[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 6.  Officers, Officials, and Employees]
[A. The Speaker]
[Â§ 3. Jurisdiction and Duties]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 435-471]
 
                               CHAPTER 6
 
                   Officers, Officials, and Employees
 
                             A. THE SPEAKER
 
Sec. 3. Jurisdiction and Duties

    The Speaker's jurisdiction and duties are found in numerous 
statutes and, of course, throughout the House rules.
    Generally speaking, the Speaker's jurisdiction and duties relate to 
the House rules, the Members, and the dignity and prerogatives of the 
House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 3.1. infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the beginning of a Congress, the Speaker normally administers 
the oath of office to the new Members.(2) When a Speaker pro 
tem

[[Page 436]]

pore is elected or designated and approved, the Speaker, if he is 
present, also administers the oath of office to the Speaker pro 
tempore.(3) In addition, the Speaker has the power to 
administer oaths to witnesses.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 3.2, infra, and 2 USC Sec. 25 (1973). See Ch. 1, supra, 
        for treatment of the Speaker's role in the assembly of 
        Congress.
 3. See Sec. 3.3, infra.
 4. 2 USC Sec. 191. See Ch. 15, infra, for treatment of the Speaker's 
        role in House investigations and inquiries.
            Parliamentarian's Note: This statutory power has rarely 
        been used by Speakers in modern times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under various House rules the Speaker presides over all regularly 
scheduled House business:
    (1) He calls the Members to order at the beginning of each daily 
session.(5) Under the constitutional provisions dealing with 
quorums(6) the Speaker then proceeds unless objection is 
raised that a quorum is not present.(7~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule I clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (1973). See Ch. 
        20, infra, for the Speaker's role in the call of the House.
 6. U.S. Const. art I, Sec. 5.
 7. See Ch. 20, infra, for treatment of the Speaker's role in 
        determining the presence of a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) If a quorum is present, the Speaker, having examined the House 
Journal, may announce his approval of it. It is ordinarily not read 
unless such is insisted upon.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule I clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (1973). See Ch. 5, 
        supra, for treatment of the Speaker's duties with regard to the 
        House Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) The next item of business under the rules--though infrequently 
applied--is the reference(9) or correction of reference of 
bills, joint resolutions, etc., to appropriate 
committees.(10) In this regard, the Speaker may defend his 
reference of measures should they be challenged.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 3.5, infra. See also Sec. 4.3, infra. See Ch. 16, infra, 
        for fuller treatment of the Speaker's role in the reference of 
        bills, etc., to committees.
10. See Sec. 3.6, infra.
11. See Sec. 3.7, infra. See Ch. 29, infra, for fuller treatment of the 
        Speaker's participation in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) The Speaker next disposes of business on the Speaker's table. 
Such business includes Presidential messages, communications from 
department heads, and measures sent to the House by the 
Senate.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XXIV clauses 1 and 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 878, et seq. 
        (1973. See also Sec. 2, supra, for examples of reports cleared 
        through the Speaker's office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) The Speaker then proceeds to unfinished 
business.(13) Under the rules, then comes the morning hour 
for the consideration of bills called up by committees;(14) 
how

[[Page 437]]

ever, this procedure is not followed under present House practices, 
since the House proceeds to business under other provisions of the 
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Rule XXIV clauses 1 and 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 878 and 
        885-888 (1973) 
14. Rule XXIV clauses 1 and 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 889, 
        890 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) Next under the House rules, the Speaker is required to allow up 
to one hour for the call of the committees under the regular order 
before a motion can be entertained to go into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union.(15) Again, this is 
largely an obsolete procedure, since by resolutions from the Committee 
on Rules the House normally prescribes a different order of business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XXIV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 891, 892 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a motion is made for the House to resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker appoints the Chairman of the 
Committee.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XXIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 861 (1973). See 
        also Sec. Sec. 6.1 and 6.2, infra. See Ch. 19, infra, for 
        fuller treatment of the Speaker's role in relation to the 
        Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (7) When the Committee of the Whole finally rises to report back to 
the House, the Speaker resumes the Chair and proceeds to the orders of 
the day.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule XXIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 878 (1973). See 
        also Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 384 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During a daily session if the Speaker desires to be absent from the 
Chair momentarily, he has the right under the House rules to designate 
a Speaker pro tempore.(18) He may also designate a Speaker 
pro tempore for longer periods, or even invite the election of one, 
under certain circumstances.(19) When the Speaker is 
criticized during debate, it is considered proper for him to designate 
a Speaker pro tempore to rule on whether the criticism is 
unparliamentary.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule I clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 633 (1973).
19. See Sec. Sec. 9 et seq., infra, for treatment of Speakers pro 
        tempore.
20. See  3.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many more or less routine functions of the Speaker are of course 
accomplished off of the floor of the House. Examples of these are:
    (1) The Speaker certifies the salary and mileage accounts of 
Members as required by statute.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 2 USCA Sec. 48. See Ch. 7, infra, for treatment of the 
        compensation, allowances, perquisites, and emoluments of 
        Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The Speaker has the statutory duty to certify to the 
appropriate U.S. District Attorney the names of persons found to be in 
contempt of House committees for prosecution(2) when the 
House has formally authorized such ac

[[Page 438]]

tion.(3) Likewise, he certifies names of persons who have 
purged themselves of the contempt charges to the U.S. District 
Attorneys after formal House authorization.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 2 USC Sec. 194.
 3. See Sec. 3.40, infra.
 4. See Sec. 3.43, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Whenever a vetoed measure is approved by two-thirds of both 
Houses of Congress, the Speaker sends the original measure to the 
General Services Administration for promulgation, if the House was the 
last body to act on the measure.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 1 USC Sec. 106a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker generally informs the House of actions taken pursuant 
to House authorization. For instance, the Speaker will inform the House 
when he has signed enrolled bills during an adjournment of the 
House,(6) or when, acting in his official capacity as 
spokesman of the House, he has accepted a subpena served on the 
House.(7) It is also considered the Speaker's duty to inform 
the House when a Speaker pro tempore has acted for him during an 
adjournment.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 3.9, infra.
 7. See Sec. 3.39, infra.
 8. See Sec. 3.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In certain unusual circumstances, the Speaker is considered to have 
the inherent power to act on the Members' behalf without House 
authorization. For example, in emergency situations, the Speaker is 
considered to have the inherent power to declare the House in recess, 
subject to the call of the Chair.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 3.44, infra. See Ch. 39, infra, for treatment of House 
        recesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the consideration of the various measures, the Speaker 
normally assumes the primary responsibility on the part of the House 
for enforcing the customary rules of comity between the two Houses of 
Congress.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See  3.45. infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To facilitate the consideration of measures, the House rules 
provide the Speaker with three major functions: (1) recognizing Members 
who seek to address the House,(11) (2) construing and 
applying the House rules,(12) and (3) putting the question 
to or stating a motion for the Members for their vote.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 749 et seq. 
        (1973).
12. See Rule I clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 624, 627 
        (1973).
13. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 629 (1973). See also 
        the forms of putting the question, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 960-965 (1973). See Ch. 29, infra, for fuller 
        treatment of the Speaker's power of recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker has held that in construing the rules he may look

