[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 5.  The House Rules, Journal, and Record]
[A. House Rules and Manual]
[Â§ 7. Abrogation or Waiver]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 318-319]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                       A. HOUSE RULES AND MANUAL
 
Sec. 7. --Abrogation or Waiver

    In most cases, the requirements of the rules can be waived or 
abrogated through the use of various procedures. The House, for 
example, may by unanimous consent agree to a certain order of business, 
or may vote to suspend the rules. These procedures are discussed in 
detail elsewhere.(1) Generally, the Speaker may recognize 
for unanimous-consent requests to waive the requirements of existing 
rules unless the rule in question specifies that it is not subject to 
waiver.(2) Similarly, the power of the House to change its 
rules at any time, as by amendment or by provisions included in 
legislative enactments, is recognized, as has been discussed 
above.(3) Moreover, it appears that where a motion not in 
order under the rules of the House is, without objection, considered 
and agreed to, it controls the procedure of the House until carried 
out, unless the House takes affirmative action to the 
contrary.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Ch. 21, infra.
 2. See Ch. 21, infra.
            For debate of amendments under the five-minute rule, see 
        Ch. 29, infra.
 3. See Sec. 5, supra.
            Provisions in a legislative enactment may have the effect 
        of rendering inapplicable a House rule adopted earlier with 
        respect to the matters covered in the enactment. Being a later 
        expression of the will of the House, such enactment may, for 
        example, expressly authorize that which is prohibited by the 
        rule. See Sec. 6.2, supra.
 4. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 9, 1968 (remarks of 
        Speaker John W. McCormack [Mass.], relating to motion of Mr. 
        Adams). See Ch. 23, infra, as to the use of motions generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The strict terms of a rule have been avoided where the Speaker, 
having considered all of the facts and issues involved in a point of 
order arising under the terms of the rule, has construed such rule

[[Page 319]]

to be directory and not mandatory.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 6.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A common means by which the rules may be circumvented is for the 
Committee on Rules to report, and the House to adopt, a resolution 
providing for a particular order of business and specifying the 
conditions under which such business will be considered.(6) 
Since the Committee on Rules has authority to report resolutions 
providing for special orders of business, no point of order against 
such a resolution can be based on the fact that adoption of the 
resolution would have the effect of abrogating another standing rule of 
the House.(7) Thus, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
a resolution may be called up waiving all points of order against a 
particular bill. In such manner, a variety of points of order can be 
waived. As examples, a resolution may waive points of order that could 
otherwise be raised against legislative provisions in appropriation 
bills,(8) points of order based on the requirement of 
germaneness in amendments to bills,(9) and even points of 
order based on the requirements of the Ramseyer rule,(10) 
whether the resolution is general in its terms or expressly waives the 
requirement of compliance with the Ramseyer rule.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Chs. 17, 21, infra.
 7. Generally, see Ch. 21, infra.
 8. See Ch. 26, infra.
            For an example of a resolution waiving the provisions of 
        the house rule relating to unauthorized appropriations and 
        legislation on general appropriation bills, see 86 Cong. Rec. 
        3443, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 25, 1940 (H. Res. 436).
 9. See, for example, 106 Cong. Rec. 10575, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 
        18, 1960. For general discussion of the requirement of 
        germaneness in amendments to bills, see Ch. 28, infra.
10. As to the Ramseyer rule, requiring in certain circumstances that 
        committee reports show the effects of proposed bills on 
        existing law, see Ch. 17, infra.
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 1214, 1218, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 15, 1949 
        (response of Speaker Sam Rayburn [Tex.], to point of order 
        concerning the First Deficiency Appropriation Bill, 1949).

[[Page 320]]



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c05_txt-9]                         

[Page 320-321]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                          B. THE HOUSE JOURNAL
 
Sec. 8. In General; Purpose and Use


    The Constitution requires the House of Representatives to keep a 
Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish it excepting 
such parts as may in its judgment require secrecy.(1) 
Accordingly, it is the Journal of the House and not the Corgressional 
Record that is the official record of the proceedings of the 
House,(2) and as such it is appropriately afforded judicial 
notice by both federal and state courts.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, by which an identical requirement is 
        imposed upon the Senate.
 2. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2727.
 3. 31 CJS Evidence Sec. 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The object of the constitutional clause exacting the keeping of the 
Journal is to ensure publicity to the proceedings of the House and a 
correspondent responsibility of the Members to their respective 
constituents.(4) And, in consonance with such purpose, 
Jefferson's Manual, although providing that the Clerk is not to let the 
Journal be taken out of his custody,(5) also emphasizes that 
as an official record the Journal is open to inspection by every Member 
and that anyone may take and publish votes therefrom.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 2 Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Sec. Sec. 837-839.
 5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 352 (1973).
 6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 582 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk is required to print and distribute the Journal at the 
close of each session to the Members and others designated by the House 
rules.(7) Further, various statutes provide for the 
distribution of the Journal to the libraries and document rooms of both 
Houses of Congress, and to the Secretary of the Senate, the Clerk of 
the House, and several other governmental officials, agencies, and 
departments.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule III clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 641 (1973) (which 
        also requires that the Clerk send a copy of the Journal to the 
        Executive and to each branch of the legislature of each state).
 8. See, for example, 2 USC Sec. Sec. 145, 146; 44 USC Sec. Sec. 713, 
        1714, 1718.


                          -------------------Effect of Variance Between 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Journal and Congressional Record

Sec. 8.1 The Senate Journal is the official record of Senate pro

[[Page 321]]

    ceedings, and where there is a variance between a Journal and a 
    Record entry, the Journal is controlling.

    On Jan. 8, 11 165,(9) in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry of a Senator who asked whether the record of the Journal Clerk 
or the record of an official reporter of debates took precedence in the 
event that there was any variance between them, the President pro 
tempore(10) said that the Journal is mentioned in the 
Constitution, and all the precedents support the Journal as the proper 
record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 452, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Carl Hayden (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c05_txt-10]                         

[Page 321-322]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                          B. THE HOUSE JOURNAL
 
Sec. 9. The Journal as Evidence

    In keeping with the Journal's status as the official record of the 
House,(11) it is provided by statute(12) that 
extracts therefrom certified by the Clerk(13) are to be 
received in evidence with the same effect as the originals would have. 
However, it has been held that with respect to matters not required by 
the Constitution to be entered on the Journal, such provision is not a 
statutory declaration that the Journal is the highest evidence of the 
facts stated in it or complete evidence of all that occurs in the 
progress of business in the House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 8, supra.
12.  28 USC Sec. 1736.
13. 2 USC Sec. 114 authorizes the Clerk to charge a nominal fee for 
        certified transcripts from the Journal except when required by 
        an officer of the United States in a matter relating to the 
        duties of his office.
14. Field v Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892), construing former Revised 
        Statutes Sec. 895, the provisions of which respecting the 
        admissibility and weight to be afforded certified copies of the 
        Journal were essentially the same as those of 28 USC Sec. 1736.
            Collateral references: As to the extent to which resort may 
        be made to legislative journals as an aid in the construction 
        of constitutions or statutes generally, see 70 ALR 5. As to 
        judicial review of parliamentary proceedings generally, see 59 
        Am Jur 2d Parliamentary Law Sec. 15 (1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Constitution requires the objections of the President 
to a bill returned by him to be entered upon the 
Journal,(15) the failure of the Journal to show such 
objections as of a certain time is not conclusive in determining 
whether the bill was in fact returned within the period allowed by the 
Constitution,(16) particularly since the President has no 
control over the entries in the Journal.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 10, infra.
16. U.S. Const. art I, Sec. 7.
17. Prevost v Morganthau, 106 F2d 330 (70 App. D.C. 306, 1939).

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

[[Page 322]]

    It is expressly provided by statute(18) that certified 
copies of the Journal record of the oath of office personally 
subscribed by Members are admissible in evidence in any court of the 
United States as conclusive proof of the fact that the signer duly took 
the oath of office in accordance with law.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 2 USC Sec. 25.
19. Generally, as to taking the oath, see Ch. 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c05_txt-11]                         

[Page 322-328]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                          B. THE HOUSE JOURNAL
 
Sec. 10. Entry of Particular Proceedings

    The Constitution provides for the keeping and publication of the 
Journal,(20) and expressly requires the recording of certain 
matters therein. Pursuant to its provisions, veto messages of the 
President accompanying bills disapproved and returned by him to the 
House must be entered on the Journal.(1) The Constitution 
also specifies the circumstances under which the yeas and nays are to 
be entered on the Journal.(2) And, because yea and nay votes 
are thus always made a part of the Journal, a motion or request to that 
effect is not necessary.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 8, supra.
 1. U.S. Const. art I, Sec. 7.
 2. See U.S. Const. art I, Sec. Sec. 5, 7.
 3. See Sec. 10.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specific content of the Journal is also governed to some extent 
by legislative enactment.(4) For example, a statute requires 
that the electoral vote be entered on the Journal(5) 
together with a list of the votes by state in alphabetical order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See, for example, 2 USC Sec. 25, requiring each Member who takes 
        the oath of office to deliver a signed copy thereof to the 
        Clerk for recordation in the Congressional Record and in the 
        Journal.
            As to the admissibility in evidence of certified copies of 
        the Journal entry, see Sec. 9, supra.
 5. 3 USC Sec. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Governing the content of the Journal to a far greater extent than 
the relatively few constitutional and statutory provisions are the 
rules and practice of the House itself. In this regard, it should be 
noted that while the Constitution requires that certain matters be 
recorded in the Journal, it does not specify the particular mode in 
which, or indicate with what fullness, the Journal is to record those 
proceedings of the House relating to matters not expressly required by 
it to be entered therein; consequently the procedures to be followed 
with respect to such matters are left to the discretion of the 
House.(6) Thus, the House controls its Jour

[[Page 323]]

nal, even to the extent of omitting things actually done or recording 
things not done.(7) For example, because the Journal 
reflects only actions actually taken in the House, a request for 
unanimous consent which meets with objection is not made part of the 
Journal.(8) And, in the exercise of that discretion afforded 
it by the Constitution with respect to the Journal, the House has by 
its rules expressly provided for the entry therein of such diverse 
matters as questions of order and the decisions thereon,(9) 
the designation of a Clerk pro tempore,(10) the titles or 
subject of reports of committees delivered to the Clerk for printing 
and reference to the proper calendar under the direction of the 
Speaker,(11) the hour of adjournment,(12) and 
messages from the Senate and the President giving notice of bills 
passed or approved.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Field v Clark, 143 U.S. 670 (1892).
 7. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2784.
 8. See Sec. 10.2, infra.
 9. Rule III clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 641 (1973).
10. Rule III clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 647 (1973).
11. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 743 (1973).
12. Rule XVI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 790 (1973).
13. Rule XXXIX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 935 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitions, memorials and bills of a private nature, together with 
the names of the Members presenting them, are entered in the 
Journal,(14) as are all public bills, memorials, resolutions 
and other documents referred under the rules.(15) 
Additionally, when a bill, resolution or memorial is introduced ``by 
request'', these words must also be entered upon the 
Journal,(16) and although not expressly required to do so by 
its rules, the House follows an identical practice with respect to 
petitions so introduced.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Rule XXII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 849 (1973).
15. Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1973).
16. Rule XXII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 860 (1973), also 
        requiring that the quoted words be printed in the Record.
17. See Sec. 10.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every motion made to the House and entertained by the Speaker, 
likewise must be entered on the Journal with the name of the Member 
making it, unless it is withdrawn the same day.(18) A motion 
to discharge a committee, however, is entered on the Journal only when 
signed by a majority of the total membership of the 
House.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XVI clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 775 (1973), 
        providing further that any such motion must be reduced to 
        writing on the demand of any Member.
19. Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1973), 
        further providing that a signature may be withdrawn by a Member 
        in writing at any time before the motion is entered on the 
        Journal.

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

[[Page 324]]

    Jefferson's Manual states that conference reports are to be entered 
in the Journal,(20) but notes that where amendments are made 
to a question they are not to be printed in the Journal separated from 
the question, and that the Journal records only the question as finally 
agreed to by the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. House Rules and Manual, Sec. 542 (1973).
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 580 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Journal also should record the result of every vote and state 
its subject in general terms.(2) In this regard, the rules 
provide that when a recorded vote is taken the names of those voting on 
each side of the question and the names of those not voting are to be 
entered in the Journal.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2804.
 3. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The names of those Members counted to establish a quorum of record, 
but not voting on a roll call, are also reported on the 
Journal.(4) And when, in the absence of a quorum, a call of 
the House in the old form is conducted, Members voluntarily appearing 
report their names to the Clerk to be entered upon the Journal as 
present.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Rule XV clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 772 (1973).
 5. Rule XV clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 768 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, when a call of the House in the absence of a 
quorum is ordered, those Members who fail to respond are recorded as 
absent in the Journal,(6) as are those Members reported as 
absentees during a call of the roll ordered upon the failure of a 
quorum in the Committee of the Whole.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Rule XV clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 771b (1973).
 7. Rule XXIII clause 2, Sec. 863, and Rule XV clause 2(b), Sec. 771b, 
        House Rules and Manual (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, whenever electronic voting equipment is used in 
recording any roll call or quorum call, a list of the names of those 
Members recorded as voting in the affirmative, of those recorded as 
voting in the negative, and of those voting ``present'', as the case 
may be, is to be entered in alphabetical order in each category in the 
Journal as if their names had been called in the manner otherwise 
provided for under the provisions of the applicable rule.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 774b (1973).

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

[[Page 325]]

                          -------------------Entry of Proceedings, 
    Special Orders, and Unanimous-Consent Requests

Sec. 10.1 The Journal reflects the proceedings of the day.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(9) a Member propounded a parliamentary 
inquiry as to whether due diligence was being paid to the proceedings 
of that day with regard to what the Journal and the Corgressional 
Record would show on the next day. The Speaker pro 
tempore(10) stated that the Journal and the Record would 
reflect the proceedings of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 114 Cong. Rec. 3097, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.2 The Journal reflects only the actions that are taken in the 
    House and therefore, where a unanimous-consent request is objected 
    to, such matter is not made part of the Journal.

    On Feb. 15, 1950,(11) a Member interrupted the reading 
of the previous day's Journal to make the point of order that the 
Journal was incorrect because it noted neither his unanimous-consent 
request that the House adjourn until a day certain nor the objection of 
another Member thereto. The Speaker,(12) pointing out that 
the Clerk was reading the Journal and not the Record, overruled the 
point of order and declared that the Journal reflects only the actions 
that are taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 1805, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.3 The Journal does not include the texts of special orders 
    because they do not constitute business.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(13) a Member rising to a 
parliamentary inquiry interrupted the reading of the Journal for Sept. 
9 to ask whether it included any part of certain special orders. In 
response, the Speaker(14) stated that the Journal did not 
include special orders because the same were not business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 23600, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recording Yeas and Nays

Sec. 10.4 Yea and nay votes are always made a part of the Journal and a 
    motion or request to that effect is not necessary.

    On Feb. 21, 1950,(15) in response to a Member who 
requested that the yea and nay votes just re

[[Page 326]]

corded be made a part of that day's Journal, the Speaker(16) 
stated it to be his understanding that yea and nay votes are always 
made a part of the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 2094, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recording Electoral Votes

Sec. 10.5 After the dissolution of a joint session of Congress called 
    for the purpose of counting the electoral vote, the Speaker calls 
    the House to order and directs that the electoral vote be spread at 
    large upon the Journal.

    On Jan. 6, 1969,(17) after the President pro tempore of 
the Senate(18) had declared dissolved the joint session of 
Congress, called pursuant to a Senate concurrent 
resolution(1) for the purpose of counting the electoral 
vote, the House was called to order by the Speaker(2) who 
then directed that the electoral vote be spread at large upon the 
Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 172, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Richard B. Russell, Jr. (Ga.).
 1. S. Con. Res. 1, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. (1969).
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.6 The names of those Members of Congress whose signatures on an 
    objection to the electoral count are in excess of the minimum 
    number prescribed by statute(3) may be entered on the 
    Journal by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 3 USC Sec. 15, providing, inter alia, that such objection must be 
        in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one Member of 
        the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Jan. 6, 1969,(4) after the joint session of the two 
Houses of Congress called to count the electoral vote was dissolved, 
the Speaker,(5) having called the House to order and 
directed that the electoral vote be spread at large upon the Journal, 
announced that there were additional signatures of Members of the House 
and Senate on the objection raised to the electoral vote of North 
Carolina, and that without objection such signatures would appear in 
the Journal and in the Record. There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 172, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entry of Bills, Petitions, and Resolutions

Sec. 10.7 When a petition filed with the Clerk under Rule XXII clause 1 
    is introduced ``by request,'' these words are entered on the 
    Journal and printed in the Record fol

[[Page 327]]

    lowing the name of the Member.

    The presentation and reference under Rule XXII(6) of a 
petition introduced ``by request'' on Apr. 13, 1961, was duly recorded 
in both the Journal(7) and the Congressional 
Record(8) for that date with the words ``by request'' noted 
parenthetically immediately following the name of the Member 
introducing the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Clauses 1 and 6, House Rules and Manual (1973).
 7. H. Jour. 424, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 5900, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.8 The printing of the text of a bill in the Journal may be 
    dispensed with by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 26, 1965(9) after the passage of a 
bill(10) providing for the codification of the general and 
permanent laws relating to decedents' estates and fiduciary relations 
in the District of Columbia, a Member asked unanimous consent that the 
printing of the bill in the Journal and in the Congressional Record be 
dispensed with because of the cost involved. There was no response to 
the Speaker's(11) call for objections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 8375, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H.R. 4465, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. (1965).
11.  John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.9 When a resolution has been adopted providing for the 
    consideration of a bill by the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    state of the Union, and the bill is then called up and considered 
    by unanimous consent in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, 
    the Journal indicates the discharge of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union from the further consideration of 
    such bill.

    On June 28, 1966,(12) after the adoption of a 
resolution(13) providing for the consideration of a certain 
bill(14) in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union under an open rule with one hour of general debate, a Member, 
by direction of the cognizant Committee, called up the bill and at his 
request was granted unanimous consent that it be considered in the 
House as in the Committee of the Whole. The Journal for that 
day(15) indicated the discharge of the Committee of

[[Page 328]]

the Whole in the following language: ``On motion of Mr. Hebert by 
unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union was discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 5256. 
. . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 14547, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. H. Res. 895, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (1966).
14. H.R. 5256, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (1966).
15. H. Jour. 650, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corrections of the Congressional Record

Sec. 10.10 When remarks and extraneous matter inserted in the 
    Congressional Record by a Member are, by unanimous consent, ordered 
    expunged from the permanent edition thereof, the Journal records 
    such fact.

    The Journal of June 5, 1962,(16) records the fact that 
at the request of a Member his remarks and certain extraneous material 
appearing in the Congressional Record for a particular date were by 
unanimous consent ordered expunged from the permanent Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H. Jour. 372, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c05_txt-12]                         

[Page 328-333]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                          B. THE HOUSE JOURNAL
 
Sec. 11. Reading the Journal

    Prior to the 92d Congress, during which the present form of the 
applicable House rule(17) was adopted, the reading of the 
Journal of each legislative day was mandatory under the rule as then in 
force, and could be dispensed with only by unanimous 
consent(18) or by suspension of the rules.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule I clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (1973), the 
        present form of which is derived from Sec. 127 of the 
        Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140).
18. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 625.
19. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2747-2750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the modern practice, however, the Speaker, after examining 
the Journal, is authorized on the appearance of a quorum to announce 
his approval thereof, in which case the Journal is to be considered as 
read, unless its reading is ordered either by the Speaker himself or by 
the House. In the latter regard, it is in order to offer one motion 
that the Journal be read, which motion is of the highest privilege and 
must be determined without debate.(20) In either event, 
however, the Journal may not be ordered read, or approved, in the 
absence of a quorum,(1) and when a point of order as to the 
absence of a quorum is made prior to the reading of the Journal, the 
presence of a quorum is therefore ascertained before the reading is 
begun.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule I clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (1973).
 1. 4 Hinds Precedents Sec. Sec. 2732, 2733; 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 629.
 2. See Sec. 12.6, infra.

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

[[Page 329]]

    The Journal, if and when read, is ordinarily read in accordance 
with the practices and customs of the House,(3) as prepared 
by the Clerk.(4) Once begun, the reading thereof must be in 
full if so demanded by a Member.(5) However, when a demand 
that it be read in full is made after a portion thereof has been read, 
the Clerk begins detailed reading at the point where the demand is made 
and does not return to that portion which has been 
passed.(6) Of course, a reading of the Journal may be 
terminated by unanimous consent.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 11.1, infra.
 4. See Sec. 11.4, infra.
 5. See Sec. 11.3, infra.
 6. See Sec. 11.9, infra.
 7. See Sec. 11.13, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading Practices and Customs

Sec. 11.1 The Journal is read in accordance with the practices and 
    customs of the House of Representatives.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(8) a Member, having been recognized 
for the purpose of submitting a parliamentary inquiry, interrupted the 
reading of the Journal for the previous legislative day to ask whether 
the reading of the Journal in full would be concluded prior to the 
reading of the special orders and the referral of bills and rules on 
that day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 23599, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker(9) stated that the Journal was being read in 
accordance with the practices and customs of the House of 
Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.2 When the House reconvened after an adjournment to a day 
    certain, the Journal of the last day's proceedings was read.

    When the House, pursuant to a Senate concurrent 
resolution,(10) met on Aug. 15, 1960,(11) after 
an adjournment of approximately six weeks, the Journal of the last day 
of meeting was read and approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. S. Con. Res. 112, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 16457, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading of Journal in Full

Sec. 11.3 The Journal had to be read in full when demanded by a Member.

    On May 4, 1960,(12) before the Clerk had commenced the 
reading of the Journal of the previous

[[Page 330]]

day's proceedings, a Member demanded that the Journal be read in full. 
The Speaker(13) ordered the Clerk to read the Journal in 
full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 106 Cong. Rec. 9413, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, on Aug. 27, 1962,(14) before the Clerk could 
proceed with the reading of the Journal following a call of the House, 
a Member rose to demand that the Journal be read in full. The 
Speaker(15) directed the Clerk to read the Journal in full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 17653, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.4 Where demand was made that the Journal be read in full, the 
    Clerk read the Journal in accordance with the way it was prepared.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(16) the reading of the Journal for 
the previous legislative day was interrupted by a Member who, asserting 
that the Clerk had failed to read certain material, rose to demand that 
the Journal be read in full. The Speaker(17) advised that 
the Clerk was ``reading the Journal in accordance with its 
preparation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 23599, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.5 When the Journal is read in full the names of those Members 
    noted therein as responding on roll calls may also be read.

    On June 1, 1934,(18) a Member propounding a 
parliamentary inquiry interrupted the reading of the Journal in full to 
ask whether, in the 35 or 36 years of the Speaker's(19) 
connection with the Congress he had ever known of any requirement under 
the rule for reading every name of every roll call that occurred and 
every single word of every proceeding in the Journal. The Speaker 
replied that while he did not know of such comprehensive reading, it 
could be done and that the [former] rule so provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 78 Cong. Rec. 10226, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.6 A message from the President of the United States, entered in 
    the Journal, must be read in its entirety when the Journal is read 
    in full.

    On May 4, 1960,(20) after the Speaker,(1) in 
response to the demand of a Member, had directed the Clerk to read the 
Journal of the last day's proceedings in full, the same Member 
interrupted the

[[Page 331]]

reading of the Journal with a parliamentary inquiry, asking whether the 
message from the President of the United States should be read as part 
of the Journal. The Speaker replied in the affirmative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 106 Cong. Rec. 9413, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.7 The names of Members responding to roll calls for the yea and 
    nay vote which had been entered in the Journal were read when the 
    Journal was read in full.

