[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 5.  The House Rules, Journal, and Record]
[C. The Congressional Record]
[Â§ 20. Extension of Remarks]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 401-424]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                      C. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
 
Sec. 20. Extension of Remarks

    The practice in the House of permitting Members to extend their 
remarks so as to insert in the Record speeches that were not delivered 
on the floor of the House and extraneous materials related to the 
subject under discussion is a long-standing one.(6) A Member 
must obtain the consent of the House to extend his 
remarks,(7) and authorizations to extend remarks in the 
Record are strictly construed.(8) The Speaker will only 
entertain requests for permission to extend remarks at certain times 
during the conduct of House business,(9) and such requests 
will be granted only to the individual whose remarks are to be 
inserted.(10) The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
recognize a Member to extend his own remarks,(11) but the 
Committee of the Whole lacks the power to permit the inclusion of 
extraneous materials(12) or to permit insertions at a later 
date.(13) The insertion of unparliamentary remarks is 
prohibited, and violations of this rule give rise to a question of 
privilege of the House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. For a discussion of the reasons underlying the development of the 
        practice, see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6990-6996, 6998-
        7000.
 7. See Sec. 20.1, infra.
 8. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3479.
 9. See Sec. Sec. 20.4 et seq., infra.
10. House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication of the 
        Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970. 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''.
11.  See Sec. 20.12, infra.
12. See 20.13, infra.
13. See Sec. 20.18, infra.
14. See Sec. 20.19, infra; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3495; 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 7005-7008. Questions of privilege 
        generally, see Ch. 11, infra.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 402]]

    While the inclusion of extraneous materials is permitted, a Member 
must conform to the limitations imposed by statute and the rules of the 
Joint Committee on Printing. For example, only the Joint Committee on 
Printing, and not the House, can permit the insertion in the Record of 
maps, diagrams, or illustrations.(15) When permission is 
obtained to insert extraneous materials, the insertions must conform to 
the descriptions in the request for permission to which the House has 
consented.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 44 USC Sec. 904 (1970).
16. See Sec. Sec. 20.25, 20.26, infra; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 3462, 3479, 3480; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing,(17) 
a Member may not insert extraneous matter in excess of two printed 
Record pages, unless he announces coincident with the request for leave 
to print or extend the estimate in writing from the Public Printer of 
the probable cost of publishing the insertion, and the House agrees to 
permit its inclusion notwithstanding the cost. If a Member submits an 
extension of remarks containing extraneous matter in excess of two 
pages, it is the duty of the Public Printer to return the insertion 
with an estimate of cost.(18) In constructing the 
``Extensions of Remarks'' section, the Public Printer is authorized to 
withhold any extensions of remarks which exceed economical press fill 
or exceed production limitations.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.  Rule 12 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 
        1972.
18. For a discussion on the House floor of regulations concerning the 
        inclusion of extraneous material, see 91 Cong. Rec. 839-841, 
        79th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 6, 1945.
19. Rule 4, House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication of the 
        Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970. Extensions 
        withheld for such reasons will be printed in succeeding issues, 
        at the direction of the Public Printer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules of the Joint Committee on Printing and the House 
Supplement to those rules delineate the types of insertions which are 
permitted in the body of the Record and those permitted only in the 
``Extensions of Remarks'' section. The only extraneous materials 
permitted in the body of the Record are as follows: excerpts from 
letters, telegrams, or articles presented in connection with a speech 
delivered in the course of debate; communications from state 
legislatures; addresses or articles by the President and the members of 
his Cabinet, the Vice President, or a Member of Con

[[Page 403]]

gress.(20) Newspaper or magazine articles, or other matter 
not germane to the proceedings, may be inserted only in the 
``Extensions of Remarks'' section, but this rule does not apply to 
quotations which form part of a speech of a Member, or to an authorized 
extension of his own remarks.(1) In addition, any extraneous 
matter which is inserted pursuant to permission granted to extend at 
this point in the Record, or pursuant to a request to address the House 
for one minute prior to the morning business of the House, may be 
printed only in the ``Extensions of Remarks'' section.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule 12 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972. 
        Section three of the same rule authorizes the official 
        reporters of the House or the Public Printer to return to the 
        Member any matter submitted for the Congressional Record which 
        is in contravention of the provisions of this rule.
 1. Rule 1 of House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication of 
        the Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970.
 2. Rule 2 of House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication of 
        the Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970. One-minute 
        speeches delivered during the morning business of Congress are 
        not permitted to exceed 300 words. Statements exceeding this 
        limit are printed following the business of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are several different circumstances in which requests are 
made for permission for more than one Member to extend remarks. Such 
requests may or may not be limited to certain subject matters. For 
example, prior to adjournment to a day certain,(3) or 
adjournment sine die,(4) all Members are permitted to extend 
their remarks.(5) Floor managers of specific legislation are 
permitted to request permission for all Members to insert their remarks 
relative to the legislation.(6) The House usually grants 
permission