[[Page 439]]

to all pertinent facts concerning the matter to which the rules would 
be applied.(14) In ruling on a matter brought to his 
attention by a point of order, the Speaker normally will wait until the 
matter is completely before him.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 3.29, infra.
15. See Sec. 3.30, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In certain circumstances the presiding officer may make inquiries 
of a Member having the floor.(16) But it is the more 
frequent case that the Speaker answers inquiries from the Members. For 
example, he answers questions regarding the applicability of the House 
rules to standing committees.(17) However, he does not 
answer hypothetical inquiries or general questions relating to 
committee procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 3.32, infra.
17. See Sec. 3.33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker may decline to answer immediately a parliamentary 
inquiry(18) or he may simply ask a Member to withhold his 
inquiry until the Speaker has sufficient time to ascertain certain 
facts.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 3.34, infra.
19. See Sec. 3.35, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duties Generally

Sec. 3.1 In general, as the elected presiding officer of the House, the 
    Speaker has duties relating to the House rules, to the Members, and 
    to the dignity and prerogatives of the House.

    On Jan. 10, 1962,(20) Speaker elect John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, addressed the House from the Chair regarding his 
duties as Speaker of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 6, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Members of the House of Representatives . . . [in] 
    the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the 
    Speaker, parliamentary or otherwise, I shall perform such duties 
    impartially with fair treatment to all Members in interpreting and 
    enforcing the rules, but above all protecting the rights of all 
    Members without regard to party affiliation.

        While as leader in this body of my party, I have my political 
    responsibilities, in the performance of my duties as Speaker, my 
    responsibility is to the House itself and to all of its Members.
        As majority leader I always considered that one of my primary 
    duties was to protect the rights, under the rules and also in 
    accordance with the customs of the House, of the minority party. I 
    shall follow that course as Speaker. . . .
        I will continue to maintain the dignity of the House of 
    Representatives, protecting its prerogatives and maintaining the 
    right and privileges of its members.

Administering Oaths

Sec. 3.2 It is the normal practice for the Speaker to admin

[[Page 440]]

    ister the oath of office to Members at the opening of a session of 
    Congress.

    On Jan. 3, 1945,(1) the following procedure regarding 
the swearing in of Members took place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 91 Cong. Rec. 14, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Chair understands that 
    two or three Members with certificates on file with the Clerk were 
    not here when the other Members were sworn in, were unable to get 
    here at the hour of meeting on account of late trains. At least two 
    such Members are here now.
        Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt [of South Dakota]: Mr. Speaker, I am one of 
    those detained by late trains. I took the oath of office but I was 
    not here in time to answer to the first roll call.
        The Speaker: The statement of the gentleman from South Dakota 
    will stand.
        The Members who have not taken the oath of office will present 
    themselves in the well of the House and all others will clear the 
    well of the House.
        Mr. Gorski and Mr. Stefan appeared at the bar of the House and 
    took the oath of office.

Sec. 3.3 If the Speaker is present when the House has elected a Speaker 
    pro tempore, it is normally the Speaker who administers the oath of 
    office to the Speaker pro tempore.

    On Aug. 26, 1949,(2) a resolution was introduced as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 95 Cong. Rec. 12344, 81st Cong. 1st. Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    resolution (H. Res. 351) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That Hon. E.E. Cox, a Representative from the 
        State of Georgia, be, and he is hereby, elected Speaker pro 
        tempore during the absence of the Speaker.
            Resolved, That the President and the Senate be notified by 
        the Clerk of the election of Hon. E.E. Cox as Speaker pro 
        tempore during the absence of the Speaker.

        The resolution was agreed to.
        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The gentleman from Georgia 
    [Mr. Cox] will present himself at the bar of the House and take the 
    oath.
        Mr. Cox appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath of 
    office.

Meeting Time and Place

Sec. 3.4 When the House is to meet in a place other than the House 
    Chamber, the Speaker normally is the one who informs the Members of 
    the time and place of the meeting.

    On July 1, 1949,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made 
an announcement concerning the time and place of the meeting of the 
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 8808, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the House stands 
    ad

[[Page 441]]

    journed to meet on Tuesday, July 5, 1949, at 12 o'clock noon, in 
    the caucus room in the New House Office Building.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Parliamentarian's Note: The House moved to the New House Office 
        Building pending remodeling of the House Chamber in the Capitol 
        caused by an insecure ceiling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Referring Measures to Committees

Sec. 3.5 The Speaker examines and refers to committees all bills and 
    resolutions introduced by Members of the House.

    On Jan. 10, 1967,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, indicated the procedure by which bills introduced on the 
opening day of a Congress are examined and referred to committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 34, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair would like to make a statement 
    concerning the introduction and reference of bills today.
        As Members are aware, they have the privilege today of 
    introducing bills. Heretofore on the opening day of a new Congress 
    several thousand bills have been introduced. It will be readily 
    apparent to all Members that it may be a physical impossibility for 
    the Speaker to examine each bill for reference today. The Chair 
    will do his best to refer as many bills as possible, but he will 
    ask the indulgence of Members if he is unable to refer all the 
    bills that may be introduced. Those bills which are not referred 
    and do not appear in the Record as of today will be included in the 
    next day's Record and printed with a date as of 
    today.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Parliamentarian's Note: On the opening day of the first session of 
        the 90th Congress a total of 2,247 bills and resolutions were 
        introduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.6 Having the authority to refer Presidential messages and bills 
    to committees, a Speaker may change a reference to another 
    committee if appropriate.

    On Jan. 27, 1958,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
announced a change of reference of matters from one committee to 
another:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 104 Cong. Rec. 1112, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: After further examination of the President's 
    message and the recommendations made therein, the Chair believes 
    that the proper committee to which to refer the President's message 
    is the Committee on Education and Labor instead of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce, because on the Science Foundation 
    no new law is suggested, simply more appropriations. The other part 
    of the President's message deals with education. Therefore the 
    Chair is going to change the reference of the President's message 
    and whatever bills are introduced on that subject, to the Committee 
    on Education and Labor.

[[Page 442]]

Sec. 3.7 Although the Speaker has the power to refer bills to proper 
    committees in the first instance, such references may later be 
    challenged and the Speaker may defend his decision.

    On Mar. 2, 1966,(8) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, took the floor in the Committee of the Whole to indicate 
his responsibility regarding the reference of public bills to proper 
committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 4579, 4580, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: . . . Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks by 
    the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Cleveland] about the 
    reference of this bill, and overhearing them and confining myself 
    to that aspect of his remarks, I simply want to advise the Members 
    of the House that in my judgment as the Speaker, this bill was 
    properly referred to the Committee on Public Works.
        In the original bill, the bill calls for the participation in 
    the 1967 exposition, jointly with the State of Alaska through 
    economic development projects such as industrial, agricultural, 
    educational, research, or commercial facilities, and so forth.
        Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly respect the views of my friend, the 
    gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Cleveland], but I cannot be on 
    the floor and listen to one challenge the reference of a bill that 
    I made. I realize that I might make mistakes occasionally, but I 
    will always make the reference of a bill that the rules call for. 
    In my clear judgment this bill was properly referred to the 
    Committee on Public Works(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Parliamentarian's Note: As introduced the bill in question was 
        primarily an economic development measure. In this form, the 
        bill was primarily within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
        Public Works. As reported, however, the primary emphasis of the 
        bill was federal recognition of and participation in the 
        centennial celebration of the Alaska purchase. In this form, 
        the bill was similar to centennial bills that have been 
        traditionally, under the precedents, referred to the Committee 
        on the Judiciary.
            Reference generally, see Ch. 16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Informing the House of Actions Taken

Sec. 3.8 The Speaker informs the House when he has accepted a 
    resignation and appointed a successor to a committee during an 
    adjournment.

