, and
the order of
[[Page 443]]
the House of July 27, 1956, empowering him to accept resignations
and to appoint commissions . . . he did, on September 8, 1956,
appoint as a member of the joint committee to represent the
Congress at the unveiling of the Commodore John Barry Memorial at
Wexford, Ireland . . . the gentleman from Pennsylvania . . . to
fill a vacancy caused by the resignation of the gentleman from New
York.
Sec. 3.9 The Speaker informs the House when he has signed enrolled
bills during an adjournment pursuant to authority granted him.
On July 26, 1948,(11) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, announced his signing of certain enrolled bills
subsequent to adjournment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 9363, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of House Concurrent
Resolution 219, Eightieth Congress, announced his signature to
enrolled bills and joint resolutions of the Senate as follows:
On June 22, 1948:
S. 418. An act to provide for water-pollution-control
activities in the Public Health Service of the Federal Security
Agency and in the Federal Works Agency, and for other purposes.
. . .
And on June 23, 1948, enrolled bills of the Senate as follows:
S. 165. An act for the relief of Doris E. Snyder. . . .
On June 10, 1968,(12) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, made an announcement to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 114 Cong. Rec. 16381, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair desires to announce that pursuant to the
authority granted him on Thursday, June 6, 1968, he did on June 7,
1968, sign the following enrolled bills of the House:
H.R. 6087. An act to assist State and local governments in
reducing the incidence of crime, to increase the effectiveness,
fairness, and consideration of law enforcement and criminal
justice systems at all levels of government, and for other
purposes
Sec. 3.10 The Speaker informs the House when an elected Speaker pro
tempore has signed enrolled bills during an adjournment of the
House pursuant to authority granted.
On July 14, 1958,(l3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
announced that during an adjournment the elected Speaker pro tempore
had signed certain enrolled bills pursuant to authority granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 104 Cong. Rec. 13695, 13696, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedure When Speaker Criticized
Sec. 3.11 When the Speaker is the subject of criticism in debate and a
point of order is raised against such criticism, it is customary
for the Speaker to
[[Page 444]]
appoint a Speaker pro tempore to rule on whether the words spoken
were parliamentary.
On Feb. 7, 1935,(14) the following remarks were made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 79 Cong. Rec. 1680, 1681, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas L. Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the words of the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Tinkham] about former Speaker Rainey and Speaker
Byrns be taken down. If he has no respect for the living, he ought
to have some respect for the dead. I ask that his words be taken
down. We will call the gentleman down on that now. . . .
The Chairman [William N. Rogers, of New Hampshire]: The Clerk
will report the words objected to.
The Clerk read to the Committee the words objected to.
The Chairman: The Committee will rise.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker . . . resumed
the chair.
The Speaker [Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee]: The Clerk will
report the words.
The Clerk read the words objected to.
The Speaker: The Chair feels some delicacy in ruling on the
language inasmuch as he is involved, and the Chair will ask the
gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] to take the chair.
Mr. O'Connor assumed the chair as Speaker pro tempore.
Controlling the Record
Sec. 3.12 It has been held that the Speaker may direct the official
House reporters of debates to refrain from inserting in the
Congressional Record notations concerning applause and other
demonstrations by Members in the House.
On Mar. 6, 1945,(15) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
responded to a parliamentary inquiry concerning Congressional Record
coverage of demonstrations in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 1789, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: . . . I propound another
parliamentary inquiry at this time. Some time ago the Official
Reporters of Debates ceased to take down the demonstrations that
are made in the course of debate, the only parliamentary body in
the world that prints a Record in which that has been done, that I
have been able to find. I occasionally get the Record of the
British House of Parliament. I read it and in these trying times
there is applause, cheers, their cries of ``hear, hear'' laughter,
and other demonstrations that are made. You get the Record of the
United States Senate and, as a rule, they do not have probably so
many there to applaud, but when there is applause or a
demonstration, it is placed in the Record. Our demonstrations have
been cut out of our Record
[[Page 445]]
and I think it is a serious mistake because now a man can make a
speech and extend his remarks and you have no indication as to
where his speech left off and where his extension of remarks
begins. I know it has been contended by a few Members in the House
that the extension of those demonstrations in the Record have been
abused. But that was done very seldom, and where the Member did
abuse that privilege by inserting laughter or applause he has been
subjected to the most drastic criticism and ridicule and, as a
rule, has never attempted it again. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair does not intend to be facetious, but the
Chair would like to give the House his reaction to the expressions
``Hear! Hear!'' and ``Applause'' in the Record. When I came here 32
years ago on Sunday last, a gentleman had been elected by a split
in the Republican Party in a particular State, and he had come here
with Democratic and Progressive votes. He made a speech in the
House. Whether it went into the permanent Record I do not know, but
I know it went into the temporary Record. It closed in this
fashion: ``Loud and prolonged applause among Democrats and
Progressives, followed by much handshaking.''
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.''
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.
Sec. 3.13 Although it has been held that it is within the authority and
normally the duty of the Speaker to order stricken from the notes
of the official House reporters remarks made by Members not
legitimately having the floor, it has also been held that it is
within the Speaker's power to allow an exception in unusual
circumstances.
On Apr. 19, 1937,(16) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, responded to a parliamentary inquiry concerning remarks of
Members, not legitimately having the floor, being reflected in the
Congressional Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec.. 3588, 3589, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward W.] Curley [of New York]: I rise to propound a
parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
[[Page 446]]
Mr. Curley: Last Thursday, April 15, during the discussion of
the antilynching bill, I submitted two questions to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Wadsworth]. Upon reading the Congressional
Record the following day I found they were omitted. In the course
of the extension of my own address on the following page in the
Record that fact is mentioned in my own address; so that on a
checkback it will be found that these two questions have been
omitted, and we find that they were omitted inadvertently by the
reporter. The reporter has informed me of the fact that that is the
truth.
What I wish to know, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not I can have
the permanent Record corrected so as to include the two questions
and the offside remark that went with them. . . .
The Speaker: Did the gentleman from New York address the Chair
and ask whether or not the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth],
then occupying the floor, would yield?
Mr. Curley: I did, Mr. Speaker. I think the gentleman from New
York [Mr. O'Connor] was presiding on both occasions.
The Speaker: Did the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth]
yield?
Mr. Curley: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] did not
yield, and so stated. But not long thereafter the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Gavagan] asked the same questions, received the same
reply, that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] did not
yield; yet the questions and remarks of the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Gavagan] are incorporated in the Congressional Record.