    On Apr. 9, 1964,(2) after a Member had earlier demanded 
that the Journal be read in full, the reading of the Journal was 
interrupted by another Member who insisted, as a point of order, that 
the names of those voting on a certain roll call be read. The 
Speaker,(3) stating it to be his understanding that that was 
the next item in the Journal to be read, ordered the Clerk to continue 
to read the proceedings of the preceding session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 110 Cong. Rec. 7355, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.8 The reading of the Journal was interrupted by a Member 
    contending that the names of those who failed to answer on a roll 
    call were not being read in full.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(4) following a demand that the 
Journal be read in full, the Clerk, at the direction of the Speaker pro 
tempore(5) had continued the reading of the Journal when it 
was interrupted by a Member who contended that the names of those who 
failed to answer on a particular roll call were not being read in full. 
The Speaker pro tempore stated that the Clerk took up exactly where he 
left off. The Clerk then continued to read the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 111 Cong. Rec. 23598, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.9 Where a demand that the Journal be read in full was made 
    after a portion thereof had been read, the Clerk began a detailed 
    reading at the point where the demand was made and did not return 
    to that portion which had been passed.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(6) a Member interrupted the reading 
of the Journal for Sept. 9, 1965, with a parliamentary inquiry to ask 
whether the reading of the Journal in full as previously demanded by 
him included the reading of the roll call immediately preceding that 
which was then being read. The Speaker pro tempore(7) 
replied that that part of the Journal had been passed before the de

[[Page 332]]

mand had been made for the reading of the Journal in full, and that the 
question was therefore moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 23598, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following a further parliamentary inquiry and a renewed demand by 
the same Member that the Journal be read in full, the reading of the 
Journal was resumed at the direction of the Speaker pro tempore and 
continued until again interrupted by another Member, who submitted that 
the Clerk was not reading in full the names of those who failed to 
answer the roll call being read at the time of the previous 
interruption. The Speaker pro tempore advised that the Clerk took up at 
the point of interruption.
    The Clerk then continued the reading of the Journal.

Sec. 11.10 It is presumed that the Journal, when read, is always read 
    in full.

    On Sept. 11, 1968,(8) in response to a Member's demand 
that the Journal of the preceding session be read in full, the 
Speaker(9) said that there is a presumption that the Journal 
is always read in full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 26454, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on Oct. 8, 1968,(10) in reply to a demand 
that the Journal be read in full, the Speaker advised that the Chair 
assumes that the Journal is always read in full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 114 Cong. Rec. 30090, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dispensing With Further Reading of the Journal

Sec. 11.11 Under the former rule, a motion that the further reading of 
    the Journal be dispensed with was not in order because such action 
    required unanimous consent.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(11) in response to a Member who 
interrupted the reading of the Journal to move that the further reading 
thereof be dispensed with, the Speaker(12) said that could 
be done only by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 2152, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
12.  Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on May 4, 1960,(13) the 
Speaker(14) ruled that a motion to dispense with the further 
reading of the Journal was not in order, noting that the reading of the 
Journal could be dispensed with only by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 9413, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, on Sept. 19, 1962,(15) in response to a Member 
who moved that the further reading of the

[[Page 333]]

Journal be dispensed with after objection was heard to his request that 
it be dispensed with by unanimous consent, the Speaker(16) 
stated that the motion was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 19941, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.12 Under the former rule, the House, by unanimous consent, 
    could dispense with the further reading of the Journal and consider 
    it as read and approved.

    On Aug. 8, 1964,(17) after a Member had interrupted the 
reading of the Journal to withdraw his demand that it be read in full, 
the Speaker(18) announced that without objection, the 
Journal of the proceedings of the previous day would be considered as 
read and approved. There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 18630, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise on Sept. 11, 1968,(19) after the 
Speaker(20) had directed the Clerk to continue with the 
reading of the Journal following an interruption thereof initiated by a 
call of the House, a Member requested that the further reading of the 
Journal be dispensed with by unanimous consent. There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 26456, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c05_txt-13]                         

[Page 333-342]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                          B. THE HOUSE JOURNAL
 
Sec. 12. --Propriety of Business Before and During Reading

    The reading and approval of the Journal rank second in the daily 
order of business prescribed by the rules of the House, coming 
immediately after the prayer by the Chaplain.(1) It is 
therefore well established that the transaction of business is not in 
order before the Journal is approved.(2) However, the simple 
motion to adjourn(3) and the administration of the oath to a 
Member-elect(4) are both in order prior to the reading of 
the Journal, and since the Journal may neither be ordered read nor 
approved in the absence of a quorum,(5) a point of no quorum 
may also be properly made before the Journal is read.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule XXIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 878 (1973). As to 
        approval of the Journal, see Sec. 14, infra.
 2. See Sec. 12.1, infra.
 3. See Sec. 12.3, infra.
 4. See Sec. 12.5, infra.
 5. See Sec. 11, supra.
 6. See Sec. 12.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once begun, the reading of the Journal may not be interrupted even 
by business as highly privi

[[Page 334]]

leged as the presentation of a conference report(7) or the 
consideration of a privileged report from the Committee on 
Rules.(8) It may be interrupted, however, by a point of no 
quorum,(9) a parliamentary inquiry,(10) an 
arraignment of impeachment,(11) and a question of privilege 
of the House.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XXVIII clause 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 909 (1973).
 8. See Sec. 12.2, infra.
 9. See Sec. 12.13, infra.
10. See Sec. 12.15, infra.
11. 6 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 469.
12. See Sec. 12.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, certain matters may be authorized before or during the 
reading of the Journal by unanimous consent. For example, the Speaker 
may be so authorized to declare a recess subject to the call of the 
Chair prior to the reading of the Journal.(13) Likewise, a 
Member may be granted unanimous consent to extend his remarks and 
include extraneous matter in the Record prior to the reading of the 
Journal.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 12.8, infra.
14. See Sec. 12.9, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transaction of Business Before Reading

Sec. 12.1 The transaction of business, however highly privileged, is 
    not in order before the reading and approval of the Journal.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(15) in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, the Speaker pro tempore(16) held that it would not 
be in order to recognize a member of the Committee on Rules to present 
a rule before the completion of the reading of the Journal of the 
previous day, noting that even with respect to such a highly privileged 
matter as a conference report it had been previously 
ruled(17) that no business was in order until the Journal 
had been read and approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 114 Cong. Rec. 30096 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
17. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.2 A privileged report from the Committee on Rules may not be 
    called up for consideration before the reading and approval of the 
    Journal.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(18) before the reading of the Journal 
had been completed, a Member propounded as a parliamentary inquiry the 
suggestion that under the House rule(19) making it always in 
order to call up for consideration a re

[[Page 335]]

port from the Committee on Rules, and in light of the construction 
given that rule by an early precedent,(1) it would be in 
order at that time for the Chair to recognize a member of the Committee 
on Rules for the purpose of calling up a special order. The Speaker pro 
tempore,(2) however, noting that the precedent referred to 
had been superseded by the subsequent ruling(3) that no 
business was in order until the Journal had been read and approved, 
held that it thus would not be in order for him to recognize a member 
of the Committee on Rules to present a rule before the reading of the 
previous day's Journal had been completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 114 Cong. Rec. 30095, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Rule XI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973).
 1. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2754.
 2. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 3. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matters Taking Precedence Over Reading

Sec. 12.3 A simple motion to adjourn is in order prior to the reading 
    and approval of the Journal.

    On July 25, 1949,(4) before the Journal of the last 
day's proceedings was read, a Member moved that the House then adjourn, 
which motion, after the yeas and nays were ordered thereon, was decided 
in the negative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 95 Cong. Rec. 10092, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, on Dec. 7, 1963,(5) prior to the reading of the 
Journal and while a point of order that a quorum was not present was 
pending, a Member moved that the House adjourn. The motion was then 
agreed to and the House accordingly adjourned until Dec. 9, 1963, at 12 
o'clock noon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 109 Cong. Rec. 23752, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.4 The House may adjourn before the Journal is read and 
    approved.

    On Dec. 7, 1963,(6) before the Journal was read and 
pending the point of order that a quorum was not present, a Member 
moved that the House adjourn. The motion was agreed to, and the House 
accordingly adjourned until Monday, Dec. 9, 1963, at 12 o'clock noon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.5 The oath of office may be administered to a Member-elect 
    before the Journal is read.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(7) before the Clerk had begun to read 
the Journal and after a point of no quorum was, at the request of the 
Speaker,(8) withheld in order that he

[[Page 336]]

might swear in a new Member, the Speaker laid before the House a 
communication from the Clerk attesting to the credentials of the 
Member-elect concerned, who then appeared at the bar of the House and 
took the oath of office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 94 Cong. Rec. 4834, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.6 The point of no quorum may be made before the Journal is read 
    and approved.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(9) before the Clerk had begun to read 
the Journal, a Member making the point of order that a quorum was not 
present refused to withhold it until after the Journal was read, 
although agreeing to do so until after a new Member was sworn, and 
therefore, following the administration of the oath by the 
Speaker,(10) a call of the House was ordered. After a quorum 
had appeared, the House dispensed with further proceedings under the 
call and the Journal of the previous day was then read and approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 4834, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(11) before the Clerk had commenced the 
reading of the Journal, a Member making the point of order that a 
quorum was not present answered in the affirmative when asked by the 
Speaker(12) whether he was making such point of order before 
the Journal was read. A call of the House was then ordered, and after a 
quorum had appeared, further proceedings under the call were dispensed 
with and the Clerk read the Journal of the previous day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 6094. 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.7 When a point of order as to the absence of a quorum is made 
    before the reading of the Journal, the presence of a quorum is 
    established before the reading begins.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(13) after the Clerk had been directed 
by the Speaker(14) to read the Journal of the previous day 
but before he had begun to do so, a Member made the point of order that 
a quorum was not present. A call of the House was then ordered, and 
after a quorum had appeared in response thereto and further proceedings 
thereunder had been dispensed with, the Clerk read the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 6093, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matters Authorized by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 12.8 A recess subject to the call of the Chair may be de

[[Page 337]]

    clared by the Speaker, if properly authorized, prior to the reading 
    and approval of the Journal.

    On Apr. 9, 1964,(15) before the Clerk had begun to read 
the Journal of the previous day's proceedings, the 
Speaker(16) (pursuant to authorization by unanimous 
consent)(17) declared a recess, subject to the call of the 
Chair, for the purpose of permitting Members to proceed to the Rotunda 
to witness the conclusion of the lying-in-state ceremonies for the late 
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. After the expiration of the 
recess, the House was called to order by the Speaker, and at his 
direction, the Clerk read the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 7354, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 7119, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.9 A Member's request for unanimous consent to extend his 
    remarks and include extraneous matter in the Record may be 
    entertained and acted upon prior to the reading and approval of the 
    Journal.

    On Dec. 7, 1963,(18) after the prayer by the Chaplain 
and before the Journal of the previous day's proceedings had been read, 
a Member asked unanimous consent to extend his remarks at that point in 
the Record and include extraneous matter therein. There was no response 
to the Speaker's(19) call for objections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 23751, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requests Entertained Before Reading

Sec. 12.10 A request that Calendar Wednesday business be dispensed with 
    by unanimous consent may be entertained prior to the reading and 
    approval of the Journal.

    On Sept. 19, 1962,(20) before the Clerk had begun to 
read the Journal and pending the renewal of a point of no quorum which 
was being withheld, a Member asked unanimous consent that the business 
in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on that 
day. Following the Speaker's(1) interrogative, an objection 
was heard and the request accordingly denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.11 The Speaker may decline requests for unanimous consent to 
    insert material in the Record until after the

[[Page 338]]

    Journal has been read and approved.

    On Sept. 19, 1962,(2) before the Clerk had begun to read 
the Journal of the preceding session, a Member, having unsuccessfully 
sought unanimous consent for dispensing with Calendar Wednesday 
business on that day, asked unanimous consent to insert in the Record 
with his own remarks a letter from the Secretary of State addressed to 
the Speaker of the House. The Speaker(3) stated that 
unanimous-consent requests would have to wait until after the Journal 
had been read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong. Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reception of Messages Prior to Reading

Sec. 12.12 A message from the Senate may be received before the reading 
    of the Journal.

    On Sept. 19, 1962,(4) before the Clerk had begun to read 
the Journal of the preceding session, a point of order that a quorum 
was not present was made and, at the request of the 
Speaker,(5) then withheld in order to permit the reception 
of a message from the Senate. Following the communication of the 
message to the Chair, the point of no quorum was renewed, and after a 
call of the House had been ordered and a motion to dispense with 
further proceedings thereunder agreed to, the Clerk commenced the 
reading of the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, on Apr. 9, 1964,(6) a message from the Senate was 
received after a point of no quorum made before the Clerk had begun to 
read the Journal was withheld solely for that purpose at the request of 
the Speaker.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 7353, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And on Sept. 11, 1968,(8) following a call of the House 
ordered before the reading of the Journal was begun, and while a motion 
to dispense with further proceedings under the call was pending, the 
Speaker(9) received a message from the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 26453, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matters Which May Interrupt Reading

Sec. 12.13 A point of order of no quorum is in order during the reading 
    of the Journal.

    On Dec. 18, 1970,(10) after a Member had interrupted the 
read

[[Page 339]]

ing of the Journal to make the point of order that a quorum was not 
present, the Speaker pro tempore(11) announced the intention 
of the Chair to conduct a count, thereby prompting another Member to 
ask, by way of parliamentary inquiry, whether it was in order for a 
Member to be recognized during the reading of the Journal. The Speaker 
pro tempore replied that a point of order that a quorum is not present 
is always in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 42505, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
11. W.J. Bryan Dorn (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.14 The reading of the Journal may be interrupted by a call of 
    the House.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(12) after the reading of the Journal 
had been interrupted by a Member making the point of order that a 
quorum was not present and the Speaker(13) had confirmed 
such fact by making a count, a call of the House was ordered. Following 
the appearance of a quorum, further proceedings under the call were 
dispensed with, and the Clerk then concluded the reading of the 
Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, on Nov. 3, 1967,(14) after the Clerk had begun to 
read the Journal of the preceding day, a Member made the point of order 
that a quorum was not present. A call of the House was then ordered, 
and after a quorum had appeared in response thereto and further 
proceedings thereunder had been dispensed with by unanimous consent, 
the Clerk read the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 31081, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.15 A Member may interrupt the reading of the Journal to 
    propound a parliamentary inquiry.

    On Apr. 9, 1964,(15) a Member who interrupted the 
reading of the Journal to submit a parliamentary inquiry was recognized 
for that purpose by the Speaker.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 7356, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.16 The status of the Clerk's progress in reading the Journal of 
    proceedings of the previous day is a proper subject for a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(17) in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry asking how many pages of the Journal had been read and how many 
remained to be read, the Speaker(18)

[[Page 340]]

characterized the inquiry as a proper one, and following a further 
expression of interest in the reading by the Member making the inquiry, 
advised him of the total number of pages to be read and the number 
already read by the Clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 30100, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.17 The reading of the Journal may be interrupted by a question 
    of privilege affecting the House collectively.

    On Oct. 9, 1968,(19) in declining recognition to a 
Member who interrupted the reading of the Journal with a point of 
personal privilege, the Speaker(20) advised that a question 
of personal privilege should be made after the Journal had been 
disposed of but that a matter of privilege of the House was an entirely 
different situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.18 A Member, by unanimous consent, may secure recognition 
    during the reading of the Journal.

    On Apr. 9, 1964,(1) a Member propounding a parliamentary 
inquiry interrupted the reading of the Journal to ask whether there was 
any way under the rules by which he might at that point be recognized 
for one minute. The Speaker(2) advised that such recognition 
might be obtained by unanimous consent, and after the Member had made a 
request to that end without any objection thereto being heard, declared 
him so recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 110 Cong. Rec. 7356. 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reception of Messages During Interruption of Reading

Sec. 12.19 A message from the Senate may be received during an 
    interruption in the reading of the Journal which is occasioned by a 
    point of no quorum.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(3) after the reading of the Journal 
had been interrupted by a point of no-quorum which at the request of 
the Speaker(4) was then withheld, a message from the Senate 
was communicated to the Chair. A call of the House was then conducted, 
and after proceedings thereunder had been dispensed with, the Clerk 
continued with the reading of the Journal at the direction of the 
Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 17651, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.20 A message from the President may be received

[[Page 341]]

    during an interruption of the reading of the Journal for a call of 
    the House.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(5) following the interruption of the 
reading of the Journal for a call of the House, the 
Speaker(6) received a message from the President prior to 
ordering the Clerk to resume the reading of the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 17653, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resumption of Reading After Interruption

Sec. 12.21 Once the reading of the Journal has been interrupted for a 
    call of the House under Rule XV,(7) it may not be 
    resumed even though a quorum has responded to such call until the 
    House has agreed to dispense with further proceedings thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XV clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 768 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(8) in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry as to whether or not the reading of the Journal could proceed 
if a quorum was present after a call of the House had been made under 
Rule XV clause 2, the Speaker(9) replied that the reading of 
the Journal could not be resumed until further proceedings under the 
call had been dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 30094, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.22 When the reading of the Journal is resumed after having been 
    interrupted, the Clerk continues to read from the point of 
    interruption.

    On Sept. 19, 1962,(10) a Member interrupted the reading 
of the Journal to make the point of order that the Clerk had not 
resumed the reading of the Journal at the point where he concluded when 
interrupted by a call of the House. The Speaker(11) ordered 
the Clerk to continue the reading of the Journal from the point of the 
first interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 19943, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, on Sept. 13, 1965,(12) following several 
parliamentary inquires and a demand that the Journal be read in full, 
the reading of the Journal was resumed and continued until again 
interrupted by a Member who submitted that the Clerk was not reading in 
full the names of those who failed to answer the particular roll call 
being read at the time of the previous interruption. The Speaker pro 
tempore(13) ad

[[Page 342]]

vised that the Clerk took up the reading exactly where first 
interrupted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 23598, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matters Not in Order Until Reading Completed

Sec. 12.23 A request that the Record be corrected is not in order 
    during the reading of the Journal.

    On June 1, 1934,(14) in response to a Member who 
interrupted the reading of the Journal with a parliamentary inquiry as 
to the propriety of asking at that time that the Record be corrected, 
the Speaker(15) advised that it would not be proper at that 
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 78 Cong. Rec. 10226, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.24 The motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business is 
    not in order during a reading of the Journal.

    On Sept. 19, 1962,(16) before the Clerk had completed 
his reading of the Journal, a Member moved that business in order under 
the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with after an objection was 
voiced to his request that such business be dispensed with by unanimous 
consent. The Speaker(17) ruled that the motion was not in 
order until after the Journal was read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 19943, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c05_txt-14]                         

[Page 342-346]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                          B. THE HOUSE JOURNAL
 
Sec. 13. Effecting Corrections

    Jefferson's Manual(18) states that on information of an 
incorrect or omitted entry in the Journal, a committee may be appointed 
to examine and rectify it, and report it to the House. However, in 
practice, the correction of the Journal is accomplished without 
utilizing such procedure, being done simply either by 
motion(19) or unanimous consent.(20) The latter 
method is employed usually, if not exclusively, when the Journal to be 
corrected is that of a day prior to the previous legislative 
day.(1) For example, when the Journal of a day preceding the 
previous legislative day fails through oversight to indicate that the 
Speaker signed a particular enrolled bill,(2) or which shows 
an incorrect placement of an amendment to a bill,(3) it may 
be corrected by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. House Rules and Manua1 Sec. 583 (1973).
19. See, for example, Sec. 13.1, infra.
20. See, for example, Sec. 13.4, infra.
 1. See Sec. Sec. 13.4 et seq., infra.
 2. See Sec. 13.5, infra.
 3. See Sec. 13.7, infra.

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

[[Page 343]]

    The motion to amend the Journal takes precedence of the motion to 
approve it,(4) but is not in order before the reading of the 
Journal has been completed,(5) and will be denied after the 
previous question has been demanded on the motion to approve the 
Journal.(6) However, the motion to commit provided for in 
the rule for the previous question(7) may be applied to a 
motion to amend the Journal.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2760; 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 633.
 5. See Sec. 13.2, infra.
 6. See Sec. 13.3, infra.
 7. Rule XVII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 804 (1973).
 8. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.  
        5574.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time for Making Corrections

Sec. 13.1 A motion to amend the Journal is not in order prior to a 
    reading of the Journal.

    On May 4, 1960,(9) prior to the commencement of the 
reading of the Journal, a Member stating a parliamentary inquiry asked 
whether a motion to amend the Journal was in order at that point or 
during the reading of the Journal or at the conclusion of the reading 
of the Journal. The Speaker(10) ruled that such a motion was 
not in order at that point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 9413, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.2 A motion to amend the Journal is not in order until the 
    reading thereof has been completed.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(11) a Member rising to a 
parliamentary inquiry interrupted the reading of the Journal to ask 
whether it would be in order to move to amend the Journal at that time 
or after completion of the reading of the Journal. In response, the 
Speaker(12) stated that the effort of any Member to amend 
the Journal would have to be at the conclusion of the reading of the 
Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 23598, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.3 A motion to amend the Journal, made after the previous 
    question is demanded on a motion to approve, will be denied.

    On June 1, 1934,(13) following the reading of the 
Journal, a Member moved that the Journal be approved, and on that 
motion demanded the previous question. Another Member then moved to 
amend the Journal, making the point of order that such motion

[[Page 344]]

had precedence. The Speaker,(14) citing an earlier 
precedent,(15) ruled that a motion to amend the Journal 
might not be had after the moving of the previous question on a motion 
to approve the Journal. The previous question was then ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 78 Cong. Rec. 10226, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
14. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
15. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, on Sept. 13, 1965,(16) after the reading of the 
Journal had been completed, a Member moved that it be approved as read 
and moved the previous question thereon, whereupon another Member moved 
to lay on the table the motion to approve and attempted to offer an 
amendment to the Journal. The Speaker(17) ruled that the 
motion to lay on the table was in order, but that the amendment was 
not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 23600, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Method of Effecting Corrections

Sec. 13.4 When the Journal erroneously shows a Member as absent during 
    a roll call, it may be corrected by unanimous consent.

    On June 29, 1966,(18) at the request of a Member, the 
Journal of June 27, 1966, was corrected by unanimous consent to show 
him as present and answering to his name in response to a roll call 
conducted on that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Jour. 655, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.5 Where the Journal of a day preceding the previous legislative 
    day fails through oversight to indicate that the Speaker signed a 
    particular enrolled bill, it may be corrected by unanimous consent.

    On June 24, 1968,(19) the Journal of the proceedings of 
Thursday, June 20, having been read and approved, the 
Speaker(20) announced that although he had signed a 
particular enrolled bill(1) on Wednesday, June 19, through 
accident or oversight that fact was not noted in either the Journal or 
the Record, and that therefore, without objection, the Journal and 
Record of June 19 would be amended to reflect such action. There was no 
objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Jour. 591, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (1968).
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 1. H.R. 4566, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.6 Where the Journal contains an error with respect to an 
    appointment made by the Speaker, it may be corrected by unanimous 
    consent.

[[Page 345]]

    On Feb. 4, 1963,(2) the Speaker,(3) calling 
attention to an error in the list of those appointed by him on Jan. 31, 
1963, to the Board of Visitors to the U.S. Military Academy, asked 
unanimous consent that the Journal and Record be corrected accordingly. 
There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H. Jour. 177, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. (1963).
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.7 The Journal may, by unanimous consent, be corrected to show 
    the proper place for an adopted amendment in a bill.

    On Aug. 30, 1957,(4) a Member asked unanimous consent 
that the Journal of June 17, 1957, which erroneously showed a certain 
amendment to a reported bill(5) as having been adopted 
following a particular line therein, be corrected to properly reflect 
the action taken by the House and show that such amendment was instead 
adopted as a specific subsection and inserted immediately following a 
different line of the reported bill. There was no response to the call 
of the Speaker pro tempore(6) for objections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 103 Cong. Rec. 16760, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 6127, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. (1957).
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence of Motion to Amend Journal in Senate

Sec. 13.8 In the Senate, a motion to amend the Journal made after the 
    reading thereof takes precedence of a motion to lay a House bill 
    before the Senate and make it the pending business.

