[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 5.  The House Rules, Journal, and Record]
[A. House Rules and Manual]
[Â§ 5. Amendment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 306-315]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                       A. HOUSE RULES AND MANUAL
 
Sec. 5. --Amendment

    In the exercise of its rule-making power under the 
Constitution,(10) the House may amend its rules at any time. 
It has been said(11) that the question of changing the rules 
of the House is a matter for decision by the House and not the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 3, supra.
11. See the proceedings at 104 Cong. Rec. 12121, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 24, 1958 (especially remarks of Speaker Rayburn).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, amendments are made by resolution, although, of course, 
rules may be, in effect, rescinded or modified through the use of a 
number of procedural devices, such as unanimous-consent 
requests.(12) Similarly, statutes containing provisions as 
to procedure may have the effect of changing a rule of the House where 
the statute is the later reflection of the will of the 
House.(13) In adopting the rules of the previous House, of 
course, the House frequently amends such rules, either by incorporating 
the amendments in the resolution adopting the rules, or adopting 
amendments after a negative vote on ordering the previous question on 
the resolution as first offered.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 5.2 (amendment by unanimous consent) and Sec. 7 
        (abrogation or waiver), infra.
13. Sec. 6.2, infra.
14. Generally, see Sec. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Rules has jurisdiction over the rules and joint 
rules, other than rules or joint rules relating to the Code of Offi

[[Page 307]]

cial Conduct or relating to financial disclosure by a Member, officer, 
or employee of the House.(15) Thus, the Committee on Rules 
has jurisdiction over resolutions proposing amendments to the rules of 
the House, and may report a resolution referred to it to change the 
rules of the House except in a respect that would constitute violation 
of constitutional provisions.(16) The Committee on Rules may 
itself recommend an amendment to the rules of the House, for the House 
to pass upon.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1973).
16. For further discussion of the scope of the rule-making power, see 
        Sec. 4, supra.
17. See 92 Cong. Rec. 5864, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., May 27, 1946 (remarks 
        of Speaker Rayburn speaking in response to a parliamentary 
        inquiry relating to the scope of authority of the Committee on 
        Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has jurisdiction 
over measures amending the rules of the House relating to financial 
disclosure by Members, officers and employees of the 
House.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For an instance in which the Chairman of the Committee on Standards 
        of Official Conduct inserted in the Record the text of a 
        resolution, referred to that committee, amending the financial 
        disclosure rule, see 116 Cong. Rec. 1077, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Jan. 26, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A rule(19) provides that the Committee on Rules shall 
have leave to report at any time on rules, joint rules, and the order 
of business. In accordance with that principle, it has been held that 
reports of the Committee on Rules on resolutions proposing amendments 
to the rules of the House are privileged.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Rule XI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1973).
20. See Sec. 5.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules of the House have frequently been amended for purposes of 
transferring jurisdiction over particular matters from one committee of 
the House to another,(1) or for purposes of changing the 
name of a committee.(2) In such cases, the changes in the 
rules may be implemented by resolutions electing the members of the 
committee under its former name to the newly named committee, and 
transferring records, bills, and the like to that committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 113 Cong. Rec. 29560, 29564-67, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 20, 
        1967.
 2. See 115 Cong. Rec. 3723, 3745-47, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 18, 
        1969; 97 Cong. Rec. 883, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 2, 1951.
            For discussion of standing committees and their 
        jurisdiction generally, see Ch. 17, infra.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 308]]

                          -------------------Amendment by Resolution

Sec. 5.1 Amendments to the rules are generally offered in the form of a 
    privileged resolution reported and called up by the Committee on 
    Rules.

    Amendments to the rules are typically brought about by resolution 
as in the following instance in the 90th Congress:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong Rec. 10708, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 25, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Colmer:(4) Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 42 and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William M. Colmer (Miss.) was the Chairman of the Committee on 
        Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 42

            Resolved, That paragraph 4 of rule XXII of the Rules of the 
        House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following sentence: ``Two or more but not more than 
        ten Members may introduce jointly any bill, memorial, or 
        resolution to which this paragraph applies.''
    [Mr. Colmer was recognized for one hour.]

        Mr. Colmer: . . . Mr. Speaker, this resolution . . . provides 
    for a change in the rules of the House to provide that as many as 
    10 Members of the House may join in sponsoring a resolution or a 
    bill. . . .

Amendment by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 5.2 Propositions to make minor changes in the rules are frequently 
    considered by unanimous consent.