The Speaker: This is a rather important inquiry that the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Curley] has submitted. It has not been
raised, so far as the Chair recalls, during the present session of
Congress. In order that the rights of Members may be protected, and
that the Members may know what the rules and precedents are with
respect to this proposition, the Chair will read from section 3466,
volume 8, of Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives. .
. .
The Chair may say that in conformity with this precedent, and
what the Chair conceives to be sound procedure, the rule should be
reiterated that when a Member is occupying the floor and a Member
after addressing the Chair and asking the Member then occupying the
floor if he will yield for a question or for an interruption, and
the gentleman then speaking declines to yield, it is not proper for
a Member nevertheless to interject into the Record some remark
which he desires to make.
Under the particular circumstances now raised by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Curley], and in view of the fact the question
has not heretofore been presented at this session of the Congress,
the Chair is of the opinion it may not be an injustice to instruct
the reporter to incorporate in the permanent Record in this
instance the statement made by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Curley].
The Chair may say, however, that hereafter in conformity with
this rule and what he regards as sound practice, the Chair
instructs the reporters of debates where a Member declines to yield
and notwithstanding another Member seeking to interrupt him per
[[Page 447]]
sists in talking, that those remarks shall not be incorporated in
the Record.
Putting Unanimous-Consent Requests
Sec. 3.14 Unanimous-consent requests are put to the House by the
Speaker, and a Member's objection to such a request is ineffective
if it fails to follow immediately upon the Speaker's statement of
the request.
On Sept. 4, 1940,(17~) a unanimous-consent request was
made as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec.. 11516, 11517, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Beverly M.] Vincent [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to withdraw the last sentence of my statement.
Mr. [Henry C.] Dworshak [of Idaho]: I object, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore [Jere Cooper, of Tennessee]: The
gentleman from Kentucky asks unanimous Consent to withdraw the
statement. Is there objection? The Chair hears none.
Mr. [Frederick V.] Bradley [of Michigan]: I object, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order and a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago certain words were
uttered by the gentleman on the floor of the House which I demanded
be taken down. No report was made of those words. I demand the
regular order--the taking down of the words, the report of the
words, and the reading by the Clerk.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Subsequently, unanimous consent was
granted for the words to be withdrawn.
Mr. Hoffman: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker; three Members were on their
feet. I was one of them, and objecting to that.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That was the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Hoffman: I appeal from the ruling of the Chair then.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: This is not a ruling, it is just an
answer to a parliamentary inquiry.
Stating Motions for Votes
Sec. 3.15 The Speaker or Chairman of the Committee of the Whole states
motions, and it has been held that it is his statement of the
motion and not the motion as stated by a Member that is voted upon.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(18) the following motion was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 6101, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate and all amendments to section 203 close in 5 minutes,
with one-half of the time reserved to the chairman.
The Chairman [Richard Bolling, of Missouri]: The chairman of
the committee moves that all debate and all amendments----
[[Page 448]]
Mr. [Porter] Hardy [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman. a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Hardy: He is moving that he is going to have half of the
time. Is that a proper motion? I had understood it was not. I
believe it can be done by unanimous consent.
The Chairman: Will the chairman of the committee please restate
his motion?
Mr. Hardy: I understood the motion.
Mr. Powell: I withdraw the previous motion. I move all debate
and all amendments on this title and this section close in 10
minutes.
Mr. Hardy: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the original motion be
read.
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order. I want to know whether or not it takes unanimous consent to
withdraw the motion.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York asks unanimous
consent to withdraw the motion.
Mr. Powell: That is right. I withdraw it. I ask unanimous
consent to withdraw it.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire a vote on
his original motion?
Mr. Hardy: Mr. Chairman, will the Chair state the motion as
originally made?
Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry. At the time that the gentleman from New York made the
motion his voice was inaudible. I strongly feel that the motion
that he made should be reread and read loud.
The Chairman: The Chair will attempt to state how he understood
it. It may be in error.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the reporter read
what the Chairman said so we can all hear it. It would be very
helpful.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished
minority leader, is putting the Chair in the same position he had
him in a little while ago. This goes straight, head on, into all of
the practices and procedures of the House to have the reporter re-
report a motion.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request.
The Chairman: The Chair will state the motion as the Chair
understood it. The Chair will say frankly the Chair had a little
difficulty hearing it, but my understanding of the motion was that
the chairman of the committee moved that all debate and all
amendments to section 203 be closed in 5 minutes.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: And time was reserved for the chairman.
The Chairman: The Chair did not hear that.
Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hosmer: In the event that the motion is carried, if put,
would the motion carried be that which was actually made by the
gentleman from New York, or according to the Record as reported, or
would it be the motion as stated by the Chair?
The Chairman: The motion will be as stated by the Chair, as was
the case yesterday and is the case today.
[[Page 449]]
The motion is that all debate on this section close in 5
minutes.
Power of Recognition
Sec. 3.16 Although the Speaker has discretion to recognize Members to
have the floor, he is under no duty to announce in advance whom he
might recognize in the future.
On Oct. 8, 1969,(19) a parliamentary inquiry was
addressed to Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 115 Cong. Rec. 29220, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Dingell: If the previous question is voted down, would it
then be in order to offer an amendment to raise the sum for water
pollution control grants to the States in the sum of $1 billion?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that, if the previous
question is voted down, it would be in order to offer an amendment.
The Chair is not going to pass on the amount at the present time.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Dingell: Would I be recognized for that purpose? It would
be my intent so to do.
The Speaker: The Chair is not going to give a preliminary
opinion as to whom the Chair might recognize.
Sec. 3.17 The Speaker has on occasion announced in advance that he
would deny recognition to a Member under certain circumstances.
On Oct. 18, 1943,(20) the following parliamentary
situation developed under which Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
indicated he would deny recognition to a Member under certain
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 89 Cong. Rec. 8433, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.
The Speaker: Is there objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I do this for the information of my
colleagues, because this morning they received a letter from the
Speaker in respect to a meeting to be held Wednesday morning, and
in that letter it was stated that the meeting would be held in the
Caucus Room of the old House Office Building, at which meeting
General Marshall and other generals would appear in an off-the-
record manner. The old Caucus Room has been looked over, as well as
the auditorium of the Library of Congress. It is felt that the
auditorium of the Library of Congress is a much more desirable
place to hold the meeting, and I rise to announce that, instead of
holding the
[[Page 450]]
meeting in the old Caucus Room, it will be held in the auditorium
of the Library of Congress. . . .
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Now, if we are going to
hold executive sessions of the House, there is only one place that
we are authorized by law to hold them, and that is in this Hall.