    On Jan. 3, 1957,(10) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made 
the following announcement concerning a committee appointment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 47, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to announce that pursuant to the 
    provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 244, 84th Congress, and 
    the order of

[[Page 443]]

    the House of July 27, 1956, empowering him to accept resignations 
    and to appoint commissions . . . he did, on September 8, 1956, 
    appoint as a member of the joint committee to represent the 
    Congress at the unveiling of the Commodore John Barry Memorial at 
    Wexford, Ireland . . . the gentleman from Pennsylvania . . . to 
    fill a vacancy caused by the resignation of the gentleman from New 
    York.

Sec. 3.9 The Speaker informs the House when he has signed enrolled 
    bills during an adjournment pursuant to authority granted him.

    On July 26, 1948,(11) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, announced his signing of certain enrolled bills 
subsequent to adjournment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 9363, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of House Concurrent 
    Resolution 219, Eightieth Congress, announced his signature to 
    enrolled bills and joint resolutions of the Senate as follows:
        On June 22, 1948:

            S. 418. An act to provide for water-pollution-control 
        activities in the Public Health Service of the Federal Security 
        Agency and in the Federal Works Agency, and for other purposes. 
        . . .

        And on June 23, 1948, enrolled bills of the Senate as follows:

            S. 165. An act for the relief of Doris E. Snyder. . . .

    On June 10, 1968,(12) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made an announcement to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 114 Cong. Rec. 16381, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to announce that pursuant to the 
    authority granted him on Thursday, June 6, 1968, he did on June 7, 
    1968, sign the following enrolled bills of the House:

            H.R. 6087. An act to assist State and local governments in 
        reducing the incidence of crime, to increase the effectiveness, 
        fairness, and consideration of law enforcement and criminal 
        justice systems at all levels of government, and for other 
        purposes

Sec. 3.10 The Speaker informs the House when an elected Speaker pro 
    tempore has signed enrolled bills during an adjournment of the 
    House pursuant to authority granted.

    On July 14, 1958,(l3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
announced that during an adjournment the elected Speaker pro tempore 
had signed certain enrolled bills pursuant to authority granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 104 Cong. Rec. 13695, 13696, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedure When Speaker Criticized

Sec. 3.11 When the Speaker is the subject of criticism in debate and a 
    point of order is raised against such criticism, it is customary 
    for the Speaker to

[[Page 444]]

    appoint a Speaker pro tempore to rule on whether the words spoken 
    were parliamentary.

    On Feb. 7, 1935,(14) the following remarks were made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 79 Cong. Rec. 1680, 1681, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L. Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask that the words of the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts [Mr. Tinkham] about former Speaker Rainey and Speaker 
    Byrns be taken down. If he has no respect for the living, he ought 
    to have some respect for the dead. I ask that his words be taken 
    down. We will call the gentleman down on that now. . . .
        The Chairman [William N. Rogers, of New Hampshire]: The Clerk 
    will report the words objected to.
        The Clerk read to the Committee the words objected to.
        The Chairman: The Committee will rise.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker . . . resumed 
    the chair.
        The Speaker [Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee]: The Clerk will 
    report the words.
        The Clerk read the words objected to.
        The Speaker: The Chair feels some delicacy in ruling on the 
    language inasmuch as he is involved, and the Chair will ask the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] to take the chair.
        Mr. O'Connor assumed the chair as Speaker pro tempore.

Controlling the Record

Sec. 3.12 It has been held that the Speaker may direct the official 
    House reporters of debates to refrain from inserting in the 
    Congressional Record notations concerning applause and other 
    demonstrations by Members in the House.

    On Mar. 6, 1945,(15) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
responded to a parliamentary inquiry concerning Congressional Record 
coverage of demonstrations in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 1789, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: . . . I propound another 
    parliamentary inquiry at this time. Some time ago the Official 
    Reporters of Debates ceased to take down the demonstrations that 
    are made in the course of debate, the only parliamentary body in 
    the world that prints a Record in which that has been done, that I 
    have been able to find. I occasionally get the Record of the 
    British House of Parliament. I read it and in these trying times 
    there is applause, cheers, their cries of ``hear, hear'' laughter, 
    and other demonstrations that are made. You get the Record of the 
    United States Senate and, as a rule, they do not have probably so 
    many there to applaud, but when there is applause or a 
    demonstration, it is placed in the Record. Our demonstrations have 
    been cut out of our Record

[[Page 445]]

    and I think it is a serious mistake because now a man can make a 
    speech and extend his remarks and you have no indication as to 
    where his speech left off and where his extension of remarks 
    begins. I know it has been contended by a few Members in the House 
    that the extension of those demonstrations in the Record have been 
    abused. But that was done very seldom, and where the Member did 
    abuse that privilege by inserting laughter or applause he has been 
    subjected to the most drastic criticism and ridicule and, as a 
    rule, has never attempted it again. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair does not intend to be facetious, but the 
    Chair would like to give the House his reaction to the expressions 
    ``Hear! Hear!'' and ``Applause'' in the Record. When I came here 32 
    years ago on Sunday last, a gentleman had been elected by a split 
    in the Republican Party in a particular State, and he had come here 
    with Democratic and Progressive votes. He made a speech in the 
    House. Whether it went into the permanent Record I do not know, but 
    I know it went into the temporary Record. It closed in this 
    fashion: ``Loud and prolonged applause among Democrats and 
    Progressives, followed by much handshaking.''
        In times past there appeared in the Record the word 
    ``Applause'' where a Member spoke. In another place there was 
    ``Loud applause.'' In another place there was ``Loud and prolonged 
    applause.'' In another place there was ``Loud and prolonged 
    applause, the Members rising.'' If I had made a speech and had 
    received ``applause,'' and some Member had followed me immediately 
    and had received ``loud and prolonged applause, the Members 
    rising,'' my opponent in the next primary might have called 
    attention to how insignificant I was because I only received 
    ``applause'' and the other Member had received ``loud and prolonged 
    applause, the Members rising.''
        The Chair has held that demonstrations in the House are not a 
    part of the Record, and shall continue to hold that until the rules 
    of the House are changed.

Sec. 3.13 Although it has been held that it is within the authority and 
    normally the duty of the Speaker to order stricken from the notes 
    of the official House reporters remarks made by Members not 
    legitimately having the floor, it has also been held that it is 
    within the Speaker's power to allow an exception in unusual 
    circumstances.

