[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 14. Impeachment Powers]
[B. Investigation and Impeachment]
[§ 8. Consideration and Debate in the House]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 2065-2077]
CHAPTER 14
Impeachment Powers
B. INVESTIGATION AND IMPEACHMENT
Sec. 8. Consideration and Debate in the House
Reports on impeachment are privileged for immediate consideration
in the House.(1) Unless the House otherwise provides by
special order, propositions of impeachment are considered under
[[Page 2066]]
the general rules of the House applicable to other simple House
resolutions. Since 1912, the House has considered together the
resolution and articles of impeachment, although prior practice was to
adopt a resolution of impeachment and later to consider separate
articles of impeachment.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 8.2, infra, for the privilege of impeachment reports and
Sec. 7.6, supra, for their referral to the House Calendar.
Impeachment reports have usually been printed in full in the
Congressional Record and have laid over for a period of days
before consideration by the House, so that Members could
acquaint themselves with the contents of the reports.
2. See Sec. 8.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House has typically considered the resolution and articles
under unanimous-consent agreements, providing for a certain number of
hours of debate, equally divided and controlled by the proponents and
opposition, at the conclusion of which the previous question was
considered as ordered. In one case, an amendment was specifically made
in order under the unanimous-consent agreement governing consideration
of the resolution.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for the previous question and the motion to recommit are
applicable to a resolution and articles of impeachment being considered
in the House, and a separate vote may be demanded on substantive
propositions contained in the resolution.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. Sec. 8.8-8.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Amendments generally, see Ch. 27, infra.
Consideration in the House of amendments to articles, see Sec. 10,
infra.
Consideration of resolutions electing managers, granting them powers
and funds, and notifying the Senate, see Sec. 9, infra.
Consideration and debate in Committee of the Whole generally, see Ch.
19, infra.
Consideration and debate in the House generally, see Ch. 29, infra.
Division of the question for voting, see Ch. 30, infra.
Privileged questions and reports interrupting regular order of
business, see Ch. 21, infra.
Summary of House consideration of specific impeachment resolutions, see
Sec. Sec. 14-18,
infra. -------------------
Controlling Time for Debate
Sec. 8.1 Under the later practice, resolutions and articles of
impeachment have been considered together in the House pursuant to
unanimous-consent agreements fixing the time for and control of
debate.
On Mar. 2, 1936, the House considered House Resolution 422,
impeaching Judge Halsted Ritter, pursuant to a unanimous-consent
agreement propounded by Chairman Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, of the
Committee on the Judiciary, who had called up the report:
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 80 Cong. Rec. 3066, 3069, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2067]]
The Speaker: (6) The gentleman from Texas asks
unanimous consent that debate on this resolution be continued for
4\1/2\ hours, 2\1/2\ hours to be controlled by himself and 2 hours
by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hancock]; and at the expiration
of the time the previous question shall be considered as ordered.
Is there objection?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
On Feb. 24, 1933, House Resolution 387, recommending against the
impeachment of Judge Harold Louderback, was considered pursuant to a
unanimous-consent agreement, propounded by Mr. Thomas D. McKeown, of
Oklahoma, who called up the resolution, to allow a substitute amendment
recommending impeachment to be offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 76 Cong. Rec. 4914, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeown: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time
for debate be limited to two hours to be controlled by myself, that
during that time the gentleman from New York [Mr. La Guardia] be
permitted to offer a substitute for the resolution and at the
conclusion of the time for debate the previous question be
considered as ordered.
The Speaker: (8) Then the Chair submits this: The
gentleman from Oklahoma asks unanimous consent that debate be
limited to two hours, to be controlled by the gentleman from
Oklahoma, that at the end of that time the previous question shall
be considered as ordered, with the privilege, however, of a
substitute resolution being offered, to be included in the previous
question. Is there objection?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object for the purpose of getting the parliamentary
situation clarified before we get to the merits, is there any
question in the mind of the Speaker, if it is fair to submit such a
suggestion, as to whether or not the substitute providing for
absolute impeachment would be in order as a substitute for this
report?
