[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 5.  The House Rules, Journal, and Record]
[C. The Congressional Record]
[Â§ 19. Revision of Remarks]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


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