[[Page 404]]

for all Members to extend their remarks on the occasion of the death of 
a Member.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sec. 20.32, infra.
 4. Sec. 20.36, infra.
 5. With respect to extensions in the last edition of the Record for a 
        session of Congress, no address, speech, or article delivered 
        or released subsequent to the sine die adjournment of a session 
        may be printed in the Record. Rule 1 of House Supplement to 
        ``Laws and Rules for Publication of the Congressional Record'', 
        effective Dec. 29, 1970. However, committee chairmen and 
        ranking minority members frequently are permitted to insert 
        reports concerning the activities of their respective 
        committees in the last edition of the Record for a session. See 
        Sec. 20.37, infra.
 6. Rule 3 of the House Supplement to ``Laws and Rules for Publication 
        of the Congressional Record'', effective Dec. 29, 1970. Only 
        matter pertaining to the specific legislation may be included 
        pursuant to this request. Tables and charts pertinent to the 
        legislation may be included, but not newspaper clippings and 
        editorials.
 7. See Sec. 20.33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules of the Joint Committee on Printing provide that a Member 
may withhold his extension of remarks for a period not exceeding 30 
calendar days from the time he has obtained permission to 
extend.(8) Where the two Houses of Congress have, by 
concurrent resolution, authorized a special printing of material 
extracted from the Record, the Joint Committee sometimes extends the 
normal 30day limit for insertions in the Record.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule 7 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 1972.
 9. The Joint Committee on Printing extended the deadline for the 
        publication of eulogies to Dwight David Eisenhower. 115 Cong. 
        Rec. 18382, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 7, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extensions Requiring Consent of House

Sec. 20.1 A Member must have permission from the House to extend his 
    remarks, but he may revise his own remarks without obtaining 
    permission.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. A discussion of this rule appears in Sec. 19.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.2 The extension of remarks in the Record by a Member without 
    the permission of the House constitutes grounds for a question of 
    the privilege of the House, and the House may expunge such remarks 
    from the permanent Record.

    On Aug. 27, 1940,(11) Mr. Jacob Thorkelson, of Montana, 
was recognized to state a question of privilege of the House. He 
introduced a resolution stating that on Aug. 14, 1940, Mr. Adolph J. 
Sabath, of Illinois, inserted in the Congressional Record remarks 
charging him with having inserted in the Record ``scurrilous matter'' 
and a forged letter. In addition, Mr. Thorkelson alleged in the 
resolution that the remarks had been inserted by Mr. Sabath without 
permission from the House. The House agreed by unanimous consent to 
permit Mr. Sabath to withdraw the word ``scurrilous'' from his 
extension of remarks,(12) and the Speaker(13) 
ruled that the statement of Mr. Sabath did not charge Mr. Thorkelson 
with having forged the letter or introduced it knowingly, and that the 
statement did not constitute a matter of privilege.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 11046-49, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
12. Id. at p. 11048.
13. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 11048, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 405]]

    The Speaker stated that the only question of privilege remaining 
concerned whether Mr. Sabath had obtained the permission of the House 
to extend his remarks in the Record.(15) Mr. Sabath had 
previously stated that if any question remained, he would be willing to 
withdraw his remarks from the Record with the unanimous consent of the 
House.(16) Mr. Thorkelson, however, objected to that 
request, because he sought an opportunity to explain his position 
during the debate on the resolution. At the conclusion of debate, the 
resolution expunging the remarks from the Record of Aug. 14 was agreed 
to by the House.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 11156, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 28, 1940.
16. Id. at 11153.
17. Id. at 11158. See 80 Cong. Rec. 7019-21, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., May 
        11, 1936, for an example of an occasion on which the House 
        refused to agree to a resolution to expunge from the Record 
        remarks which the proponent contended had been inserted in the 
        Record without the permission of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consent of Member Yielding Floor

Sec. 20.3 A Member who has been yielded to for the purpose of asking a 
    question may not, without the consent of the Member controlling the 
    floor, and the House, extend his remarks by inserting an additional 
    statement in such a way as to change the meaning of what was said.

    On Mar. 27, 1935,(18) a discussion occurred on the floor 
of the House concerning the question of whether a Member, who has been 
yielded to for the purpose of asking a question, may extend his remarks 
so as to include statements not made on the House floor. Mr. Albert E. 
Carter, of California, stated that Mr. Charles Kramer, of California, 
had yielded to him for the purpose of asking a question during a floor 
debate several days earlier Mr. Carter subsequently obtained the 
unanimous consent of the House to revise and extend his remarks, but he 
did not inform Mr. Kramer that he intended to alter the colloquy that 
had occurred between them on the floor. Upon receiving the transcript 
of the proceedings for that day, Mr. Carter inserted in the Record 
several additional statements that he had not made on the floor. When 
the transcript was later submitted to Mr. Kramer, he realized that Mr. 
Carter had not made those statements during debate, and crossed them 
out before returning them to the printer. Mr.

[[Page 406]]

Carter contended that Mr. Kramer had no right to delete those remarks 
from the Record because they had been inserted as a result of his 
having received the unanimous consent of the House to revise and extend 
his remarks. Mr. Kramer then requested the opinion of the Chair as to 
whether a Member who was yielded to for the purpose of asking a 
question is permitted to extend his remarks so as to include additional 
statements. The Speaker(19) responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 79 Cong. Rec. 4541, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        He must have the consent of the Speaker and of the Member, if 
    he is undertaking to change the Import of what a Member said who 
    had addressed the House. The Chair states that a Member making a 
    revision must have the consent of the Member who has yielded to him 
    in order to make the correction, especially if the correction is 
    such as to change the import of the question which he has asked.
The Speaker, in response to a further parliamentary inquiry, stated 
that a Member who has yielded may not, however, strike out remarks that 
were actually made on the floor by a Member to whom he had yielded.

Requests to Extend

Sec. 20.4 The Speaker will not entertain unanimous-consent requests to 
    insert materials in the Record prior to the reading and approval of 
    the Journal.

    On Sept. 19, 1962,(20) prior to the completion of the 
reading of the Journal, Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, requested 
unanimous consent to insert in the appendix of the Record his own 
remarks and a letter from the Secretary of State addressed to the 
Speaker of the House. The Speaker(1) refused to entertain 
such a request until after the Journal had been read and acted upon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.5 Brief remarks of a Member, who receives permission from the 
    House to extend his remarks following the approval of the Journal, 
    will be placed in the Record before the business of the day, but 
    not necessarily immediately following the approval of the Journal.

