[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 5. The House Rules, Journal, and Record]
[C. The Congressional Record]
[§ 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.