[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 5.  The House Rules, Journal, and Record]
[C. The Congressional Record]
[Â§ 16. Matters Printed in the Record; Civil Liability]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[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.''