    On Oct. 25, 1967,(2) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request that Mr. Philip Burton, of California, be permitted to 
extend his remarks following the approval of the Journal. The fol

[[Page 407]]

lowing proceedings then occurred concerning that request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 113 Cong. Rec. 30022, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(3) The gentleman will state 
    his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Roman C. Pucinski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: A most unusual request has been granted, I full well 
    agree, by unanimous consent, for a gentleman to extend his remarks 
    after the reading of the Journal. Does that mean anywhere after the 
    Journal for this date certain?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: After the approval of the Journal.
        Mr. Hall: My inquiry is, was the gentleman granted unanimous 
    consent to insert his remarks today in the Record, which will be 
    delivered tomorrow, at any time after the reading of the Journal 
    today?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It was a 1-minute speech, and it will 
    be printed in the Record after approval of the Journal.
        Mr. Hall: I thank the Chair.

The remarks of Mr. Burton were printed in the Record for Oct. 25, 
1967,(4) following a number of other one-minute speeches. 
This group of one-minute speeches was printed subsequent to the 
approval of the Journal and messages from the President and the Senate, 
and prior to the business of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 29915, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Extensions of remarks which exceed the 300-
word limitation appear following the business of the day in the portion 
of the Record devoted thereto.

Sec. 20.6 The Speaker has recognized Members to extend their remarks 
    ``at this point in the Record'' regardless of the number of words 
    on those occasions when there was no legislative program for the 
    day.

    On Feb. 6, 1945,(5) the following parliamentary inquiry 
and response by the Speaker(6) occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 839, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: I wish to ask the Chair 
    how it is that if a Member on this side asks for a minute in which 
    to address the House he is permitted to insert 300 words or less, 
    but that when some Members on the other side of the aisle make 
    similar requests they are permitted to put in 7\1/2\ pages, or some 
    8,000 words? How does the discrimination come about?
        The Speaker: There is no discrimination because there was no 
    legislative program on yesterday and anyone had the right to extend 
    his remarks ``at [that] point'' in the Record.

Sec. 20.7 The Speaker, while a motion to discharge a committee is 
    pending, declines to recognize a Member who

[[Page 408]]

    wishes to request unanimous consent to extend his remarks.

    On June 11, 1945,(7) the House was considering a motion 
to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of a 
resolution(8) providing for the consideration of a 
bill(9) making unlawful the requirement for the payment of a 
poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in a primary' or other election 
for national officers. After the Clerk read the resolution, Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, requested unanimous consent to extend his 
remarks at that point in the Record. The Speaker(10) replied 
that the Chair could not recognize Members to extend their remarks 
until the pending motion to discharge the Committee on Rules had been 
disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H. Res. 139, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. (1945).
 9. H.R. 7, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. (1945).
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.8 The Speaker, while a motion to suspend the rules was pending, 
    refused to recognize a Member who wished to request permission from 
    the House to insert materials in the Record.

    On July 21, 1947,(11) the House was considering a motion 
to suspend the rules and pass a bill(12) to make unlawful 
the requirement for the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to 
voting in a primary or other election for national officers. During the 
debate on the motion Mr. Thomas Pickett, of Texas, sought recognition 
for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request to insert 
materials in the Record.(13) The Speaker(14) 
refused to recognize Mr. Pickett for such a purpose at that time, and 
stated that the request should be made immediately following the vote 
on the motion to suspend the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 93 Cong. Rec. 9522, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 29, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. (1947).
13. 93 Cong. Rec. 9525, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.9 Immediately subsequent to the agreement by the House to a 
    motion to discharge a committee from the consideration of a bill, 
    the Speaker announced the intention of the Chair to entertain 
    unanimous-consent requests for extensions of remarks, without 
    interfering with the right of a Member to move that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole.

[[Page 409]]

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(15) the House agreed to a motion to 
discharge the Committee on Agriculture from further consideration of a 
bill to repeal the tax on oleomargarine.(1) Immediately 
after the vote the Speaker, Joseph W. Martin, Jr. of Massachusetts, 
made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 4841, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. H.R. 2245, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. (1948).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without interfering with the rights of the gentleman from South 
    Carolina to move to go into the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
    will entertain consent requests for extensions of remarks only.

Sec. 20.10 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize a 
    Member who has spoken to revise and extend his own 
    remarks.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 20.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motions to Extend

Sec. 20.11 A motion to permit a Member to extend his remarks in the 
    Record is not a privileged motion.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(3) the following parliamentary inquiry 
was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 1661, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: If I object to a unanimous-
    consent request that a Member be permitted to extend his remarks in 
    the Record, is it proper to move that he be permitted to extend his 
    remarks?

The Speaker(4) replied that the motion to permit an 
extension of remarks is not a privileged motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Committee of the Whole

Sec. 20.12 The Committee of the Whole lacks the power to permit the 
    inclusion of extraneous materials in an extension of remarks.

Sec. 20.13 The Committee of the Whole can permit a Member to revise and 
    extend only his own remarks, and excerpts from other materials are 
    considered extraneous and not part of the Member's own remarks even 
    though they may be relevant to the subject under consideration.