The Speaker: That is the understanding of the Chair, that the
unanimous-consent agreement is, that the gentleman from New York
[Mr. LaGuardia] may offer a substitute, the previous question to be
considered as ordered on the substitute and the original resolution
at the expiration of the two hours. Is there objection?
There was no objection.
On Mar. 30, 1926, the House by unanimous consent agreed to a
procedure for the consideration of a resolution impeaching Judge George
English; the request was propounded by Chairman George S. Graham, of
Pennsylvania, of the Committee on the Judiciary:
The Speaker: (9) The gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Graham] asks unanimous consent that during today the debate be
equally divided between the affirmative and the negative, and that
he control one-half of the time and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Nicholas Longworth (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2068]]
that the other half be controlled by the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. Bowling].(10)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 67 Cong. Rec. 6585-90, 69th Cong. 1st Sess. New agreements were
obtained on each succeeding day during debate on the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In earlier practice, resolutions and articles were considered
separately, the articles being considered in the Committee of the Whole
on occasion. For example, the articles of impeachment against Justice
Samuel Chase were considered in the Committee of the Whole and were
read for amendment, although the resolution to impeach was earlier
considered in the House.(11) Again, during proceedings
against President Andrew Johnson, the House adopted a resolution which
provided for consideration and amendment of the articles in the
Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule, at the conclusion of
general debate.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2343, 2344.
12. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2414.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution and the articles of impeachment against Judge
Charles Swayne (1904, 1905) were considered separately but were both
considered in the House.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2472, 2474.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the impeachment of Judge Robert Archbald (1912) the House
instituted the modern practice of considering the resolution and the
articles of impeachment together in the House, as opposed to the
Committee of the Whole.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 499, 500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports Privileged for Immediate Consideration
Sec. 8.2 Resolutions of impeachment, resolutions proposing abatement of
proceedings, and resolutions incidental to the question of
impeachment are privileged for immediate consideration when
reported from the committee to which propositions of impeachment
have been referred
On Mar. 2, 1936, Chairman Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, of the
Committee on the Judiciary, called up as privileged House Resolution
422, impeaching Judge Halsted Ritter, and the House proceeded to its
immediate consideration.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 3066, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 24, 1933, Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, held that a
resolution reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, proposing
discontinuance of impeachment proceedings, was privileged for immediate
consideration:
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
[[Page 2069]]
House Resolution 387
Resolved, That the evidence submitted on the charges against
Hon. Harold Louderback, district judge for the northern district of
California, does not warrant the interposition of the
constitutional powers of impeachment of the House.
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, when they
report back a resolution of that kind, is it a privileged matter?
The Speaker: It is not only a privileged matter but a highly
privileged matter.
Mr. [Leonidas C.] Dyer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, this is the
first instance to my knowledge, in my service here, where the
committee has reported adversely on an impeachment charge.
The Speaker: The gentleman's memory should be refreshed. The
Mellon case was reported back from the committee, recommending that
impeachment proceedings be discontinued.
Mr. Snell: Was that taken up on the floor as a privileged
matter?
The Speaker: It was.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 76 Cong. Rec. 4913, 72d Cong. 2d Sess. (See also 6 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 514.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 24, 1939, Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, called up a report of
the Committee on the Judiciary, which report was adverse to House
Resolution 67, on the impeachment of Secretary of Labor Frances
Perkins. The report was called up as privileged and the House
immediately agreed to Mr. Hobbs' motion to lay the resolution on the
table.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 3273, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 6, 1974, Chairman Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey, of
the Committee on the Judiciary, called up as privileged House
Resolution 803, authorizing that committee to investigate the
sufficiency of grounds for impeachment of President Richard Nixon,
various resolutions of impeachment having been referred to the
committee. The House proceeded to its immediate
consideration.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 2349-63, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. For additional
discussion as to high privilege for consideration of
impeachment resolutions notwithstanding the normal application
of House rules, and of other resolutions incidental to
impeachment called up by the investigating committee, see
Sec. 7.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion to Discharge Committee From Consideration of Impeachment
Proposal
Sec. 8.3 A Member announced his filing of a motion to discharge the
Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration of a
resolution proposing impeachment of the President.
