[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 5.  The House Rules, Journal, and Record]
[B. The House Journal]
[Â§ 11. Reading the Journal]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[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.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------