    On Apr. 19, 1937,(16) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, responded to a parliamentary inquiry concerning remarks of 
Members, not legitimately having the floor, being reflected in the 
Congressional Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec.. 3588, 3589, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward W.] Curley [of New York]: I rise to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 446]]

        Mr. Curley: Last Thursday, April 15, during the discussion of 
    the antilynching bill, I submitted two questions to the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Wadsworth]. Upon reading the Congressional 
    Record the following day I found they were omitted. In the course 
    of the extension of my own address on the following page in the 
    Record that fact is mentioned in my own address; so that on a 
    checkback it will be found that these two questions have been 
    omitted, and we find that they were omitted inadvertently by the 
    reporter. The reporter has informed me of the fact that that is the 
    truth.
        What I wish to know, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not I can have 
    the permanent Record corrected so as to include the two questions 
    and the offside remark that went with them. . . .
        The Speaker: Did the gentleman from New York address the Chair 
    and ask whether or not the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth], 
    then occupying the floor, would yield?
        Mr. Curley: I did, Mr. Speaker. I think the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. O'Connor] was presiding on both occasions.
        The Speaker: Did the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] 
    yield?
        Mr. Curley: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] did not 
    yield, and so stated. But not long thereafter the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Gavagan] asked the same questions, received the same 
    reply, that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] did not 
    yield; yet the questions and remarks of the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Gavagan] are incorporated in the Congressional Record.
        The Speaker: This is a rather important inquiry that the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Curley] has submitted. It has not been 
    raised, so far as the Chair recalls, during the present session of 
    Congress. In order that the rights of Members may be protected, and 
    that the Members may know what the rules and precedents are with 
    respect to this proposition, the Chair will read from section 3466, 
    volume 8, of Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives. . 
    . .
        The Chair may say that in conformity with this precedent, and 
    what the Chair conceives to be sound procedure, the rule should be 
    reiterated that when a Member is occupying the floor and a Member 
    after addressing the Chair and asking the Member then occupying the 
    floor if he will yield for a question or for an interruption, and 
    the gentleman then speaking declines to yield, it is not proper for 
    a Member nevertheless to interject into the Record some remark 
    which he desires to make.
        Under the particular circumstances now raised by the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Curley], and in view of the fact the question 
    has not heretofore been presented at this session of the Congress, 
    the Chair is of the opinion it may not be an injustice to instruct 
    the reporter to incorporate in the permanent Record in this 
    instance the statement made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Curley].
        The Chair may say, however, that hereafter in conformity with 
    this rule and what he regards as sound practice, the Chair 
    instructs the reporters of debates where a Member declines to yield 
    and notwithstanding another Member seeking to interrupt him per

[[Page 447]]

    sists in talking, that those remarks shall not be incorporated in 
    the Record.

Putting Unanimous-Consent Requests

Sec. 3.14 Unanimous-consent requests are put to the House by the 
    Speaker, and a Member's objection to such a request is ineffective 
    if it fails to follow immediately upon the Speaker's statement of 
    the request.

    On Sept. 4, 1940,(17~) a unanimous-consent request was 
made as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec.. 11516, 11517, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Beverly M.] Vincent [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to withdraw the last sentence of my statement.
        Mr. [Henry C.] Dworshak [of Idaho]: I object, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore [Jere Cooper, of Tennessee]: The 
    gentleman from Kentucky asks unanimous Consent to withdraw the 
    statement. Is there objection? The Chair hears none.
        Mr. [Frederick V.] Bradley [of Michigan]: I object, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order and a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago certain words were 
    uttered by the gentleman on the floor of the House which I demanded 
    be taken down. No report was made of those words. I demand the 
    regular order--the taking down of the words, the report of the 
    words, and the reading by the Clerk.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Subsequently, unanimous consent was 
    granted for the words to be withdrawn.
        Mr. Hoffman: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker; three Members were on their 
    feet. I was one of them, and objecting to that.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That was the ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. Hoffman: I appeal from the ruling of the Chair then.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: This is not a ruling, it is just an 
    answer to a parliamentary inquiry.

Stating Motions for Votes

Sec. 3.15 The Speaker or Chairman of the Committee of the Whole states 
    motions, and it has been held that it is his statement of the 
    motion and not the motion as stated by a Member that is voted upon.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(18) the following motion was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 6101, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate and all amendments to section 203 close in 5 minutes, 
    with one-half of the time reserved to the chairman.
        The Chairman [Richard Bolling, of Missouri]: The chairman of 
    the committee moves that all debate and all amendments----

[[Page 448]]

        Mr. [Porter] Hardy [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman. a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Hardy: He is moving that he is going to have half of the 
    time. Is that a proper motion? I had understood it was not. I 
    believe it can be done by unanimous consent.
        The Chairman: Will the chairman of the committee please restate 
    his motion?
        Mr. Hardy: I understood the motion.
        Mr. Powell: I withdraw the previous motion. I move all debate 
    and all amendments on this title and this section close in 10 
    minutes.
        Mr. Hardy: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the original motion be 
    read.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. I want to know whether or not it takes unanimous consent to 
    withdraw the motion.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York asks unanimous 
    consent to withdraw the motion.
        Mr. Powell: That is right. I withdraw it. I ask unanimous 
    consent to withdraw it.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire a vote on 
    his original motion?
        Mr. Hardy: Mr. Chairman, will the Chair state the motion as 
    originally made?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry. At the time that the gentleman from New York made the 
    motion his voice was inaudible. I strongly feel that the motion 
    that he made should be reread and read loud.
        The Chairman: The Chair will attempt to state how he understood 
    it. It may be in error.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the reporter read 
    what the Chairman said so we can all hear it. It would be very 
    helpful.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished 
    minority leader, is putting the Chair in the same position he had 
    him in a little while ago. This goes straight, head on, into all of 
    the practices and procedures of the House to have the reporter re-
    report a motion.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state the motion as the Chair 
    understood it. The Chair will say frankly the Chair had a little 
    difficulty hearing it, but my understanding of the motion was that 
    the chairman of the committee moved that all debate and all 
    amendments to section 203 be closed in 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: And time was reserved for the chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair did not hear that.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hosmer: In the event that the motion is carried, if put, 
    would the motion carried be that which was actually made by the 
    gentleman from New York, or according to the Record as reported, or 
    would it be the motion as stated by the Chair?
        The Chairman: The motion will be as stated by the Chair, as was 
    the case yesterday and is the case today.

[[Page 449]]

        The motion is that all debate on this section close in 5 
    minutes.

Power of Recognition

Sec. 3.16 Although the Speaker has discretion to recognize Members to 
    have the floor, he is under no duty to announce in advance whom he 
    might recognize in the future.

    On Oct. 8, 1969,(19) a parliamentary inquiry was 
addressed to Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 115 Cong. Rec. 29220, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dingell: If the previous question is voted down, would it 
    then be in order to offer an amendment to raise the sum for water 
    pollution control grants to the States in the sum of $1 billion?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that, if the previous 
    question is voted down, it would be in order to offer an amendment. 
    The Chair is not going to pass on the amount at the present time.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dingell: Would I be recognized for that purpose? It would 
    be my intent so to do.
        The Speaker: The Chair is not going to give a preliminary 
    opinion as to whom the Chair might recognize.