Mr. McCormack: This is not an executive session of Congress.
Mr. Rankin: It is going to be a secret session, and it ought to
be, and it ought to be held in the Hall of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. McCormack: This is not an executive session of Congress.
Mr. Rankin: It is unnecessary for the Congress of the United
States to be going off to some other building to hear these leaders
report on the war when we have the Hall of the House of
Representative built and equipped for that purpose.
Will not the gentleman modify his request to have that meeting
here in this Hall?
The Speaker: The Chair would not recognize the gentleman for
that purpose and the gentleman would not make such a request.
Sec. 3.18 The Speaker's power over recognition includes the power to
ask for what purpose a Member rises without such request implying
that the Speaker recognizes the Member for the purpose for which he
has arisen.
On Apr. 13, 1946,(1) two Members rose seeking
recognition from Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 92 Cong. Rec. 3669, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dewey] Short [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker.
Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri
rise?
Mr. Short: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia
rise?
Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, it was my purpose to demand a reading of
the engrossed copy of the bill.
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, may a demand be made for the reading
of the copy of the engrossed bill after the proceedings which have
just taken place and after the Clerk has read the bill which was
considered engrossed?
The Speaker: The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a
third time. The gentleman from Georgia was on his feet at the time.
Does the gentleman from Georgia insist upon his demand that the
engrossed copy of the bill be read?
Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, my making demand that the engrossed copy
of the bill be read does not indicate my opposition to the bill.
Mr. Short: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.
Mr. Cox: I was compelled to make the demand and I did make it.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] demands the
reading of the engrossed copy of the bill. The Chair will state
that with the number of amendments agreed to, it
[[Page 451]]
would be impossible to have the engrossed copy of the bill this
afternoon.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the situation
correctly, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Short] was recognized
to offer a motion to recommit.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Short] was not
recognized. The Chair asked the gentleman for what purpose he rose,
and then recognized the gentleman from Georgia.
Sec. 3.19 The Speaker's power of recognition includes the power to deny
recognition to a Member for the purpose of making a motion which
the Speaker determines to be in conflict with previous action of
the House.
On Oct. 8, 1968,(2) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, heard a Member's motion before recognizing the Member to
offer it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214-16, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] Taft [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker--
The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio
rise?
Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker I have a privileged motion.
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: A point of order, Mr.
Speaker. That is not in order until the reading of the Journal has
been completed.
The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Ohio state his privileged
motion?
Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, my motion is on a point of personal
privilege.
The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Ohio state whether it is a
point of personal privilege or a privileged motion?
Mr. Taft: It is a privileged motion, and a motion of personal
privilege.
Under rule IX questions of personal privilege are privileged
motions, ahead of the reading of the Journal.
The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that a
question of personal privilege should be made later after the
Journal has been disposed of.
If the gentleman has a matter of privilege of the House, that
is an entirely different situation.
Mr. Taft: I believe, Mr. Speaker, this involves not only
personal privilege as an individual, but also as a Member of the
House and also the privileges of all Members of the House.
The Speaker: The Chair does not recognize the gentleman at this
time on a matter of personal privilege.
But the Chair will, after the pending matter, the reading of
the Journal has been disposed of, recognize the gentleman if the
gentleman seeks recognition.
Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, is it not true in rule IX relating to
questions of privilege it is stated that such questions shall have
precedence over all other questions except motions to adjourn?
The Speaker: Will the gentleman state the question of
privilege.
[[Page 452]]
Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, my motion is that I and all other
Members in the Chamber who were here at the time of the last quorum
call and answered ``present'' be permitted to leave the Chamber at
their desire. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair will state in response to the
parliamentary inquiry that the action of the House has deprived--
has caused the doors to be closed and has deprived temporarily the
privilege that the gentleman refers to. That has been done by the
action of the House.
Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, I was recognized to make a privileged
motion and it was not a matter of a parliamentary inquiry. I have
made that motion and I ask that the Chair rule on the motion.
The Speaker: What is the motion?
Mr. Taft: I request that I be given time to discuss the motion
as a matter of privilege.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his motion.
Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, my motion is that I and all other
Members present on the floor who answered ``present'' at the time
of the last quorum call shall be permitted to leave the House
freely at their own desire.
The Speaker: The Chair does not recognize the gentleman for the
purpose of making such a motion because the Chair has already
clearly indicated the House has already taken action and it is
within the power of the House to take the action that it did.
Therefore, the Chair does not recognize the gentleman to make such
a motion.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, it was my
understanding that the gentleman from Ohio had been recognized for
the purpose of offering the motion.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan is well aware of the
fact that the question of recognition rests with the Chair. The
gentleman did not make a motion which was in order by reason of the
action heretofore taken by the House.
Sec. 3.20 It has been held that the presiding officer has the power to
give or deny recognition to a Member who seeks to offer a
perfecting amendment which would take precedence over another
amendment.
On Dec. 15, 1937,(3) the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, indicated the
discretionary nature of his power to recognize Members in answer to the
following parliamentary inquiries:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 82 Cong. Rec. 1590, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, and I do so to propound a parliamentary
inquiry as to the order in which amendments are to be offered. The
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey is now
pending. Would not perfecting amendments have priority of
consideration over a substitute amendment?
The Chairman: The Chair has no knowledge of what amendments may
[[Page 453]]
be offered; but ordinarily a perfecting amendment has precedence
over a motion to substitute insofar as voting is concerned. If the
unanimous-consent request is granted, it is the understanding of
the Chair that amendments will be offered section by section.
Mr. Boileau: Nevertheless, it is the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Jersey that would be before the House.
The Chairman: That is before the Committee now.
Mr. Boileau: Would not perfecting amendments have priority over
an amendment to substitute?
The Chairman: So far as voting is concerned, yes.
Mr. Boileau: I appreciate that fact, but may I propound a
further parliamentary inquiry, whether or not a Member rising in
his place and seeking recognition would not have a prior right to
recognition for the purpose of offering a perfecting amendment to
the amendment now pending?
The Chairman: It does not necessarily follow that such Member
would have a prior right. Recognition is in the discretion of the
Chair.
Mr. Boileau: I recognize it does not necessarily follow, but I
am trying to have the matter clarified. Therefore I ask the Chair
whether or not a Member who qualifies as offering a perfecting
amendment does not have prior right of recognition in offering such
amendment?
The Chairman: The Chair has tried to be as helpful as he could,
but the Chair does not feel he should estop himself of his own
discretion in the matter of recognitions.