[[Page 2070]]
On June 17, 1952,(19) a Member made an announcement
relating to impeachment charges against President Harry S. Truman:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 98 Cong. Rec. 7424, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul W.] Shafer [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, on April 28 of
this year I introduced House Resolution 614, to impeach Harry S.
Truman, President of the United States, of high crimes and
misdemeanors in office. This resolution was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary, which committee has failed to take
action thereon.
Thirty legislative days having now elapsed since introduction
of this resolution, I today have placed on the Clerk's desk a
petition to discharge the committee from further consideration of
the resolution.
In my judgment, developments since I introduced the Resolution
April 28 have immeasurably enlarged and strengthened the case for
impeachment and have added new urgency for such action by this
House.
First. Since the introduction of this resolution, the United
States Supreme Court, by a 6-to-3 vote, has held that in his
seizure of the steel mills Harry S. Truman, President of the United
States, exceeded his authority and powers, violated the
Constitution of the United States, and flouted the expressed will
and intent of the Congress--and, in so finding, the Court gave
unprecedented warnings against the threat to freedom and
constitutional government implicit in his act.
Second. Despite the President's technical compliance with the
finding of the Court, prior to the Court decision he reasserted his
claim to the powers then in question, and subsequent to that
decision he has contemptuously called into question ``the intention
of the Court's majority'' and contemptuously attributed the limits
set on the President's powers not to Congress, or to the Court, or
to the Constitution, but to ``the Court's majority.''
Third. The Court, in its finding in the steel case, emphasized
not only the unconstitutionality of the Presidential seizure but
also stressed his failure to utilize and exhaust existing and
available legal resources for dealing with the situation, including
the Taft-Hartley law.
Fourth. The President's failure and refusal to utilize and
exhaust existing and available legal resources for dealing with the
emergency has persisted since the Court decision and in spite of
clear and unmistakable evidences of the will and intent of Congress
given in response to his latest request for special legislation
authorizing seizure or other special procedures.
The discharge petition did not gain the requisite number of
signatures for its consideration by the House.
Amendment of Resolution and Articles
Sec. 8.4 A resolution with articles of impeachment, being considered in
the House under a unanimous-consent agreement fixing control of
debate, is not subject to amend
[[Page 2071]]
ment unless the agreement allows an amendment to be offered, or the
Member in control offers an amendment or yields for amendment.
On Apr. 1, 1926, the House was considering a resolution impeaching
Judge George English. Pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement, the
time for debate was being controlled by two Members. Following the
ordering of the previous question on the resolution, Speaker Nicholas
Longworth, of Ohio, answered a parliamentary inquiry propounded by Mr.
Tom T. Connally, of Texas:
Under the rules of the House would not this resolution be
subject to consideration under the five-minute rule for amendment?
The Speaker: The Chair thinks not.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 67 Cong. Rec. 6733, 69th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Harold Louderback impeachment proceedings in the House, the
resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary recommended
against impeachment, but the minority of the committee proposed a
resolution impeaching Judge Louderback. The substitute impeaching the
accused was offered and adopted by the House, pursuant to a unanimous-
consent agreement which fixed control and time of debate, but
specifically allowed the substitute resolution to be offered and voted
upon.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 76 Cong. Rec. 4913, 4914, 72d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 24, 1933. For a
complete analysis of the procedure followed for consideration
of the Louderback impeachment, see Sec. Sec. 17.1 et seq.,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Charles Swayne impeachment, Mr. Henry W. Palmer, of
Pennsylvania, of the Committee on the Judiciary called up the
resolution of impeachment and controlled the time thereon. Before
moving the previous question, he offered an amendment to the resolution
of impeachment, to add clarifying and technical changes. The amendment
was agreed to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 39 Cong. Rec. 248, 58th Cong. 3d Sess., Dec. 13, 1904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate on Impeachment Resolutions and Articles
Sec. 8.5 In debating articles of impeachment, a Member may refer to the
political, social, and family background of the accused.
