[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 5.  The House Rules, Journal, and Record]
[C. The Congressional Record]
[Â§ 18. Correction of Errors]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[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.