Sec. 3.17 The Speaker has on occasion announced in advance that he 
    would deny recognition to a Member under certain circumstances.

    On Oct. 18, 1943,(20) the following parliamentary 
situation developed under which Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
indicated he would deny recognition to a Member under certain 
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 89 Cong. Rec. 8433, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Is there objection?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I do this for the information of my 
    colleagues, because this morning they received a letter from the 
    Speaker in respect to a meeting to be held Wednesday morning, and 
    in that letter it was stated that the meeting would be held in the 
    Caucus Room of the old House Office Building, at which meeting 
    General Marshall and other generals would appear in an off-the-
    record manner. The old Caucus Room has been looked over, as well as 
    the auditorium of the Library of Congress. It is felt that the 
    auditorium of the Library of Congress is a much more desirable 
    place to hold the meeting, and I rise to announce that, instead of 
    holding the

[[Page 450]]

    meeting in the old Caucus Room, it will be held in the auditorium 
    of the Library of Congress. . . .
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Now, if we are going to 
    hold executive sessions of the House, there is only one place that 
    we are authorized by law to hold them, and that is in this Hall.
        Mr. McCormack: This is not an executive session of Congress.
        Mr. Rankin: It is going to be a secret session, and it ought to 
    be, and it ought to be held in the Hall of the House of 
    Representatives.
        Mr. McCormack: This is not an executive session of Congress.
        Mr. Rankin: It is unnecessary for the Congress of the United 
    States to be going off to some other building to hear these leaders 
    report on the war when we have the Hall of the House of 
    Representative built and equipped for that purpose.
        Will not the gentleman modify his request to have that meeting 
    here in this Hall?
        The Speaker: The Chair would not recognize the gentleman for 
    that purpose and the gentleman would not make such a request.

Sec. 3.18 The Speaker's power over recognition includes the power to 
    ask for what purpose a Member rises without such request implying 
    that the Speaker recognizes the Member for the purpose for which he 
    has arisen.

    On Apr. 13, 1946,(1) two Members rose seeking 
recognition from Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 92 Cong. Rec. 3669, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dewey] Short [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri 
    rise?
        Mr. Short: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia 
    rise?
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, it was my purpose to demand a reading of 
    the engrossed copy of the bill.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, may a demand be made for the reading 
    of the copy of the engrossed bill after the proceedings which have 
    just taken place and after the Clerk has read the bill which was 
    considered engrossed?
        The Speaker: The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
    third time. The gentleman from Georgia was on his feet at the time.
        Does the gentleman from Georgia insist upon his demand that the 
    engrossed copy of the bill be read?
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, my making demand that the engrossed copy 
    of the bill be read does not indicate my opposition to the bill.
        Mr. Short: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.
        Mr. Cox: I was compelled to make the demand and I did make it.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] demands the 
    reading of the engrossed copy of the bill. The Chair will state 
    that with the number of amendments agreed to, it

[[Page 451]]

    would be impossible to have the engrossed copy of the bill this 
    afternoon.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the situation 
    correctly, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Short] was recognized 
    to offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Short] was not 
    recognized. The Chair asked the gentleman for what purpose he rose, 
    and then recognized the gentleman from Georgia.

Sec. 3.19 The Speaker's power of recognition includes the power to deny 
    recognition to a Member for the purpose of making a motion which 
    the Speaker determines to be in conflict with previous action of 
    the House.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(2) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, heard a Member's motion before recognizing the Member to 
offer it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214-16, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Taft [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker--
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio 
    rise?
        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker I have a privileged motion.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker. That is not in order until the reading of the Journal has 
    been completed.

        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Ohio state his privileged 
    motion?
        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, my motion is on a point of personal 
    privilege.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Ohio state whether it is a 
    point of personal privilege or a privileged motion?
        Mr. Taft: It is a privileged motion, and a motion of personal 
    privilege.
        Under rule IX questions of personal privilege are privileged 
    motions, ahead of the reading of the Journal.
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that a 
    question of personal privilege should be made later after the 
    Journal has been disposed of.
        If the gentleman has a matter of privilege of the House, that 
    is an entirely different situation.
        Mr. Taft: I believe, Mr. Speaker, this involves not only 
    personal privilege as an individual, but also as a Member of the 
    House and also the privileges of all Members of the House.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not recognize the gentleman at this 
    time on a matter of personal privilege.
        But the Chair will, after the pending matter, the reading of 
    the Journal has been disposed of, recognize the gentleman if the 
    gentleman seeks recognition.
        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, is it not true in rule IX relating to 
    questions of privilege it is stated that such questions shall have 
    precedence over all other questions except motions to adjourn?
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman state the question of 
    privilege.

[[Page 452]]

        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, my motion is that I and all other 
    Members in the Chamber who were here at the time of the last quorum 
    call and answered ``present'' be permitted to leave the Chamber at 
    their desire. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will state in response to the 
    parliamentary inquiry that the action of the House has deprived--
    has caused the doors to be closed and has deprived temporarily the 
    privilege that the gentleman refers to. That has been done by the 
    action of the House.
        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, I was recognized to make a privileged 
    motion and it was not a matter of a parliamentary inquiry. I have 
    made that motion and I ask that the Chair rule on the motion.
        The Speaker: What is the motion?
        Mr. Taft: I request that I be given time to discuss the motion 
    as a matter of privilege.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his motion.
        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, my motion is that I and all other 
    Members present on the floor who answered ``present'' at the time 
    of the last quorum call shall be permitted to leave the House 
    freely at their own desire.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not recognize the gentleman for the 
    purpose of making such a motion because the Chair has already 
    clearly indicated the House has already taken action and it is 
    within the power of the House to take the action that it did. 
    Therefore, the Chair does not recognize the gentleman to make such 
    a motion.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, it was my 
    understanding that the gentleman from Ohio had been recognized for 
    the purpose of offering the motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan is well aware of the 
    fact that the question of recognition rests with the Chair. The 
    gentleman did not make a motion which was in order by reason of the 
    action heretofore taken by the House.

Sec. 3.20 It has been held that the presiding officer has the power to 
    give or deny recognition to a Member who seeks to offer a 
    perfecting amendment which would take precedence over another 
    amendment.

    On Dec. 15, 1937,(3) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, indicated the 
discretionary nature of his power to recognize Members in answer to the 
following parliamentary inquiries:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 82 Cong. Rec. 1590, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, and I do so to propound a parliamentary 
    inquiry as to the order in which amendments are to be offered. The 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey is now 
    pending. Would not perfecting amendments have priority of 
    consideration over a substitute amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair has no knowledge of what amendments may

[[Page 453]]

    be offered; but ordinarily a perfecting amendment has precedence 
    over a motion to substitute insofar as voting is concerned. If the 
    unanimous-consent request is granted, it is the understanding of 
    the Chair that amendments will be offered section by section.
        Mr. Boileau: Nevertheless, it is the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey that would be before the House.
        The Chairman: That is before the Committee now.
        Mr. Boileau: Would not perfecting amendments have priority over 
    an amendment to substitute?
        The Chairman: So far as voting is concerned, yes.
        Mr. Boileau: I appreciate that fact, but may I propound a 
    further parliamentary inquiry, whether or not a Member rising in 
    his place and seeking recognition would not have a prior right to 
    recognition for the purpose of offering a perfecting amendment to 
    the amendment now pending?
        The Chairman: It does not necessarily follow that such Member 
    would have a prior right. Recognition is in the discretion of the 
    Chair.
        Mr. Boileau: I recognize it does not necessarily follow, but I 
    am trying to have the matter clarified. Therefore I ask the Chair 
    whether or not a Member who qualifies as offering a perfecting 
    amendment does not have prior right of recognition in offering such 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair has tried to be as helpful as he could, 
    but the Chair does not feel he should estop himself of his own 
    discretion in the matter of recognitions.
        Mr. Boileau: Does the Chair then rule that is within the 
    discretion of the Chair rather than a right of the Member?
        The Chairman: In answer to the gentleman's inquiry, the Chair 
    is of the opinion it is within the province of the Chair whom the 
    Chair will recognize, having in mind the general rules of the 
    House.