    On Apr. 14, 1937,(5) during the debate on a 
bill(6) to amend the Interstate Commerce Act, the following 
exchange occurred concerning a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 3463, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. H.R. 1668, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. (1937).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter M.] Pierce [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous

[[Page 410]]

    consent that I may have the privilege of revising and extending my 
    remarks and including therein such letters and telegrams as I have 
    here denying or repudiating their appearance as proponents of the 
    Pettengill bill.
        The Chairman:(7) The Chair will remind the gentleman 
    from Oregon that the request to extend his own remarks to include 
    extraneous matter must be submitted in the House and not in 
    Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. J. Mark Wilcox (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order. Is this extraneous matter? It is matter that is 
    very pertinent, in the opinion of the majority.
        The Chairman: It is the understanding of the Chair that in 
    Committee of the Whole a Member may extend his own remarks but may 
    not include therein any extracts from other matters than his own 
    particular remarks.
        Mr. Bulwinkle: Except what he has read?
        The Chairman: Of course, what he has already read is in the 
    Record, or supposed to be.
        Mr. Bulwinkle: I wish to call attention to the fact that this 
    is not extraneous matter, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: It is the opinion of the Chair that the inclusion 
    of telegrams, letters, or other writings other than those actually 
    read in Committee of the Whole will have to be inserted in the 
    Record with the consent of the House and not the Committee of the 
    Whole.

Sec. 20.14 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole will entertain a 
    unanimous-consent request by a Member to revise and extend his own 
    remarks, but a request to include an article, even one written by 
    another Member, is in order only in the House and not in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    During the debate on the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970(8) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Frederick 
Schwengel, of Iowa, requested unanimous consent to insert in the Record 
an article written by a House colleague on the subject of minority 
staffing.(9) At this point in the debate the following 
exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 17654, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970). See for debate 116 Cong. 
        Rec. 24586, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 16, 1970.
 9. The text of the proceedings surrounding this unanimous-consent 
        request by Mr. Schwengel was printed in the daily edition of 
        the Record for July 16, 1970. Permission to insert the article 
        was obtained at a later time in the House, and the permanent 
        edition of the Record contains a reprint thereof. 116 Cong. 
        Rec. 24591, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 16, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman [William H. Natcher, of Kentucky]: Is the 
    statement that the gentleman is requesting to be printed in the 
    Record his own statement?
        Mr. Schwengel: Yes.

[[Page 411]]

        The Chairman: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Hays: I thought the gentleman said that it was the 
    statement of somebody else.
        Mr. Schwengel: It is.
        The Chairman: The Chair inquired of the gentleman if it was his 
    own statement. Is it the statement of the gentleman in the well?
        Mr. Schwengel: It is not.
        The Chairman: Then the gentleman from Iowa will have to request 
    permission for that statement to be printed in the Record when we 
    go back in the House.
        Mr. Schwengel: At the proper time I will make that request.

Sec. 20.15 A unanimous-consent request to extend remarks in the Record 
    by incorporating extraneous materials, by a Member who has not 
    spoken on the bill under consideration in the Committee of the 
    Whole, is in order only in the House and not in the Committee of 
    the Whole.

    On Jan. 23, 1936,(10) during the consideration of the 
Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 1936,(11) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 950, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H.R. 10464, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. (1936).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis D.] Culkin [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Record, if the 
    request is in order at this time, and to include in the extension 
    copies of resolutions of various agricultural bodies and other 
    organizations of the United States protesting against these 
    reciprocal tariff treaties.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point that cannot be done in Committee.
        The Chairman:(12) The Chair will invite the 
    gentleman's attention to the fact he has not spoken on the bill, 
    and such permission would have to be granted in the House rather 
    than in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.16 Although a Member may not obtain permission in the Committee 
    of the Whole to extend his remarks so as to include extraneous 
    materials, he may be permitted to read those extraneous materials 
    if he is yielded time and the Committee consents.

    On Apr. 18, 1944,(13) during the debate in the Committee 
of the Whole on a bill to extend lend lease,(14) Mr. Clare 
E. Hoffman, of Michigan, requested permission from the Committee to 
extend his remarks and insert several letters in the Record. The 
Chairman(15)

[[Page 412]]

refused Mr. Hoffman's request, and stated that such permission would 
have to be obtained from the House. Mr. Hoffman then requested the 
opinion of the Chairman as to whether he could read those letters into 
the Record. The Chairman replied that if Mr. Hoffman were yielded time 
the letters could be read with the consent of the Committee of the 
Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 90 Cong. Rec. 3558, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H.R. 4254, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. (1944).
15. Warren G. Magnuson (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.17 The Committee of the Whole agreed by unanimous consent to 
    permit a Member to insert in the Record as part of his remarks the 
    text of an amendment he had drafted, but which could not be 
    submitted for consideration under a closed rule.

    On Aug. 31, 1965,(16) during the consideration of a bill 
providing for the implementation of the Automotive Products Trade Act 
of 1965,(17) the following exchange occurred concerning a 
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 22385, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 9042, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. (1965).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: . . . Now, Mr. Chairman, I 
    had intended to offer an amendment, if the rule were an open rule 
    and if we had the opportunity to offer such an amendment.
        However, I do ask leave to attach at the conclusion of my 
    remarks the amendment that I would offer if I had the opportunity 
    to do so at the appropriate time. . . .
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to attach my 
    proposed amendment as a part of my remarks.
        The Chairman:(18) The Chair wishes to inquire if the 
    statement is the gentleman's own statement?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Harold D. Donohue (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McClory: Yes; it is my own statement. It relates to an 
    amendment that I would offer if I had an opportunity to offer it. 
    It merely qualifies the acquiescence of the Congress with respect 
    to this legislation, with the proviso that is contained in the 
    proposed amendment, which I have explained.