On Mar. 2, 1936,(3) the House was debating articles of
impeachment against Judge Halsted Ritter. Mr. Louis Ludlow, of Indiana,
had the floor, and Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, overruled
[[Page 2072]]
a point of order based on the irrelevancy of his remarks. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 80 Cong. Rec. 3069, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ludlow: . . . I feel there is imposed upon me today a duty
and a responsibility to raise my voice in this case if for no other
purpose than to present myself as a character witness--a duty which
I could not conscientiously avoid and which I am very glad to
perform. Judge Ritter was born in Indianapolis, Ind. He springs
from a long and honored Hoosier ancestry, rooted in the pioneer
life of our Commonwealth. There are no better people than those who
comprised his ancestral train. People do not come any better
anywhere on this globe. Rugged honesty, outspoken truthfulness, and
high ideals are characteristics of his family. His father, Col. Eli
F. Ritter, was a man of outstanding character and personality, one
of the most public-spirited men I ever have known, a lawyer of
distinction, ranking high in a bar of great brilliancy that
included such stellar lights as Thomas A. Hendricks, Joseph E.
McDonald, and Benjamin Harrison, an unofficial advocate of the
people's cause in many a fight against vice and privilege, for whom
even those who felt his steel had a wholesome respect because of
his militant ardor on the side of right and civic virtue.
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Tarver: The gentleman is endeavoring to read into the
Record a statement with regard to the progenitors of the gentleman
against whom these impeachment proceedings are pending. He is
referring to something that should not affect the judgment of the
House one way or the other, and, in my judgment, it is highly
improper, and the gentleman should not be allowed to continue.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The chairman understands the gentleman
is proceeding under the order of the House, which provided for two
hours and a half on one side and 2 hours on the other. Of course,
the Chair cannot dictate to the gentleman just how he shall proceed
in his discussion of this resolution.
Mr. Tarver: It is then the ruling of the Speaker that during
the time for general debate Members may address themselves to
whatever subject they desire.
The Speaker: Members must address themselves to the resolution.
Mr. Ludlow: That is what I am trying to do, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman will proceed in order.
Sec. 8.6 During debate on a resolution of impeachment, the Speaker
ruled that unparliamentary language, even if a recitation of
testimony or evidence, could not be used in debate.
On Mar. 30, 1926, during debate on the resolution and articles of
impeachment against Judge George English, Speaker Nicholas Longworth,
of Ohio, delivered a ruling on the use of unparliamentary language in
debate, and the House discussed his decision:
[[Page 2073]]
The Speaker: The Chair desires to make a statement. The Chair
has been in doubt on one or two occasions this afternoon whether he
should permit the use of certain language even by way of quotation.
The Chair at the time realized, of course, that the members of the
majority of the committee might think the use of this language
would be material in describing an individual. The Chair hopes that
it will not be used further during this debate and suggests also
that those words be stricken from the Record. [Applause.]
Mr. [John N.] Tillman [of Arkansas]: I think the Speaker will
remember I stated when I put the speech in the Record that I
intended to strike out those words.
The Speaker: There were other occasions besides that to which
the gentleman refers.
Mr. [Edward J.] King [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. King: Will the language also be stricken out of the
evidence in the case and in the report of the committee?
The Speaker: The Chair does not think that has anything to do
with the use of language on the floor of the House.