    On July 26, 1962,(7) following a quorum call conducted 
immediately after the reading of the Journal, a Senator moved that the 
Senate turn to the consideration of a certain House bill(8) 
and that it be laid down and made the pending business. Another 
Senator, however, pointing out that because of the quorum call there 
had been no opportunity to offer amendments to the Journal, raised the 
point of order that such motion was not in order until such time as 
amendments to the Journal had been offered and consideration thereof 
completed. The presiding officer(9) sustained the point of 
order, noting that under Senate Rule III(10) any motion to 
amend or correct the Journal was privileged and to be proceeded

[[Page 346]]

with until disposed of, but that there had been no opportunity to 
present such a motion because the Senate found itself without a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 14857, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. H.R. 11040, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. (1962).
 9. Lee Metcalf (Mont.).
10. Rule III clause 1, Senate Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c05_txt-15]                         

[Page 346-351]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                          B. THE HOUSE JOURNAL
 
Sec. 14. Approval

    In ordinary practice the Journal is approved by the House without 
the formality of a motion,(11) after the Speaker, in 
accordance with the applicable House rule,(12) has examined 
it and announced that it meets with his approval. But when objection is 
raised to the approval of the Journal by unanimous consent, the Speaker 
may immediately put the question thereon to the House.(13) 
Moreover, even though the Speaker announces his approval of the 
Journal, he or the House may order it read.(14) And, in this 
regard, a motion that the Journal be approved as read, in the absence 
of timely objection thereto, may be entertained and acted upon even 
though offered before the reading of the Journal has been 
completed.(15) On the other hand, the motion to amend the 
Journal, although taking precedence over the motion to approve it, may 
not be admitted after the previous question has been demanded on the 
motion to approve.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 14.10, 14.11, infra.
12. See Sec. 11, supra.
13. See Sec. 14.12, infra.
14. See Sec. 11, supra.
15. See Sec. Sec. 14.4 et seq., infra.
16. See Sec. 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is a long-established rule that the transaction of business, no 
matter how highly privileged, is not in order before the approval of 
the Journal.(17) Thus, even a matter of such high privilege 
as a report from the Committee on Rules may not be called up for 
consideration before the Journal has been approved.(18) 
However, the Journal's approval yields to, and thus may be delayed by, 
the simple motion to adjourn,(19) the administration of the 
oath,(20) a point of no quorum,(1) an arraignment 
of impeachnent,(2) a parliamentary inquiry,(3) 
and questions of privilege of the House.(4) And, of course, 
those matters sanctioned by unanimous consent prior to or during the 
reading of the Journal are at the same time necessarily in order before 
the approval of the Journal also.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 12, supra.
18. See Sec. 12.2, supra.
19. See Sec. 12.3, supra.
20. See Sec. 12.5, supra.
 1. See Sec. Sec. 12.6, 12.13, supra.
 2. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 469.
 3. See Sec. 12.15, supra.
 4. See Sec. 12.17, supra.
 5. See Sec. 12, supra.

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

[[Page 347]]

    It is the uniform practice in the House to approve the Journal for 
each legislative day.(6) Even when the House is reconvening 
after an adjournment to a day certain of several weeks duration, the 
Journal of the last day of meeting is taken up for 
approval.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2731.
 7. See Sec. 11.2, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order of Approval of Journals

Sec. 14.1 When the Journals of more than one session remain unread and 
    unapproved, they are taken up for approval and disposed of in 
    chronological order.

    On Dec. 9, 1963,(8) following the prayer by the 
Chaplain, the Journal of the proceedings of Dec. 6, 1963, was read and 
approved. The Journal of the proceedings of Dec. 7, 1963, was then read 
and, after a Member had reserved the right to object thereto, 
eventually approved when the Speaker(9) put the question 
thereon to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 109 Cong. Rec. 23830, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delay in Approval

Sec. 14.2 The failure of the Record to show an action taken in the 
    House does not justify a delay in the approval of the Journal which 
    correctly recorded such action.

    On June 7, 1948,(10) a Member questioning the accuracy 
of the Journal as read reserved the right to object thereto, and 
pointing out by way of explanation that the Record for the day in 
question showed the adoption of only one Senate amendment to a certain 
House joint resolution(11) when there were in fact two such 
amendments to be considered, requested that the approval of the Journal 
therefore be put off until the next day in order that the matter might 
be investigated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 7281, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H.J. Res. 296, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. (1948).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker pro tempore(12) declared that the Journal as 
prepared and read stated the true facts and the true record of the 
situation, and that the Record, which he had examined and found to be 
in error, could be corrected by unanimous consent to state the true 
facts in conformity with the Journal. He concluded that in his opinion 
the Journal should be approved as read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Charles A. Halleck (Ind.).

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

[[Page 348]]

Motion That Journal Be Approved as Read

Sec. 14.3 A motion that the Journal be approved as read which 
    interrupts the reading thereof is subject to a point of order when 
    made.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(13) after a Member had interrupted the 
reading of the Journal to move that it be approved as read, debate was 
had on the motion and the previous question was ordered thereon. Then, 
in responding to a series of parliamentary inquiries, the 
Speaker(14) advised that a point of order against the motion 
at that particular stage would come too late, but emphasized that he 
would not want the inference to be drawn that the point could not be 
made under other circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 6095, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.4 A motion that the Journal be approved as read, in the absence 
    of timely objection thereto, may be entertained by the Speaker and 
    acted upon by the House, even though offered before the reading of 
    the Journal has been concluded.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(15) after a Member had interrupted the 
reading of the Journal to move that it be approved as read, debate was 
had on the motion and the previous question was ordered thereon. 
Thereafter the Speaker,(16) noting in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry that a point of order against the motion would at 
that stage come too late, put the question of approval to the House, 
and the motion then being agreed to, the Journal as read was approved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 6095, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.5 A point of order against a motion that the Journal be 
    considered as read and approved came too late after there had been 
    debate on the motion and the previous question had been ordered 
    thereon, notwithstanding that such motion was made before the 
    reading of the Journal was completed.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(17) a Member interrupted the reading 
of the Journal to move that it be approved, after which debate was had 
on the motion and the previous question was ordered thereon. 
Thereafter, in responding to a

[[Page 349]]

series of parliamentary inquiries, the Speaker(18) said that 
the reading of the Journal had not been completed, and that a motion 
had been made that the Journal be considered as read and approved; he 
stated that while he would not want the inference to be drawn that a 
point of order could not be made against the motion under other 
circumstances, at that particular stage the point of order came too 
late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 6095, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.6 A motion that the Journal be approved as read is not subject 
    to the point of order that the reading of the Journal has not been 
    completed after the vote on the question of approval has been 
    taken.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(19) after a Member had interrupted the 
reading of the Journal to move that it be approved, debate was had on 
the motion and the previous question was then ordered thereon. 
Subsequently, in response to a number of parliamentary inquiries, the 
Speaker(20) conceded that the reading of the Journal had not 
been completed, but said, inter alia, that a point of order would not 
lie against the motion once the vote on the question of approval had 
been taken, because the will of the House would then have been 
expressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 6095, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.7 Whenever the previous question has been ordered on a motion 
    to approve the Journal on which there has been no debate, a Member 
    may demand the right to debate the motion under the 
    rules(1) of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule XXVII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1973), 
        providing, inter alia, that 40 minutes of debate shall be 
        allowed whenever the previous question has been ordered on any 
        proposition on which there has been no debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(2) a Member moved that the Journal be 
approved, and without any debate on such motion, the previous question 
was ordered thereon. The Speaker,(3) in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry, then ruled that debate on the motion might be 
had at that time under Rule XXVII clause 3 if a Member claimed the 
right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 111 Cong. Rec. 23602, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.8 The motion to lay on the table is applicable to a motion that 
    the Journal be ap

[[Page 350]]

    proved as read and takes precedence over a prior demand for the 
    previous question thereon.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(4) after the Clerk had finished the 
reading of the Journal, a Member made the motion that it be approved as 
read and then moved the previous question thereon, whereupon another 
Member moved to table the motion to approve and offered an amendment to 
the Journal. The Speaker(5) ruled that the amendment was not 
in order, but recognized a Member to move to table the motion to 
approve the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 111 Cong. Rec. 23600, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.9 The yeas and nays may be had on ordering the previous 
    question on a motion that the Journal be approved as read.

    On July 25, 1949,(6) after the Clerk had finished the 
reading of the Journal of the previous legislative day, a Member moved 
that the Journal as read stand approved, and on that motion moved the 
previous question. The question was then stated by the 
Speaker(7) to be on ordering the previous question, and 
following the demand of another Member for the yeas and nays thereon, 
the yeas and nays were so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 10092, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Approval by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 14.10 Under the old rule, under which the Journal was read, the 
    Journal was customarily approved as read by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 18, 1965,(8) after the Clerk had read the 
Journal of the proceedings of the preceding session, the 
Speaker(9) announced that without objection the Journal, as 
read, would stand approved. There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 27170, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.11 Under the new rule, the Journal is normally approved by the 
    House without the formal putting of a motion to approve.

    On Feb. 21, 1972,(10) the Speaker,(11) having 
announced to the House his examination and approval of the Journal of 
the last day's proceedings, declared that, without objection, the 
Journal

[[Page 351]]

would stand approved. There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 118 Cong. Rec. 4748, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.12 Where objection was raised to the approval of the Journal by 
    unanimous consent, the Speaker could immediately put the question 
    of approval to the House.

    On Dec. 9, 1963,(12) in response to a Member's 
reservation of the right to object to the Journal as read for the 
previous legislative day, the Speaker(13) immediately 
declared the question to be on the motion to approve the Journal for 
that day, and after the motion was agreed to announced that the Journal 
stood approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 109 Cong. Rec. 23831, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reception of Messages Before Approval

Sec. 14.13 The Speaker may receive a message from the Senate prior to 
    the approval of the Journal.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(14) while a motion to approve the 
Journal was under debate, a Member rising to a point of order objected 
to the reception by the Speaker of a message from the Senate as the 
transacting of business of the House prior to the completion of the 
reading of the Journal. The Speaker(15) stated that it is 
always proper to receive a message from the President of the United 
States, or from the other body, as quickly as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 23604, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.14 A message from the Senate may be received while the motion 
    to approve the Journal is under debate.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(16) while the motion to approve the 
Journal as read was under debate, a Member made the point of order that 
the receipt of a message from the Senate then being communicated to the 
House constituted the transacting of business of the House prior to the 
completion of the reading of the Journal. The Speaker(17) 
replied that it is always proper, as well as courteous, to receive a 
message from the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 23607, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

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

[[Page 352]]



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c05_txt-16]                         

[Page 352-358]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                      C. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
 
Sec. 15. In General; Purpose and Format


    The Congressional Record is ``substantially a verbatim report of 
proceedings'' in the two Houses of Congress.(1) While the 
House Journal(2) is the official record of the proceedings 
of the House,(3) it contains only minutes of official 
actions, and is not a record of debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 44 USC Sec.  901 (1970).
            The origin, publication, and distribution of the Record is 
        discussed in 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6959.
 2. See Sec. Sec. 8-14, supra.
 3. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2727.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statutory provisions and rules which govern the 
format(4) and content(5) are discussed below. In 
addition, it should be noted that although the Record is 
``substantially a verbatim report,'' the rules of the Joint Committee 
on Printing and the general practices of the House permit Members to 
extend their remarks so as to include matters not spoken on the 
floor,(6) and to edit remarks actually delivered on the 
floor.(7) The House may also order the deletion from the 
Record of remarks made by a Member without recognition by the Speaker, 
and unparliamentary remarks which reflect unfavorably upon the House, 
its membership, or institutions.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. Sec. 15.1, 15.2, infra.
 5. See Sec. 16, infra.
 6. See Sec. 20, infra.
 7. See Sec. 19, infra.
 8. See Sec. 17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Control over the arrangement and style of the Record is vested in 
the Joint Committee on Printing(9) by 
statute.(10) The Joint Committee on Printing has adopted 
rules to provide for the prompt publication and delivery of the 
Record.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  The Joint Committee on Printing is composed of three Members of 
        the Senate and three Members of the House. The House elects its 
        members from the Committee on House Administration, and the 
        Chairman of that committee must be one of the three selected. 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 1001 (1973).
10. 44 USC Sec. 901 (1970). See also 44 USC Sec. Sec. 902-910 (1970) 
        for other statutory provisions relative to the Congressional 
        Record.
11. The rules of the Joint Committee on Printing are frequently 
        reprinted in the daily edition of the Congressional Record in 
        the section entitled ``Laws and Rules for Publication of the 
        Congressional Record,'' which precedes the section entitled 
        ``Daily Digest.'' The individual rules will be considered 
        herein as they pertain to the subject matter under discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each House of Congress separately controls the content of its

[[Page 353]]

portion of the Record.(12) By House rule, the Committee on 
House Administration has jurisdiction over ``[m]atter relating to 
printing and correction of the Congressional Record.''(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2503.
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 693 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    House Rule XXXIV clause 1(14) provides for the 
appointment and removal of the official reporters of debate, and vests 
in the Speaker the manner of the execution of their duties. The 
reporters of debates have played a significant role in the evolution by 
which the House has developed a system of daily verbatim reports of its 
proceedings.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. House Rules and Manual Sec. 923 (1973).
15. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress has statutorily mandated that the Record be published in 
daily form during each session, and be revised, printed, and bound 
promptly in permanent form for distribution during and after the close 
of each session of Congress.(16) Thus a daily edition is 
published and distributed on each working day while Congress is in 
session, and a softbound edition, known as the ``greenbound'' edition 
is published and distributed biweekly while Congress is in session. The 
hardbound permanent edition is generally ready for publication and 
distribution sometime subsequent to the conclusion of a session of 
Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 44 USC Sec. 903 (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Record for each day is divided into four main sections: 
Proceedings of the House; Proceedings of the Senate; Extensions of 
Remarks;(17) and Daily Digest. The Joint Committee on 
Printing has directed the Public Printer to arrange the contents of the 
daily edition of the Record so as to alternate the placement in 
consecutive issues of the House and Senate proceedings insofar as such 
an arrangement is feasible.(18) The House and Senate 
proceedings directly precede the ``Extensions of Remarks'' section, 
which is followed by the ``Daily Digest.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 20, infra, for a discussion of the content of the 
        ``Extensions of Remarks'' section.
18. Rule 1 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress has directed the Joint Committee on Printing to provide 
for the preparation and publication of an index to the Congressional 
Record semimonthly while Congress is in session, and a complete index 
to the entire session subsequent to the close of each session of 
Congress.(19) The index consists generally of two main

[[Page 354]]

parts, an index to proceedings, and a history of bills and resolutions, 
which is arranged by bill and resolution number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 44 USC Sec. Sec. 901, 902 (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946,(20) Congress adopted the following provision, which is 
the statutory authority for the Daily Digest:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See 44 USC Sec. 905 (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Joint Committee on Printing shall provide for printing in 
    the daily Record the legislative program for the day together with 
    a list of congressional committee meetings and hearings, and the 
    place of meeting and subject matter. It shall cause a brief resume 
    of congressional activities for the previous day to be incorporated 
    in the Record, together with an index of its contents prepared 
    under the supervision of the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk 
    of the House of Representatives, respectively.

    The Daily Digest regularly contains the following subsections: 
Highlights; Senate Chamber Action; Senate Committee Meetings; House 
Chamber Action; House Committee Meetings; and Joint Committee Meetings. 
A list of House and Senate committee meetings scheduled for the morning 
of which the Record is published concludes the Daily Digest. In 
addition, the Friday issues contain a section entitled ``Congressional 
Program Ahead'' which discusses the activities scheduled in the House 
and Senate and their committees for the coming week.
    The Joint Committee on Printing has specified to the Public Printer 
the type size and printing style that is to be used in the publication 
of the Record.(1) Neither the Speaker nor the House may 
order changes in the type size or printing style without the approval 
of the Joint Committee on Printing.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule 2 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 
        1972.
 2. See Sec. Sec.  15.1, 15.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member, upon payment of the cost, may receive from the Public 
Printer extracts from the Congressional Record for his personal use and 
distribution.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 44 USC Sec. 907 (1970). See 44 USC Sec. 908 (1970) for the 
        statutory procedure by which the Sergeant at Arms may deduct 
        the cost of printing the extracts from the salary of a Member 
        or Delegate who is delinquent in paying for the extracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When reprints are to be made of material in the Record by the 
Government Printing Office, it is customary to obtain the approval of 
those Members whose remarks are to be reprinted.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 15.4, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Format Changes

Sec. 15.1 A unanimous-consent request to change the format of

[[Page 355]]

    the Record to permit a comparative print of three versions of a 
    legislative enactment to be printed in three parallel columns 
    should be submitted subject to the approval of the Joint Committee 
    on Printing.

    On Oct. 30, 1939,(5) Mr. Lawrence Lewis, of Colorado, 
requested unanimous consent that a comparative print showing the 
Neutrality Act of 1937, together with House Joint Resolution 
306,(6) as passed by the House, and the same joint 
resolution as amended and passed by the Senate, be printed in the 
Record in three parallel columns. At the time of this request the 
proceedings of Congress were being printed in the Record in double 
parallel columns. The Speaker(7) responded to this request 
to deviate from the basic format of the Record as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 85 Cong. Rec. 1059, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. 76th Cong. 2d Sess. (1939).
 7. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it proper, in order to conform to 
    the established rules of practice in the House with reference to 
    the matter covered by the request of the gentleman from Colorado, 
    to state to the gentleman that in the conference he had with the 
    Chair this morning relative to this matter the information was not 
    disclosed that the request would require a change in the usual 
    format of the Record. The Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian 
    that it would be contrary to the law with reference to printing of 
    the Record to submit the request.
        The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from Colorado that he 
    submit his request subject to the approval of the Joint Committee 
    on Printing.

Mr. Lewis amended the request to incorporate the suggestions of the 
Speaker, but an objection was raised. Later in the same meeting, 
however, a substantially similar request was agreed to by the House 
without objection, and the comparative print was inserted in the 
Record.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 85 Cong. Rec. 641 (appendix), 76th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 30, 1939.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Size

Sec. 15.2 The Speaker will not entertain a unanimous-consent request to 
    permit a letter inserted in the Record to be printed in larger type 
    than that provided in the regulations of the Joint Committee on 
    Printing.

    On Feb. 25, 1936,(9) Mr. Joseph P. Monaghan, of Montana, 
re

[[Page 356]]

quested unanimous consent to have the Record corrected so that the 
letter he had previously inserted would be printed in 7\1/2\-point type 
in the permanent Record, rather than the type size that was specified 
for such documents in the rules of the Joint Committee on 
Printing.(10) The Speaker(11) responded as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 80 Cong. Rec. 2767, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. The current rules of the Joint Committee on Printing still require 
        such documents and ``all matter included in the remarks for 
        speeches of Members of Congress, other than their own words,'' 
        to be printed in 6\1/2\-point type. See Rule 2 of the Joint 
        Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972.
11. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that 
    letters, no matter by whom they are written, are printed in small 
    type. The gentleman from Montana made no request that his letter be 
    printed in any other form of type. That is a matter which rests 
    entirely with the Joint Committee on Printing, and that committee 
    has formulated certain rules, and the Chair assumes that the Public 
    Printer is following the rules as laid down by the Joint Committee 
    on Printing. What is the request of the gentleman?
        Mr. Monaghan: I ask unanimous consent that the Record be 
    corrected and that this letter be reprinted in 7\1/2\-point type, 
    inasmuch as aged people are the ones who will read it.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not think he has a right to even 
    recognize the gentleman to make a unanimous consent request on that 
    matter, because that is fixed by law.

Reporters--Insertion of Applause

Sec. 15.3 Demonstrations in the House are not part of the Record, and 
    the reporters are instructed not to insert ``applause'' or ``loud 
    applause.''

    On Mar. 6, 1945,(12) the Speaker,(13) in 
response to a parliamentary inquiry, stated his reasoning for 
instructing the reporters not to insert ``applause'' or ``loud 
applause'' in the Record where such demonstrations have occurred on the 
floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 1789, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In times past there appeared in the Record the word 
    ``Applause'' where a Member spoke. In another place there was 
    ``Loud applause.'' In another place there was ``Loud and prolonged 
    applause.'' In another place there was ``Loud and prolonged 
    applause, the Members rising.'' If I had made a speech and had 
    received ``applause,'' and some Member had followed me immediately 
    and had received ``loud and prolonged applause, the Members 
    rising,'' my opponent in the next primary might have called 
    attention to how insignificant I was because I only received 
    ``applause'' and the other Member had received ``loud and prolonged 
    applause, the Members rising.''

[[Page 357]]

        The Chair has held that demonstrations in the House are not a 
    part of the Record, and shall continue to hold that until the rules 
    of the House are changed.

    Later in the same discussion,(14) Mr. Charles L. 
Gifford, of Massachusetts, called the attention of the House to the 
fact that in the Record of Mar. 1 there appeared an address in which 
the word ``applause'' appeared 20 times, and seemed to be a part of the 
proceedings of the House. Speaker Rayburn responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 91 Cong. Rec. 1790, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The present occupant of the Chair was not here; and, 
    furthermore, that was a joint session of the two Houses of 
    Congress.

Reprints

Sec. 15.4 It is the policy of the Joint Committee on Printing and the 
    Public Printer to request the approval of Members, whose remarks 
    appear in the Record, before those remarks are reprinted and 
    distributed pursuant to the request of another Member. (A Member 
    requesting a reprint sometimes announces to the House that Members' 
    remarks on a particular subject will be included in a reprint 
    unless they register objection.)

    On Feb. 28, 1950,(15) Senator Harry P. Cain, of 
Washington, read to the Members of the Senate a letter from the Public 
Printer to Senator William F. Knowland, of California, dated Aug. 13, 
1946, which explained the policy of the Joint Committee on Printing and 
the Public Printer concerning the reprinting and distribution of 
materials appearing in the Congressional Record. The letter, in 
relevant portion, is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 2490, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In reply, I am pleased to advise that, since the Congressional 
    Record is a public document, it is not copyrighted, and matter 
    appearing in the Record may be reprinted by outside sources without 
    obtaining a clearance from anyone. As to reprints by the Government 
    Printing Office, it has long been the policy of the Joint Committee 
    on Printing and this Office to ask for the approval of the Member 
    whose remarks are to be reprinted before reprinting and 
    distributing the same. . . .
        This is purely for the protection of each individual Member, as 
    it not only protects the Members whose remarks are to be reprinted, 
    but it also protects the Member who would order and distribute the 
    same against charges of abuse of the franking privilege, 
    unauthorized use of Federal funds, and so forth.

    On Mar. 7, 1968,(16) Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of 
Pennsylvania, made

[[Page 358]]

the following announcement on the floor of the House, which illustrates 
a procedure by which the consent of Members, whose remarks are to be 
reprinted, is obtained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 114 Cong. Rec. 5764, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, with respect to the 50th anniversary of Ukrainian 
    independence, a private order is being submitted for reprint 
    publication of all statements and other insertions made by Members 
    of the House of Representatives prior, during, and after the 
    January 22, 1968, event, which was observed in the House on January 
    23, 1968.
        If there is no objection from any such Member, his or her 
    statement or insertion will be incorporated in the reprint 
    brochure, which has been requested by the Ukrainian Congress 
    Committee of America.