The unanimous-consent request was agreed to by the Committee of the 
Whole, and the text of the amendment was printed in the Record 
following the remarks of Mr. McClory.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 22385, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.18 A unanimous-consent request to permit all Members five days 
    to revise and extend their remarks on a particular subject is not 
    in order in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 19, 1967,(20) during the debate on a 
bill(1) to amend the

[[Page 413]]

Public Health Service Act, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 26032, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. H.R. 6418, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I detect a 
    strange change in the nature of debate on this subject today from 
    the one that took place a few days ago. . . . I am wondering if 
    this is not because the subject has come up suddenly as an 
    amendment rather than as a bill that was announced ahead of time. . 
    . . Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
    legislative days in which to revise and extend. . . .
        Mr. [Burt L.] Talcott [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman:(2) That request is properly made in 
    the House and not in the Committee of the Whole. Objection is not 
    necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unparliamentary Insertions

Sec. 20.19 The insertion in the Record of unparliamentary remarks is 
    sufficient to raise a question of the privilege of the House.

    This ruling, which was rendered on Sept. 5, 1940, is discussed 
elsewhere in this chapter.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 17.1, supra. See Sec. 17.4, supra, for an occasion on 
        which Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.) declined to rule on a question 
        of personal privilege arising from the insertion in the Record 
        of allegedly unparliamentary remarks because the transcript of 
        the insertion had not been submitted for his inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.20 A Member cannot extend his remarks so as to insert in the 
    Record anything that could not be stated on the House floor.

    On July 3, 1946,(4) the Speaker(5) called to 
the attention of the House the fact that several Members had recently 
extended their remarks so as to insert language that reflected 
adversely on a Member or Members of the Senate. The following 
parliamentary inquiry was then made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 8299, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: In other words, Mr. 
    Speaker, under the rules no Member can insert in the Appendix of 
    the Record under Extension of Remarks that which could not be 
    stated on the floor of the House.

The Speaker responded affirmatively to the parliamentary inquiry.

Sec. 20.21 It is a violation of the rule of comity between the two 
    Houses for a Member to insert in the Record an editorial critical 
    of a Member of the Senate.

    On June 25, 1956,(6) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made 
the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 102 Cong. Rec. 10924, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 414]]

        There has always existed complete comity between the Senate and 
    the House of Representatives. The rules of the House provide that 
    no Member of the House shall criticize a Senator on the floor of 
    the House. It has been called to the attention of the Chair that in 
    recent days editorials highly critical of Members of the other body 
    have been placed in the Record. That is a violation of the rules. 
    As far as the present occupant of the Chair is concerned, he is not 
    going to tolerate it any more.

Sec. 20.22 The Speaker announced that extensions of remarks should be 
    submitted to the Chair if there is any question as to whether they 
    refer adversely to Members of the Senate.

    On July 3, 1946,(7) the Speaker(8) made the 
following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 8299, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had called to his attention in the last few days 
    some extensions of remarks by Members of the House that the Chair 
    thinks are a reflection on a Member or Members of the Senate. The 
    Chair trusts that that does not happen any more. If there is any 
    question as to whether or not an extension of remarks refers to a 
    Member of the Senate in any way that might be offensive to him, the 
    Chair hopes the matter will be submitted to the Chair before the 
    remarks go to the printer.

Limitations on Extraneous Matter

Sec. 20.23 A Member who has secured unanimous consent to address the 
    House for one minute and revise and extend his remarks may not 
    without the consent of the House include in such remarks extraneous 
    matter such as a speech made by another person.

    On Jan. 18, 1946,(9) Mr. Emerson H. De Lacy, of 
Washington, requested and received unanimous consent to address the 
House for one minute, and to revise and extend his remarks. At the 
conclusion of his remarks on the House floor, Mr. De Lacy requested 
unanimous consent to insert a speech delivered by an Under Secretary of 
Commerce. When this request was objected to, Mr. John J. Cochran, of 
Missouri, made the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 92 Cong. Rec. 129, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The gentleman from Washington 
    arose and asked permission of the Chair to speak for 1 minute and 
    to revise and extend his remarks. That permission was granted. I 
    take the position that under that request to address the House for 
    1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks the gentleman has a 
    right to include what he desires in the Record.


[[Page 415]]


The Speaker pro tempore(10) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the unanimous-consent request 
    to speak for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks related 
    to the remarks that the gentleman from Washington might make during 
    the period that he addressed the House and that it did not include 
    any specific extraneous matter which might be in addition to what 
    he said himself or what he might add as his own remarks. The Chair, 
    of course, was hopeful that the unanimous-consent request to 
    include this specific matter would not be objected to. With 
    reference to the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Missouri, the Chair must rule that . . . the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Washington did not include the 
    specific matter which has previously been referred to.

Sec. 20.24 A Member who extends his remarks pursuant to an expression 
    of unanimous consent by the House permitting Members to extend 
    their own remarks on a specific bill, must confine his remarks to 
    the subject matter of the bill and must not include extraneous 
    materials such as letters, editorials or articles.