Mr. [Tom T.] Connally of Texas: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Connally of Texas: Without taking any exception to the
Chair's views as to striking from the printed Record what has
already happened, it seems to me the Chair ought to make clear his
ruling so that we may know as to how far it shall be regarded as a
precedent in the future. The House, as I understand it, at the
present moment is proceeding as an inquisitorial body, somewhat as
a grand jury, as in a semijudicial proceeding; and if we have
unpleasant matters in court, the court can not avoid its duty
because they are unpleasant, and if it becomes necessary in this
Chamber for Members to properly present this case or to quote the
testimony in the record to use unpleasant and offensive language to
establish the truth, I think the House ought to hear it. It is
neither wise nor safe to censor the evidence. We must hear it, good
or bad, because it is the evidence. If it is suppressed or colored,
it is no longer the true evidence in the case. I sympathize with
the Chair's position, and I know he is prompted by the best
motives, by a sense of delicacy and consideration for the
galleries. I think it is well for the House and Chair now to
understand that the ruling of the Chair ought not to be regarded as
a precedent in the future which might operate to exclude competent
evidence, because when we are dealing with a matter of this kind,
serious and important as it is, we want to know the truth, whatever
it may be, and those who come here to hear these proceedings of
course do so at their own risk. [Laughter.]
The Speaker: The Chair thinks his ruling ought to be regarded
as a precedent as far as these proceedings in the House are
concerned. If the Chair should be officially advised that the use
of this language is actually necessary, he might order the
galleries cleared.
Mr. [Fiorello H.] LaGuardia [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 2074]]
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LaGuardia: The Chair's ruling, as I understand it, is that
under the rules of the House language that is not parliamentary
should not be used; but that does not prevent the consideration of
whether or not a particular judge whose case we are trying used the
language or not?
The Speaker: Not at all. It is simply the use of certain
language on the floor of the House.
Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I want to
enter my approval of the course the Speaker has taken. Members of
this House, if they desire to know what the language is, can read
the record, and I thoroughly endorse the course the Speaker
pursued.
Sec. 8.7 During debate in the House objection was made to extensions of
remarks in the Congressional Record in order that an accurate
record of impeachment proceedings be preserved.
In April 1926,(4) the House was considering a resolution
impeaching Judge George English. When a Member asked unanimous consent
to revise and extend his remarks in the Record, Mr. C. William
Ramseyer, of Iowa, objected stating that his object was to ``have the
Record, preceding the vote, show exactly what transpired and what was
said.'' He indicated that no objection would be made to the extension
of remarks after the vote had occurred on the resolution of
impeachment.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 67 Cong. Rec. 6602, 69th Cong. 1st Sess.
5. Id. at p. 6717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion for Previous Question
Sec. 8.8 The motion for the previous question is applicable to a
resolution of impeachment.
On Dec. 13, 1904, the House was considering a resolution impeaching
Judge Charles Swayne of high crimes and misdemeanors. The manager of
the resolution, Mr. Henry W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania, moved the
previous question on the resolution at the conclusion of debate
thereon. Mr. Richard Wayne Parker, of New Jersey, made a point of order
against the offering of the motion, on the ground that the previous
question should not be directly ordered upon a question of high
privilege such as impeachment. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois,
ruled that under the precedents the previous question was in
order.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 39 Cong. Rec. 248, 58th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion to Recommit
Sec. 8.9 After the previous question has been ordered on a
[[Page 2075]]
resolution of impeachment, a motion to recommit, with or without
instructions, is in order, but is not debatable.
On Apr. 1, 1926, the House was considering House Resolution 195,
impeaching Judge George English, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Illinois. After the previous question was ordered,
a motion was offered to recommit the resolution with instructions. The
instructions directed the Committee on the Judiciary to take the
testimony of certain persons and authorized the committee to send for
persons and papers, administer oaths, and report at any time.