    As an example of this practice, unanimous consent was asked in the 
86th Congress(5) for the immediate consideration of a 
resolution to amend the rules by renumbering certain paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 1209, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 27, 1959.
            The practice of amending the rules by unanimous consent, 
        and several examples thereof, are noted in 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 3379-3381.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reports of Committee on Rules as Privileged

Sec. 5.3 Reports of the Committee on Rules on resolutions proposing 
    amendments to the rules of the House are privileged.

    In the 74th Congress, in the course of a discussion of a resolution 
amending the Private Calendar rule, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, in responding to a point of order cited the 
rule(6) that the Committee on Rules shall have leave to 
report at any time on rules, joint rules, and

[[Page 309]]

the order of business, and then stated:(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Now Rule XI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1973).
 7. 79 Cong. Rec. 4482, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending resolution proposes to amend the rules of the 
    House, it relates to the order of business in the House, and, under 
    the rule the Chair has just read, is made a matter of privilege.

Multiple Reports on Same Resolution

Sec. 5.4 Two reports may not be filed from the Committee on Rules on 
    the same resolution.

    In the 81st Congress, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, 
Adolph Sabath, of Illinois, reported a privileged resolution proposing 
certain amendments to the rules, which was referred to the House 
Calendar and ordered to be printed. Responding to a subsequent attempt 
by another Member to file a report on the same resolution, Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, stated,(8) ``The Chair is of opinion that 
two reports cannot be filed on the same resolution at the same time.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 96 Cong. Rec. 501, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 17, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this case, Mr. Edward E. Cox, of 
Georgia, had been authorized to file the report because it was 
evidently feared that the Chairman, Mr. Sabath, either would not 
immediately do so or would not call it up within the seven days allowed 
him under the rule. Mr. Cox stepped aside to permit Mr. Sabath to file 
the report under an alleged understanding that Mr. Sabath would call it 
up on a specified day. During discussion of the matter, Mr. Cox 
attempted to file a report on the same resolution, whereupon Speaker 
Rayburn expressed his opinion as indicated.

Showing Proposed Changes of Rules

Sec. 5.5 The Ramseyer rule(9) did not apply to reports of 
    the Committee on Rules on resolutions amending the rules of the 
    House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Rule XIII, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1973), relating to the 
        requirement that a committee report on a bill amending existing 
        law show the proposed changes in existing law. The Ramseyer 
        rule is discussed in Ch. 17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 74th Congress, in the course of a discussion of a resolution 
amending the Private Calendar rule, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
stated:(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 4482, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Ramseyer rule . . . has to do with reports of committees on 
    bills

[[Page 310]]

    which amend the statutes. This resolution proposes to amend the 
    rules of the House, and therefore does not come within the 
    provisions of clause 2a of rule XIII, the so-called ``Ramseyer 
    rule.'' The Chair, therefore, does not think that the Ramseyer rule 
    applies to this report of the Committee on Rules.

Special Orders; Consideration in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 5.6 A resolution or bill amending the rules of the House may be 
    considered in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to the terms of 
    a special order reported from the Committee on Rules.

    In the 90th Congress, a resolution amending the rules of the House, 
eligible for consideration in the House as privileged business and 
subject to the hour rule, was, pursuant to a special order, considered 
in the Committee of the Whole and debated for two hours.(11) 
Consideration of the resolution amending the rules proceeded in 
accordance with the following separate resolution:(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 8776-812, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 3, 1968.
12. 114 Cong. Rec. 8776, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 3. 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  H. Res. 1119

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the resolution (H. Res. 1099) amending H. Res. 418, Ninetieth 
    Congress, to continue the Committee on Standards of Official 
    Conduct as a permanent standing committee of the House of 
    Representatives, and for other purposes. After general debate, 
    which shall be confined to the resolution and continue not to 
    exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Standards 
    of Official Conduct, the resolution shall be read for amendment 
    under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration 
    of the resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and 
    report the resolution to the House with such amendments as may have 
    been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the resolution and amendments thereto.