    In the 74th Congress, debate on the Revenue Bill of 1936 was 
conducted in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to a special order 
that limited debate to the subject matter of the bill.(11) 
The House had agreed to a unanimous-consent request permitting all 
Members to have five legislative days in which to extend their own 
remarks in the Record on the bill. On Apr. 27, 1936,(12) an 
inquiry was made in the House concerning the extent to which a Member 
who extends his remarks on the bill in the Committee of the Whole 
pursuant to the unanimous-consent request can deviate from the subject 
matter of the bill and whether extraneous materials such as letters, 
editorials, or articles can be inserted. The proceedings were in part 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 80 Cong. Rec. 6204, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 27, 1936.
12. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: . . . My inquiry is, is 
    there any limitation upon the right of a Member to extend his 
    remarks made in the Committee of the Whole on any subject or in any 
    way he sees fit, and if there is, what the limitation is, keeping 
    in mind the special order of the House that debate be confined to 
    the bill, which I assume carries with it the assumption that 
    extensions of remarks shall also be confined to the bill? . . .
        The Speaker:(13) After all, the Chair must be guided 
    by the rule of reason. Under the circumstances under which the bill 
    is being considered, if we ad

[[Page 416]]

    here to the orders of the House debate must be confined to the 
    subject matter of the bill, and any debate which does not confine 
    itself to the subject matter of the bill or which is not in some 
    way related to the tax matters under consideration would not be in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair does not think the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union, under the orders previously made, and to 
    which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Mapes] has referred, would 
    have the right to permit the inclusion of articles, editorials in 
    newspapers, or magazine articles as a part of one's remarks, unless 
    specific permission has been obtained from the House for that 
    purpose.
        Under the [unanimous-consent] request . . . all Members of the 
    House have 5 legislative days within which to extend their own 
    remarks in the Record. The Chair calls attention of the House to 
    the fact that the request was so worded and so granted, as appears 
    in the Record, so as to limit such extensions to the subject of the 
    tax bill. It is clear to the Chair that if any Member desires to 
    insert editorials, articles in newspapers and magazines, or any 
    matter other than the remarks uttered by him on the floor he would 
    have to secure that permission from the House. The Committee of the 
    Whole has no power to authorize the extension of matters which do 
    not in some way relate to the tax bill under discussion.
        Does that answer the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, I think the Chair has answered the 
    question as definitely as it can be answered. I take the answer of 
    the Chair to mean that matters that are clearly extraneous to the 
    tax bill cannot be included in extension of remarks, even though 
    they are the Member's own statements.
        The Speaker: That is true. Of course, as the Chair intimated at 
    the outset, it is largely a matter of common sense in the 
    application of the rule and its construction.

Sec. 20.25 A Member who has obtained permission from the House by 
    unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the Record cannot insert 
    extraneous materials that were not designated in the request.

    On Feb. 21, 1936,(14) Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New 
York, made a motion to expunge from the Record materials that had been 
inserted in the Record on Feb. 19, 1936, by Mr. Marion A. Zioncheck, of 
Washington, and which had not been specified in the unanimous-consent 
request to extend that had been agreed to by the House. Two days 
earlier, Mr. Zioncheck made three unanimous-consent requests to extend 
his remarks and to include the text of certain House resolutions. An 
objection was raised each time.(15)

[[Page 417]]

Subsequently Mr. Zioncheck made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 2537, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 2372, 2400, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Then Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to extend my own 
    remarks in the Record.

To that request no objection was made. Mr. Zioncheck, however, in 
extending his remarks in the Record, did include a quotation from one 
of the resolutions to which he had referred in the three earlier 
requests that had been objected to.

    The Speaker,(16) prior to submitting the motion to a 
vote, cited the well-established principle that authorizations to 
extend remarks in the Record are strictly construed. He added that it 
is not in order under leave to print to insert other material than that 
designated in the request,(17) and commented:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
17. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3479. For several more recent examples 
        of this principle see 95 Cong. Rec. 12344, 81st Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Aug. 26, 1949; 89 Cong. Rec. 10958, 78th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Dec. 21, 1943; 80 Cong. Rec. 9250, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 8, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks the request for permission to extend remarks 
    should and must apply only to the remarks of the gentleman who 
    makes the request, and that it does not authorize the insertion of 
    newspaper articles or any other matter outside of his own remarks. 
    If a Member desires to quote or to include in his remarks 
    statements of the kind referred to, specific authority should be 
    asked of the House and should be obtained before that insertion is 
    made.

Sec. 20.26 A Member who has obtained permission from the House by 
    unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the Record and include a 
    newspaper article cannot insert a letter, and such an unauthorized 
    insertion gives rise to the question of privilege.

    On July 6, 1942,(18) Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, 
received permission from the House to extend his remarks and include 
therein a newspaper article. The extension of remarks by Mr. Bloom that 
appeared in the appendix to the daily edition of the Congressional 
Record for July 9, 1942, however, contained a letter from a 
constituent, which was not mentioned in the unanimous-consent request. 
On July 13, 1942,(19) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
who had been recognized on a question of the privileges of the House, 
offered a resolution to strike the remarks of Mr. Bloom from the 
permanent edition of the Record, and to prohibit the Public Printer 
from

[[Page 418]]

issuing copies thereof from the daily edition of the 
Record.(20) The House agreed to the 
resolution.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 88 Cong. Rec. 5991, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. 88 Cong. Rec. 6102, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H. Res. 518, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. (1942).
 1. For further illustrations of this principle, see 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 3479 and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.27 The Public Printer refused to print a Member's extension of 
    remarks in the Record because those remarks included a newspaper 
    editorial that had been printed in the Record as part of the 
    remarks of another Member.