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c05_txt-17]                         

[Page 358-369]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                      C. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
 
Sec. 16. Matters Printed in the Record; Civil Liability

    Statutory law, House rules, and the practices of the House regulate 
the content of the House portion of the Record. In addition, the House 
frequently agrees by unanimous consent to permit specific items to be 
inserted in the Record which would not ordinarily be included.
    The oath of office subscribed to by Members and Delegates is 
required by statute(17) to be printed in the Record. A list 
of Members filing the oath with the Clerk of the House is then recorded 
following the text of the oath.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 2 USC Sec. 25 (1970).
18. An example of the form of entry in the Record of the oath and the 
        listing of Members subscribing to it may be found at 94 Cong. 
        Rec. 5750, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., May 12, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Occasionally an act of Congress requires a governmental activity to 
report to Congress and specifies that ``the Clerk of the House . . . 
shall cause to be published in the Congressional Record all reports 
submitted pursuant to this law.''(19) Where publication of 
such reports in the Record is required by statute, the Parliamentarian 
furnishes a copy of the report to the Clerk at the time the 
communication is referred to committee, and the Clerk submits the 
report for printing in the Record.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sec. 4(b) of Pub. L. No. 85-804, an act to authorize the making, 
        amendment, and modification of contracts to facilitate the 
        national defense, is an example of such a statutory provision. 
        This act is codified at 50 USC 1434 (1970).
20. For an example of the form of entry in the Record of such reports, 
        see 107 Cong. Rec. 4816-18, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 
        1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The insertion of certain types of materials in the Record is 
prohibited. For example, maps, diagrams, or illustrations may not be

[[Page 359]]

inserted in the Record without the approval of the Joint Committee on 
Printing.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 44 USC Sec. 904 (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain significant matters are printed in the Record under the 
House rules. The list includes the following: petitions or memorials or 
bills of a private nature;(2) bills, resolutions and 
documents referred to committee under the rules;(3) 
amendments to be protected for debate time under the five-minute 
rule;(4) the filing of committee reports;(5) 
committee expenditures;(6) conference reports and 
accompanying statements;(7) messages received from the 
Senate and President of the United States, giving notice of bills 
passed or approved;(8) voting pairs;(9) and 
motions (with signatures) to discharge a committee from further 
consideration of a bill.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule XXII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 849 (1973).
 3. Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1973).
            When a bill or resolution is introduced by request, that 
        fact is noted in the Record. Rule XXII clause 6, House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 860 (1973).
 4. Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1973).
 5. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 743 (1973).
 6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 738 (1973).
 7. Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1973).
 8 Rule XXXIX House Rules and Manual Sec. 935 (1973).
 9. Rule VIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 660 (1973).
10. Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain matters are traditionally printed in the Record pursuant to 
the practices of the House. For example, notations of the following 
occurrences are usually printed: bills signed by the Speaker subsequent 
to adjournment sine die, by title;(11) bills ``pocket 
vetoed'' by the President during adjournment to a day certain, and 
supporting memoranda;(12) delivery of bills and joint 
resolutions to the President by the Committee on Enrolled 
Bills;(13) the delivery of bills to the White House endorsed 
``held for presentation to the President upon his return to the United 
States,''(14) or ``delivered to the White House for 
forwarding to the President'' by the Committee on House 
Administration;(15) reference by the Speaker

[[Page 360]]

of House bills with Senate amendments to committee;(16) 
reference to more than one committee of executive 
communications;(17) appointment by the Speaker of Members to 
a commission subsequent to adjournment;(18) and submission 
of the report of the Board of Visitors, U.S. Coast Guard 
Academy.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 88 Cong. Rec. 9620, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 26, 1942.
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 755, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 19, 1943.
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 10539, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 9, 1943.
14. 105 Cong. Rec. 17637, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 1, 1959.
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 11792, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 26, 1963.
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 8987, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1951.
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 10625, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 18, 1960.
18. 97 Cong. Rec. 13783, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 31, 1951.
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 13639, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House frequently agrees by unanimous consent to permit the 
insertion in the Record of materials at the request of Members. The 
occasions are so numerous and the types of materials so varied, that 
the following insertions serve only as examples: a communication from 
the Chamber of Deputies, Peru, expressing condolences on the Alaskan 
earthquake;(20) rules and regulations governing the use of 
the House office buildings,' the House garages, and the Capitol power 
plant, adopted by the House Office Building Commission;(1) 
and the Speaker's analysis of a session of Congress and the 
accomplishments of the House.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 110 Cong. Rec. 7962, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 15, 1964.
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 23926, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 15, 1965.
 2. 109 Cong. Rec. 25556, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 24, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The protection afforded matters printed in the Record by the Speech 
or Debate Clause of the Constitution(3) has been the subject 
of several court decisions. In Hentoff v Ichord,(4) the 
United States District Court for the District of Columbia enjoined the 
publication or distribution of a congressional committee report by the 
Public Printer because it was held to be without any proper legislative 
purpose and an infringement upon first amendment rights. The court, 
however, stated that publication in the Congressional Record of the 
report could not be enjoined, because of the protection afforded by the 
Speech or Debate Clause. A more extensive discussion of this subject is 
found elsewhere in this work.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 6.
 4. 318 F Supp 1175 (D.D.C. 1970).
 5. See Ch. 7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speech or Debate Clause does not immunize a Member from a civil 
libel action for the reprinting and distribution of allegedly libelous 
statements which have appeared in the Record. In Long v 
Ansell,(6) the Supreme

[[Page 361]]

Court stated this proposition in dictum. In McGovern v 
Martz,(7) the United States District Court for the District 
of Columbia held that remarks made on the floor and published in the 
Record were absolutely privileged, and approved the dictum in Long v 
Ansell to the effect that such privilege would not extend to the 
republication and distribution by a Member of remarks he had made on 
the floor of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 293 U.S. 76 (1934).
 7. 182 F Supp 343 (D.D.C. 
        1960).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bills

Sec. 16.1 The House, in the interest of economy, occasionally agrees by 
    unanimous consent to dispense with the printing in the Record of 
    the text of an especially lengthy bill.

    On June 17, 1963,(8) the House was considering a bill to 
enact part II of the District of Columbia Code, entitled ``Judiciary 
and Judicial Procedure.''(9) In view of the high cost of 
printing such a lengthy bill, the House agreed by unanimous consent to 
dispense with the printing of the text of the bill in the 
Record.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 109 Cong. Rec. 10910, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. H.R. 4157, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. (1963).
10. 109 Cong. Rec. 10911, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Apr. 2, 1962,(11) the House, while considering a bill 
to revise and codify the general and permanent laws relating to the 
Canal Zone,(12) agreed by unanimous consent to permit the 
insertion of a statement in the Record explaining the bill in lieu of 
printing the entire bill.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 5531, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. H.R. 10931, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. (1962).
13. For additional illustrations of this precedent, see 111 Cong. Rec. 
        8375, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 26, 1965; 109 Cong. Rec. 
        18044, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 25, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.2 Upon the rejection by the House of an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute that the Committee of the Whole had reported to the 
    House in place of the bill as reported by a committee, the text of 
    the original bill was printed in the Record.

    On Dec. 16, 1970,(14) a bill to amend the Food Stamp Act 
of 1964,(15) as reported with standing committee amendments, 
was being considered in the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of 
the Whole agreed to and

[[Page 362]]

reported to the House an amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
amended.(16) The House, by a roll call vote, then rejected 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.(17) 
After the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, the 
text of the original bill was printed in the Record.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 41981, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
15. H.R. 18582, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970).
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 42032, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 16, 1970.
17. Id. at p. 42033.
18. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.3 After a bill was reported back to the House by a standing 
    committee with an amendment, in accordance with a motion to 
    recommit with instructions, the entire text of the bill, as 
    amended, was printed in the Record, instead of the usual notation 
    of the third reading of the bill by title.

    On Apr. 16, 1970,(19) the House, while considering the 
Family Assistance Act of 1970,(20) adopted a motion to 
recommit with instructions to report the bill back with specific 
amendments forthwith. The committee reported back the bill as 
instructed, the House agreed to the amendment, and the 
Speaker(1) then put the question of the engrossment and 
third reading of the bill to the House. At this point the full text of 
the bill, as amended, was printed in the Record.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 12092, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H.R. 16311, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970).
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 2. 116 Cong. Rec. 12093, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 16, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The adoption of a motion to recommit with 
instructions does not ordinarily require the printing of the complete 
text of the bill, as amended, in the Record. The third reading of the 
bill is by title, and usually this is so indicated in the Record. In 
this instance, due to the widespread public interest in the bill, the 
Speaker requested that the bill be printed in full, as amended, in the 
Record.

Sec. 16.4 The text of a House amendment to a Senate bill was, by 
    unanimous consent, ordered printed in the Record on the following 
    legislative day rather than at the point in the proceedings at 
    which it was adopted.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Mar. 19, 1970, the House discharged the 
Committee on the District of Columbia from further consideration of the 
Senate bill for District of Columbia court reorganization and criminal 
law re

[[Page 363]]

form,(3) and substituted an amendment containing the text of 
a bill which had already passed the House.(4) Because of the 
length of the bill and the lateness of the hour on Mar. 19, the House 
expressed unanimous consent that the text and the amendment be printed 
in the Record for the next legislative day, Monday, Mar. 23, in order 
not to delay the printing of the Record for Mar. 19.(5) The 
Government Printing Office, however, misinterpreted this request and 
deferred the printing of the entire proceedings surrounding the 
adoption of the amendment to Mar. 23, as well as the text of the 
amendment itself.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. S. 2601, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970).
 4. H.R. 16196, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970).
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 8221, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 19, 1970.
 6. See 116 Cong. Rec. 8495-8550, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 23, 1970, 
        for the entire proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petitions

Sec. 16.5 Neither the Speaker nor the Committee on Printing has 
    jurisdiction over the manner of printing of petitions of Members in 
    the Record under clause 1 of Rule XXII; appeal must be made to the 
    individual Member concerned.

    On Apr. 30, 1935,(7) the following discussion occurred 
concerning the propriety of repeated insertions in the Record by a 
Member of petitions covering subject matter that had been dealt with 
legislatively by the House in the current session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 79 Cong. Rec. 6631, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry I 
    wish to direct to the Chair is whether the Committee on Printing 
    cannot control the matter of inserting such petitions in the 
    Record, after a measure passes, when it is clearly apparent the 
    petitions can accomplish no useful purpose?

        The Speaker:(8) The gentleman understands that the 
    Chair has no right to judge . . . the sufficiency or propriety of 
    petitions Members may insert in the Record; nor, in the opinion of 
    the Chair, does the Committee on Printing have any jurisdiction in 
    the matter. Appeal must be made to the individual Member concerned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blanton: And control is not within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Printing.
        The Speaker: No; the Chair just stated that the Committee on 
    Printing does not have jurisdiction.
        Paragraph 1, rule XXII, provides as follows:

            Members having petitions or memorials or bills of a private 
        nature to present may deliver them to the Clerk, endorsing 
        their names and the reference or disposition to be

[[Page 364]]

        made thereof; and said petitions and memorials and bills of a 
        private nature, except such as, in the judgment of the Speaker, 
        are of an obscene or insulting character, shall be entered on 
        the Journal, with the names of the Members presenting them, and 
        the Clerk shall furnish a transcript of such entry to the 
        official reporters of debates for publication in the Record.

After further debate, the Speaker stated:

        The Chair may say to the gentleman from Texas that as a matter 
    of practice there is not the slightest objection to a Member 
    lumping all of the petitions together. Then they would be in the 
    Record. But this is up to the Member.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    situation, as I understand it, is this, and I have talked to the 
    members of the Printing Committee: A member files petitions at the 
    desk. On the same day he may file 100 or 200 of them, reading, 
    ``The petitioner, John Jones, and others.'' Each one of those 
    petitions is referred to in the Appendix. I think the desk itself 
    at the close of the day might lump together the petitions of each 
    Member as to the same subject. There would then be only one 
    reference in the Appendix or in the Record, instead of sometimes 10 
    pages. I do not see why it cannot be done mechanically by the 
    Clerk.
        The Speaker: Under the rules no one at the desk has authority 
    to lump the petitions together. It is a matter either for the 
    House, under the rule which has just been read, or else an appeal 
    must be made to the individual Member. No one at the desk has 
    authority to combine them without the consent of the Member who 
    introduces them. The House, of course, could control the matter.

Committee Reports

Sec. 16.6 The Public Printer refused to print in the Record the text of 
    a congressional committee report that had already been printed in 
    pamphlet form, citing a ruling by the Joint Committee on Printing 
    that prohibits such duplication of printing.

    On Mar. 29, 1949,(9) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
stated that on the preceding day he had asked and received the 
unanimous consent of the House to extend his remarks in the Record and 
to include a report on spies issued by the Committee on Un-American 
Activities. Mr. Rankin further stated that he had been informed by the 
Government Printing Office that the report would not be printed in the 
Record, because to do so would violate a ruling by the Joint Committee 
on Printing that prohibits the printing of committee reports in the 
Record that have previously been printed in pamphlet 
form.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 3396, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
10. This rule, which applies to committee and subcommittee reports but 
        not to conference reports, is rule 9 of the rules adopted by 
        the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972.

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

[[Page 365]]

Sec. 16.7 The House agreed by unanimous consent to permit the printing 
    of a committee activity report in both pamphlet form and in the 
    Congressional Record notwithstanding the rule of the Joint 
    Committee on Printing that prohibits the printing of committee 
    reports in both forms.

    On Sept. 1, 1960,(11) the House agreed by unanimous 
consent to permit the printing of an activity report of the Committee 
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in the Record. Immediately 
thereafter Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, requested unanimous consent 
that the same report be printed in pamphlet form for distribution 
notwithstanding the rule of the Joint Committee on Printing that 
prohibits committee reports to be printed in both pamphlet form and in 
the Record.(12) The House agreed to the request without 
objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 19139, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. This rule is often reprinted in the daily edition of the 
        Congressional Record in the section entitled ``Laws and Rules 
        for Publication of the Congressional Record'', which 
        immediately precedes the section entitled ``Daily Digest''. See 
        for example rule 9 of the rules of the Joint Committee on 
        Printing, effective May 23, 1972, that are reprinted in the 
        daily edition of the Congressional Record for Thursday, Apr. 
        19, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conference Reports

Sec. 16.8 The consideration of conference reports is privileged 
    business, and the calling up of such a report does not require 
    unanimous consent after the report has been printed in the Record.

    On Sept. 2, 1959,(13) the House was considering a 
conference report on a bill relating to the power of the states to 
impose net income taxes on income derived from interstate commerce and 
establishing a Commission on State Taxation of Interstate Commerce and 
Interstate and Inter-governmental Taxation Problems.(14) 
After Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, reserved the right to object to a 
request that the statement of the managers of the bill be read in lieu 
of the report, the following discussion occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 105 Cong. Rec. 17769, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 2524, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: If I do not object to the reading, that does not 
    foreclose me from objecting to the consideration of the conference 
    report?

[[Page 366]]

        The Speaker:(15) This is a privileged matter. No 
    objection lies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: No objection lies on this? The Speaker is talking 
    about the reading?
        The Speaker: The Chair is talking about the conference report, 
    which is a privileged matter.
        Mr. Patman: And one objection would not lie to it?
        The Speaker: No objection would.

Sec. 16.9 A conference report was called up as a privileged matter even 
    though it had not been printed in the Record because the House had 
    not been in session the previous day when the report was filed.

    On Tuesday, May 12, 1959,(16) the House agreed by 
unanimous consent to give the conferees on a bill making supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959,(17) 
until midnight Wednesday, May 13, to file a conference report on the 
disagreeing of votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendments to the 
bill. The House adjourned from Tuesday, May 12 until Thursday, May 14. 
Since there were no House proceedings to be printed in the Record for 
Wednesday, May 13, the conference report was not printed at the time it 
was filed. On Thursday, May 14,(18) the conference report 
was called up as a privileged matter, and no objection was made to the 
fact that it had not been printed in the Record as required by House 
Rule XXVIII clause 2.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 8006. 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 5916, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 8167, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1973). At the time of the 
        consideration of this conference report the controlling House 
        rule required only that a conference report be printed in the 
        Record prior to its consideration by the House. 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 6516. The provision in Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), 
        which requires the conference report to be printed in the 
        Record three days before being considered by the House, was 
        added by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, section 
        125(p), and made part of the rules in 1971. H. Res. 5, 92d 
        Cong. 1st Sess. (1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.10 The House has agreed by unanimous consent to order the 
    printing of a conference report in the Record for a day in which 
    the House was not in session.

    On Aug. 3, 1961,(20) the House agreed, by unanimous 
consent, to permit the managers on the part of the House to have until 
mid

[[Page 367]]

night the following day, Friday, Aug. 4, to file a conference report on 
a bill,(1) and to order the report to be printed in the 
Record for Aug. 4, notwithstanding the fact that the House would not be 
in session. On Friday, Aug. 4, the conference report was printed in the 
daily edition of the Record under the heading ``House of 
Representatives,'' which immediately followed the Senate proceedings. 
In the bound edition of the Record for Friday, Aug. 4,(2) 
however, there appears under the heading ``House of Representatives'' 
only a notation indicating that the conference report had been 
submitted on that date. The full text of the report does not appear 
until it was Considered by the House on Aug. 7, 1961.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 14544, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. H.R. 7445, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. (1961).
 2. 107 Cong. Rec. 14727, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. 107 Cong. Rec. 14757-59, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. For other occasions 
        on which the House has ordered a conference report to be 
        printed in the Record for a day that the House was not in 
        session, see, e.g., 108 Cong. Rec. 14841, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        July 26, 1962; 107 Cong. Rec. 18642, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Sept. 7, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.11 The House, by unanimous consent, has provided for the 
    consideration of a conference report notwithstanding the fact that 
    it had not been printed in the Record as required by the House 
    rules.

    On July 14, 1970,(4) the House agreed to the following 
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 24030, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it shall be in order on tomorrow, Wednesday, July 15, 
    to consider the conference report on the bill S. 2601, the District 
    of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970, 
    notwithstanding rule 28, clause 2.
        Mr. Speaker, I make this request because of the high cost of 
    printing the voluminous conference report in the Congressional 
    Record. I am informed that it might cover as many as 160 pages of 
    the Record. I can assure the Members that printed copies of the 
    report, in pamphlet form, will be available for their consideration 
    before this report is called up.

    On several occasions the House has agreed, by unanimous consent, 
that it shall be in order during the week to consider any conference 
report at any time.(5) The House has also agreed, by 
unanimous consent, to permit a conference report to be considered on

[[Page 368]]

the same day it was filed, even though it had not been printed in the 
Record.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 100 Cong. Rec. 14670, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 16, 1954; 94 Cong. 
        Rec. 10258, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 25, 1947.
 6. 108 Cong. Rec. 19258, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 12, 1962. Although 
        the conference report had not previously been printed in the 
        daily edition of the Record, it does appear in the permanent 
        edition immediately preceding the consideration of the report 
        by the House. Id. at p. 19278.
            Conference reports generally, see Ch. 33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.12 The House agreed by unanimous consent to permit 40 minutes 
    of debate on a conference report subsequent to its adoption, and to 
    have the text of the debate inserted in the Record preceding the 
    adoption of the report.

    On May 22, 1968,(7) the House agreed, without debate, to 
the conference report(8) on the Consumer Credit Protection 
Act.(9) Subsequent to the adoption of the report, Mr. Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, made the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 14396, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. H. Rept. No. 1397, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (1968).
 9.  S. 5, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 40 minutes of debate 
    may be had on this matter, to be equally divided between the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Patman) and the gentleman from New Jersey 
    (Mr. Cahill), and that it appear in the Record prior to the 
    adoption of the conference report.

The House agreed to the request.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 114 Cong. Rec. 14405, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., May 22, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presidential Messages

Sec. 16.13 A designated Speaker pro tempore may refer a Presidential 
    message and order it printed in the Record only with the unanimous 
    consent of the House.

    On Oct. 9, 1969,(11) the Speaker pro 
tempore(12) laid before the House the Second Annual Report 
of the National Advisory Committee on Adult Basic Education, a message 
from the President of the United States.(13) The message 
was, without objection, referred by the Speaker pro tempore to the 
Committee on Education and Labor and ordered to be printed in the 
Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 29347, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
13. H. Doc. No. 176, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. (1969).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change of Vote

Sec. 16.14. The change of a vote by a Member after the con

[[Page 369]]

    clusion of a roll call and before the announcement of the result is 
    noted in the Record.

    On Mar. 16, 1934,(14) the following exchange occurred 
relating to a parliamentary inquiry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 78 Cong. Rec. 4691, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: As I understand it, the 
    practice has been for some time that when a Member changes his vote 
    from ``no'' to ``aye'' or from ``aye'' to ``no'' there is nothing 
    in the Record to show it. The reporters do not take it down.
        I make the point of order at this time that every word that is 
    uttered in this House should appear in the Congressional Record, 
    and I make the point of order that when a Member changes his vote, 
    as was done 2 days ago, when 40 or 50 Members on the majority and 
    minority sides changed their votes, that change should appear in 
    the Congressional Record.
        The Speaker:(15) The gentleman from New York is 
    correct as to the practice that has prevailed heretofore. The Chair 
    thinks that if a Member changes his vote it ought to appear in the 
    Record, and hereafter the reporters will see that all Members who 
    change their votes are reported in the Congressional Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 20, 1969,(16) several Members changed their vote 
on the conference report(17) concerning a foreign assistance 
appropriation bill.(18) The changes were noted in the 
Record, immediately following the announcement of pairs, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 40456, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H. Rept. No. 779, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. (1969).
18. H.R. 15149, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. (1969)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Davis of Georgia, Mr. Bow, Mrs. Reid of Illinois, Mr. 
    Minshall, and Mr. Kuykendall changed their votes from ``nay'' to 
    ``yea.''

        Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Scheuer, Mr. Culver, and Mr. Tiernan changed 
    their votes from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
        Mr. Scheuer changes his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c05_txt-18]                         

[Page 369-381]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                      C. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
 
Sec. 17. Deletion of Unparliamentary Remarks

    Although the Congressional Record is ``substantially a verbatim 
report of proceedings,''(19) the House frequently excludes 
from the Record remarks made out of order or unparliamentary remarks 
which reflect unfavorably upon the House, its committees, or individual 
Members. Remarks made on the floor by a Member after he has been called 
to order, without recognition by the Chair, or without the consent of 
the Member occupying the floor, are frequently deleted from the Record 
by the House, the Speaker, or the Member in revising his 
remarks.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 44 USC Sec. 901 (1970).
20. See Sec. Sec. 17.7-17.10, infra.
            Disorder in debate generally, see Ch. 29, infra.

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

[[Page 370]]

    A Member occasionally makes a remark in the heat of debate which 
reflects unfavorably upon the House, its membership, or its committees, 
and which he immediately regrets. In such instances the Member who has 
spoken the words may request the unanimous consent of the House that 
they be deleted from the Record or such request may be made by another 
Member. The House frequently agrees to these requests made in the 
spirit of apology.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 17.11, 17.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During floor debate a Member will sometimes demand that words 
spoken by another Member be taken down. The Speaker(2) then 
determines whether the words spoken in debate reflect unfavorably upon 
the House, its membership or institutions. If the Speaker rules the 
words unparliamentary, a Member frequently makes a motion or introduces 
a resolution to delete the unparliamentary remarks from the 
Record.(3) Occasionally the Speaker will immediately order 
the unparliamentary remarks deleted from the Record, without awaiting 
action by the House.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. If the words are taken down in the Committee of the Whole they must 
        be reported to the House for a decision by the Speaker. See 
        Sec. 17.17, infra.
 3. See Sec. 17.13, infra.
 4. See Sec. Sec. 17.21, 17.22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member may also challenge unparliamentary remarks that were not 
deleted from the reporter's notes prior to publication of the daily 
edition of the Record. The usual procedure is similar to the procedure 
employed in challenging remarks that were inserted in the Record under 
leave to extend. In such instances a Member is recognized on a question 
of privilege.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 17.19, infra.
            For a general discussion of questions of privilege, see Ch. 
        11, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedure; Deletion or Expungement Generally

Sec. 17.1 The insertion in the Record of unparliamentary remarks is 
    sufficient to raise a question of the privilege of the House.

    On Sept. 5, 1940,(6) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
was recognized on a question of the privilege of the House, and offered 
a resolution(7) to expunge from the daily edition of the 
Record for the

[[Page 371]]

previous day words spoken on the floor of the House by Mr. Beverly M. 
Vincent, of Kentucky, which impugned the patriotism of Mr. Martin L. 
Sweeney, of Ohio. The House agreed to the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 11552, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 7. H. Res. 591, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. (1940).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.2 The Speaker held that the question of whether an allegedly 
    unparliamentary remark inserted in the Record under leave to extend 
    violated the privileges granted the Member who made the insertion 
    was not subject to a point of order, but was a question for the 
    House.

    On Feb. 27, 1946,(8) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
made a point of order alleging that Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, 
had inserted in the Record an attack on the Committee on Un-American 
Activities.(9) The Speaker(10) responded as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.  92 Cong. Rec. 1725, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Mr. Sabath had referred to the Committee on Un-American Activities 
        as ``the House Un-American Committee.''
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks the remedy of the gentleman from Mississippi 
    is not a point of order. This is an extension of remarks and 
    whether or not it violated the privileges granted the gentleman 
    from Illinois [Mr. Sabath] would be a question for the House to 
    pass on, not the Chair.

Mr. Rankin then made a motion to delete the remarks of Mr. Sabath from 
the permanent Record. The House rejected the motion for the previous 
question on Mr. Rankin's motion, but the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request by Mr. Sabath that the remarks referring to the 
Committee on Un-American Activities be deleted from the Record. Mr. 
Rankin then withdrew his motion.

Sec. 17.3 The action of the House in ordering the entire speech of a 
    Member and the proceedings under a call to order expunged from a 
    permanent Record does not give rise to a question of personal 
    privilege or privilege of the House; the proper method of reopening 
    the matter is by a motion to reconsider the vote whereby such 
    action was taken.

    On Feb. 13, 1941,(11) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to state a question of personal privilege and privilege of the 
House. He offered a resolution stating that on Feb. 11, Mr. Samuel 
Dickstein, of New York, had, during the course of his remarks on the 
House floor, impugned the integrity of a committee of the

[[Page 372]]

House. Mr. Hoffman had interrupted Mr. Dickstein's remarks with a point 
of order that such remarks were out of order and in violation of the 
Constitution. The Speaker(12) refused to rule the words out 
of order and permitted Mr. Dickstein to continue speaking. A few 
moments later Mr. Dickstein's remarks were again interrupted, this time 
by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, who demanded that the words be 
taken down. The words were taken down, and Mr. Rankin moved ``to 
expunge the entire speech of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Dickstein] from the Record.'' The House agreed to the motion, and the 
Record of the House proceedings for Feb. 11 did not contain either the 
remarks of Mr. Dickstein or the proceedings by which the words were 
taken down. Mr. Hoffman stated in his resolution that the deletion of 
the entire proceedings from the Record raised a question of personal 
privilege and privilege of the House, and requested that the permanent 
edition for Feb. 11 be corrected so as to include a portion of Mr. 
Dickstein's remarks and the entire proceedings by which his words were 
taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 979. 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to Mr. Hoffman's argument in support of the resolution 
that the omission of the proceedings referred to violates the First 
Amendment freedom of speech and of the press, the Speaker stated that 
the Constitution also gives the House the authority to establish rules 
for its own procedure. After Mr. Hoffman further argued in support of 
the question of the privilege of the House which he had raised, the 
Speaker responded as follows:

        The House would have to decide that, and, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, the House did decide the matter when it expunged the remarks 
    from the Record. The Chair thinks, under the circumstances, that 
    the proper way to reopen the question would be by a motion to 
    reconsider the vote whereby the motion of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] was adopted. The Chair is of the opinion 
    that inasmuch as the question raised by the gentleman from Michigan 
    was decided by a vote of the House on a proper motion, that he does 
    not now present a question of privilege of the House or of personal 
    privilege.

