[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 5.  The House Rules, Journal, and Record]
[B. The House Journal]
[Â§ 14. Approval]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[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]]