    On Sept. 26, 1949,(2) Mr. Henry D. Larcade, Jr., of 
Louisiana, and Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, received the 
unanimous consent of the House to extend their remarks and include a 
newspaper editorial. The remarks of Mr. Larcade along with a newspaper 
editorial appeared in the appendix of the Record of Sept. 26, 1949. The 
remarks of Mr. Hoffman, however, did not appear in the Record of that 
date, and were returned to Mr. Hoffman by the Public Printer along with 
a letter explaining that his remarks had not been printed in the Record 
because they contained the same editorial that had been reprinted as 
part of the remarks of Mr. Larcade.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 95 Cong. Rec. 13273, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. The letter from the Public Printer to Mr. Hoffman is reprinted at 
        95 Cong. Rec. 13361, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following day Mr. Hoffman made a parliamentary inquiry in which 
he expressed dissatisfaction with the policy that permitted the Public 
Printer to exclude from the Record three pages of his own remarks 
because they contained an editorial previously printed, and requested 
the opinion of the Chair as to what might be done about that policy. 
The Speaker(4) advised Mr. Hoffman that the matter was 
entirely within the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Printing, 
and that it should be taken up there.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 13361, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.28 The Speaker will decline to recognize a Member who wishes to 
    obtain permission to insert in the Record materials for which such 
    permission has already been obtained from the House by another 
    Member, but which have not as yet appeared in the Record.

    On Nov. 17, 1943,(6) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 89 Cong. Rec. 9626, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 419]]

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Record and to print 
    therewith a radio address delivered by the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Patman] on Monday night.
        The Speaker:(7) That has already been printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: It has not been printed in the Record.
        The Speaker: Consent has been given, and the Chair would not 
    like to entertain a request to reprint it.
        Mr. Hoffman: I do not want to reprint it. With all due 
    deference, Mr. Speaker, we were expecting to get that radio address 
    today. I had it yesterday.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] has asked 
    unanimous consent to place it in the Record.
        Mr. Hoffman: But he did not print it.
        The Speaker: That is in the hands of the gentleman from Texas.

Appeals

Sec. 20.29 An appeal from a ruling of the Joint Committee on Printing 
    prohibiting the insertion in the Record of a government document 
    which has already been printed is within the jurisdiction of the 
    Joint Committee and not the House.

    On Mar. 29, 1949,(8) a parliamentary inquiry was made 
concerning the appropriate procedure to be followed in appealing a 
ruling of the Joint Committee on Printing. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 95 Cong. Rec. 3396, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker:(9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: On yesterday I asked and received unanimous consent 
    to extend my remarks in the Record and to include a very fine and a 
    very valuable report on spies issued by the Committee on Un-
    American Activities. The Government Printing Office informs me that 
    there is a ruling by the Joint Committee on Printing that 
    Government documents which have already been printed cannot go into 
    the Record.
        I wish to know if it is necessary to take any steps other than 
    to appeal to the Joint Committee on Printing. There is nothing the 
    House can do about it, as I understand.
        The Speaker: The Chair understands that is the proper 
    procedure.
        Mr. Rankin: To appeal to the Joint Committee on Printing?
        The Speaker: Yes.
        Mr. Rankin: I thank the Speaker.

Sec. 20.30 Appeals from a decision by the Public Printer not to print a 
    Member's remarks because those remarks included an editorial 
    previously printed in the Record are within the sole jurisdic

[[Page 420]]

    tion of the Committee on Printing, and not the House.

    On Sept. 27, 1949,(10) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, rose to a parliamentary inquiry. He stated that although he 
had, on the previous day, secured permission from the House to extend 
his own remarks in the Record and insert a newspaper editorial, those 
remarks had not been printed in the Record. He read to the House a 
letter he had received from the Public Printer stating that his remarks 
had not been printed in the Record because they included an editorial 
which had already been printed in conjunction with the remarks of 
another Member. Mr. Hoffman then continued his remarks as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 13361, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That course is commendable where the second extension is merely 
    a duplication, but in this particular case, Mr. Speaker, I had 
    three pages of my own remarks. Now, just because I quote from an 
    editorial, or use something that someone else has used, is no 
    reason why a gentleman down in the Printing Office should take it 
    upon himself to censor or exclude a part of my remarks from the 
    Record.
        My parliamentary inquiry . . . is, what do I do about this 
    situation?

The Speaker(11) responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The matter is entirely up to the Joint Committee on Printing. 
    The Chair would suggest that the gentleman take it up with the 
    Joint Committee on Printing, because they are the policy makers 
    with reference to matters of this kind.

Sec. 20.31 Under the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing, a Member 
    who requests the unanimous consent of the House to insert in the 
    Record remarks including extraneous matter in excess of two printed 
    Record pages, must submit coincident with that request the estimate 
    in writing from the Public Printer of the probable cost of 
    publishing those remarks.

    On Apr. 18, 1939,(12) Mr. John M. Houston, of Kansas, 
stated that he had in his possession an estimate of the probable cost 
of printing an address by a former Member of the House, and requested 
unanimous consent that he be permitted to insert it in the Record 
notwithstanding the estimate of cost, and the fact that its length 
exceeded two printed Record pages. The Speaker, William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, after quoting from the rules of the Joint Committee on 
Printing,(13)

[[Page 421]]

called for any objections. There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 4403, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. The current rule 12 of the Joint Committee on Printing, which is 
        similar to the rule in effect at the time of this unanimous-
        consent request, reads in part as follows: ``No extraneous 
        matter in excess of two printed Record pages, whether printed 
        in its entirety in one daily issue or in two or more parts in 
        one or more issues, shall be printed in the Congressional 
        Record unless the Member announces, coincident with the request 
        for leave to print or extend, the estimate in writing from the 
        Public Printer of the probable cost of publishing the same.'' 
        Rule 12 of the Joint Committee on Printing, effective May 23, 
        1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

During Adjournment to Day Certain

Sec. 20.32 The House frequently agrees by unanimous consent to permit 
    Members to extend their remarks and make insertions in the section 
    of the Record entitled ``Extensions of Remarks'' in those editions 
    of the Record scheduled for publication during an adjournment of 
    Congress to a day certain.