Sec. 17.4 The Speaker declined to rule on a question of personal 
    privilege arising from the insertion in the Record of allegedly 
    unparliamentary remarks because the transcript of the insertion had 
    not been submitted for the inspection of the Chair.

    On Apr. 7, 1943,(13) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
was rec

[[Page 373]]

ognized on a question of personal privilege. He stated that several 
days earlier a Member had inserted in the Record remarks which 
reflected upon his integrity, and requested an opportunity to respond 
to that charge. The Speaker(14) requested that the original 
transcript of the remarks be submitted for his inspection. Mr. Celler 
replied that he did not have a copy of the transcript in his possession 
at that time, and asked the permission of the Chair to proceed 
nevertheless. With respect to the question of personal privilege, the 
Speaker stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 3065, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is not going to rule on this question without seeing 
    the original transcript and it is not here. If there is no 
    objection, the gentleman may proceed for 10 minutes.

Sec. 17.5 The Speaker ruled that a delay of several months did not 
    preclude a Member from being recognized on a question of personal 
    privilege concerning remarks appearing in the Record.

    On June 30, 1939,(15) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
requested recognition on a question of personal privilege. He cited in 
support of his question of privilege remarks made on the floor of the 
Senate by a Member of that body on Jan. 17, 1939, which were highly 
critical of a statement he had previously made in the House. Mr. John 
E. Rankin, of Mississippi, then made the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 8468, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the statement that 
    the gentleman from Michigan is making does not in any way 
    constitute a question of high constitutional privilege. . . . [T]he 
    statement made in the Senate was months and months ago. It has been 
    in the Congressional Record all this time, and the gentleman from 
    Michigan knew it. Now he is guilty of what is called laches in our 
    courts. He is not entitled to rise to the question of high 
    constitutional privilege at this time in order to use it to 
    filibuster against the bill before the House. I make the point of 
    order that the gentleman is not entitled to rise to a question of 
    high constitutional privilege.

    The Speaker, William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled against Mr. 
Rankin's point of order, and recognized Mr. Hoffman on the question of 
personal privilege.

Remarks Made Out of Order

Sec. 17.6 The Chair may direct the exclusion or deletion, from the 
    Record, of words held to be out of order. (See Sec. 17.21, infra.)

[[Page 374]]

Sec. 17.7 Remarks made by a Member on the floor of the House after he 
    has been called to order by the Chair are excluded from the Record.

    On June 17, 1936,(16) Mr. Robert F. Rich, of 
Pennsylvania, was propounding a question to the Member occupying the 
floor, under a reservation of the right to object, when the regular 
order was demanded by Mr. Claude A. Fuller, of Arkansas. Mr. Rich, 
however, ignoring the announcement by the Speaker that the regular 
order had been demanded, made an additional statement. The 
Speaker(17) stated that Mr. Rich had been out of order in 
extending his statement after the Chair announced that the regular 
order was demanded. The following parliamentary inquiry and response by 
the Speaker then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 9694, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fuller: Mr. Speaker, under the ruling of the Chair I 
    suppose it is to be taken for granted that the remarks of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania should be stricken from the Record. If 
    they are not I want to object, because he was speaking out of 
    order, speaking after the Chair had cautioned him, as is his custom 
    all the time.
        The Speaker: The remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, or 
    any other gentleman who interjects remarks into the Record after he 
    has been called to order by the Chair upon a demand for the regular 
    order, are not entitled to be incorporated in the Record.

Sec. 17.8 Remarks made by a Member subsequent to his point of order 
    that a quorum is not present are ordinarily excluded from the 
    Record, because the point of order is not debatable and only 
    remarks that are made in order are included in the Record.

    On Apr. 15, 1940,(18) Mr. John Taber, of New York, was 
recognized on a question of the privilege of the House. He stated that 
earlier in the debate Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, had made a 
point of order that a quorum was not present, and thereafter had made 
additional statements. Mr. Taber made the point of order that Mr. 
Rankin had not been recognized for the purpose of making those 
statements and that they should not be in the Record. The Speaker pro 
tempore(19) made the following ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 4517, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rules of the House, remarks should only be included 
    in the Record that are made in order. After a

[[Page 375]]

    point of order is made, which is not debatable, any further remarks 
    should not be included in the Record. Therefore the Chair rules 
    that any remarks that may have been made after the point of order 
    that a quorum was not present was made should not be included in 
    the Record.

Sec. 17.9 The reporters are instructed to take down and include as part 
    of the Record of the proceedings remarks interjected by a Member to 
    whom the Member occupying the floor has refused to yield.

    The reporters are instructed to take down such interjections even 
though they are out of order and may be stricken from the permanent 
Record by the House, the Speaker, or the Member in revising his 
remarks.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. This ruling is discussed in Sec. 19.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.10 A parliamentary inquiry may not be used to place statements 
    in the Record.

    On Jan. 6, 1933,(1) the following parliamentary inquiry 
was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 76 Cong. Rec. 1362, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Would it be in order to state that the 
    Republican organization voted silently against the previous 
    question?

    The Speaker(2) responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That is not a parliamentary inquiry, and the gentleman ought 
    not to take advantage of a parliamentary inquiry to make a 
    statement.

Deletion by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 17.11 The House occasionally agrees to a unanimous-consent request 
    by a Member to have certain unparliamentary remarks spoken in 
    debate by another Member deleted from the Record.

    On Aug. 4, 1970,(3) Mr. Page H. Belcher, of Oklahoma, 
referred to Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, as ``the other guy'' 
who was horning in. Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, requested 
unanimous consent that ``the other guy'' as spoken by Mr. Belcher in 
debate be deleted from the Record and that there be inserted in lieu 
thereof ``the gentleman from Massachusetts.'' The House agreed to the 
request.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 27130, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.12 A Member may, with the unanimous consent of the House, have 
    his own remarks, which had been inserted under leave to extend, 
    deleted from the permanent Record.

[[Page 376]]

    On Sept. 20, 1966,(5) a speech delivered by Mr. Arnold 
Olsen, of Montana, which was made in Montana and was highly critical of 
another Member, appeared in the Record. The following day, Mr. Olsen, 
in requesting the unanimous consent of the House that the speech be 
deleted from the permanent Record, stated that it had been inserted by 
his staff, without his permission or knowledge. The House agreed to the 
unanimous-consent request.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 21, 1966.
 6. On several other occasions the House has agreed by unanimous 
        consent to permit a Member to delete his remarks from the 
        Record. See, e.g., Cong. Rec. daily ed.), Aug. 12, 1970 
        (remarks critical of a United States Senator); Cong. Rec. 
        (daily ed.), Sept. 14, 1967 (remarks critical of another 
        Member); 86 Cong. Rec. 1124, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 6, 1940 
        (letters that were later found to have been forged); Cong. Rec. 
        (daily ed.), Mar. 18, 1965 (an extension of remarks by a Member 
        that had been lost by the Public Printer, rediscovered nine 
        years later, and inserted as if it were current).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deletion Pursuant to Motion

Sec. 17.13 After the Speaker ruled certain words spoken by a Member in 
    debate to be out of order, the House agreed to a motion deleting 
    his entire speech from the Record.

    On Feb. 11, 1941,(7) the Speaker(8) ruled 
that certain words spoken by a Member in debate on a 
resolution(9) to continue an investigation by a Special 
Committee on Un-American Activities impugned the motives and actions of 
a committee and its individual members, and were therefore out of 
order. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved to expunge the entire 
speech from the Record. The House agreed to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.  87 Cong. Rec. 894-899, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 9. H. Res. 90, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. (1941).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.14 The Speaker ruled that a motion to strike from the Record 
    would have to be put in writing where the material to be stricken 
    gave rise to a question of privilege of the House.

    On Apr. 25, 1944,(10) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
introduced a resolution to strike from the Record a statement inserted 
by another Member that impugned the integrity and patriotism of Mr. 
Hoffman and which mentioned various Senators and Representatives. 
During debate on the resolution the Speaker(11) in

[[Page 377]]

dicated that there was an inconsistency in the 
resolution,(12) and Mr. Hoffman requested permission to 
withdraw the resolution on the condition that he be permitted to reword 
it and offer it again later in the day. At that point Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, requested the opinion of the Chair as to 
whether a motion to strike the matter under discussion from the Record 
must be in writing, or whether it could be done orally. The Speaker 
responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 90 Cong. Rec. 3696-98, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
12. The resolution directed both that the words be stricken from the 
        Record and that the resolution be referred to the Committee on 
        Rules for such action as it may deem proper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is going to demand that any motion to strike from the 
    Record be put in writing. The gentleman withdraws the resolution.

Later in the same day Mr. Hoffman introduced a modified 
resolution.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The resolution provided for its referral to the Committee on Rules 
        and directed the committee to consider the offensive statement 
        and to take such action as it deemed proper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.15 Debate on a motion to expunge from the Record words taken 
    down and ruled out of order is under the hour rule.

    On June 12, 1947,(14) after Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, was recognized on his motion to strike words from the 
Record that had been held out of order by the Speaker,(15) 
he made the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 6895, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I am recognized now for 1 hour and I have a right 
    to yield to any other Member I desire in this discussion?

The Speaker responded affirmatively.

Sec. 17.16 A Member who has been called to order for words spoken in 
    debate is not entitled to be recognized by the Speaker during 
    debate on a motion to expunge his words from the Record.

    On Feb. 11, 1941,(16) during debate on a 
resolution(17) to continue an investigation by a special 
Committee on Un-American Activities, the Speaker(18) ruled 
that words spoken by Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, impugned the 
motives and actions of a committee and the members thereof and were 
therefore not in order. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved to 
expunge the entire speech of Mr. Dickstein from

[[Page 378]]

the Record. During the debate on the resolution Mr. Dickstein sought 
recognition for the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry. The 
Speaker replied that he could not be recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 87 Cong. Rec. 894-899, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H. Res. 90, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. (1941).
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.17 A motion to expunge words from the Record is not in order in 
    the Committee of the Whole; words taken down in debate in the 
    Committee must be reported to the House by the Chairman.

    On Feb. 18, 1941,(19) during debate in the Committee of 
the Whole, Mr. Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania, demanded-that certain 
words spoken by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, be taken down. The 
Clerk, upon the order of the Chairman,(20) read the words 
objected to. Mr. Rich then requested that the words be expunged from 
the Record. The Chairman stated that it was a matter for the House to 
decide, and he directed the Committee to rise. The Committee then rose 
and Mr. Magnuson reported to the House that certain words in debate had 
been objected to, taken down upon request, and read at the Clerk's 
desk. After listening to the Clerk's reading of the words objected to, 
the Speaker(1) ruled that they did not reflect in an 
unparliamentary manner upon any Member, and that they did not violate 
the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 87 Cong. Rec. 1126, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
            On May 31, 1934, in a similar situation, a Member moved to 
        expunge from the Record words taken down during a debate in the 
        Committee of the Whole. A point of order was made that the 
        words would have to be first reported to the House. The 
        Chairman, John H. Kerr (N.C.), agreed and directed the 
        Committee to rise. 78 Cong. Rec. 10167-70, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
20. Warren G. Magnuson (Wash.).
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.18 A motion to delete from the Record certain words reported to 
    the House by the Committee of the Whole is in order subsequent to a 
    ruling by the Speaker holding them unparliamentary.

    On Mar. 24, 1961,(2) the Committee of the Whole reported 
to the House that certain words used in debate had been objected to 
and, on request, taken down and read at the Clerk's desk. When the 
House resumed sitting, the Clerk reported the words objected to, and 
the Speaker(3) ruled them out of order. The following 
parliamentary inquiry and response by the Speaker then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: The ruling means that 
    these

[[Page 379]]

    words will be stricken from the Record?
        The Speaker: If a motion is made to strike them from the 
    Record.

Mr. Curtis then made a motion to strike the words from the Record, and 
the House agreed to the motion.

Deletion Pursuant to Resolution

Sec. 17.19 The insertion in the Record of unparliamentary remarks is 
    sufficient to give rise to a question of privilege, which is 
    frequently presented in the form of a resolution to expunge such 
    remarks from the permanent Record.

    On May 13, 1946,(4) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of the privilege of the House and offered a 
resolution(5) stating that on May 10, Mr. Frank E. Hook, of 
Michigan, had caused to be inserted in the Congressional Record an 
address delivered by the President of the Michigan CIO Council, which 
impugned the integrity of Congress and the individual Members thereof. 
The resolution requested that the entire speech be expunged from the 
permanent Record. On a roll call vote, the House agreed to the 
resolution and the speech was expunged from the permanent 
Record.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 4922-24, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. H. Res. 616, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. (1946).
 6. See 93 Cong. Rec. 2461-63, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1947, for 
        another occasion on which the House agreed to a resolution 
        expunging from the permanent Record unparliamentary remarks 
        which had been inserted under leave to extend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.20 A resolution, which proposes to strike from the Record 
    language inserted under leave to extend, and which provides that 
    such resolution is to be referred to the Committee on Rules for 
    such action as it may deem proper, is privileged.

    On Apr. 25, 1944,(7) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of privilege and introduced a 
resolution(8) instructing the Committee on Rules to consider 
a statement impugning the integrity and patriotism of Mr. Hoffman, that 
had been inserted in the Record by another Member. Subsequent to the 
Speaker's(9) statement that without objection

[[Page 380]]

the resolution was agreed to, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 90 Cong. Rec. 3698, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. H. Res. 516, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. (1944)
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object----
        The Speaker: It is a privileged resolution.
        Mr. Rankin: I understand, but anything that goes to the 
    Committee on Rules is not a privileged resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognized the gentleman from Michigan 
    on the theory that it is a privileged resolution, and holds that it 
    is a privileged resolution. The Chair has already recognized the 
    gentleman to offer it.

Deletion by the Chair

Sec. 17.21 The Speaker, after ruling certain words taken down in debate 
    out of order, immediately ordered them deleted from the Record, 
    without awaiting action by the House.

    On Feb. 22, 1945,(10) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, requested that certain words spoken in debate by Mr. Frank 
E. Hook, of Michigan, be taken down. The Speaker pro 
tempore,(11) after hearing the words read by the Clerk, made 
the following ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 1371, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair rules the words out of order and they will be 
    stricken from the Record.

    Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, then asked the Chair, in the 
form of a parliamentary inquiry, what had become of the request that 
the words be taken down. The Speaker pro tempore responded as follows:

        The Chair has already ruled on that. The words were stricken 
    from the Record.

Sec. 17.22 Although the Speaker may strike from the Record of the 
    proceedings remarks made by a Member to whom the Member occupying 
    the floor has refused to yield, the Chairman of the Committee of 
    the Whole may not.

    Although it has been said that the Speaker has no control over the 
official record of debates,(12) it is well established that 
he may exclude from the Record flagrantly disorderly 
words,(13) words spoken by a Member after he has been called 
to order,(14) and remarks made by a Member who has not been 
recognized and to whom the Member having the floor has declined to 
yield.(15) The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, 
however, does not share even the Speaker's limited control over the

[[Page 381]]

Record, since it is well established that the Committee of the Whole 
itself has no control over the Congressional Record.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7017.
13. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3471.
14. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6975-6978.
15. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3466.
16. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Apr. 20, 1937,(17) the Speaker(18) stated 
that only the Speaker, and not the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole, has the authority to direct the reporters to delete certain 
improper remarks from the Record. The Speaker cited this principle as 
partial support for a ruling by which the reporters were instructed to 
take down and include as part of the Record of the proceedings remarks 
made by a Member to whom the Member having the floor had declined to 
yield.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 3670, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
19. This ruling is discussed in Sec. 19.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deletion by Government Printing Office

Sec. 17.23 The Government Printing Office edits materials inserted in 
    the ``Extension of Remarks'' section of the Record so as to delete 
    profane words, and indicates such deletions with dashes.

    On Feb. 24, 1970,(20) Mr. Ken Hechler, of West Virginia, 
directed the attention of the House to the fact that he had inserted in 
the ``Extension of Remarks'' section of the Record for the previous day 
a printed newspaper interview with George Titler, who was then the vice 
president of the United Mine Workers of America, in which Mr. Titler 
was quoted as making a number of critical remarks against the character 
of the late Joseph Yablonski. Mr. Hechler noted that the Government 
Printing Office had properly deleted several profane remarks made by 
Mr. Titler in the text of the interview, because such profanity in the 
Record would not be in conformity with the rules of the 
House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.  116 Cong. Rec. 4543, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. The text of the interview appears at 116 Cong. Rec. 4457, 91st 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 24, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Government Printing Office has been 
authorized by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing to delete 
profane extraneous material inserted in the Record, and to indicate 
such deletions with dashes.



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c05_txt-19]                         

[Page 381-390]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                      C. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
 
Sec. 18. Correction of Errors

    The House may correct errors in the printing of the Congressional 
Record in order to ensure that the

[[Page 382]]

proceedings of the House are accurately recorded.(2) This 
prerogative of the House, however, does not permit it to revise remarks 
that are correct and in order, because the House may not change the 
Record merely to show what a Member should have said on the 
floor.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6972.
 3. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3469, 3498; 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 583; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6974. The right of the House 
        to delete from the Record unparliamentary remarks or remarks 
        made out of order is discussed in Sec. 17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although a Member may edit and revise his own remarks without the 
consent of the House,(4) and the Speaker may order 
unparliamentary remarks or remarks made out of order deleted from the 
Record,(5) only the House, and not the 
Speaker,(6) may order the correction of printing errors in 
the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 19, infra.
 5. See Sec. 17.21, supra.
 6. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The correction of printing errors in the Record is frequently 
raised as a question of privilege of the House.(7) While the 
correction of the Record is usually proposed informally, by the 
submission of minor corrections to the official 
reporters,(8) or by unanimous-consent requests for more 
significant changes,(9) a motion or resolution must be 
submitted if a question of order(10) is raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sec Sec. Sec. 18.1, 18.2, infra.
 8. See Sec. 18.3, infra.
 9. See Sec. Sec. 18.4, 18.5, infra.
10. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3464.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A question of privilege concerning an error in the Record may not 
be raised until the daily edition has appeared.(11) Under 
the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing,(12) once the 
daily edition is published, the House has 30 days to submit corrections 
for the permanent edition, before it is made up for printing and 
binding. No corrections may be submitted after the permanent edition of 
the particular volume is published.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 5 Hinds Precedents Sec. 7020.
12.  Rule 8 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972. 
        These rules are frequently reprinted in the daily edition of 
        the Congressional Record in the section entitled ``Laws and 
        Rules for Publication of the Congressional Record,'' which 
        precedes the section entitled ``Daily Digest.''
13. See Sec. 18.2, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question of Privilege of the House

Sec. 18.1 An error in the printing of the Congressional Record, by 
    which the remarks of one Member are attributed to an

[[Page 383]]

    other, gives rise to a question of privilege.

    Parliamentarian's Note: An error in the printing of the 
Congressional Record by which the remarks of one Member are attributed 
to another, raises a question of the privilege of the House. 
(Generally, see Ch. 11, infra.)

Sec. 18.2 An error in the printing of the Congressional Record, by 
    which a Member's remarks were quoted in the text of an insertion 
    made by another Member and were not printed in smaller type as 
    required by a rule of the Joint Committee on Printing, gives rise 
    to a question of the privilege of the House.

    On May 11, 1936,(14) Mr. John Taber, of New York, was 
recognized on a question of the privilege of the House. He stated that 
certain remarks attributed to him had been inserted in the Record of 
May 7, 1936,(15) but did not appear in small type as 
required by the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing in the case of 
quotations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 7019-21, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Taber introduced a resolution to correct the Record, but it was 
defeated on a roll call vote. Mr. John A. Martin, of Colorado, sought 
unanimous consent to correct the Record so as to reduce the quotation 
to small type; this request was objected to.

Submitting Corrections to Reporters

Sec. 18.3 A Member may submit minor corrections of the Record to the 
    official reporters, but controversial questions or matters that 
    might involve another Member must be submitted to the House.

    On Feb. 9, 1937,(16) the following exchange occurred 
concerning a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 1013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: In the matter of correcting 
    the Record, as I understand it, unless it is a matter that involves 
    the Journal or would adversely affect another Member, these minor 
    corrections can be made by the Member going to the desk in front of 
    the Speaker and taking it up with the reporters.
        The Speaker:(17) Answering the gentleman from New 
    York, the rule is that upon insignificant or minor matters such 
    corrections may be made at the request of the Member by submitting 
    it to the reporter at the desk; but if it involves any substantial 
    matter

[[Page 384]]

    that might bring into controversy some other Member or some other 
    controversial question, the Member must rise and ask for such 
    correction from the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correction by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 18.4 The House agreed, by unanimous consent, to correct the Record 
    so as to reflect the actual content of a Presidential message which 
    had been transmitted to the House.

    On Mar. 12, 1963,(18) the House agreed to the unanimous-
consent request of Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, that the Record of the 
previous day be corrected so as to reprint accurately the text of a 
Presidential message, as transmitted to the House by the President of 
the United States.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.). 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. The House must approve the correction of most errors in the 
        printing of the Congressional Record, since only minor 
        corrections may be submitted to the official reporters by a 
        Member. See Sec. 18.3, supra. The House frequently manifests 
        its consent to changes in the Record by agreeing to unanimous-
        consent requests made by an individual Member. For example, see 
        Sec. Sec. 18.13-18.16, infra (correction of errors in recording 
        of vote).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The original copy of the message relating 
to the International Rules of Judicial Procedure, which was transmitted 
to the House by the President, was correct in all respects. One of the 
attached copies, however, contained a message on an unrelated subject 
which had been attached before the message had left the White House. It 
was the submission of this erroneous copy to the official reporters at 
the desk that caused the error in the Record.

Sec. 18.5 Although a Member's words have been taken down and read to 
    the House, the Speaker may recognize him for a unanimous-consent 
    request to withdraw or modify the words objected to.

    On June 5, 1962,(2) Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, 
during the course of his remarks on the House floor, referred to Mr. 
Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, as a ``mouthpiece'' for the American 
Medical Association. Mr. Curtis requested that the words be taken down, 
and the Speaker(3) ordered the Clerk to report the words 
objected to. Following the reading by the Clerk, Mr. Dingell requested 
unanimous consent of the House to change the word ``mouthpiece''

[[Page 385]]

to ``self-appointed spokesman.'' The request was agreed to without 
objection, and Mr. Curtis withdrew his point of order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong. Rec. 9739, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 4. See 93 Cong. Rec. 6895, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., June 12, 1947, for an 
        occasion on which Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.) ruled 
        that a Member who has had his words taken down may be 
        recognized to propound a unanimous-consent request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correction by Motion

Sec. 18.6 A motion to correct the Record is privileged after the 
    approval of the Journal.

    On Jan. 24, 1936,(5) Mr. Joseph P. Monaghan, of Montana, 
requested unanimous consent that an error in the Record of the previous 
day, by which only part of an amendment he had submitted was printed in 
the Record, be corrected so as to include the entire text of the 
amendment. Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, then obtained recognition, 
on a reservation of objection to the unanimous-consent request, in 
order to praise the clerks for the conscientious and efficient manner 
in which they usually performed their duties. Mr. Clifton A. Woodrum, 
of Virginia, made a point of order to the effect that a motion to 
correct the Record would be in order, and that the unanimous consent of 
the House was not required. The Speaker(6) agreed. Thereupon 
Mr. Monaghan moved that the Record be corrected. Mr. Blanton again rose 
to state that he had obtained recognition on a reservation of objection 
to the unanimous-consent request, and the regular order was demanded. 
The Speaker presented the unanimous-consent request, and an objection 
was raised against it. Mr. Monaghan immediately moved that the Record 
be corrected in the manner in which he had previously described. The 
previous question was ordered, and the House agreed to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 80 Cong. Rec. 977, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.  Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.7 Debate on a motion to correct the Record is under the hour 
    rule.