Mr. Boileau: Does the Chair then rule that is within the
discretion of the Chair rather than a right of the Member?
The Chairman: In answer to the gentleman's inquiry, the Chair
is of the opinion it is within the province of the Chair whom the
Chair will recognize, having in mind the general rules of the
House.
Sec. 3.21 Where there are two matters of equal preference brought
before the House at the same time, it is within the Speaker's
discretion to recognize whichever matter he chooses to be
considered first.
On Sept. 22, 1966,(4) an announcement was made
concerning a change in the legislative program. A Member raised a
parliamentary inquiry as a result of the change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
Under the rules of the House, as I understand them, this rule,
House Resolution 1007, to bring up the so called House Un-American
Activities Committee bill, is a privileged matter, and if it is not
programed, then the gentleman handling the rule or any member of
the Rules Committee, may call it up as a privileged matter. Is my
understanding correct about that?
The Speaker [John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts]: The
gentleman's
[[Page 454]]
understanding is correct. Of course, the question of recognition is
with the Chair, where there are two similar preferential matters,
but the gentleman's understanding is correct that after 7
legislative days a member of the Rules Committee could call it up.
If it were a question of recognition, if the same preferential
status existed at the same time, recognition rests with the Chair.
Sec. 3.22 It is within the Speaker's discretion to recognize a Member
for a parliamentary inquiry regarding a resolution and, after such
is stated and without answering the inquiry, recognize another
Member for the purpose of withdrawing a pending resolution.
On Apr. 8, 1964,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, indicated the nature of the Speaker's power of
recognition during the consideration of two measures before the House.
The Committee of the Whole had risen and reported to the House matters
pertaining to a bill (H.R. 10222). Upon demand by a Member the bill was
ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. While preparation of the
engrossed copy of the bill was taking place, a Member called up House
Resolution 665 by direction of the Committee on Rules and asked for its
immediate consideration. After certain remarks on House Resolution 665
were made, the Speaker declared a recess pending the receipt of the
engrossed copy of H.R. 10222. The recess having expired, the House was
called to order by the Speaker and the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 110 Cong. Rec. 7303, 7304, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The unfinished business is the reading of the
engrossed copy of H.R. 10222.
The Clerk will read the engrossed copy.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, when the recess was called,
it was my understanding that we were engaged in the consideration
of [H. Res. 665]. Is it not the rule of the House that we must
finish the consideration of that measure before we take up any
other measure which has been passed over for parliamentary and
mechanical reasons?
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker----
The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bolling].
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, under the rules I withdraw House
Resolution 665.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, that takes
unanimous consent, and I object.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that it does not take
unanimous con
[[Page 455]]
sent to withdraw the resolution in the House.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that
the Speaker was addressing the Member now addressing the Chair and
had not given an answer to my question. Therefore, the recognition
of the Member from the other side, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Bolling] was out of order. Am I incorrect?
The Speaker: The recognition of the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Bolling] terminated the parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: In other words, the Speaker did not
answer the parliamentary inquiry; is that correct?
The Speaker: Since the resolution was withdrawn, the
parliamentary inquiry was ended.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: If the Speaker will respectfully permit,
the gentleman from Ohio would suggest that the question had been
asked before the resolution had been withdrawn.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has the power
of recognition. Now that the resolution has been withdrawn, the
unfinished business is the reading of the engrossed copy of H.R.
10222.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: The Speaker had recognized the gentleman
from Ohio for a parliamentary inquiry. The parliamentary inquiry
had been made. The parliamentary inquiry had not been answered and
yet the Chair recognized the gentleman from Missouri.
The Speaker: Which the Chair has the power to do.
The Clerk will read the engrossed copy of H.R. 10222
Sec. 3.23 The power of recognition vested in the presiding officer is
not infringed upon if unanimous consent is requested and received
to recognize a Member to speak at a certain time.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, being also a Member,
may invoke his right to object to a unanimous-consent request.
On Dec. 9, 1947,(6) the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole, Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, responded to an inquiry
concerning possible infringement on the power of recognition by
unanimous consent being given a Member to speak:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 93 Cong. Rec. 11231, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: As the Chair understands the rule, the presiding
officer in the Committee is in a dual capacity. First, he is
selected to be the presiding officer during the consideration of
the bill. But by accepting such appointment he does not lose his
right to vote and object as any other Member. That is, his district
is not deprived of its rights by virtue of the Chairman selection.
That being true, the Chair not making any objection, I cannot see
how the rights of the Chair are infringed upon if the Committee, by
unanimous consent, wants to provide that a certain individual may
speak at a certain
[[Page 456]]
hour during the Committee consideration. If the Chair is agreeable
and all Members are agreeable.
Controlling Scope of Debate
Sec. 3.24 The scope of debate in the House is generally a matter of
relevancy which the Speaker may determine when a point of order is
raised.
On Dec. 10, 1963,(7) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, discussed the scope of House debate during a ruling on a
point of order related thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 109 Cong. Rec. 23968, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: The point of order is we are
now considering the rule on the indigent defendant's bill. The
gentleman from Kansas is talking about the civil rights bill, and
is out of order.
The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair takes a lenient attitude toward debate in the House.
If the gentleman from Kansas feels that there is anything involved
in this bill that might be connected with legislation concerning
civil rights, the Chair feels that the gentleman, who is conversant
with the rules, is proceeding and will proceed in order.
The gentleman from Kansas may proceed.
Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. [William H.] Avery [of Kansas]: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I yield
to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Kansas have permission to speak out of order.
The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Controlling Time for Debate
Sec. 3.25 The presiding officer supervises the timing of the
proceedings by a clock in the House Chamber.
On Feb. 10, 1964,(8) when a discrepancy existed in the
times shown on the clocks in the House Chamber, the following question
was asked of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Eugene J.
Keogh, of New York:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 110 Cong. Rec. 2724, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: By what clock are we
operating this afternoon?
The Chairman: The one the Chair is looking at.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Parliamentarian's Note: The clock the Chair was ``looking at'' was
the clock on the north wall of the House Chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.26 It is within the authority of the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole to supervise the control of time for debate, and when
he is not informed of a delegation of control of time the
delegation is ineffective.
[[Page 457]]
On Jan. 31, 1964,(10) during the course of the following
debate the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Eugene J. Keogh, of
New York, indicated the manner by which a delegation of control of time
for debate is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 1538, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener: [of North Carolina]: If the gentleman
will get me more time, I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: I will give the
gentleman 1 extra minute.
Mr. Whitener: I yield to the gentleman, but please do not take
more than 1 minute.