    On Apr. 10, 1968,(14) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request which was similar(15) to those frequently 
agreed to just prior to an adjournment to a day certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 9621, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. For other recent examples see 116 Cong. Rec. 36650, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Oct. 14, 1970; 116 Cong. Rec. 28919, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Aug. 14, 1970; and 114 Cong. Rec. 25065, 90th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Aug. 2, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that notwithstanding the adjournment of the House until 
    April 22, 1968, all Members of the House shall have the privilege 
    to extend and revise their own remarks in the Congressional Record 
    on more than one subject, if they so desire, and may also include 
    therein such short quotations as may be necessary to explain or 
    complete such extension of remarks; but this order shall not apply 
    to any subject matter which may have occurred or to any speech 
    delivered subsequent to the said adjournment.

On Occasion of Death of Member

Sec. 20.33 The House, on the occasion of the death of a Member, 
    frequently agrees by unanimous consent to permit all Members who 
    desire to do so to revise and extend their remarks and include 
    extraneous material in the Record and in the section entitled 
    ``Extension of Remarks.''

    On Mar. 2, 1970,(16) the House, as it has on other 
occasions after

[[Page 422]]

the death of a Member,(17) agreed to the following 
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 5456, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
17. For a recent example see 108 Cong. Rec. 8, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Jan. 10, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all Members who desire to do so may have permission 
    today to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous 
    material in the Record and also in that portion of the Record 
    entitled ``Extensions of Remarks.''

Sec. 20.34 The rule of the Joint Committee on Printing that requires a 
    Member to submit an estimate of the cost of printing an insertion 
    exceeding two pages in length has been applied to remarks inserted 
    in the Record on a day devoted to eulogies for deceased Members.

    On Oct. 9, 1962,(18) a day devoted to eulogies for a 
deceased Member, Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, requested the unanimous 
consent of the House that all Members be permitted to extend their 
remarks in the Appendix of the Record and include extraneous matter. In 
addition, Mr. Albert made a special request that Mr. John R. Pillion, 
of New York, be permitted to extend his remarks and include extraneous 
matter, notwithstanding the fact that it exceeded the two-page limit 
and was estimated by the Public Printer to cost $270. The House agreed 
to both aspects of the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.35 On one occasion, when the House adjourned out of respect to 
    a deceased Member, in addition to granting the customary permission 
    for all Members to extend their remarks in the Appendix of the 
    Record, the House agreed, by unanimous consent, to permit Members 
    who had obtained special orders to extend their remarks in the body 
    of the Record, and to permit Members who had spoken on legislative 
    matters that day to revise and extend their remarks and include 
    extraneous matters.

    On Sept. 16, 1961,(19) a day on which the House 
adjourned out of respect to a deceased Member, the House agreed, by 
unanimous consent, to permit all Members to extend their remarks in the 
Appendix of the Record and to include extraneous matters. The House 
also agreed to a request by the Speaker pro tempore(20) that

[[Page 423]]

those Members who had obtained special orders to speak on the floor 
would be permitted to insert their remarks in the body of the Record, 
and to the following unanimous-consent request made by Mr. Carl Albert, 
of Oklahoma:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 107 Cong. Rec. 19812, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members who spoke 
    today on the various conference reports and other legislative 
    matters may have permission to revise and extend their remarks and, 
    if they desire to include extraneous matter, they may have that 
    permission; also that all Members may have 5 legislative days in 
    which to extend their remarks in the Record.

In Final Issue of Session

Sec. 20.36 The House, just prior to adjournment at the end of a session 
    of Congress, frequently agrees by unanimous consent to permit each 
    Member to extend his remarks in the Record on any subject occurring 
    prior to adjournment, until the publication of the last edition of 
    the Record.

    On Oct. 14, 1968,(1) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request similar(2) to those generally adopted near 
the end of a session of Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 31313, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. For other recent examples see 116 Cong. Rec. 44599, 44600, 91st 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 2, 1971; 113 Cong. Rec. 37190, 90th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Dec. 15, 1967; and 112 Cong. Rec. 28893, 89th Cong. 
        2d Sess., Oct. 22, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all Members of the House have the privilege of 
    inserting their own remarks in the Extensions of Remarks section of 
    the Congressional Record and to include therewith brief related 
    extraneous material on one or more subjects; this order to be 
    effective until publication of the last edition of the Record 
    authorized by the Joint Committee on Printing, but it shall not 
    apply to any subject matter which may have occurred, or to any 
    speech delivered after adjournment of Congress.

Sec. 20.37 The House, prior to the final adjournment at the conclusion 
    of a session of Congress, frequently agrees by unanimous consent to 
    permit the chairman and a ranking minority member of each standing 
    committee and subcommittee to extend their remarks in the Record 
    and to include separate summaries of the work of their committees, 
    up until the publication date of the last volume of the Record.

    On Jan. 2, 1971,(3) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent re

[[Page 424]]

quest similar(4) to those frequently adopted at the final 
meeting of a session of Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 44600, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. For other recent examples see 115 Cong. Rec. 40982, 91st Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Dec. 23, 1969; 114 Cong. Rec. 31313, 90th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Oct. 14, 1968; and 111 Cong. Rec. 28564, 89th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Oct. 22, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the Chairmen of all the standing committees and the 
    subcommittees of the House may extend their remarks up to and 
    including the publication of the last Record and to include a 
    summary of the work of their committees; also that the ranking 
    minority Member of such standing committee or any subcommittee may 
    have the same permission to extend their remarks and to include a 
    summary, if they desire, from their point of view, separately from 
    that of the Chairman.
