[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[D. Consideration and Debate]
[§ 18. Reading Papers]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 3421-3424]
CHAPTER 19
The Committee of the Whole
D. CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
Sec. 18. Reading Papers
Rule XXX (11) provides that the question of whether a
paper may be read is to be determined by a vote of the House.
Nonetheless, when an objection to the reading of a paper is raised in
the Committee of the Whole, the Committee need not rise; the issue is
put to (~12) and voted on (13) by the Committee,
without debate. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 915 (1979); see Jefferson's Manual,
House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 432-436, for parliamentary law
relating to reading papers. See also Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 80-84,
infra.
12. Sec. 18.1, infra.
13. Sec. 18.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Putting Question to Committee of the Whole
Sec. 18.1 Where objection is made in the Committee of the Whole to the
reading of a paper, the question may be raised by motion and put to
the Committee by the Chairman.
On Mar. 24, 1948,(14) during consideration of S. 2202,
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948, Chairman Francis H. Case, of South
Dakota, after objection was made, put to the Committee of the Whole a
question regarding the reading of a letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 94 Cong. Rec. 3436, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York] (interrupting the reading
of the
[[Page 3422]]
letter): Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: No.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, in connection with my point of
order, I just want to propound a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Vorys: I object to his propounding a parliamentary inquiry,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marcantonio: Then I make a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: The point of order is that the gentleman
cannot read anybody else's material without the consent of the
Committee. I asked the gentleman to yield to me, and he would not
yield.
The Chairman: The Chair will present that question to the
Committee. The question is, Shall the gentleman be permitted to
proceed with the reading of the letter?
The question was taken, and the Chair announced that the motion
was agreed to.
Sec. 18.2 If objection is made in the Committee of the Whole to the
reading of a letter by another Member, the question is determined
by vote of the Committee without debate.
On June 26, 1952,(15) during consideration of H.R. 8120,
the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1952, the Committee of the
Whole by vote and without debate permitted a Member to read a letter by
a Governor after objection to that reading was raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2nd Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clinton D.] McKinnon [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday the committee adopted, tentatively at
least, the Cole amendment which provided for individual ceilings on
price control. This amendment has a lot of things in it that I am
sure the Members are not familiar with or I am sure they would not
have adopted the amendment. In view of that, the chairman of the
committee requested Governor Arnall, for whom I am sure the House
has a high regard, to comment on what that would mean in regard to
enforcement of price ceilings, and I should like to read what
Governor Arnall has to say about it. He said this:
It is my considered judgment that an amendment of this kind
Mr. [Jesse P. ] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wolcott: I have not gone into this too thoroughly, but I
make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that it is against the rules
of the House, which control the rules of the committee, to read
letters from other than Members of Congress. We have been
propagandized enough on this bill already.
The Chairman: If the gentleman from Michigan objects to the
reading of
[[Page 3423]]
the letter, the question will then be put to the members of the
Committee of the Whole for a decision. Does the gentleman object to
the further reading of the letter?
Mr. Wolcott: Yes; at this time I do object, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The question is, Shall the gentleman from
California be permitted to proceed with the reading of the letter?
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Wolcott) there were--ayes 103, noes 102.
Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr.
Wolcott and Mr. Bolling.
The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there
were--ayes 141, noes 113.
So Mr. McKinnon was permitted to proceed with the reading of
the letter
Time to Read
Sec. 18.3 A decision of the Committee of the Whole to permit a Member
to read a paper means that the Member may read it within the five
minutes allotted to him, and does not necessarily permit him to
read the entire paper.
On June 26, 1952,(17) during consideration of H.R. 8210,
the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1952, Chairman Wilbur D.
Mills, of Arkansas, stated that a decision of the Committee of the
Whole to permit a Member to read a letter enables the Member to use
only the allotted time to read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The gentleman from California is recognized [to
read a letter].
Mr. [Clinton D.] McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
membership. I am sure there are many Members who are very desirous
of getting all the information they can.
Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. McKinnon: I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. Spence: I suggest the gentleman read the entire letter.
Mr. McKinnon: The letter reads as follows:
It is my considered judgment that an amendment of this
kind, if adopted, would throw a costly monkey-wrench into the
food pricecontrol machinery. It would come close to making it
completely unworkable. Its effects can be simply stated: . . .
I am confident that if Congress is informed of the
consequences of this high-food price, red-tape amendment, it
will be overwhelmingly defeated. This is no time to raise the
prices of food to housewives or to make the small-business man
go through mountains of red tape just to satisfy a few food
organizations.
I hope that you will call these considerations to the
attention of the House if the individual mark-up amendment is
offered on the floor.
Sincerely yours,
Ellis Arnall.
The Chairman: The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. . . .
[[Page 3424]]
Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Chairman, the House decided by a teller
vote to permit the reading of this letter. I submit that the letter
should be read in its entirety; that is the point of order I make.
The Chairman: That is not the decision made by the Committee.
The Committee made the decision that the gentleman could read the
letter within the time allotted to the gentleman of 5 minutes.
Mr. Eberharter: I did not hear it so stated when the motion was
put, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The question put to the Committee had nothing
whatsoever to do with the time to be consumed by the gentleman from
California. The Chair recognized the gentleman from California for
5 minutes; the question arose as to whether or not he could within
that 5 minutes time read extraneous papers.
The point of order is overruled.-