The Chairman: The Chair has to inform the gentleman from North
Carolina that the gentleman from New Jersey does not have control
of the time.
Mr. Whitener: Then, Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully decline
to yield to the gentleman. . . .
Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New
Jersey is now in charge of the time in the absence of the chairman,
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler].
The Chairman: The Chair was not informed that the gentleman
from New York is absent nor is the Chair informed that the
gentleman from New Jersey is now in charge of the time.
The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. Whitener: I thank the chairman. . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Rodino: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes, and I wish
to state I am acting for the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary who asked me to take charge of the time for him in his
absence.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
Sec. 3.27 It is within the authority of the Speaker and the House, and
not the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, to decide whether
time for continued consideration of an unfinished bill will be
given in the legislative program.
On Apr. 26, 1948,(11) the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole, Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, responded to an inquiry about
what time might be provided for a continuation of consideration of an
unfinished bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 4873, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman (Mr. Arends): The gentleman will state it.
Mr. August H. Andresen: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the
Committee will rise at 4 o'clock. It is also my understanding of
the rules that
[[Page 458]]
this Committee should meet tomorrow in order to have continuous
consideration of the pending legislation.
I would like to have a ruling of the Chair as to whether or not
the rules provide that a day may intervene so that this legislation
may be taken up on Wednesday.
The Chairman: The Chair may say that is a matter for the
Speaker of the House and the House itself to determine. It is not
something within the jurisdiction of the [Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole] to decide.
Sec. 3.28 The Speaker has set policy with regard to the practice of
one-minute speeches by Members.
On July 22, 1968,(12) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, discussed the practice of permitting one-minute speeches
from the floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 114 Cong. Rec. 22633, 22634, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: . . . Would it be proper
if Members were permitted to extend their remarks and make their 1-
minute speeches at the end of the legislative day in order that we
might just get started right away on the legislative program when
we meet.
Mr. McCormack: I call the 1-minute period ``dynamic
democracy.'' I hesitate to take away the privilege of a Member as
to speaking during that period and it has become a custom and a
practice of the House. I think it is a very good thing to adhere to
that custom and practice.
It is only on rare occasions that Members have not been
recognized for that purpose. How would the gentleman feel if he had
a 1-minute speech to make and he had sent out his press release and
then found out that the Speaker was not going to recognize him?
Surely, I think, the gentleman would feel better if the Speaker did
recognize him; would he not?
Mr. Arends: According to a person's views--I think it would be
the reverse.
Mr. McCormack: Does the gentleman mean at the end of the day?
Mr. Arends: You said that this might be ``dynamic democracy.''
I would rather it would be started when we have the time rather
than be started at noon.
Mr. McCormack: It is an integral part of the procedure of the
House and I like to adhere to it. Very seldom have I said to
Members that I will accept only unanimous-consent requests for
extensions of remarks. I hesitate to do it. I think every Member
realizes that I am trying to protect their rights.
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I think the question is not that of eliminating the 1-minute
speeches after the Members have their news releases out. But it is
a question of not going back after the second or third rollcall and
rerecognizing speeches. In this connection does ``dynamic
democracy'' mean the same thing as benign but beneficial
dictatorship--which does have merit?
Mr. McCormack: The gentleman from Missouri has raised a very
interesting question. Many times I have said to myself, I am going
to announce
[[Page 459]]
that the 1-minute speeches will have to be at 12 o'clock and not
thereafter. But I have not come to the making of that resolution
because I just could not bring myself to it. It is somewhat late in
this session to do it and when, of course, we Democrats control the
House in the next Congress, and I hope I will be Speaker, then I
might do it. I am not promising it, but I may do it. But there is
something to what the gentleman from Missouri says.
Mr. Hall: I would appreciate it if we had a little more
``dynamic democracy'' so that we could get to work on the
legislative program.
Mr. McCormack: I realize that any Member who wants to make a 1-
minute speech ought to be here at 12 o'clock. But we are all human
beings. None of us are perfect.
On June 17, 1970,(13) Speaker McCormack made the
following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 20158, 20245, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair will recognize Members for unanimous-
consent requests to extend remarks, and so forth, or for 1-minute
speeches with yielding back of the time, and later in the day the
Chair will recognize Members for 1-minute speeches if Members
desire to present them. . . .
Mr. [William V.] Alexander [Jr., of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise
and extend my remarks and to include extraneous matter.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arkansas?
Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object----
The Speaker: The gentleman from Arkansas asked unanimous
consent to address the House for 1 minute.
Mr. Gross: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, and I reserved the
right to object.
Mr. Speaker, when the session opened this morning the Speaker--
very providently, I thought--in the interest of--getting on with
the legislative business, precluded 1-minute speeches. However, I
am not at all certain that it was done for the purpose of
expediting the legislation, but rather to prevent 1-minute speeches
on the resolution just passed.
The Speaker: . . . As far as the Chair is concerned the custom
of the 1-minute speech procedure is adhered to as much as possible
because the Chair thinks it is a very healthy custom.
The Chair had the intent, after the disposition of the voting
rights bill, to recognize Members for 1-minute speeches or further
unanimous-consent requests if they so desired to do so.
Construing and Applying House Rules
Sec. 3.29 It has been held within the authority of the Speaker to look
to all pertinent facts concerning a matter in order to construe
House rules sought to be applied thereto.
On Aug. 13, 1937,(14) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Ala
[[Page 460]]
bama, described the circumstances that could be considered in
construing a rule of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 8842-45, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John H.] Kerr [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged report in the election contest of Roy against Jenks.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The Speaker: Referred to the House Calendar and ordered
printed.
Mr. [Charles W.] Tobey [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I rise
to make a point of order against the acceptance by the House of the
report and resolution just offered by the chairman of Elections
Committee No. 3.
Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that the making of this report
constitutes a violation of section 47 of rule 11 of the rules of
the House of Representatives, which reads as follows:
47. The several elections committees of the House shall
make final report to the House in all contested election cases
not later than 6 months from the first day of the first regular
session of the Congress to which the contestee is elected
except in a contest from the Territory of Alaska in which case
the time shall not exceed 9 months.
The language of this rule is not permissive; it is mandatory,
compelling. . . .
After lengthy debate Speaker Bankhead said:
The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule on this point of
order. . . .
. . . Of course, this is a rather serious proposition which has
been submitted to the Chair, because it involves the right of the
contestant or the contestee to have the issue presented to this
House as to whether or not the contestant or the contestee is
entitled to a seat on the floor. . . .