The motion was rejected on a yea and nay vote.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 67 Cong. Rec. 6734, 69th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to recommit, with or without
instructions, on a resolution of impeachment, is not debatable. Rule
XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1973), amended in the
92d Congress to allow debate on certain motions to recommit with
instructions, does not apply to simple resolutions but only to bills or
joint resolutions.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Ch. 23, infra, for the motion to recommit and debate thereon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division of the Question
Sec. 8.10 A separate vote may be demanded on any substantive
proposition contained in a resolution of impeachment, when the
question recurs on the resolution.
On Mar. 30, 1926, the House was considering a resolution and
articles of impeachment against Judge George English. Mr. Charles R.
Crisp, of Georgia, inquired whether, under Rule XVI clause 6, a
separate vote could be demanded on any substantive proposition
contained in the resolution of impeachment. Speaker Nicholas Longworth,
of Ohio, responded in the affirmative.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 67 Cong. Rec. 6589, 6590, 69th Cong. 1st Sess. See House Rules and
Manual Sec. 791 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the vote recurred on the resolution of impeachment, on Apr. 1,
1926, a separate vote was demanded on Article I. The House rejected the
motion to strike the article.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 67 Cong. Rec. 6734, 69th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: A division of the question may be demanded
at any time before the question is put on the resolution. During the
Judge English proceedings, the Speaker put the question on the
resolution and announced that it was adopted. A Member objected that he
had meant to ask for a separate vote and the Speaker allowed such a
[[Page 2076]]
demand (thereby vacating the proceedings by unanimous consent) because
of confusion in the Chamber, although he stated that the demand was
untimely.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 6734, 6735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcasting House Proceedings
Sec. 8.11 The House adopted a resolution in the 93d Congress
authorizing television, radio, and photographic coverage of
projected House consideration of a resolution impeaching President
Richard Nixon, thereby waiving rulings of the Speaker prohibiting
such coverage of House proceedings.
On Aug. 7, 1974,(12) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana,
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 802,
with committee amendments, for the broadcasting of House proceedings on
the impeachment of President Nixon, the Committee on the Judiciary
having decided on July 27, 29, and 30 to report to the House
recommending the President's impeachment. The House agreed to the
resolution as amended by the committee amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 120 Cong. Rec. 27266-69, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That, notwithstanding any rule, ruling, or custom to the
contrary, the proceedings in the Chamber of the House of
Representatives relating to the resolution reported from the
Committee on the Judiciary, recommending the impeachment of Richard
M. Nixon, President of the United States, may be broadcast by radio
and television and may be open to photographic coverage, subject to
the provisions of section 2 of this resolution.
Sec. 2. A special committee of four members, composed of the
majority and minority leaders of the House, and the majority and
minority whips of the House, is hereby authorized to arrange for
the coverage made in order by this resolution and to establish such
regulations as they may deem necessary and appropriate with respect
to such broadcast or photographic coverage: Provided, however, That
any such arrangements or regulations shall be subject to the final
approval of the Speaker; and if the special committee or the
Speaker shall determine that the actual coverage is not in
conformity with such arrangements and regulations, the Speaker is
authorized and directed to terminate or limit such coverage in such
manner as may protect the interests of the House of
Representatives.
The House briefly debated the resolution before adopting it, and
discussed suitable restrictions on broadcast coverage as well as the
broadcasting of the Committee on the Judiciary meetings on the
resolution and articles of impeachment pursuant to House Resolution
1107, adopted on July 18, 1974.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 7.3, Supra, for the adoption of H. Res. 1107, amending the
rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2077]]
Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker of the House has consistently
ruled that coverage of House proceedings, either by radio, television
or still photography, was prohibited under the rules and precedents of
the House. See for example, the statements of Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, on Feb. 25, 1952, and on Jan. 24, 1955.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 98 Cong. Rec. 1334, 1335, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.; 101 Cong. Rec. 628,
629, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------