Sec. 3.21 Where there are two matters of equal preference brought 
    before the House at the same time, it is within the Speaker's 
    discretion to recognize whichever matter he chooses to be 
    considered first.

    On Sept. 22, 1966,(4) an announcement was made 
concerning a change in the legislative program. A Member raised a 
parliamentary inquiry as a result of the change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Under the rules of the House, as I understand them, this rule, 
    House Resolution 1007, to bring up the so called House Un-American 
    Activities Committee bill, is a privileged matter, and if it is not 
    programed, then the gentleman handling the rule or any member of 
    the Rules Committee, may call it up as a privileged matter. Is my 
    understanding correct about that?
        The Speaker [John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts]: The 
    gentleman's

[[Page 454]]

    understanding is correct. Of course, the question of recognition is 
    with the Chair, where there are two similar preferential matters, 
    but the gentleman's understanding is correct that after 7 
    legislative days a member of the Rules Committee could call it up.
        If it were a question of recognition, if the same preferential 
    status existed at the same time, recognition rests with the Chair.

Sec. 3.22 It is within the Speaker's discretion to recognize a Member 
    for a parliamentary inquiry regarding a resolution and, after such 
    is stated and without answering the inquiry, recognize another 
    Member for the purpose of withdrawing a pending resolution.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, indicated the nature of the Speaker's power of 
recognition during the consideration of two measures before the House. 
The Committee of the Whole had risen and reported to the House matters 
pertaining to a bill (H.R. 10222). Upon demand by a Member the bill was 
ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. While preparation of the 
engrossed copy of the bill was taking place, a Member called up House 
Resolution 665 by direction of the Committee on Rules and asked for its 
immediate consideration. After certain remarks on House Resolution 665 
were made, the Speaker declared a recess pending the receipt of the 
engrossed copy of H.R. 10222. The recess having expired, the House was 
called to order by the Speaker and the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 7303, 7304, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The unfinished business is the reading of the 
    engrossed copy of H.R. 10222.
        The Clerk will read the engrossed copy.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, when the recess was called, 
    it was my understanding that we were engaged in the consideration 
    of [H. Res. 665]. Is it not the rule of the House that we must 
    finish the consideration of that measure before we take up any 
    other measure which has been passed over for parliamentary and 
    mechanical reasons?
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bolling].
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, under the rules I withdraw House 
    Resolution 665.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, that takes 
    unanimous consent, and I object.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that it does not take 
    unanimous con

[[Page 455]]

    sent to withdraw the resolution in the House.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that 
    the Speaker was addressing the Member now addressing the Chair and 
    had not given an answer to my question. Therefore, the recognition 
    of the Member from the other side, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Bolling] was out of order. Am I incorrect?
        The Speaker: The recognition of the gentleman from Missouri 
    [Mr. Bolling] terminated the parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: In other words, the Speaker did not 
    answer the parliamentary inquiry; is that correct?
        The Speaker: Since the resolution was withdrawn, the 
    parliamentary inquiry was ended.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: If the Speaker will respectfully permit, 
    the gentleman from Ohio would suggest that the question had been 
    asked before the resolution had been withdrawn.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has the power 
    of recognition. Now that the resolution has been withdrawn, the 
    unfinished business is the reading of the engrossed copy of H.R. 
    10222.

        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: The Speaker had recognized the gentleman 
    from Ohio for a parliamentary inquiry. The parliamentary inquiry 
    had been made. The parliamentary inquiry had not been answered and 
    yet the Chair recognized the gentleman from Missouri.
        The Speaker: Which the Chair has the power to do.
        The Clerk will read the engrossed copy of H.R. 10222

Sec. 3.23 The power of recognition vested in the presiding officer is 
    not infringed upon if unanimous consent is requested and received 
    to recognize a Member to speak at a certain time.

    The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, being also a Member, 
may invoke his right to object to a unanimous-consent request.
    On Dec. 9, 1947,(6) the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole, Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, responded to an inquiry 
concerning possible infringement on the power of recognition by 
unanimous consent being given a Member to speak:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 93 Cong. Rec. 11231, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: As the Chair understands the rule, the presiding 
    officer in the Committee is in a dual capacity. First, he is 
    selected to be the presiding officer during the consideration of 
    the bill. But by accepting such appointment he does not lose his 
    right to vote and object as any other Member. That is, his district 
    is not deprived of its rights by virtue of the Chairman selection. 
    That being true, the Chair not making any objection, I cannot see 
    how the rights of the Chair are infringed upon if the Committee, by 
    unanimous consent, wants to provide that a certain individual may 
    speak at a certain

[[Page 456]]

    hour during the Committee consideration. If the Chair is agreeable 
    and all Members are agreeable.

Controlling Scope of Debate

Sec. 3.24 The scope of debate in the House is generally a matter of 
    relevancy which the Speaker may determine when a point of order is 
    raised.

    On Dec. 10, 1963,(7) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, discussed the scope of House debate during a ruling on a 
point of order related thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 109 Cong. Rec. 23968, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: The point of order is we are 
    now considering the rule on the indigent defendant's bill. The 
    gentleman from Kansas is talking about the civil rights bill, and 
    is out of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair takes a lenient attitude toward debate in the House. 
    If the gentleman from Kansas feels that there is anything involved 
    in this bill that might be connected with legislation concerning 
    civil rights, the Chair feels that the gentleman, who is conversant 
    with the rules, is proceeding and will proceed in order.
        The gentleman from Kansas may proceed.
        Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. [William H.] Avery [of Kansas]: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I yield 
    to the gentleman from Iowa.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    gentleman from Kansas have permission to speak out of order.
        The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        There was no objection.

Controlling Time for Debate

Sec. 3.25 The presiding officer supervises the timing of the 
    proceedings by a clock in the House Chamber.

    On Feb. 10, 1964,(8) when a discrepancy existed in the 
times shown on the clocks in the House Chamber, the following question 
was asked of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Eugene J. 
Keogh, of New York:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 110 Cong. Rec. 2724, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: By what clock are we 
    operating this afternoon?
        The Chairman: The one the Chair is looking at.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Parliamentarian's Note: The clock the Chair was ``looking at'' was 
        the clock on the north wall of the House Chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.26 It is within the authority of the Chairman of the Committee 
    of the Whole to supervise the control of time for debate, and when 
    he is not informed of a delegation of control of time the 
    delegation is ineffective.