The Chair thinks it proper in the construction of this issue
not only to take into consideration the verbiage of this rule but
also a provision of the Constitution of the United States which has
been cited in this argument. Section 5 of article I of the
Constitution, in part, provides:
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns,
and qualifications of its own Members.
The Chair is of opinion that although the terms of the rule are
in the language read by the Chair and as argued by the gentleman
from New Hampshire, yet, nevertheless, the Chair must look at all
the facts in the case in order to reach a decision as to what was
the fair intention of the House of Representatives in the adoption
of this rule. . . .
The contestee and the contestant having each more than 6 months
under the statutes to present their case, the Chair is of opinion
that under all of the circumstances the fair and reasonable and
just interpretation of this rule justifies him in overruling the
point of order, and the Chair does overrule the point of
order.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Parliamentarian's Note: The first regular session of the 75th
Congress began on Jan. 5, 1937. The point of order in this case
was that the time period under the rule in question was six
months, and therefore the committee did not have jurisdiction
on Aug. 13 to submit the report. The issue of the contested
election was filed with the committee on July 21, 1937, and
immediately referred to the Committee on Elections No. 3. Thus
in construing the rule, the Speaker in effect held that the six
months' time period in question was directory and not mandatory
in nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 461]]
Ruling on Resolutions
Sec. 3.30 The Speaker normally does not rule on whether a resolution is
a privileged one until the reading of it is concluded.
On July 9, 1935,(16) a Member rose to present what he
considered to be a privileged resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 10905, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
matter of correcting a false report that should require not more
than a few minutes. For the purpose of getting it immediately
before the House, I rise to a question of the privileges of the
House and present a privileged resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolution
Whereas all over the United States the press has
erroneously asserted that in a brusque, uncalled-for manner the
Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives forced a mother and
child to leave the House gallery because she was nursing her
baby, and inferentially censuring the House of Representatives
for not allowing a mother to nurse her baby in the House
gallery. . . .
. . . Therefore be it
Resolved, That said report emanating from Washington and
published generally in the United States was incorrect and
without warrant.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi] (interrupting the reading
of the resolution): Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that
enough of the resolution has been read to show that it is not
privileged.
Mr. Blanton: It should be privileged when the House of
Representatives has been charged with having shown disrespect and
an inexcusable indignity to an American mother.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, it does not reflect on the dignity of
the proceedings of the House at all.
The Speaker [Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee]: The Clerk will
finish the reading of the resolution. The Chair cannot pass on the
matter until the reading of the resolution has been concluded. . .
.
Sec. 3.31 Although the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not
ordinarily rule on the effect of an amendment, he has interpreted
questioned language in order to rule on a point of order.
On Apr. 26, 1966,(17) a point of order was raised
concerning the effect of a proposed amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 112 Cong. Rec. 8968, 8969, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
[[Page 462]]
point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation
bill. . . .
The Chairman [Eugene J. Keogh, of New York]: The Chair is
prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Finley] has offered an
amendment . . . to which amendment the gentleman from Mississippi
has made a point of order on the ground that it is legislation on
an appropriation act.
The language sought to be inserted by the amendment reads as
follows:
No funds appropriated by the Act shall be used to formulate
or administer a Federal crop insurance program for the current
fiscal year that does not meet the administrative and operating
expenses from premium income.
It might be said that the effect of any proposed amendment is
truly not within the competence of the Chair. But a reading of this
language indicates to this occupant of the chair that there is here
sought an express limitation on the funds appropriated by the
pending bill and the Chair, therefore, overrules the point of
order.
Inquiries by Chair
Sec.
3.32 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may inquire of a
Member offering an amendment the purpose of including therein a
reference to existing law.
On Oct. 10, 1963,(18) the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole, Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made the following inquiry of
a Member:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 19260, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from
Washington a question. What is the reason for the inclusion of
language at the end of the amendment reading:
Except pursuant to an agreement hereafter made by the
President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate as
provided by section 205 of the National Aeronautics and Space
Act of 1958.
The Chair, to make it clear why he is asking the question, has
examined section 205 of that act. That says:
International Cooperation
Sec. 205. The Administration, under the foreign policy
guidance of the President, may engage in a program of
international cooperation in work done pursuant to this Act and
in the peaceful application of the results thereof, pursuant to
agreements made by the President with the advice and consent of
the Senate.
The problem the Chair is considering is why there is any need
to include the language at the end of the amendment unless in some
way it changes existing law?
Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I would
say that it does not change existing law but simply follows it.
But, in order to clarify this matter I ask unanimous consent to
strike from the amendment the words from ``except pursuant to an
agreement'' to the end.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
[[Page 463]]
There was no objection.
Answering Inquiries
Sec. 3.33 The Speaker may answer parliamentary inquiries regarding the
applicability of the rules of the House to standing committees.
On Feb. 15, 1949,(19) parliamentary inquiries were made
concerning the applicability of the House rules to the standing
committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 1212, 1213, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Earl] Chudoff [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The gentleman will state
it.
Mr. Chudoff: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the
committees of this House operate under the same rules as the House.
The Speaker: The rules of the House so provide.
Mr. Chudoff: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know further whether
this House has a right to appeal from a ruling of the Chair.
The Speaker: Any Member has the right to appeal from the ruling
of the Chair.
Mr. Chudoff: I should like to know whether, under that ruling,
members of the committee can appeal from the ruling of the chairman
of the committee.
The Speaker: They can.
Mr. Chudoff: So that the chairman of a committee who had his
ruling appealed from would have no right other than to allow that
appeal to go before the entire committee; is that right, Mr.
Speaker?
The Speaker: The rules of the House provide that the rules of
the House are made the rules of its standing committees so far as
applicable. The Members of the House have a right to appeal from a
decision of the Chair. That would also apply in a committee.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: Suppose a question is raised here and a roll call
is asked for, and one-fifth of the Members rise and ask for a roll
call, and the Chair holds that a roll call is called for, no appeal
from that ruling would be in order, would it?
The Speaker: That would be in accordance with the rules of the
House.
Mr. Rankin: Certainly. That is just what happened in the
committee this morning. I demanded a roll call and asked for a
showing of hands, and more than one-fifth voted for a roll call.
One member tried to appeal from the decision, which, of course, was
ridiculous. Then a few of them walked out, evidently to keep from
going on record.
The Speaker: The Chair was only answering the parliamentary
inquiry. He does not know what happened in the committee.
Sec. 3.34 The Speaker may decline to immediately answer a parliamentary
inquiry
[[Page 464]]
when the inquiry would better be taken under advisement.