    The purpose of the Committee on Rules in reporting the separate 
resolution relating to consideration of H. Res. 1099 was to afford the 
opportunity for adequate debate and the offering of amendments; had H. 
Res. 1099 come to the floor of the House without a special order, the 
effect would have been the same as that of a closed rule under which 
amendments could not be offered.(13) In

[[Page 311]]

the course of consideration of the substantive resolution, a committee 
amendment was agreed to,(14) and other amendments were 
offered.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 114 Cong. Rec. 8777, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 3, 1968 (remarks 
        of Mr. H. Allen Smith [Calif.]).
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 8803, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 3, 1968.
15. See, for example, the amendment offered by Mr. Wayne L. Hays [Ohio] 
        (114 Cong. Rec. 8804, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 3, 1968), 
        against which a point of order was sustained, the Chair ruling 
        that, to a resolution providing an official code of conduct for 
        Members, officers, and employees of the House, an amendment 
        making the code applicable to other persons not associated with 
        the House was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A resolution amending the rules of the House may be considered in 
the Committee of the Whole under an open rule pursuant to provisions of 
a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See, for example, 116 Cong. Rec. 17013, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., May 
        26, 1970 (H. Res. 971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some instances, a resolution has been reported from the 
Committee on Rules providing a rule ``closed'' in part, for 
consideration of a bill, also reported from that committee, amending 
the rules of the House. Thus, in the 91st Congress, the House adopted a 
resolution(17) providing for consideration of a bill 
amending the rules of the House under a procedure prohibiting 
amendments that would change the jurisdiction of any standing 
committee. The proceedings in part were as follows:(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Res. 1093, providing for consideration of H.R. 17654 
        (Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970).
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 23901, 91st Cong. 21 Sess., July 13, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [B.F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1093, and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1093

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H. R. 17654) to improve the 
        operation of the legislative branch of the Federal Government, 
        and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be 
        confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed four 
        hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
        ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, the bill 
        shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. No 
        amendment to the bill shall be in order which would have the 
        effect of changing the jurisdiction of any committee of the 
        House listed in rule XI. At the conclusion of the consideration 
        of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report 
        the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
        adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
        ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

[[Page 312]]

        without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    After some discussion, the following proceedings took 
place:(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 23902.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith [of California]: . . .
        This is a closed rule from the standpoint that no amendments to 
    the bill will be permitted so far as changing the jurisdiction of 
    any committee of the House as listed in rule XI is 
    concerned.(20) Other than that, it is an open rule. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. As an example of the effect of the prohibition against amendments 
        that would change committee jurisdiction, an amendment 
        restricting the power of the Committee on Rules to report a 
        closed rule was ruled out of order as effecting a change in 
        that committee's jurisdiction. See 116 Cong. Rec. 26414, 91st 
        Cong. 2d Sess., July 29, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The resolution was agreed to.

Amendments to Resolution

Sec. 5.7 On one occasion the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, after 
    calling up a privileged resolution reported by his committee 
    amending the rules of the House, offered an amendment not 
    previously agreed to by the committee.

    In the 90th Congress, in the course of consideration of a 
resolution amending the rules to permit joint sponsorship of bills, the 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules offered an amendment as 
follows:(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 10711, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 25, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Colmer: On page 1, line 4, after 
        ``than'' strike out ``ten'' and insert ``twenty-five''.

        The amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 5.8 A resolution reported by the Committee on Rules proposing to 
    amend the rules may not be amended unless the Member in charge 
    yields for that purpose or the previous question is voted down, nor 
    is an amendment offered by the Member in charge subject to 
    amendment.

    The following proceedings took place in the 82d 
Congress:(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 97 Cong. Rec. 11394, 11397, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 14, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Lyle [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up H. Res. 386 and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.

    [The Clerk read the resolution, which proposed an amendment to the 
rules of the House.]

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I would 
    like to in

[[Page 313]]

    quire, as a parliamentary inquiry, whether or not this resolution 
    would be subject to amendment if an amendment were offered for and 
    on behalf of the Rules Committee.
        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Lyle] has control of the time. The gentleman from Texas can 
    offer an amendment before he moves the previous question, which 
    amendment the Chair hopes will be offered.
        Mr. Halleck: In other words, if the question that has been 
    raised is such as merits the attention of the House before we 
    finally act on this matter, then it could be reached by some sort 
    of amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lyle]?
        The Speaker: Or he could yield to someone to offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Clark E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: A parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: But unless the gentleman from Texas does offer 
    such an amendment the only way we could have an opportunity would 
    be to vote down the previous question.
        The Speaker: That would be correct.
        Mr. Lyle: Mr. Speaker, when I introduced the resolution I 
    called to the attention of the House the objection that had been 
    raised to the proviso that has been under discussion. I have drawn 
    an amendment which I expect to offer which would strike out lines 
    12, 13, and 14.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman desire to offer the amendment 
    now?
        Mr. Lyle: Mr. Speaker, I now offer the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lyle: Strike out lines 1, 13, and 
        14.