[[Page 457]]

    On Jan. 31, 1964,(10) during the course of the following 
debate the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Eugene J. Keogh, of 
New York, indicated the manner by which a delegation of control of time 
for debate is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 1538, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener: [of North Carolina]: If the gentleman 
    will get me more time, I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: I will give the 
    gentleman 1 extra minute.
        Mr. Whitener: I yield to the gentleman, but please do not take 
    more than 1 minute.
        The Chairman: The Chair has to inform the gentleman from North 
    Carolina that the gentleman from New Jersey does not have control 
    of the time.
        Mr. Whitener: Then, Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully decline 
    to yield to the gentleman. . . .
        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New 
    Jersey is now in charge of the time in the absence of the chairman, 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler].
        The Chairman: The Chair was not informed that the gentleman 
    from New York is absent nor is the Chair informed that the 
    gentleman from New Jersey is now in charge of the time.
        The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.
        Mr. Whitener: I thank the chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes, and I wish 
    to state I am acting for the chairman of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary who asked me to take charge of the time for him in his 
    absence.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.

Sec. 3.27 It is within the authority of the Speaker and the House, and 
    not the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, to decide whether 
    time for continued consideration of an unfinished bill will be 
    given in the legislative program.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(11) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole, Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, responded to an inquiry about 
what time might be provided for a continuation of consideration of an 
unfinished bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 4873, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman (Mr. Arends): The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. August H. Andresen: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the 
    Committee will rise at 4 o'clock. It is also my understanding of 
    the rules that

[[Page 458]]

    this Committee should meet tomorrow in order to have continuous 
    consideration of the pending legislation.
        I would like to have a ruling of the Chair as to whether or not 
    the rules provide that a day may intervene so that this legislation 
    may be taken up on Wednesday.
        The Chairman: The Chair may say that is a matter for the 
    Speaker of the House and the House itself to determine. It is not 
    something within the jurisdiction of the [Chairman of the Committee 
    of the Whole] to decide.

Sec. 3.28 The Speaker has set policy with regard to the practice of 
    one-minute speeches by Members.

    On July 22, 1968,(12) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, discussed the practice of permitting one-minute speeches 
from the floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 114 Cong. Rec. 22633, 22634, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: . . . Would it be proper 
    if Members were permitted to extend their remarks and make their 1-
    minute speeches at the end of the legislative day in order that we 
    might just get started right away on the legislative program when 
    we meet.
        Mr. McCormack: I call the 1-minute period ``dynamic 
    democracy.'' I hesitate to take away the privilege of a Member as 
    to speaking during that period and it has become a custom and a 
    practice of the House. I think it is a very good thing to adhere to 
    that custom and practice.
        It is only on rare occasions that Members have not been 
    recognized for that purpose. How would the gentleman feel if he had 
    a 1-minute speech to make and he had sent out his press release and 
    then found out that the Speaker was not going to recognize him? 
    Surely, I think, the gentleman would feel better if the Speaker did 
    recognize him; would he not?
        Mr. Arends: According to a person's views--I think it would be 
    the reverse.
        Mr. McCormack: Does the gentleman mean at the end of the day?
        Mr. Arends: You said that this might be ``dynamic democracy.'' 
    I would rather it would be started when we have the time rather 
    than be started at noon.
        Mr. McCormack: It is an integral part of the procedure of the 
    House and I like to adhere to it. Very seldom have I said to 
    Members that I will accept only unanimous-consent requests for 
    extensions of remarks. I hesitate to do it. I think every Member 
    realizes that I am trying to protect their rights.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: I thank the gentleman for 
    yielding.
        I think the question is not that of eliminating the 1-minute 
    speeches after the Members have their news releases out. But it is 
    a question of not going back after the second or third rollcall and 
    rerecognizing speeches. In this connection does ``dynamic 
    democracy'' mean the same thing as benign but beneficial 
    dictatorship--which does have merit?
        Mr. McCormack: The gentleman from Missouri has raised a very 
    interesting question. Many times I have said to myself, I am going 
    to announce

[[Page 459]]

    that the 1-minute speeches will have to be at 12 o'clock and not 
    thereafter. But I have not come to the making of that resolution 
    because I just could not bring myself to it. It is somewhat late in 
    this session to do it and when, of course, we Democrats control the 
    House in the next Congress, and I hope I will be Speaker, then I 
    might do it. I am not promising it, but I may do it. But there is 
    something to what the gentleman from Missouri says.
        Mr. Hall: I would appreciate it if we had a little more 
    ``dynamic democracy'' so that we could get to work on the 
    legislative program.
        Mr. McCormack: I realize that any Member who wants to make a 1-
    minute speech ought to be here at 12 o'clock. But we are all human 
    beings. None of us are perfect.

    On June 17, 1970,(13) Speaker McCormack made the 
following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 20158, 20245, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair will recognize Members for unanimous-
    consent requests to extend remarks, and so forth, or for 1-minute 
    speeches with yielding back of the time, and later in the day the 
    Chair will recognize Members for 1-minute speeches if Members 
    desire to present them. . . .
        Mr. [William V.] Alexander [Jr., of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise 
    and extend my remarks and to include extraneous matter.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Arkansas?
        Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object----
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Arkansas asked unanimous 
    consent to address the House for 1 minute.
        Mr. Gross: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, and I reserved the 
    right to object.
        Mr. Speaker, when the session opened this morning the Speaker--
    very providently, I thought--in the interest of--getting on with 
    the legislative business, precluded 1-minute speeches. However, I 
    am not at all certain that it was done for the purpose of 
    expediting the legislation, but rather to prevent 1-minute speeches 
    on the resolution just passed.
        The Speaker: . . . As far as the Chair is concerned the custom 
    of the 1-minute speech procedure is adhered to as much as possible 
    because the Chair thinks it is a very healthy custom.
        The Chair had the intent, after the disposition of the voting 
    rights bill, to recognize Members for 1-minute speeches or further 
    unanimous-consent requests if they so desired to do so.

Construing and Applying House Rules

Sec. 3.29 It has been held within the authority of the Speaker to look 
    to all pertinent facts concerning a matter in order to construe 
    House rules sought to be applied thereto.

    On Aug. 13, 1937,(14) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Ala

[[Page 460]]

bama, described the circumstances that could be considered in 
construing a rule of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 8842-45, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Kerr [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged report in the election contest of Roy against Jenks.
        The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
        The Speaker: Referred to the House Calendar and ordered 
    printed.
        Mr. [Charles W.] Tobey [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I rise 
    to make a point of order against the acceptance by the House of the 
    report and resolution just offered by the chairman of Elections 
    Committee No. 3.
        Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that the making of this report 
    constitutes a violation of section 47 of rule 11 of the rules of 
    the House of Representatives, which reads as follows:

            47. The several elections committees of the House shall 
        make final report to the House in all contested election cases 
        not later than 6 months from the first day of the first regular 
        session of the Congress to which the contestee is elected 
        except in a contest from the Territory of Alaska in which case 
        the time shall not exceed 9 months.

        The language of this rule is not permissive; it is mandatory, 
    compelling. . . .