    On July 5, 1945,(7) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, 
made a motion to correct the Record so as to include the exact colloquy 
which had occurred between himself and Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, which had been modified by Mr. Rankin in the process of 
revising his remarks. After Mr. Tarver had concluded his remarks

[[Page 386]]

in support of this motion, Mr. Rankin requested to be heard on the 
motion. Upon being recognized by the Speaker,(8) Mr. Rankin 
inquired as to how long he would be permitted to speak. The Speaker 
advised him that he would be permitted to speak under the hour 
rule.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 7221-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 7222, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.8 The House agreed to a motion to refer a motion to correct the 
    Record to the Committee on Rules.

    On July 5, 1945,(10) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, 
made a motion to correct the Record so as to include the language 
actually spoken in debate by himself and Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, on July 2, 1945. Mr. Tarver stated in support of his 
motion that the colloquy which had occurred on the floor, as taken down 
by the reporters, had been changed substantially by Mr. Rankin in 
revising the text of his remarks. Subsequently, a motion was made to 
refer Mr. Tarver's motion to the Committee on Rules. The House, by a 
division vote, agreed to the motion to refer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 7221-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correction by Resolution

Sec. 18.9 Upon objection being raised to a unanimous-consent request 
    that the Record be corrected to show remarks as reported by the 
    official reporters, the House agreed to a resolution so correcting 
    the Record.

    On Mar. 23, 1949,(11) Mr. William J. Green, Jr., of 
Pennsylvania, requested unanimous consent that the Record be corrected 
to indicate the exact language that had occurred in the colloquy 
between himself and Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, the previous 
day. In support of his request Mr. Green alleged that Mr. Rankin had 
altered the language of their exchange in revising the text of his 
remarks. Mr. Rankin raised an objection to the unanimous-consent 
request, and Mr. Green thereupon offered the following 
resolution:(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 3041, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H. Res. 164, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. (1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Record of Tuesday, March 22 be amended by 
    printing the colloquy between Mr. Rankin and Mr. Green as reported 
    by official reporters.

The House agreed to the resolution.

Sec. 18.10 Debate on a resolution to correct the Record is under the 
    hour rule.

[[Page 387]]

    On Feb. 13, 1946,(13) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
introduced a resolution to delete from the Record of the previous day 
remarks spoken on the floor and inserted in the Record by Mr. Charles 
R. Savage, of Washington, which reflected unfavorably upon Virginia 
state officials. Mr. Smith was recognized to speak on the resolution, 
and the following parliamentary inquiry and response by the 
Speaker(14) then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 1274, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry; for how long is the gentleman from Virginia 
    recognized?

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Virginia is under the 1-hour 
    rule.

The House agreed to the resolution.

Government Printing Office Omissions

Sec. 18.11 Where a committee report is ordered printed in the Record 
    and certain illustrations are omitted from the Record version due 
    to mechanical limitations at the Government Printing Office, such 
    omissions are noted in the Record.

    On Feb. 2, 1966,(15) H. Rept. No. 1241(16) 
was reprinted in the Record. The following notation of omissions was 
printed immediately following the House report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 1742, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Illustrations identified as Robert Shelton, Exhibits Nos. 1, 3, 
    and 7 are omitted because of mechanical limitations in printing the 
    Congressional Record. All of the referenced exhibits, however, are 
    fully illustrated in House Report No. 1241 which was filed and 
    printed this date.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 112 Cong. Rec. 1754, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time for Correction

Sec. 18.12 The Record is not subject to correction after the permanent 
    edition has been printed.

    On Jan. 23, 1969,(18) Mr. William F. Ryan, of New York, 
made a unanimous-consent request that a correction be made in the 
Record for Oct. 15, 1968. The Speaker(19) refused to 
recognize Mr. Ryan for this purpose because an error in the Record of a 
previous Congress cannot be corrected when the permanent edition has 
already been printed.(20)

[[Page 388]]

The Speaker did indicate, however, that Mr. Ryan's statement of the 
error would appear in the Record of the proceedings for the current 
day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
20. The principle that the Record is not subject to correction after 
        the permanent edition has been printed is a long-standing one. 
        See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roll Call Vote Corrections

Sec. 18.13 The correction of a Member's erroneously recorded roll call 
    vote can be made only with the unanimous consent of the House; the 
    insertion in the Record, with the unanimous consent of the House, 
    of remarks in which such an error is recited, does not constitute 
    the consent of the House to effect a change in the Record.

    On June 28, 1966,(1) Mr. Lawrence H. Fountain, of North 
Carolina, with the unanimous consent of the House, had inserted in the 
Record the following remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, the Record of yesterday's rollcall No. 153 has me 
    recorded as being absent. I was present and so answered to my name. 
    I ask unanimous consent that the journal be so corrected.
        I ask unanimous consent that the Congressional Record of June 
    27, 1966, be corrected, in that, on rollcall No. 153 I am recorded 
    as absent, I was present and so answered to my name.

Sec. 18.14 The House may agree to a unanimous-consent request by a 
    Member to correct the permanent edition of the Record so as to 
    correctly record his vote, but a request by a Member to change his 
    vote is not in order after the announcement of the result.

    On May 28, 1959,(2) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request of Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania, who had been 
incorrectly recorded as not voting on roll call No. 59, to correct the 
Record so as to indicate that he had been present and had voted 
``aye''. The following subsequent parliamentary inquiry and reply by 
the Speaker pro tempore(3) illustrates the distinction 
between correcting an erroneously recorded vote in the Record and 
changing a vote after the announcement of the result:(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 9335, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 4. A Member may not change his vote after the announcement of the 
        result. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3070, 3123, 3124, 3160; 
        5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5931-5933, 6093, 6094.
            Generally, see Ch. 30, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: I did not hear how the 
    gentleman

[[Page 389]]

    stated he had voted. Is it permissible to change a vote, on a roll 
    call, a aye-and-nay vote? May a Member change from one to the other 
    the next day?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Of course it is not permissible to 
    change a vote, but it is permissible for a Member to correct the 
    Record.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. For a similar occasion on which the House agreed by unanimous 
        consent to correct an error in the recording of a Member's vote 
        in the Record, see Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), Jan. 8, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.15 A request by a Member to correct his incorrectly recorded 
    vote on a roll call is noted in the Record, provided the request is 
    made before the announcement of the result.

    On Sept. 6, 1961,(6) Mr. Peter F. Mack, Jr., of 
Illinois, following a roll call vote(7) and prior to the 
announcement of the result, announced that his vote had been 
incorrectly recorded, and requested that he be recorded as having voted 
``aye.'' Following the announcement of the result of the vote, Mr. Mack 
made the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 18256, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The vote was on the question of whether to suspend the rules and 
        pass H.R. 9000, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. (1961).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I was incorrectly recorded on the last roll call. 
    I am wondering if the Record will show that I was incorrectly 
    recorded or whether it will show that I changed my vote.

    The Speaker pro tempore(8) responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All the Chair can state is that the Record will show what 
    actually transpired.

Pairs

Sec. 18.16 Although as a general rule the House does not take 
    cognizance of pairs, a Member may request the unanimous consent of 
    the House that the Record be corrected where pairs are erroneously 
    recorded or omitted.

    On Aug. 3, 1965,(9) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, to correct the Record 
so as to indicate that the live pairs recorded at the conclusion of 
roll call No. 215 the previous day(10) should have been 
recorded as general pairs. On other occasions the House has similarly 
agreed by unanimous consent to delete from the Record pairs erroneously 
recorded(11) and to include pairs erroneously 
omitted.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 18976, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1965.
11. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), Aug. 14, 1967.
12. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), Dec. 10, 1963.

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

[[Page 390]]

Cosponsors of Bill or Resolution

Sec. 18.17 An error in the listing of the cosponsors on a bill or 
    resolution that has been introduced in the House cannot be 
    subsequently corrected, but a Member's statement that an error has 
    occurred will appear in the Record.

    On Oct. 9, 1969,(13) Mr. Jeffery Cohelan, of California, 
announced to the House that the name of Mr. Michael J. Kirwan, of Ohio, 
was incorrectly included as a cosponsor of a House joint resolution for 
the funding of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under a 
continuing resolution.(14) In response to Mr. Cohelan's 
unanimous-consent request that the Record stand corrected, the Speaker 
pro tempore(15) stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 29347, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
            For an example of another occasion on which the statement 
        of a Member that the listing of the cosponsors of a particular 
        bill was in error, see 114 Cong. Rec. 1873, 90th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Feb. 1, 1968.
14. H.J. Res. 927, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. (1969).
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman's statement will appear in the Record. There is 
    no way of correcting the resolution.



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c05_txt-20]                         

[Page 390-401]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                      C. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
 
Sec. 19. Revision of Remarks

    Although the Record is ``substantially a verbatim report of 
proceedings'',(16) it has been the practice of the House to 
permit a Member, with the approval of the Speaker, but without 
permission from the House, to edit and revise his remarks before 
publication in the Record.(17) The consent of the House, 
however, is required for the correction of major errors,(18) 
and the deletion of unparliamentary remarks or remarks made out of 
order.(19) In addition a Member may not extend his remarks 
without permission from the House.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 44 USC Sec. 901 (1970).
17. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6971.
18. See Sec. 18, supra.
19. See Sec. 17, supra.
20. See Sec. 20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing(1) a 
revision shall consist only of corrections of the original copy and 
shall not include deletions of correct material, substitutions for 
correct

[[Page 391]]

material, or additions of new subject matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule 8 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972. 
        These rules are frequently reprinted in the daily edition of 
        the Congressional Record in the section entitled ``Laws and 
        Rules for Publication of the Congressional Record,'' which 
        precedes the section entitled ``Daily Digest.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The official reporters of debate frequently submit to Members for 
their inspection and editing remarks they have made on the floor of the 
House that day. In order to ensure publication in the Record for the 
following morning, manuscripts must be returned to the Government 
Printing Office not later than 9 o'clock p.m.(2) A Member 
may withhold his remarks from the Record for a period not to exceed 30 
calendar days from the date when its printing was 
authorized.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule 3 of the Joint Committee on Printing.
 3. Rule 7 of the Joint Committee on Printing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are a number of significant limitations upon the right of a 
Member to edit and revise his remarks. For example, a Member may not 
delete from the Record the proceedings by which his words were taken 
down,(4) remarks interjected by another Member to whom he 
has yielded(5) or to whom he has responded.(6) A 
Member may not revise remarks which alter the context of colloquys with 
other Members, without their consent.(7) A Member may, 
however, withhold his remarks from the Record for revision up to 30 
days notwithstanding the fact that such remarks contain a colloquy with 
another Member.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 19.2, infra.
 5. See Sec. 19.7, infra.
 6. See Sec. 19.6, infra.
 7. See Sec. Sec. 19.3, 19.4, infra.
 8. See Sec. 19.10, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member's Own Remarks

Sec. 19.1 A Member may revise his own remarks without obtaining 
    permission from the House, but he must have permission to extend 
    his remarks.

    On Jan. 25, 1939,(9) the following exchange occurred on 
the floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 84 Cong. Rec. 791, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hugh] Peterson of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to revise my own remarks. I am asking not to extend my 
    remarks in the Record but to revise them.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Reserving the 
    right to object, Mr. Speaker, I may say that under the rules of the 
    House the gentleman has the right to revise his remarks, but he 
    does not have the right to extend them.
        The Speaker:(10), In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    gentleman has the right to revise his remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).

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

[[Page 392]]

Remarks Affecting Official House Proceedings

Sec. 19.2 A Member's revision of his remarks, so as to delete from the 
    Record the proceedings by which his words were taken down, gives 
    rise to the question of the privilege of the House.

    On Apr. 26, 1940,(11) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
was recognized on a question of the privilege of the House, and 
submitted a resolution requesting that the Record of the previous day 
be corrected so as to include the proceedings by which words spoken by 
Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, had been taken down and ruled out of 
order. Mr. Cox, after his words were ruled out of order, had requested 
and received the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw them from 
the Record. In revising his remarks, however, Mr. Cox deleted the 
entire proceedings by which his remarks had been taken down, and ruled 
out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 5111-14, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Hoffman's resolution was rejected by the House. Mr. Cox, after 
explaining that the proceedings had been deleted inadvertently, 
requested the unanimous consent of the House that the permanent edition 
of the Record be corrected so as to include them. The House agreed to 
the request.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For a ruling by Speaker William B. Bankhead (Ala.) that a question 
        of the privilege of the House is raised by the action of a 
        Member in withholding from the Record for up to 30 days the 
        proceedings by which his words were taken down and ruled upon 
        by the Speaker, see Sec. 19.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remarks Affecting Colloquys

Sec. 19.3 A Member may edit the reporters' transcript of remarks he has 
    made on the floor of the House, provided he does not alter the 
    remarks of other Members.

    On Aug. 5, 1941,(13) the Chair was asked to clarify the 
conditions under which a Member may re

[[Page 393]]

vise his remarks without the consent of the House. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 87 Cong. Rec. 6801, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
            The principle that permits a Member to revise his remarks 
        without permission as long as the change does not affect the 
        remarks of another Member is a long-standing one. See 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3461, 3463, 3497; 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 6972. For a ruling by Speaker William B. 
        Bankhead (Ala.) to the effect that a Member, under the rules of 
        the House, need not secure the permission of the House to 
        revise his remarks, but that such permission was required to 
        extend his remarks, see Sec. 19.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David L.] Powers [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, can a 
    Member without unanimous consent, revise and extend his remarks in 
    the Record?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(14) He may not extend his 
    remarks without permission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Powers: Another parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Powers: The Speaker said he may not extend his remarks. May 
    a Member revise his remarks without unanimous consent?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: He may make corrections, as I 
    understand it. The Chair will read the rule:

            The practice is to allow Members to edit the reporters' 
        transcription of their remarks before it is sent to the 
        printer, but such revision shall not alter language affecting 
        the context of colloquies with other Members without their 
        approval. Where the remarks of another are not affected, a 
        Member in revising his speech for the Record may strike out any 
        portion or may edit the speech in its entirety, but alterations 
        which place a different aspect on the remarks of a colleague 
        require authorization by the House.

Sec. 19.4 Members who desire to revise for the permanent Record remarks 
    that affect each other, but who cannot agree upon the appropriate 
    revision, should submit the matter to the Speaker for decision.

    On May 9, 1934,(15) the following parliamentary inquiry 
was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 78 Cong. Rec. 3562 et seq., 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, in the 
    course of debate on yesterday . . . I entered into a colloquy with 
    the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Lewis], who had made a statement 
    in regard to certain occurrences in my State with which I felt 
    obliged to take issue.
        The gentleman from Colorado later in the correction of the 
    stenographic copy of his remarks, I am sure in good faith, because 
    I know the gentleman would not willingly do an injustice to anyone, 
    having ascertained that his statements were not in accord with the 
    facts, undertook to correct, and did correct, the stenographic 
    record so as to eliminate the statements of which I complained. The 
    difficulty lies in the fact that my own remarks made in the Record 
    immediately after his statement have remained unchanged, and the 
    effect is to place me in a false light and in the attitude of 
    questioning statements of the gentleman appearing in the Record 
    which were not made on the floor at all.
        May I inquire whether or not I am entitled to have the Record 
    corrected to show the statements made by the gentleman from 
    Colorado in the course of this colloquy?

The Speaker(16) responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).

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

[[Page 394]]

        No Member has the right in revising his own remarks to change 
    them in such a way as to affect another Member without the consent 
    of the other Member concerned. The Members involved should try to 
    adjust the matter among themselves, but if they cannot agree, the 
    matter should be submitted to the Speaker for decision.

Remarks Interjected by Another Member

Sec. 19.5 Remarks made by a Member without recognition from the Chair 
    or the permission of the Member occupying the floor at that time 
    may be deleted from the Record by the latter in revising his 
    remarks.

    On Apr. 14, 1936,(17) Mr. Marion A. Zioncheck, of 
Washington, made a point of order to the effect that Mr. John J. 
Boylan, of New York, had deleted from the text of his remarks certain 
remarks interjected by Mr. Zioncheck without the authority to do so. 
Mr. Boylan had been addressing the House the previous day when Mr. 
Zioncheck requested that he be yielded time to speak. Mr. Boylan 
refused, immediately prior to the expiration of his speaking time. 
After the gavel fell, and without recognition by the Chair, Mr. 
Zioncheck made the remarks which were later deleted from the Record by 
Mr. Boylan. The Speaker(18) made the following ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 5478, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair may say to the gentleman that no Member of the House 
    has the right to have his remarks inserted in the Record unless he 
    has obtained the consent of the House or the Chair or the gentleman 
    addressing the House.

Sec. 19.6 A Member may not delete from the Record of the proceedings 
    remarks improperly interjected by a Member to whom he has declined 
    to yield, if he has offered any response to those remarks.

    On Apr. 20, 1937,(19) Mr. Edward W. Curley, of New York, 
made a parliamentary inquiry(20) concerning the right of a 
Member in revising his remarks to delete from the Record those remarks 
improperly interjected by a Member to whom he has declined to yield. 
Mr. Curley stated that on Apr. 15, during an address by Mr.

[[Page 395]]

James W. Wadsworth, Jr., of New York, in the Committee of the Whole, he 
was twice recognized by the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole(1) for the purpose of requesting Mr. Wadsworth to 
yield the floor. On both occasions Mr. Wadsworth refused to yield. 
Immediately subsequent to the second refusal Mr. Curley stated the 
following: ``The gentleman is making a wrong statement.'' Mr. Wadsworth 
continued his remarks without responding to that statement. The daily 
edition of the Record for Apr. 15 contained the remarks of Mr. 
Wadsworth without any reference to either the requests to yield or the 
subsequent statement made by Mr. Curley. Mr. Curley stated that he had 
been informed by the reporter that the omitted remarks had been 
included in the reporter's original notes, and that the omission from 
the daily edition of the Record was in error.(2) Mr. Curley 
contended that the Record should be corrected so as to include the 
omitted exchanges. The Speaker,(3) after discussing the 
applicable precedents on the subject, which indicate that a Member may 
delete from his remarks those remarks made by another Member to whom he 
has declined to yield, ruled against the request of Mr. Curley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 81 Cong. Rec. 3669, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Mr. Curley's parliamentary inquiry was first made on Apr. 19, 1937, 
        and was withdrawn at the suggestion of several Members, in 
        order to permit Mr. Wadsworth, a significant participant in the 
        proceedings, to be present for the Speaker's ruling. 81 Cong. 
        Rec. 3589, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
 2. It should be noted that at the conclusion of the discussion Mr. 
        Wadsworth indicated that he had not deleted from the text of 
        his remarks any words interjected by another Member. 81 Cong. 
        Rec. 3670, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 20, 1937.
 3. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Curley then made a further parliamentary inquiry concerning the 
fact that a similar interruption of the same speech by another Member 
had occurred, and that exchange had appeared in the Record. That 
exchange was as follows:

        Mr. [Joseph A.] Gavagan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Wadsworth: I cannot yield

.Mr. Gavagan, despite the rule that prohibits a Member from speaking 
under these circumstances, then stated:

        I am sure if the gentleman had read the bill he would not have 
    made that statement.

Thereupon Mr. Wadsworth recognized Mr. Gavagan's statement and 
responded to it by saying:

        I have read the language.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. The entire exchange between Mr. Wadsworth and Mr. Gavagan is 
        reprinted at 81 Cong. Rec. 3521, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 15, 
        1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Curley requested the opinion of the Chair as to why Mr. 
Gavagan's exchange with Mr.

[[Page 396]]

Wadsworth had appeared in the Record, and his similar exchange with Mr. 
Wadsworth had been deleted. The Speaker responded as follows:

        So it seems from the particular circumstances of these two 
    incidents that although neither the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Curley] nor the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gavagan], under the 
    rules, had any right to make any statement whatever, the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Wadsworth], occupying the floor, agreed to 
    recognize the interpolation of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Gavagan] and voluntarily replied to it.

    This ruling of the Speaker was further clarified by the following 
parliamentary inquiry and response of the Speaker:

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: In the event a Member 
    interrupts some other Member who is occupying the floor, without 
    the Member having the floor specifically giving the other Member 
    the right to interpose a question, and the Member having the floor 
    answers the question, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Wadsworth] did with respect to the question of the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Gavagan], could the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Wadsworth] as a matter of right then delete that portion of his 
    remarks?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state in answer to the question of 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin that if a Member occupying the floor 
    voluntarily decides to respond to a question asked by another 
    Member, he thereby waives any right to interpose the objection that 
    it is a violation of the rule and under those circumstances the 
    transcript of the Record should show actually what did occur.

Sec. 19.7 A Member, in revising his remarks, may not delete or alter 
    the meaning of remarks actually spoken by another Member to whom he 
    has yielded, without such Member's consent

    On Mar. 27, 1935,(5) a discussion occurred on the floor 
of the House with respect to the right of a Member, who had yielded the 
floor to another Member for the purpose of asking a question, to delete 
that Member's words from the Record, whether spoken from the floor or 
inserted with the unanimous consent of the House. The 
Speaker(6) had held that a Member to whom the floor was 
yielded must, in correcting his remarks, obtain the consent of the 
Member who yielded, especially if the correction changes the meaning of 
the question asked. The following parliamentary inquiry was then made 
concerning the right of a Member who has yielded the floor to strike 
from the Record words spoken by the Member to whom he has yielded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 79 Cong. Rec. 4540, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: As I understand, the 
    gen

[[Page 397]]

    tleman from California [Mr. Kramer] attempts to justify his 
    striking out what I wrote in on the ground that he had authority to 
    do that. My inquiry is, has any Member the right to strike out any 
    portion of any other Member's remarks, whether it is in there by 
    his permission or not?
        The Speaker: No. If those remarks were made in the course of 
    the debate and with the consent of the Member.

Sec. 19.8 The reporters are instructed to take down and include as part 
    of the Record of the proceedings remarks interjected by a Member to 
    whom the Member occupying the floor has refused to yield, even 
    though such remarks are out of order and may be stricken from the 
    permanent Record by the House, the Speaker, or the Member in 
    revising his remarks.

    On Apr. 20, 1937,(7) the Speaker(8) made a 
ruling by which the reporters were instructed to take down and include 
as part of the Record of the proceedings the remarks of a Member, even 
though the Member occupying the floor had declined to yield and those 
remarks were not in order. That ruling was a revision of a ruling made 
the previous day(9) in which the Speaker had instructed the 
reporters not to record remarks made under such circumstances. The 
Speaker's revised ruling was made in response to a renewed 
parliamentary inquiry that had been made and withdrawn the previous 
day.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 3670, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 3588, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 19, 1937.
10. A Member requested the opinion of the Chair as to whether the 
        Record might be corrected so as to include remarks he had made 
        after the Member occupying the floor at the time had refused to 
        yield to him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker gave the following reasons in support of the revised 
ruling:

        The Chair has been induced to change his position upon that 
    question, for two reasons: In the first place, upon more mature 
    consideration, the Chair is of the opinion that it places upon the 
    reporters of the House what might be termed a species of censorship 
    of editing of the remarks the Members make, however improvidently 
    made or improperly stated. The Chair does not think that this type 
    of burden should be imposed upon the reporters of the House. In the 
    second place, as was the instance here referred to, the remarks 
    were made while we were in Committee of the Whole, presided over by 
    a Chairman and not by the Speaker of the House; and under the rule 
    only the Speaker-and not a Chairman of the Committee--has the 
    authority to direct the reporters to delete certain improper 
    remarks from the Record.
        So in order that full justice may be done to all Members, 
    although they

[[Page 398]]

    may be in small measure violating the rules of the House, and in 
    order that the Record may definitely show what actually transpired 
    in haec verba, the Chair withdraws that part of his ruling 
    directing the reporters hereafter not to take down such improvident 
    remarks, and will conform to the old practice which the Chair 
    thinks probably the best, leaving to the Members themselves, after 
    the speeches are transcribed, the right and privilege to strike 
    from the transcript any remarks made by a Member where the Member 
    speaking and sought to be interrupted has declined to yield.

    Previous rulings of the Chair indicate that where a Member is 
occupying the floor at the time of an unauthorized interruption of his 
speech,(11) the Speaker,(12) the House or the 
Member himself,(13) may strike the remarks of the 
interrupting Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3465.
12. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3466.
13. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3467.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 19.9 A question of privilege arises when a Member, in revising his 
    remarks for the permanent Record, strikes out remarks made by 
    another Member after he had reserved the right to object to a 
    unanimous-consent request.