On July 21, 1956,(20) a parliamentary inquiry was
directed to Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 102 Cong. Rec. 13832, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, can a regular or select
committee of the House authorize its chairman to file, subsequent
to adjournment sine die, with the Clerk for printing as House
documents reports which are approved by a majority of the members
of the committee, if such reports do not purport to represent the
views and conclusions of the entire membership?
The Speaker: That is something the Chair would certainly have
to take under advisement and it would take some time.
Sec. 3.35 The Speaker may request that a parliamentary inquiry be
withheld under certain circumstances until the Speaker has had
sufficient time to determine certain facts.
On July 8, 1957,(1) a parliamentary inquiry was
addressed to Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 103 Cong. Rec. 11012, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
propound a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, the bill, H.R. 6127, known
as the civil rights bill, as it passed the House, contained an
amendment, one amendment, which should have been printed on page 13
where it was adopted. By inadvertence an error was made in the
Journal and in the printing of the bill, and the bill was printed
so that the amendment appears at the bottom of page 8 of the bill
instead of as a new section on page 13. It was so messaged to the
other body in the erroneous form. In other words, the House sent to
the other body a bill which is not in conformity with the action of
the House. The bill was received by the other body and was read the
first time and was then read the second time and it is now on the
calendar of the other body. My parliamentary inquiry is whether it
is not the proper procedure at this time to ask the other body to
return the bill to the House for action to conform to what actually
took place and to conform with the Record and the Journal of the
House.
The Speaker: The Chair would ask the gentleman from Virginia to
withhold his inquiry for the purpose of enabling the Chair to look
further into the matter.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: I thank the Speaker.
Sec. 3.36 The Speaker, and not the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole, is considered the proper person to
[[Page 465]]
answer parliamentary inquiries regarding points of order which
might be made against a conference report under consideration in
the House.
On May 18, 1966,(2) a parliamentary inquiry was
addressed to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Eugene J.
Keogh, of New York:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 112 Cong. Rec. 10895, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Jonas: In case the bill agreed on in the conference should
delete this amending language, and the bill which came back to the
House contained the objectionable language, against which the point
of order was lodged, could a point of order be made against the
conference report to strike that language?
The Chairman: The present occupant of the chair would not
assume to undertake to suggest what would be done by the Speaker in
that event.
Mr. Jonas: That would be a matter for the Speaker to decide.
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Sec. 3.37 The Speaker, and not the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole, is considered the person having authority to answer
parliamentary inquiries regarding voting requirements in the House.
On June 13, 1946,(3) a parliamentary inquiry was
addressed to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, William M.
Whittington, of Mississippi:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 92 Cong. Rec. 6877, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Case: Would it be possible to get a rule making in order a
paragraph which had previously been stricken from the bill on a
point of order, unless that rule was adopted by a two-thirds vote?
The Chairman: The Chair may say to the gentleman that that
inquiry is not one that can be answered in the Committee of the
Whole. It is a matter that would have to be determined by the
Speaker of the House.
Sec. 3.38 It is within the authority of the Speaker, and not the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, to answer parliamentary
questions concerning possible procedures whereby the House could
authorize the Committee of the Whole to sit in executive session.
On May 9, 1950,(4) a parliamentary inquiry was addressed
to the
[[Page 466]]
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 96 Cong. Rec. 6746, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Errett P.] Scrivner [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman . . . I
would submit a parliamentary inquiry as to whether or not an
executive session could be held and, if so. what procedure would be
necessary to bring that to pass before we are asked to vote upon
the $350,000,000 additional.
The Chairman [Mike Mansfield, of Montana]: The Chair will state
to the gentleman from Kansas that the Committee of the Whole would
have no control over that. That would be a matter for the House
itself to decide.
Mr. Scrivner: I understand that, of course, and raised the
question for information of the Members. Since it is a matter for
the House to determine, as a further parliamentary inquiry, what
would be the method followed to take that action?
The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman from Kansas
that a parliamentary inquiry of that sort should be addressed to
the Speaker rather than the chairman.
Accepting subpena
Sec. 3.39 The Speaker accepts service of a subpena duces tecum in his
official capacity as Speaker of the House.
On Feb. 11, 1965,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, made an announcement concerning a subpena duces tecum
from a U.S. District Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 111 Cong. Rec. 2645, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair desires to make a statement.
The Chair, in his official capacity as Speaker of the House,
has been served with a subpena duces tecum, issued by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, commanding him to
appear in the said court to testify in the case of the United
States of America against Russell Nixon, Dagmar Wilson, and Donna
Allen on the 18th day of March 1965.
Under the precedents of the House, the Chair is unable to
comply with this subpena without the consent of the House, the
privileges of the House being involved. The Chair therefore submits
the matter for the consideration of this body. The Clerk will read
a copy of the subpena. . . .(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Parliamentarian's Note: In order to avoid the problems which might
be associated with his being served in the Capitol Building,
the Speaker agreed in advance to receive the deputy marshal in
his hotel suite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certifying for Contempt
Sec. 3.40 The Speaker may be authorized by a formal House resolution to
certify to a U.S. attorney the names of persons found to be in
contempt of a House committee.
On Mar. 28, 1946,(7) the following resolution was
introduced in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 92 Cong. Rec. 2745. 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John S.] Wood [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 573) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
[[Page 467]]
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives
certify the report of the House Committee on Un-American
Activities as to the willful and deliberate refusal of the
following persons to produce before the said committee for its
inspection the books, papers, and records of an unincorporated
organization known as the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee,
with offices at 192 Lexington Avenue, New York, N.Y., together
with all the facts relating thereto, under seal of the House of
Representatives, to the United States attorney for the District
of Columbia to the end that the said persons named below may be
proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law: . . .
[Names]
On Aug. 2, 1946,(8) the following resolution was
introduced in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 92 Cong. Rec. 10748, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Clerk will read the
resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives
certify the foregoing report of the House Committee on Un-
American Activities as to the willful and deliberate refusal of
the following person to produce before the said committee for
its inspection certain books, papers, and records which had
been duly subpenaed, and to testify under oath concerning all
pertinent facts relating thereto; under seal of the House of
Representatives to the United States attorney for the District
of Columbia to the end that the said person named below may be
proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law;
Richard Morford, 114 East Thirty-second Street, New York, N.Y.
Sec. 3.41 When the Speaker certifies to a U.S. District Attorney for
prosecution (2 USC Sec. 194) the name of a person a House committee
has found to be in contempt, it has been held that no further
action of the House is required for the courts to begin
proceedings.