        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: Is an amendment to the amendment in order?

        The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman from Texas yields for 
    that purpose.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas.
        The amendment was agreed to.

Rereferral or Recommittal of Resolution Amending Rule

Sec. 5.9 A resolution reported by the Committee on Rules proposing an 
    amendment to the rules of the House was by unanimous consent 
    recommitted to the Committee on Rules, a motion to recommit not 
    being in order.

    In the course of the proceedings described above(3) 
relating to a resolution proposing an amendment to the rules, the 
following exchange took place:(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sec. 5.8, supra.
 4. 97 Cong. Rec. 11397, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 14, 1951 (Speaker 
        Sam Rayburn, Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 314]]

        Mr. Hoffman: Is a motion to recommit in order?
        The Speaker: Not on a resolution from the Committee on Rules. . 
    . .
        Mr. [John E.] Lyle [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the resolution may be re-referred to the Committee on 
    Rules.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        There was no objection.

Discharge of Committee on Rules; Adoption of Resolution

Sec. 5.10 The Committee on Rules was by motion discharged from further 
    consideration of a resolution amending the rules of the House.

    In the 78th Congress, a resolution amending the rules was read with 
respect to which Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
remarked:(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 90 Cong. Rec. 629, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 24, 1944 (Speaker 
        Sam Rayburn, Tex.).
            As to discharging matters from committee consideration 
        generally, see Ch. 18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, this resolution was introduced a little more than 
    a year ago, on January 6, 1943. We were unable to get it reported 
    from the Rules Committee. I am reliably informed the Committee on 
    Rules never had a chance to vote on it. It was never laid before 
    them for a vote. Therefore it was petitioned out. Two hundred and 
    eighteen Members of this House signed a petition bringing it before 
    the House at this time. . . .

    A motion to discharge the Committee on Rules was agreed 
to.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 633, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 24, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.11 Where the Committee on Rules is discharged from further 
    consideration of a resolution amending the rules, the House 
    immediately votes on adoption of the resolution, and amendments are 
    not in order.

    In the course of the proceedings described above concerning a 
resolution to amend the rules,(7) the following exchange 
took place:(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 5.10, supra.
 8. 90 Cong. Rec. 631, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 24, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: I wish to be 
    advised for my own information and for the information of the House 
    as to whether or not this resolution will be subject to amendment 
    in the event of an affirmative vote on the motion to discharge. 
    There seems to be some uncertainty about it.
        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Chair will read the 
    rule, which is very clear:

            If the motion should prevail to discharge the Committee on 
        Rules from any resolution pending before the committee the 
        House shall immediately vote on the adoption of said 
        resolution, the Speaker not enter

[[Page 315]]

        taining any dilatory or other intervening motions except one 
        motion to adjourn.

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: That is on the resolution 
    itself, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: On the resolution itself.
        Mr. Cooley: My parliamentary inquiry was about the resolution 
    after the discharge of the committee.
        The Speaker: That is exactly what the Chair was reading. It 
    reads: ``On the resolution.'' When the House votes to discharge the 
    committee then the resolution is before the House for a vote.
        Mr. Cooley: Under the general rules of the House providing for 
    an amendment; or am I mistaken?
        The Speaker: This is not under the general rules of the House; 
    this is under the discharge rule.

Discussion of Effect of Proposed Amendment

Sec. 5.12 The effect of a proposed amendment to the rules is a matter 
    for debate and not within the jurisdiction of the Chair to decide 
    on a parliamentary inquiry.

    In the 90th Congress, in the course of debate on a resolution to 
amend the rules to permit joint sponsorship of bills, the following 
exchange took place:(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 113 Cong. Rec. 10710, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 25, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durwood G.] Hall [of Missouri]: . . .

            [W]ill the distinguished gentleman yield at this time for a 
        parliamentary inquiry of the Chair, inasmuch as it is important 
        that we try to envisage, in passing this legislation today, 
        what effect it will have on the future rules of procedure in 
        the House, and their application.

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: I yield to the 
    gentleman from Missouri.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(10) The Chair must advise 
    the distinguished gentleman from Missouri that this is a matter for 
    debate on a resolution pending and not a matter properly within the 
    jurisdiction of the Chair on a parliamentary inquiry. It is up to 
    the sponsor of the resolution to explain the terms of the 
    resolution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------