    On Aug. 3, 1939,(14) the following exchange occurred 
concerning a question of privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 10966, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, this 
    involves the integrity of the Record. Under date of July 27, when 
    the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Keller] had the floor, certain 
    remarks were made by me under a reservation of the right to object. 
    I send to the Speaker's desk a printed copy of the Record and a 
    transcript from the Official Reporters, which shows that all of 
    those remarks made by me were stricken from the Record by the 
    gentleman from Illinois. That is the question of personal privilege 
    and of the privilege of the House I now present. . . .
        The Speaker:(15) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    the gentleman presents a question affecting the privileges of the 
    House and he is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).

Following a discussion of the deleted material, the House agreed to a 
motion reinserting that material in the permanent 
Record.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 10968, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Withholding of Remarks

Sec. 19.10 A Member who controlled the floor has the right to withhold 
    remarks he made at that time from the Record for revision up to 30 
    days notwithstanding the fact that such remarks contain a colloquy 
    with another Member.

    On Mar. 26, 1940,(17) Mr. Compton I. White, of Idaho, 
raised a

[[Page 399]]

question of privilege. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 86 Cong. Rec. 3451, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. White of Idaho: Mr. Speaker, on yesterday, when an 
    appropriation bill was being considered by the House, the gentleman 
    from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] and I had quite a colloquy on the 
    National Labor Relations Board. I find on inspection of the Record 
    this morning that nothing appears of that debate. I appreciate the 
    courtesy of the gentleman in yielding to me, and I would like to 
    have the statements made on the floor appear in the Record. I find 
    the matter has been withheld. . . .

        The Speaker:(18) The Chair may say to the gentleman 
    from Idaho [Mr. White] that when a Member who has the floor in his 
    own right engages in colloquy with another Member, under the rules 
    he has the right to withhold the remarks from the Record 
    temporarily. The Chair may add that he has 30 days, under the rules 
    of the House, in which to revise his remarks and place them in the 
    Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 19.11 Although under the general practice of the House, a Member 
    who controlled the floor has the right to withhold his remarks from 
    the Record for revision [up to 30 days], he may not withhold that 
    part of the proceedings whereby his remarks were taken down.

    On June 1, 1939,(19) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
introduced a resolution(20) raising a question of the 
privilege of the House. Mr. Hoffman stated in his resolution that on 
the previous day, during debate in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Sam 
C. Massingale, of Oklahoma, had intimated that in the future the action 
of the House Committee on Ways and Means on the bill which was under 
consideration would be regarded as ``pusillanimous.'' A Member demanded 
that the words be taken down and the Committee rose. When the House 
convened, the Speaker(1) ruled upon the point of order, and 
Mr. Massingale was permitted to proceed. Thereafter the House again 
resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole, and Mr. Massingale 
continued his remarks.(2) Subse

[[Page 400]]

quently, Mr. Massingale withheld from the Record of May 31 not only the 
remarks by which he had impugned the integrity of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, but also the entire proceedings by which the words were 
taken down and ruled upon by the Speaker. The resolution requested that 
the following action be taken:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 84 Cong. Rec. 6531, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H. Res. 208, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. (1939).
 1. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
 2. When Mr. Massingale continued his remarks in the Committee of the 
        Whole, he went on to make certain charges involving the 
        integrity of another Member of the House. The words were taken 
        down, the Committee again arose, the House convened, and the 
        Speaker this time sustained the point of order. Mr. Massingale, 
        however, obtained the unanimous consent of the House to have 
        those remarks deleted from the Record. In addition, the House 
        agreed to a unanimous-consent request by Mr. Sam Rayburn (Tex.) 
        that the entire proceedings by which the remarks of Mr. 
        Massingale with reference to another Member, be deleted from 
        the Record, and that Mr. Massingale be permitted to revise and 
        extend his remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the Speaker 
    of the House, or in the discretion of the Speaker, make reference 
    to a standing committee of the House, to ascertain from the 
    reporters of the House and from such other sources as they may deem 
    trustworthy a true and correct record of what did occur, deleting 
    from such record all such matters which the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    [Mr. Massingale] was given permission to delete, and retaining in 
    the Record all such other transactions and proceedings which 
    occurred on the floor of the House and for the withdrawal of which 
    permission was not given; and thereupon to report its conclusions 
    to the House, together with such recommendations as it may deem 
    desirable.

    Mr. Hoffman, in support of his resolution, emphasized that in his 
opinion the record of the proceedings of May 31 was not a true and 
accurate text of what had occurred on the floor, because Mr. Massingale 
had not obtained permission to withhold the entire proceedings by which 
his remarks reflecting upon the integrity of another Member had been 
taken down and ruled upon by the Speaker. The Speaker stated:

        The Record shows that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
    Massingale] did obtain unanimous consent to revise and extend his 
    remarks. Under the general practice of the House that gave to the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma the right to withhold revision of his 
    remarks from the Record. The Chair is of the opinion that the other 
    subject matter stated in the resolution of the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] probably does raise a question of the 
    privileges of the House.

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules.

Sec. 19.12 The Committee on Rules has jurisdiction of a resolution that 
    proposes the creation of an investigating committee to determine 
    whether a Member has wrongfully withheld remarks from the Record.

    On June 1, 1939,(3) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
introduced a resolution(4) that proposed that

[[Page 401]]

a committee ascertain from the reporters of the House whether Mr. Sam 
C. Massingale, of Oklahoma, had wrongfully withheld from the Record in 
revising his remarks the entire proceedings by which his remarks were 
taken down and ruled upon by the Speaker. The Speaker(5) 
asked Mr. Hoffman whether he desired to have the resolution referred to 
a committee. Mr. Hoffman responded that, in the discretion of the 
Speaker, he would like it referred to either a special committee or to 
any standing committee. The Speaker stated that the Committee on Rules 
would have jurisdiction over the resolution. The resolution was so 
referred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 6531, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. H. Res. 208, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. (1939).
 5. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c05_txt-21]                         

[Page 401-424]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                      C. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
 
Sec. 20. Extension of Remarks

    The practice in the House of permitting Members to extend their 
remarks so as to insert in the Record speeches that were not delivered 
on the floor of the House and extraneous materials related to the 
subject under discussion is a long-standing one.(6) A Member 
must obtain the consent of the House to extend his 
remarks,(7) and authorizations to extend remarks in the 
Record are strictly construed.(8) The Speaker will only 
entertain requests for permission to extend remarks at certain times 
during the conduct of House business,(9) and such requests 
will be granted only to the individual whose remarks are to be 
inserted.(10) The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
recognize a Member to extend his own remarks,(11) but the 
Committee of the Whole lacks the power to permit the inclusion of 
extraneous materials(12) or to permit insertions at a later 
date.(13) The insertion of unparliamentary remarks is 
prohibited, and violations of this rule give rise to a question of 
privilege of the House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. For a discussion of the reasons underlying the development of the 
        practice, see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6990-6996, 6998-
        7000.
 7. See Sec. 20.1, infra.
 8. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3479.
 9. See Sec. Sec. 20.4 et seq., infra.
10. House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication of the 
        Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970. These rules 
        are frequently reprinted in the daily edition of the 
        Congressional Record in the section entitled ``Laws and Rules 
        for Publication of the Congressional Record'', which precedes 
        the section entitled ``Daily Digest''.
11.  See Sec. 20.12, infra.
12. See 20.13, infra.
13. See Sec. 20.18, infra.
14. See Sec. 20.19, infra; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3495; 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 7005-7008. Questions of privilege 
        generally, see Ch. 11, infra.

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

[[Page 402]]

    While the inclusion of extraneous materials is permitted, a Member 
must conform to the limitations imposed by statute and the rules of the 
Joint Committee on Printing. For example, only the Joint Committee on 
Printing, and not the House, can permit the insertion in the Record of 
maps, diagrams, or illustrations.(15) When permission is 
obtained to insert extraneous materials, the insertions must conform to 
the descriptions in the request for permission to which the House has 
consented.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 44 USC Sec. 904 (1970).
16. See Sec. Sec. 20.25, 20.26, infra; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 3462, 3479, 3480; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing,(17) 
a Member may not insert extraneous matter in excess of two printed 
Record pages, unless he announces coincident with the request for leave 
to print or extend the estimate in writing from the Public Printer of 
the probable cost of publishing the insertion, and the House agrees to 
permit its inclusion notwithstanding the cost. If a Member submits an 
extension of remarks containing extraneous matter in excess of two 
pages, it is the duty of the Public Printer to return the insertion 
with an estimate of cost.(18) In constructing the 
``Extensions of Remarks'' section, the Public Printer is authorized to 
withhold any extensions of remarks which exceed economical press fill 
or exceed production limitations.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.  Rule 12 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 
        1972.
18. For a discussion on the House floor of regulations concerning the 
        inclusion of extraneous material, see 91 Cong. Rec. 839-841, 
        79th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 6, 1945.
19. Rule 4, House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication of the 
        Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970. Extensions 
        withheld for such reasons will be printed in succeeding issues, 
        at the direction of the Public Printer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules of the Joint Committee on Printing and the House 
Supplement to those rules delineate the types of insertions which are 
permitted in the body of the Record and those permitted only in the 
``Extensions of Remarks'' section. The only extraneous materials 
permitted in the body of the Record are as follows: excerpts from 
letters, telegrams, or articles presented in connection with a speech 
delivered in the course of debate; communications from state 
legislatures; addresses or articles by the President and the members of 
his Cabinet, the Vice President, or a Member of Con

[[Page 403]]

gress.(20) Newspaper or magazine articles, or other matter 
not germane to the proceedings, may be inserted only in the 
``Extensions of Remarks'' section, but this rule does not apply to 
quotations which form part of a speech of a Member, or to an authorized 
extension of his own remarks.(1) In addition, any extraneous 
matter which is inserted pursuant to permission granted to extend at 
this point in the Record, or pursuant to a request to address the House 
for one minute prior to the morning business of the House, may be 
printed only in the ``Extensions of Remarks'' section.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule 12 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972. 
        Section three of the same rule authorizes the official 
        reporters of the House or the Public Printer to return to the 
        Member any matter submitted for the Congressional Record which 
        is in contravention of the provisions of this rule.
 1. Rule 1 of House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication of 
        the Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970.
 2. Rule 2 of House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication of 
        the Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970. One-minute 
        speeches delivered during the morning business of Congress are 
        not permitted to exceed 300 words. Statements exceeding this 
        limit are printed following the business of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are several different circumstances in which requests are 
made for permission for more than one Member to extend remarks. Such 
requests may or may not be limited to certain subject matters. For 
example, prior to adjournment to a day certain,(3) or 
adjournment sine die,(4) all Members are permitted to extend 
their remarks.(5) Floor managers of specific legislation are 
permitted to request permission for all Members to insert their remarks 
relative to the legislation.(6) The House usually grants 
permission

[[Page 404]]

for all Members to extend their remarks on the occasion of the death of 
a Member.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sec. 20.32, infra.
 4. Sec. 20.36, infra.
 5. With respect to extensions in the last edition of the Record for a 
        session of Congress, no address, speech, or article delivered 
        or released subsequent to the sine die adjournment of a session 
        may be printed in the Record. Rule 1 of House Supplement to 
        ``Laws and Rules for Publication of the Congressional Record'', 
        effective Dec. 29, 1970. However, committee chairmen and 
        ranking minority members frequently are permitted to insert 
        reports concerning the activities of their respective 
        committees in the last edition of the Record for a session. See 
        Sec. 20.37, infra.
 6. Rule 3 of the House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication 
        of the Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970. Only 
        matter pertaining to the specific legislation may be included 
        pursuant to this request. Tables and charts pertinent to the 
        legislation may be included, but not newspaper clippings and 
        editorials.
 7. See Sec. 20.33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules of the Joint Committee on Printing provide that a Member 
may withhold his extension of remarks for a period not exceeding 30 
calendar days from the time he has obtained permission to 
extend.(8) Where the two Houses of Congress have, by 
concurrent resolution, authorized a special printing of material 
extracted from the Record, the Joint Committee sometimes extends the 
normal 30day limit for insertions in the Record.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule 7 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972.
 9. The Joint Committee on Printing extended the deadline for the 
        publication of eulogies to Dwight David Eisenhower. 115 Cong. 
        Rec. 18382, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 7, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extensions Requiring Consent of House

Sec. 20.1 A Member must have permission from the House to extend his 
    remarks, but he may revise his own remarks without obtaining 
    permission.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. A discussion of this rule appears in Sec. 19.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.2 The extension of remarks in the Record by a Member without 
    the permission of the House constitutes grounds for a question of 
    the privilege of the House, and the House may expunge such remarks 
    from the permanent Record.

    On Aug. 27, 1940,(11) Mr. Jacob Thorkelson, of Montana, 
was recognized to state a question of privilege of the House. He 
introduced a resolution stating that on Aug. 14, 1940, Mr. Adolph J. 
Sabath, of Illinois, inserted in the Congressional Record remarks 
charging him with having inserted in the Record ``scurrilous matter'' 
and a forged letter. In addition, Mr. Thorkelson alleged in the 
resolution that the remarks had been inserted by Mr. Sabath without 
permission from the House. The House agreed by unanimous consent to 
permit Mr. Sabath to withdraw the word ``scurrilous'' from his 
extension of remarks,(12) and the Speaker(13) 
ruled that the statement of Mr. Sabath did not charge Mr. Thorkelson 
with having forged the letter or introduced it knowingly, and that the 
statement did not constitute a matter of privilege.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 11046-49, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
12. Id. at p. 11048.
13. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 11048, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.

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

[[Page 405]]

    The Speaker stated that the only question of privilege remaining 
concerned whether Mr. Sabath had obtained the permission of the House 
to extend his remarks in the Record.(15) Mr. Sabath had 
previously stated that if any question remained, he would be willing to 
withdraw his remarks from the Record with the unanimous consent of the 
House.(16) Mr. Thorkelson, however, objected to that 
request, because he sought an opportunity to explain his position 
during the debate on the resolution. At the conclusion of debate, the 
resolution expunging the remarks from the Record of Aug. 14 was agreed 
to by the House.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 11156, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 28, 1940.
16. Id. at 11153.
17. Id. at 11158. See 80 Cong. Rec. 7019-21, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., May 
        11, 1936, for an example of an occasion on which the House 
        refused to agree to a resolution to expunge from the Record 
        remarks which the proponent contended had been inserted in the 
        Record without the permission of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consent of Member Yielding Floor

Sec. 20.3 A Member who has been yielded to for the purpose of asking a 
    question may not, without the consent of the Member controlling the 
    floor, and the House, extend his remarks by inserting an additional 
    statement in such a way as to change the meaning of what was said.

    On Mar. 27, 1935,(18) a discussion occurred on the floor 
of the House concerning the question of whether a Member, who has been 
yielded to for the purpose of asking a question, may extend his remarks 
so as to include statements not made on the House floor. Mr. Albert E. 
Carter, of California, stated that Mr. Charles Kramer, of California, 
had yielded to him for the purpose of asking a question during a floor 
debate several days earlier Mr. Carter subsequently obtained the 
unanimous consent of the House to revise and extend his remarks, but he 
did not inform Mr. Kramer that he intended to alter the colloquy that 
had occurred between them on the floor. Upon receiving the transcript 
of the proceedings for that day, Mr. Carter inserted in the Record 
several additional statements that he had not made on the floor. When 
the transcript was later submitted to Mr. Kramer, he realized that Mr. 
Carter had not made those statements during debate, and crossed them 
out before returning them to the printer. Mr.

[[Page 406]]

Carter contended that Mr. Kramer had no right to delete those remarks 
from the Record because they had been inserted as a result of his 
having received the unanimous consent of the House to revise and extend 
his remarks. Mr. Kramer then requested the opinion of the Chair as to 
whether a Member who was yielded to for the purpose of asking a 
question is permitted to extend his remarks so as to include additional 
statements. The Speaker(19) responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 79 Cong. Rec. 4541, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        He must have the consent of the Speaker and of the Member, if 
    he is undertaking to change the Import of what a Member said who 
    had addressed the House. The Chair states that a Member making a 
    revision must have the consent of the Member who has yielded to him 
    in order to make the correction, especially if the correction is 
    such as to change the import of the question which he has asked.
The Speaker, in response to a further parliamentary inquiry, stated 
that a Member who has yielded may not, however, strike out remarks that 
were actually made on the floor by a Member to whom he had yielded.

Requests to Extend

Sec. 20.4 The Speaker will not entertain unanimous-consent requests to 
    insert materials in the Record prior to the reading and approval of 
    the Journal.

    On Sept. 19, 1962,(20) prior to the completion of the 
reading of the Journal, Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, requested 
unanimous consent to insert in the appendix of the Record his own 
remarks and a letter from the Secretary of State addressed to the 
Speaker of the House. The Speaker(1) refused to entertain 
such a request until after the Journal had been read and acted upon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.5 Brief remarks of a Member, who receives permission from the 
    House to extend his remarks following the approval of the Journal, 
    will be placed in the Record before the business of the day, but 
    not necessarily immediately following the approval of the Journal.

    On Oct. 25, 1967,(2) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request that Mr. Philip Burton, of California, be permitted to 
extend his remarks following the approval of the Journal. The fol

[[Page 407]]

lowing proceedings then occurred concerning that request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 113 Cong. Rec. 30022, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(3) The gentleman will state 
    his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Roman C. Pucinski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: A most unusual request has been granted, I full well 
    agree, by unanimous consent, for a gentleman to extend his remarks 
    after the reading of the Journal. Does that mean anywhere after the 
    Journal for this date certain?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: After the approval of the Journal.
        Mr. Hall: My inquiry is, was the gentleman granted unanimous 
    consent to insert his remarks today in the Record, which will be 
    delivered tomorrow, at any time after the reading of the Journal 
    today?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It was a 1-minute speech, and it will 
    be printed in the Record after approval of the Journal.
        Mr. Hall: I thank the Chair.

The remarks of Mr. Burton were printed in the Record for Oct. 25, 
1967,(4) following a number of other one-minute speeches. 
This group of one-minute speeches was printed subsequent to the 
approval of the Journal and messages from the President and the Senate, 
and prior to the business of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 29915, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Extensions of remarks which exceed the 300-
word limitation appear following the business of the day in the portion 
of the Record devoted thereto.

Sec. 20.6 The Speaker has recognized Members to extend their remarks 
    ``at this point in the Record'' regardless of the number of words 
    on those occasions when there was no legislative program for the 
    day.

    On Feb. 6, 1945,(5) the following parliamentary inquiry 
and response by the Speaker(6) occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 839, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: I wish to ask the Chair 
    how it is that if a Member on this side asks for a minute in which 
    to address the House he is permitted to insert 300 words or less, 
    but that when some Members on the other side of the aisle make 
    similar requests they are permitted to put in 7\1/2\ pages, or some 
    8,000 words? How does the discrimination come about?
        The Speaker: There is no discrimination because there was no 
    legislative program on yesterday and anyone had the right to extend 
    his remarks ``at [that] point'' in the Record.

Sec. 20.7 The Speaker, while a motion to discharge a committee is 
    pending, declines to recognize a Member who

[[Page 408]]

    wishes to request unanimous consent to extend his remarks.

    On June 11, 1945,(7) the House was considering a motion 
to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of a 
resolution(8) providing for the consideration of a 
bill(9) making unlawful the requirement for the payment of a 
poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in a primary' or other election 
for national officers. After the Clerk read the resolution, Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, requested unanimous consent to extend his 
remarks at that point in the Record. The Speaker(10) replied 
that the Chair could not recognize Members to extend their remarks 
until the pending motion to discharge the Committee on Rules had been 
disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H. Res. 139, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. (1945).
 9. H.R. 7, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. (1945).
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.8 The Speaker, while a motion to suspend the rules was pending, 
    refused to recognize a Member who wished to request permission from 
    the House to insert materials in the Record.

    On July 21, 1947,(11) the House was considering a motion 
to suspend the rules and pass a bill(12) to make unlawful 
the requirement for the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to 
voting in a primary or other election for national officers. During the 
debate on the motion Mr. Thomas Pickett, of Texas, sought recognition 
for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request to insert 
materials in the Record.(13) The Speaker(14) 
refused to recognize Mr. Pickett for such a purpose at that time, and 
stated that the request should be made immediately following the vote 
on the motion to suspend the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 93 Cong. Rec. 9522, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 29, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. (1947).
13. 93 Cong. Rec. 9525, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.9 Immediately subsequent to the agreement by the House to a 
    motion to discharge a committee from the consideration of a bill, 
    the Speaker announced the intention of the Chair to entertain 
    unanimous-consent requests for extensions of remarks, without 
    interfering with the right of a Member to move that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole.

[[Page 409]]

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(15) the House agreed to a motion to 
discharge the Committee on Agriculture from further consideration of a 
bill to repeal the tax on oleomargarine.(1) Immediately 
after the vote the Speaker, Joseph W. Martin, Jr. of Massachusetts, 
made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 4841, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. H.R. 2245, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. (1948).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without interfering with the rights of the gentleman from South 
    Carolina to move to go into the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
    will entertain consent requests for extensions of remarks only.

Sec. 20.10 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize a 
    Member who has spoken to revise and extend his own 
    remarks.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 20.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motions to Extend

Sec. 20.11 A motion to permit a Member to extend his remarks in the 
    Record is not a privileged motion.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(3) the following parliamentary inquiry 
was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 1661, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: If I object to a unanimous-
    consent request that a Member be permitted to extend his remarks in 
    the Record, is it proper to move that he be permitted to extend his 
    remarks?

The Speaker(4) replied that the motion to permit an 
extension of remarks is not a privileged motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Committee of the Whole

Sec. 20.12 The Committee of the Whole lacks the power to permit the 
    inclusion of extraneous materials in an extension of remarks.

Sec. 20.13 The Committee of the Whole can permit a Member to revise and 
    extend only his own remarks, and excerpts from other materials are 
    considered extraneous and not part of the Member's own remarks even 
    though they may be relevant to the subject under consideration.

    On Apr. 14, 1937,(5) during the debate on a 
bill(6) to amend the Interstate Commerce Act, the following 
exchange occurred concerning a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 3463, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. H.R. 1668, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. (1937).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter M.] Pierce [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous

[[Page 410]]

    consent that I may have the privilege of revising and extending my 
    remarks and including therein such letters and telegrams as I have 
    here denying or repudiating their appearance as proponents of the 
    Pettengill bill.
        The Chairman:(7) The Chair will remind the gentleman 
    from Oregon that the request to extend his own remarks to include 
    extraneous matter must be submitted in the House and not in 
    Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. J. Mark Wilcox (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order. Is this extraneous matter? It is matter that is 
    very pertinent, in the opinion of the majority.
        The Chairman: It is the understanding of the Chair that in 
    Committee of the Whole a Member may extend his own remarks but may 
    not include therein any extracts from other matters than his own 
    particular remarks.
        Mr. Bulwinkle: Except what he has read?
        The Chairman: Of course, what he has already read is in the 
    Record, or supposed to be.
        Mr. Bulwinkle: I wish to call attention to the fact that this 
    is not extraneous matter, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: It is the opinion of the Chair that the inclusion 
    of telegrams, letters, or other writings other than those actually 
    read in Committee of the Whole will have to be inserted in the 
    Record with the consent of the House and not the Committee of the 
    Whole.

Sec. 20.14 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole will entertain a 
    unanimous-consent request by a Member to revise and extend his own 
    remarks, but a request to include an article, even one written by 
    another Member, is in order only in the House and not in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    During the debate on the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970(8) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Frederick 
Schwengel, of Iowa, requested unanimous consent to insert in the Record 
an article written by a House colleague on the subject of minority 
staffing.(9) At this point in the debate the following 
exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 17654, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970). See for debate 116 Cong. 
        Rec. 24586, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 16, 1970.
 9. The text of the proceedings surrounding this unanimous-consent 
        request by Mr. Schwengel was printed in the daily edition of 
        the Record for July 16, 1970. Permission to insert the article 
        was obtained at a later time in the House, and the permanent 
        edition of the Record contains a reprint thereof. 116 Cong. 
        Rec. 24591, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 16, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman [William H. Natcher, of Kentucky]: Is the 
    statement that the gentleman is requesting to be printed in the 
    Record his own statement?
        Mr. Schwengel: Yes.

[[Page 411]]

        The Chairman: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Hays: I thought the gentleman said that it was the 
    statement of somebody else.
        Mr. Schwengel: It is.
        The Chairman: The Chair inquired of the gentleman if it was his 
    own statement. Is it the statement of the gentleman in the well?
        Mr. Schwengel: It is not.
        The Chairman: Then the gentleman from Iowa will have to request 
    permission for that statement to be printed in the Record when we 
    go back in the House.
        Mr. Schwengel: At the proper time I will make that request.