On Nov. 14, 1944,(~9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
made an announcement concerning his certification to the U.S. Attorney
of the District of Columbia of statements of fact concerning the
willful refusal of certain individuals to testify for a special
committee of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 90 Cong. Rec. 8163, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair desires to announce that during the past
recess of the Congress the Special Committee to Investigate
Campaign Expenditures authorized by House Resolution 551, Seventy-
eighth Congress, reported to and filed with the Speaker statements
of facts concerning the willful and deliberate refusal of Edward A.
Rumely of the Committee for Constitutional Government and Joseph P.
Kamp of the Constitutional Educational League, Inc., to testify and
to produce the books, papers, records, and documents
[[Page 468]]
of their respective organizations before the said Special Committee
of the House, and the Speaker, pursuant to the mandatory provisions
of Public Resolution No. 123, Seventy-fifth Congress, certified to
the United States attorney, District of Columbia, the statement of
facts concerning the said [persons]. . . .
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, what is necessary to dispose of the
document which the Speaker has just read? Will it require a
resolution by the House or will it be referred to some committee?
The Speaker: That is not necessary under the statute. It is
before the court now.
Mr. Rankin: I understand, but in order to call for court action
it will be necessary, as I understand it, to have a resolution from
the House.
The Speaker: The Chair thinks not, under the law.
Sec. 3.42 Once authorized by the House, the Speaker certifies to U.S.
District Attorneys for prosecution the names of persons that House
committees have found to be in contempt.
On Aug. 24, 1960,(10) Speaker San Rayburn, of Texas,
made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 17479, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair desires to announce that, pursuant to
sundry resolutions of the House, he has, today, made certifications
to the U.S. attorney, District of Columbia, and to the U.S.
attorney, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as follows:
To the U.S. attorney, District of Columbia:
House Resolution 606, the refusal of Austin J. Tobin to
furnish certain documents to the Committee on the Judiciary. .
. .
Ending Contempt Proceedings
Sec. 3.43 The Speaker must be formally authorized by the House to
certify to a U.S. District Attorney the name of a person who has
purged himself of contempt of a House committee for purposes of
ending prosecution of the person.
On July 23, 1954,(11) the following resolution was
introduced in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 100 Cong. Rec. 11650, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold H.] Velde [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 681) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives
certify the report of the Committee on Un-American Activities
of the House of Representatives concerning the action of
Francis X. T. Crowley in purging himself of contempt of the
House of Representatives of the
[[Page 469]]
United States, together with all the facts in connection
therewith, under seal of the House of Representatives, to the
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia to the end
that legal proceedings based upon the matter certified by the
Speaker pursuant to H. Res. 541, 83d Congress, second session,
against the said Francis X. T. Crowley may be withdrawn and
dropped in the manner and form provided by law.
Emergency Recesses
Sec. 3.44 In cases of emergency, the Speaker has the inherent power to
declare recesses of the House subject to the call of the Chair.
On Mar. 2, 1943,(12) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
declared a recess of the House pursuant to his inherent powers in the
case of an emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 1487, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has
expired.
Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nichols: On page 1, line 4, after
``on'' and before ``aviation'', insert ``civil and
commercial.''
Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The Speaker: The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr Bulwinkle: Mr. Speaker----
Recess
The Speaker: Pursuant to the inherent power lodged in the
Presiding Officer in case of emergency, the Chair declares this
House in recess subject to the call of the Chair for the purpose of
participating in a practice air-raid drill. The alarm has sounded.
Members will leave the Chamber as rapidly as possible, and the
galleries will be cleared.
Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 18 minutes p.m.) the House stood
in recess, subject to the call of the Speaker.
On Mar. 1, 1954,(13) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, without authorization, declared the House in recess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 100 Cong. Rec. 2434, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
For a more detailed treatment of this precedent, see Ch. 4,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At approximately 2 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m. a demonstration
and the discharge of firearms, from the southwest House Gallery,
interrupted the counting of the vote; the Speaker, pursuant to the
inherent power lodged in the Presiding Officer in the case of grave
emergency, after ascertaining that certain Members had been wounded
and to facilitate their care, at 2 o'clock and 32 minutes p.m.
declared the House in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.
Enforcing Rules of Comity
Sec. 3.45 The Speaker, on the part of the House, has within his
[[Page 470]]
authority the enforcement of the customary rules of comity between
the House and the Senate.
On Jan. 17, 1955,(14) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
announced his policy with the regard to the rule of comity between the
two Houses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 101 Cong. Rec. 386, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair desires to make this statement at the
beginning of this session with reference to something that has been
maintained by every Speaker of the House since the present occupant
of the Chair has been a Member of this body, and that is that the
House of Representatives, regardless of what any other body or any
other individual does, has maintained strictly those rules and
regulations which protect and perpetuate the comity between the two
Houses. And when any Member of this House rises to make remarks
about what has happened in another body or about any individual in
that body, the present occupant of the Chair will certainly see
that the rules of the House and the rules of comity between the two
Houses are enforced.
On Mar. 26, 1964,(15) a Member made reference to a
Senator in the course of debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 6361, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Louis C.] Wyman [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I want to
express myself as being in whole-hearted disagreement with the
amazing, incredible, and dismaying remarks regarding American
foreign policy of the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee made on the Senate floor yesterday. . . .
May the Lord help us should this sort of policy be in effect--
--
Mr. [Kenneth] Hechler [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, a point
of order.
The Speaker: [John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts]: The
gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hechler: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's remarks are directed
to a Member of the other body, which is a violation of the rules of
the House.
The Speaker: The Chair will say that under the rules no Member
may refer to a Member of the other body, or to a speech another
Member has made in that body.
The gentleman from New Hampshire will proceed in order.
Mr. Wyman: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker:: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Wyman: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention to violate the rules
of the House. The speech is a matter of record. It was made by the
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, and I do
not know how I could refer to it otherwise. The speech is in the
Record, and it is before us at our seats.
May I inquire as to how I may now properly refer to the speech
and disassociate myself from its views without referring to its
author?
The Speaker: The Chair has stated what the rules of the House
are. The
[[Page 471]]
Chair did not use the word ``violate.'' The Chair did not go that
far. The Chair simply says reference to a Member of the other body
is not proper, and is not consistent with the rules of the House.
The gentleman was recognized to proceed in order.
Mr. Wyman: Mr. Speaker, I will, of course, accord with the rule
and I will therefore refer only to prominently publicized remarks
appearing on the front pages of the Nation's newspapers of last
night and this morning