Sec. 20.15 A unanimous-consent request to extend remarks in the Record 
    by incorporating extraneous materials, by a Member who has not 
    spoken on the bill under consideration in the Committee of the 
    Whole, is in order only in the House and not in the Committee of 
    the Whole.

    On Jan. 23, 1936,(10) during the consideration of the 
Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 1936,(11) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 950, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H.R. 10464, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. (1936).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis D.] Culkin [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Record, if the 
    request is in order at this time, and to include in the extension 
    copies of resolutions of various agricultural bodies and other 
    organizations of the United States protesting against these 
    reciprocal tariff treaties.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point that cannot be done in Committee.
        The Chairman:(12) The Chair will invite the 
    gentleman's attention to the fact he has not spoken on the bill, 
    and such permission would have to be granted in the House rather 
    than in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.16 Although a Member may not obtain permission in the Committee 
    of the Whole to extend his remarks so as to include extraneous 
    materials, he may be permitted to read those extraneous materials 
    if he is yielded time and the Committee consents.

    On Apr. 18, 1944,(13) during the debate in the Committee 
of the Whole on a bill to extend lend lease,(14) Mr. Clare 
E. Hoffman, of Michigan, requested permission from the Committee to 
extend his remarks and insert several letters in the Record. The 
Chairman(15)

[[Page 412]]

refused Mr. Hoffman's request, and stated that such permission would 
have to be obtained from the House. Mr. Hoffman then requested the 
opinion of the Chairman as to whether he could read those letters into 
the Record. The Chairman replied that if Mr. Hoffman were yielded time 
the letters could be read with the consent of the Committee of the 
Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 90 Cong. Rec. 3558, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H.R. 4254, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. (1944).
15. Warren G. Magnuson (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.17 The Committee of the Whole agreed by unanimous consent to 
    permit a Member to insert in the Record as part of his remarks the 
    text of an amendment he had drafted, but which could not be 
    submitted for consideration under a closed rule.

    On Aug. 31, 1965,(16) during the consideration of a bill 
providing for the implementation of the Automotive Products Trade Act 
of 1965,(17) the following exchange occurred concerning a 
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 22385, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 9042, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. (1965).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: . . . Now, Mr. Chairman, I 
    had intended to offer an amendment, if the rule were an open rule 
    and if we had the opportunity to offer such an amendment.
        However, I do ask leave to attach at the conclusion of my 
    remarks the amendment that I would offer if I had the opportunity 
    to do so at the appropriate time. . . .
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to attach my 
    proposed amendment as a part of my remarks.
        The Chairman:(18) The Chair wishes to inquire if the 
    statement is the gentleman's own statement?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Harold D. Donohue (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McClory: Yes; it is my own statement. It relates to an 
    amendment that I would offer if I had an opportunity to offer it. 
    It merely qualifies the acquiescence of the Congress with respect 
    to this legislation, with the proviso that is contained in the 
    proposed amendment, which I have explained.

The unanimous-consent request was agreed to by the Committee of the 
Whole, and the text of the amendment was printed in the Record 
following the remarks of Mr. McClory.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 22385, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.18 A unanimous-consent request to permit all Members five days 
    to revise and extend their remarks on a particular subject is not 
    in order in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 19, 1967,(20) during the debate on a 
bill(1) to amend the

[[Page 413]]

Public Health Service Act, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 26032, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. H.R. 6418, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I detect a 
    strange change in the nature of debate on this subject today from 
    the one that took place a few days ago. . . . I am wondering if 
    this is not because the subject has come up suddenly as an 
    amendment rather than as a bill that was announced ahead of time. . 
    . . Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
    legislative days in which to revise and extend. . . .
        Mr. [Burt L.] Talcott [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman:(2) That request is properly made in 
    the House and not in the Committee of the Whole. Objection is not 
    necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unparliamentary Insertions

Sec. 20.19 The insertion in the Record of unparliamentary remarks is 
    sufficient to raise a question of the privilege of the House.

    This ruling, which was rendered on Sept. 5, 1940, is discussed 
elsewhere in this chapter.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 17.1, supra. See Sec. 17.4, supra, for an occasion on 
        which Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.) declined to rule on a question 
        of personal privilege arising from the insertion in the Record 
        of allegedly unparliamentary remarks because the transcript of 
        the insertion had not been submitted for his inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.20 A Member cannot extend his remarks so as to insert in the 
    Record anything that could not be stated on the House floor.

    On July 3, 1946,(4) the Speaker(5) called to 
the attention of the House the fact that several Members had recently 
extended their remarks so as to insert language that reflected 
adversely on a Member or Members of the Senate. The following 
parliamentary inquiry was then made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 8299, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: In other words, Mr. 
    Speaker, under the rules no Member can insert in the Appendix of 
    the Record under Extension of Remarks that which could not be 
    stated on the floor of the House.

The Speaker responded affirmatively to the parliamentary inquiry.

Sec. 20.21 It is a violation of the rule of comity between the two 
    Houses for a Member to insert in the Record an editorial critical 
    of a Member of the Senate.

    On June 25, 1956,(6) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made 
the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 102 Cong. Rec. 10924, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 414]]

        There has always existed complete comity between the Senate and 
    the House of Representatives. The rules of the House provide that 
    no Member of the House shall criticize a Senator on the floor of 
    the House. It has been called to the attention of the Chair that in 
    recent days editorials highly critical of Members of the other body 
    have been placed in the Record. That is a violation of the rules. 
    As far as the present occupant of the Chair is concerned, he is not 
    going to tolerate it any more.

Sec. 20.22 The Speaker announced that extensions of remarks should be 
    submitted to the Chair if there is any question as to whether they 
    refer adversely to Members of the Senate.

    On July 3, 1946,(7) the Speaker(8) made the 
following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 8299, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had called to his attention in the last few days 
    some extensions of remarks by Members of the House that the Chair 
    thinks are a reflection on a Member or Members of the Senate. The 
    Chair trusts that that does not happen any more. If there is any 
    question as to whether or not an extension of remarks refers to a 
    Member of the Senate in any way that might be offensive to him, the 
    Chair hopes the matter will be submitted to the Chair before the 
    remarks go to the printer.

Limitations on Extraneous Matter

Sec. 20.23 A Member who has secured unanimous consent to address the 
    House for one minute and revise and extend his remarks may not 
    without the consent of the House include in such remarks extraneous 
    matter such as a speech made by another person.

    On Jan. 18, 1946,(9) Mr. Emerson H. De Lacy, of 
Washington, requested and received unanimous consent to address the 
House for one minute, and to revise and extend his remarks. At the 
conclusion of his remarks on the House floor, Mr. De Lacy requested 
unanimous consent to insert a speech delivered by an Under Secretary of 
Commerce. When this request was objected to, Mr. John J. Cochran, of 
Missouri, made the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 92 Cong. Rec. 129, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The gentleman from Washington 
    arose and asked permission of the Chair to speak for 1 minute and 
    to revise and extend his remarks. That permission was granted. I 
    take the position that under that request to address the House for 
    1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks the gentleman has a 
    right to include what he desires in the Record.


[[Page 415]]


The Speaker pro tempore(10) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the unanimous-consent request 
    to speak for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks related 
    to the remarks that the gentleman from Washington might make during 
    the period that he addressed the House and that it did not include 
    any specific extraneous matter which might be in addition to what 
    he said himself or what he might add as his own remarks. The Chair, 
    of course, was hopeful that the unanimous-consent request to 
    include this specific matter would not be objected to. With 
    reference to the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Missouri, the Chair must rule that . . . the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Washington did not include the 
    specific matter which has previously been referred to.

Sec. 20.24 A Member who extends his remarks pursuant to an expression 
    of unanimous consent by the House permitting Members to extend 
    their own remarks on a specific bill, must confine his remarks to 
    the subject matter of the bill and must not include extraneous 
    materials such as letters, editorials or articles.

    In the 74th Congress, debate on the Revenue Bill of 1936 was 
conducted in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to a special order 
that limited debate to the subject matter of the bill.(11) 
The House had agreed to a unanimous-consent request permitting all 
Members to have five legislative days in which to extend their own 
remarks in the Record on the bill. On Apr. 27, 1936,(12) an 
inquiry was made in the House concerning the extent to which a Member 
who extends his remarks on the bill in the Committee of the Whole 
pursuant to the unanimous-consent request can deviate from the subject 
matter of the bill and whether extraneous materials such as letters, 
editorials, or articles can be inserted. The proceedings were in part 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 80 Cong. Rec. 6204, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 27, 1936.
12. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: . . . My inquiry is, is 
    there any limitation upon the right of a Member to extend his 
    remarks made in the Committee of the Whole on any subject or in any 
    way he sees fit, and if there is, what the limitation is, keeping 
    in mind the special order of the House that debate be confined to 
    the bill, which I assume carries with it the assumption that 
    extensions of remarks shall also be confined to the bill? . . .
        The Speaker:(13) After all, the Chair must be guided 
    by the rule of reason. Under the circumstances under which the bill 
    is being considered, if we ad

[[Page 416]]

    here to the orders of the House debate must be confined to the 
    subject matter of the bill, and any debate which does not confine 
    itself to the subject matter of the bill or which is not in some 
    way related to the tax matters under consideration would not be in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair does not think the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union, under the orders previously made, and to 
    which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Mapes] has referred, would 
    have the right to permit the inclusion of articles, editorials in 
    newspapers, or magazine articles as a part of one's remarks, unless 
    specific permission has been obtained from the House for that 
    purpose.
        Under the [unanimous-consent] request . . . all Members of the 
    House have 5 legislative days within which to extend their own 
    remarks in the Record. The Chair calls attention of the House to 
    the fact that the request was so worded and so granted, as appears 
    in the Record, so as to limit such extensions to the subject of the 
    tax bill. It is clear to the Chair that if any Member desires to 
    insert editorials, articles in newspapers and magazines, or any 
    matter other than the remarks uttered by him on the floor he would 
    have to secure that permission from the House. The Committee of the 
    Whole has no power to authorize the extension of matters which do 
    not in some way relate to the tax bill under discussion.
        Does that answer the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, I think the Chair has answered the 
    question as definitely as it can be answered. I take the answer of 
    the Chair to mean that matters that are clearly extraneous to the 
    tax bill cannot be included in extension of remarks, even though 
    they are the Member's own statements.
        The Speaker: That is true. Of course, as the Chair intimated at 
    the outset, it is largely a matter of common sense in the 
    application of the rule and its construction.

Sec. 20.25 A Member who has obtained permission from the House by 
    unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the Record cannot insert 
    extraneous materials that were not designated in the request.

    On Feb. 21, 1936,(14) Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New 
York, made a motion to expunge from the Record materials that had been 
inserted in the Record on Feb. 19, 1936, by Mr. Marion A. Zioncheck, of 
Washington, and which had not been specified in the unanimous-consent 
request to extend that had been agreed to by the House. Two days 
earlier, Mr. Zioncheck made three unanimous-consent requests to extend 
his remarks and to include the text of certain House resolutions. An 
objection was raised each time.(15)

[[Page 417]]

Subsequently Mr. Zioncheck made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 2537, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 2372, 2400, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Then Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to extend my own 
    remarks in the Record.

To that request no objection was made. Mr. Zioncheck, however, in 
extending his remarks in the Record, did include a quotation from one 
of the resolutions to which he had referred in the three earlier 
requests that had been objected to.

    The Speaker,(16) prior to submitting the motion to a 
vote, cited the well-established principle that authorizations to 
extend remarks in the Record are strictly construed. He added that it 
is not in order under leave to print to insert other material than that 
designated in the request,(17) and commented:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
17. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3479. For several more recent examples 
        of this principle see 95 Cong. Rec. 12344, 81st Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Aug. 26, 1949; 89 Cong. Rec. 10958, 78th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Dec. 21, 1943; 80 Cong. Rec. 9250, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 8, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks the request for permission to extend remarks 
    should and must apply only to the remarks of the gentleman who 
    makes the request, and that it does not authorize the insertion of 
    newspaper articles or any other matter outside of his own remarks. 
    If a Member desires to quote or to include in his remarks 
    statements of the kind referred to, specific authority should be 
    asked of the House and should be obtained before that insertion is 
    made.

Sec. 20.26 A Member who has obtained permission from the House by 
    unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the Record and include a 
    newspaper article cannot insert a letter, and such an unauthorized 
    insertion gives rise to the question of privilege.

    On July 6, 1942,(18) Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, 
received permission from the House to extend his remarks and include 
therein a newspaper article. The extension of remarks by Mr. Bloom that 
appeared in the appendix to the daily edition of the Congressional 
Record for July 9, 1942, however, contained a letter from a 
constituent, which was not mentioned in the unanimous-consent request. 
On July 13, 1942,(19) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
who had been recognized on a question of the privileges of the House, 
offered a resolution to strike the remarks of Mr. Bloom from the 
permanent edition of the Record, and to prohibit the Public Printer 
from

[[Page 418]]

issuing copies thereof from the daily edition of the 
Record.(20) The House agreed to the 
resolution.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 88 Cong. Rec. 5991, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. 88 Cong. Rec. 6102, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H. Res. 518, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. (1942).
 1. For further illustrations of this principle, see 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 3479 and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.27 The Public Printer refused to print a Member's extension of 
    remarks in the Record because those remarks included a newspaper 
    editorial that had been printed in the Record as part of the 
    remarks of another Member.

    On Sept. 26, 1949,(2) Mr. Henry D. Larcade, Jr., of 
Louisiana, and Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, received the 
unanimous consent of the House to extend their remarks and include a 
newspaper editorial. The remarks of Mr. Larcade along with a newspaper 
editorial appeared in the appendix of the Record of Sept. 26, 1949. The 
remarks of Mr. Hoffman, however, did not appear in the Record of that 
date, and were returned to Mr. Hoffman by the Public Printer along with 
a letter explaining that his remarks had not been printed in the Record 
because they contained the same editorial that had been reprinted as 
part of the remarks of Mr. Larcade.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 95 Cong. Rec. 13273, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. The letter from the Public Printer to Mr. Hoffman is reprinted at 
        95 Cong. Rec. 13361, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following day Mr. Hoffman made a parliamentary inquiry in which 
he expressed dissatisfaction with the policy that permitted the Public 
Printer to exclude from the Record three pages of his own remarks 
because they contained an editorial previously printed, and requested 
the opinion of the Chair as to what might be done about that policy. 
The Speaker(4) advised Mr. Hoffman that the matter was 
entirely within the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Printing, 
and that it should be taken up there.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 13361, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.28 The Speaker will decline to recognize a Member who wishes to 
    obtain permission to insert in the Record materials for which such 
    permission has already been obtained from the House by another 
    Member, but which have not as yet appeared in the Record.

    On Nov. 17, 1943,(6) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 89 Cong. Rec. 9626, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 419]]

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Record and to print 
    therewith a radio address delivered by the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Patman] on Monday night.
        The Speaker:(7) That has already been printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: It has not been printed in the Record.
        The Speaker: Consent has been given, and the Chair would not 
    like to entertain a request to reprint it.
        Mr. Hoffman: I do not want to reprint it. With all due 
    deference, Mr. Speaker, we were expecting to get that radio address 
    today. I had it yesterday.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] has asked 
    unanimous consent to place it in the Record.
        Mr. Hoffman: But he did not print it.
        The Speaker: That is in the hands of the gentleman from Texas.

Appeals

Sec. 20.29 An appeal from a ruling of the Joint Committee on Printing 
    prohibiting the insertion in the Record of a government document 
    which has already been printed is within the jurisdiction of the 
    Joint Committee and not the House.

    On Mar. 29, 1949,(8) a parliamentary inquiry was made 
concerning the appropriate procedure to be followed in appealing a 
ruling of the Joint Committee on Printing. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 95 Cong. Rec. 3396, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker:(9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: On yesterday I asked and received unanimous consent 
    to extend my remarks in the Record and to include a very fine and a 
    very valuable report on spies issued by the Committee on Un-
    American Activities. The Government Printing Office informs me that 
    there is a ruling by the Joint Committee on Printing that 
    Government documents which have already been printed cannot go into 
    the Record.
        I wish to know if it is necessary to take any steps other than 
    to appeal to the Joint Committee on Printing. There is nothing the 
    House can do about it, as I understand.
        The Speaker: The Chair understands that is the proper 
    procedure.
        Mr. Rankin: To appeal to the Joint Committee on Printing?
        The Speaker: Yes.
        Mr. Rankin: I thank the Speaker.

Sec. 20.30 Appeals from a decision by the Public Printer not to print a 
    Member's remarks because those remarks included an editorial 
    previously printed in the Record are within the sole jurisdic

[[Page 420]]

    tion of the Committee on Printing, and not the House.

    On Sept. 27, 1949,(10) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, rose to a parliamentary inquiry. He stated that although he 
had, on the previous day, secured permission from the House to extend 
his own remarks in the Record and insert a newspaper editorial, those 
remarks had not been printed in the Record. He read to the House a 
letter he had received from the Public Printer stating that his remarks 
had not been printed in the Record because they included an editorial 
which had already been printed in conjunction with the remarks of 
another Member. Mr. Hoffman then continued his remarks as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 13361, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That course is commendable where the second extension is merely 
    a duplication, but in this particular case, Mr. Speaker, I had 
    three pages of my own remarks. Now, just because I quote from an 
    editorial, or use something that someone else has used, is no 
    reason why a gentleman down in the Printing Office should take it 
    upon himself to censor or exclude a part of my remarks from the 
    Record.
        My parliamentary inquiry . . . is, what do I do about this 
    situation?

The Speaker(11) responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The matter is entirely up to the Joint Committee on Printing. 
    The Chair would suggest that the gentleman take it up with the 
    Joint Committee on Printing, because they are the policy makers 
    with reference to matters of this kind.

Sec. 20.31 Under the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing, a Member 
    who requests the unanimous consent of the House to insert in the 
    Record remarks including extraneous matter in excess of two printed 
    Record pages, must submit coincident with that request the estimate 
    in writing from the Public Printer of the probable cost of 
    publishing those remarks.

    On Apr. 18, 1939,(12) Mr. John M. Houston, of Kansas, 
stated that he had in his possession an estimate of the probable cost 
of printing an address by a former Member of the House, and requested 
unanimous consent that he be permitted to insert it in the Record 
notwithstanding the estimate of cost, and the fact that its length 
exceeded two printed Record pages. The Speaker, William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, after quoting from the rules of the Joint Committee on 
Printing,(13)

[[Page 421]]

called for any objections. There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 4403, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. The current rule 12 of the Joint Committee on Printing, which is 
        similar to the rule in effect at the time of this unanimous-
        consent request, reads in part as follows: ``No extraneous 
        matter in excess of two printed Record pages, whether printed 
        in its entirety in one daily issue or in two or more parts in 
        one or more issues, shall be printed in the Congressional 
        Record unless the Member announces, coincident with the request 
        for leave to print or extend, the estimate in writing from the 
        Public Printer of the probable cost of publishing the same.'' 
        Rule 12 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 
        1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

During Adjournment to Day Certain

Sec. 20.32 The House frequently agrees by unanimous consent to permit 
    Members to extend their remarks and make insertions in the section 
    of the Record entitled ``Extensions of Remarks'' in those editions 
    of the Record scheduled for publication during an adjournment of 
    Congress to a day certain.

    On Apr. 10, 1968,(14) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request which was similar(15) to those frequently 
agreed to just prior to an adjournment to a day certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 9621, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. For other recent examples see 116 Cong. Rec. 36650, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Oct. 14, 1970; 116 Cong. Rec. 28919, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Aug. 14, 1970; and 114 Cong. Rec. 25065, 90th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Aug. 2, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that notwithstanding the adjournment of the House until 
    April 22, 1968, all Members of the House shall have the privilege 
    to extend and revise their own remarks in the Congressional Record 
    on more than one subject, if they so desire, and may also include 
    therein such short quotations as may be necessary to explain or 
    complete such extension of remarks; but this order shall not apply 
    to any subject matter which may have occurred or to any speech 
    delivered subsequent to the said adjournment.

On Occasion of Death of Member

Sec. 20.33 The House, on the occasion of the death of a Member, 
    frequently agrees by unanimous consent to permit all Members who 
    desire to do so to revise and extend their remarks and include 
    extraneous material in the Record and in the section entitled 
    ``Extension of Remarks.''

    On Mar. 2, 1970,(16) the House, as it has on other 
occasions after

[[Page 422]]

the death of a Member,(17) agreed to the following 
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 5456, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
17. For a recent example see 108 Cong. Rec. 8, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Jan. 10, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all Members who desire to do so may have permission 
    today to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous 
    material in the Record and also in that portion of the Record 
    entitled ``Extensions of Remarks.''

Sec. 20.34 The rule of the Joint Committee on Printing that requires a 
    Member to submit an estimate of the cost of printing an insertion 
    exceeding two pages in length has been applied to remarks inserted 
    in the Record on a day devoted to eulogies for deceased Members.

    On Oct. 9, 1962,(18) a day devoted to eulogies for a 
deceased Member, Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, requested the unanimous 
consent of the House that all Members be permitted to extend their 
remarks in the Appendix of the Record and include extraneous matter. In 
addition, Mr. Albert made a special request that Mr. John R. Pillion, 
of New York, be permitted to extend his remarks and include extraneous 
matter, notwithstanding the fact that it exceeded the two-page limit 
and was estimated by the Public Printer to cost $270. The House agreed 
to both aspects of the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.35 On one occasion, when the House adjourned out of respect to 
    a deceased Member, in addition to granting the customary permission 
    for all Members to extend their remarks in the Appendix of the 
    Record, the House agreed, by unanimous consent, to permit Members 
    who had obtained special orders to extend their remarks in the body 
    of the Record, and to permit Members who had spoken on legislative 
    matters that day to revise and extend their remarks and include 
    extraneous matters.

    On Sept. 16, 1961,(19) a day on which the House 
adjourned out of respect to a deceased Member, the House agreed, by 
unanimous consent, to permit all Members to extend their remarks in the 
Appendix of the Record and to include extraneous matters. The House 
also agreed to a request by the Speaker pro tempore(20) that

[[Page 423]]

those Members who had obtained special orders to speak on the floor 
would be permitted to insert their remarks in the body of the Record, 
and to the following unanimous-consent request made by Mr. Carl Albert, 
of Oklahoma:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 107 Cong. Rec. 19812, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members who spoke 
    today on the various conference reports and other legislative 
    matters may have permission to revise and extend their remarks and, 
    if they desire to include extraneous matter, they may have that 
    permission; also that all Members may have 5 legislative days in 
    which to extend their remarks in the Record.

In Final Issue of Session

Sec. 20.36 The House, just prior to adjournment at the end of a session 
    of Congress, frequently agrees by unanimous consent to permit each 
    Member to extend his remarks in the Record on any subject occurring 
    prior to adjournment, until the publication of the last edition of 
    the Record.

    On Oct. 14, 1968,(1) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request similar(2) to those generally adopted near 
the end of a session of Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 31313, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. For other recent examples see 116 Cong. Rec. 44599, 44600, 91st 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 2, 1971; 113 Cong. Rec. 37190, 90th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Dec. 15, 1967; and 112 Cong. Rec. 28893, 89th Cong. 
        2d Sess., Oct. 22, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all Members of the House have the privilege of 
    inserting their own remarks in the Extensions of Remarks section of 
    the Congressional Record and to include therewith brief related 
    extraneous material on one or more subjects; this order to be 
    effective until publication of the last edition of the Record 
    authorized by the Joint Committee on Printing, but it shall not 
    apply to any subject matter which may have occurred, or to any 
    speech delivered after adjournment of Congress.

Sec. 20.37 The House, prior to the final adjournment at the conclusion 
    of a session of Congress, frequently agrees by unanimous consent to 
    permit the chairman and a ranking minority member of each standing 
    committee and subcommittee to extend their remarks in the Record 
    and to include separate summaries of the work of their committees, 
    up until the publication date of the last volume of the Record.

    On Jan. 2, 1971,(3) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent re

[[Page 424]]

quest similar(4) to those frequently adopted at the final 
meeting of a session of Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 44600, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. For other recent examples see 115 Cong. Rec. 40982, 91st Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Dec. 23, 1969; 114 Cong. Rec. 31313, 90th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Oct. 14, 1968; and 111 Cong. Rec. 28564, 89th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Oct. 22, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the Chairmen of all the standing committees and the 
    subcommittees of the House may extend their remarks up to and 
    including the publication of the last Record and to include a 
    summary of the work of their committees; also that the ranking 
    minority Member of such standing committee or any subcommittee may 
    have the same permission to extend their remarks and to include a 
    summary, if they desire, from their point of view, separately from 
    that of the Chairman.