    After lengthy debate Speaker Bankhead said:

        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule on this point of 
    order. . . .
        . . . Of course, this is a rather serious proposition which has 
    been submitted to the Chair, because it involves the right of the 
    contestant or the contestee to have the issue presented to this 
    House as to whether or not the contestant or the contestee is 
    entitled to a seat on the floor. . . .
        The Chair thinks it proper in the construction of this issue 
    not only to take into consideration the verbiage of this rule but 
    also a provision of the Constitution of the United States which has 
    been cited in this argument. Section 5 of article I of the 
    Constitution, in part, provides:

            Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, 
        and qualifications of its own Members.

        The Chair is of opinion that although the terms of the rule are 
    in the language read by the Chair and as argued by the gentleman 
    from New Hampshire, yet, nevertheless, the Chair must look at all 
    the facts in the case in order to reach a decision as to what was 
    the fair intention of the House of Representatives in the adoption 
    of this rule. . . .
        The contestee and the contestant having each more than 6 months 
    under the statutes to present their case, the Chair is of opinion 
    that under all of the circumstances the fair and reasonable and 
    just interpretation of this rule justifies him in overruling the 
    point of order, and the Chair does overrule the point of 
    order.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Parliamentarian's Note: The first regular session of the 75th 
        Congress began on Jan. 5, 1937. The point of order in this case 
        was that the time period under the rule in question was six 
        months, and therefore the committee did not have jurisdiction 
        on Aug. 13 to submit the report. The issue of the contested 
        election was filed with the committee on July 21, 1937, and 
        immediately referred to the Committee on Elections No. 3. Thus 
        in construing the rule, the Speaker in effect held that the six 
        months' time period in question was directory and not mandatory 
        in nature.

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

[[Page 461]]

Ruling on Resolutions

Sec. 3.30 The Speaker normally does not rule on whether a resolution is 
    a privileged one until the reading of it is concluded.

    On July 9, 1935,(16) a Member rose to present what he 
considered to be a privileged resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 10905, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    matter of correcting a false report that should require not more 
    than a few minutes. For the purpose of getting it immediately 
    before the House, I rise to a question of the privileges of the 
    House and present a privileged resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                 Resolution

            Whereas all over the United States the press has 
        erroneously asserted that in a brusque, uncalled-for manner the 
        Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives forced a mother and 
        child to leave the House gallery because she was nursing her 
        baby, and inferentially censuring the House of Representatives 
        for not allowing a mother to nurse her baby in the House 
        gallery. . . .
            . . . Therefore be it
            Resolved, That said report emanating from Washington and 
        published generally in the United States was incorrect and 
        without warrant.

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi] (interrupting the reading 
    of the resolution): Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that 
    enough of the resolution has been read to show that it is not 
    privileged.
        Mr. Blanton: It should be privileged when the House of 
    Representatives has been charged with having shown disrespect and 
    an inexcusable indignity to an American mother.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, it does not reflect on the dignity of 
    the proceedings of the House at all.
        The Speaker [Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee]: The Clerk will 
    finish the reading of the resolution. The Chair cannot pass on the 
    matter until the reading of the resolution has been concluded. . . 
    .

Sec. 3.31 Although the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not 
    ordinarily rule on the effect of an amendment, he has interpreted 
    questioned language in order to rule on a point of order.

    On Apr. 26, 1966,(17) a point of order was raised 
concerning the effect of a proposed amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 112 Cong. Rec. 8968, 8969, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a

[[Page 462]]

    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman [Eugene J. Keogh, of New York]: The Chair is 
    prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Finley] has offered an 
    amendment . . . to which amendment the gentleman from Mississippi 
    has made a point of order on the ground that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation act.
        The language sought to be inserted by the amendment reads as 
    follows:

            No funds appropriated by the Act shall be used to formulate 
        or administer a Federal crop insurance program for the current 
        fiscal year that does not meet the administrative and operating 
        expenses from premium income.

        It might be said that the effect of any proposed amendment is 
    truly not within the competence of the Chair. But a reading of this 
    language indicates to this occupant of the chair that there is here 
    sought an express limitation on the funds appropriated by the 
    pending bill and the Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.

Inquiries by Chair

Sec. 

     3.32 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may inquire of a 
    Member offering an amendment the purpose of including therein a 
    reference to existing law.

    On Oct. 10, 1963,(18) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole, Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made the following inquiry of 
a Member:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 19260, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from 
    Washington a question. What is the reason for the inclusion of 
    language at the end of the amendment reading:

            Except pursuant to an agreement hereafter made by the 
        President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate as 
        provided by section 205 of the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Act of 1958.

        The Chair, to make it clear why he is asking the question, has 
    examined section 205 of that act. That says:

                         International Cooperation

            Sec. 205. The Administration, under the foreign policy 
        guidance of the President, may engage in a program of 
        international cooperation in work done pursuant to this Act and 
        in the peaceful application of the results thereof, pursuant to 
        agreements made by the President with the advice and consent of 
        the Senate.

        The problem the Chair is considering is why there is any need 
    to include the language at the end of the amendment unless in some 
    way it changes existing law?
        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    say that it does not change existing law but simply follows it. 
    But, in order to clarify this matter I ask unanimous consent to 
    strike from the amendment the words from ``except pursuant to an 
    agreement'' to the end.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington?

[[Page 463]]

        There was no objection.

Answering Inquiries

Sec. 3.33 The Speaker may answer parliamentary inquiries regarding the 
    applicability of the rules of the House to standing committees.

    On Feb. 15, 1949,(19) parliamentary inquiries were made 
concerning the applicability of the House rules to the standing 
committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 1212, 1213, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl] Chudoff [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The gentleman will state 
    it.
        Mr. Chudoff: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the 
    committees of this House operate under the same rules as the House.
        The Speaker: The rules of the House so provide.
        Mr. Chudoff: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know further whether 
    this House has a right to appeal from a ruling of the Chair.
        The Speaker: Any Member has the right to appeal from the ruling 
    of the Chair.
        Mr. Chudoff: I should like to know whether, under that ruling, 
    members of the committee can appeal from the ruling of the chairman 
    of the committee.
        The Speaker: They can.
        Mr. Chudoff: So that the chairman of a committee who had his 
    ruling appealed from would have no right other than to allow that 
    appeal to go before the entire committee; is that right, Mr. 
    Speaker?
        The Speaker: The rules of the House provide that the rules of 
    the House are made the rules of its standing committees so far as 
    applicable. The Members of the House have a right to appeal from a 
    decision of the Chair. That would also apply in a committee.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Suppose a question is raised here and a roll call 
    is asked for, and one-fifth of the Members rise and ask for a roll 
    call, and the Chair holds that a roll call is called for, no appeal 
    from that ruling would be in order, would it?
        The Speaker: That would be in accordance with the rules of the 
    House.
        Mr. Rankin: Certainly. That is just what happened in the 
    committee this morning. I demanded a roll call and asked for a 
    showing of hands, and more than one-fifth voted for a roll call. 
    One member tried to appeal from the decision, which, of course, was 
    ridiculous. Then a few of them walked out, evidently to keep from 
    going on record.
        The Speaker: The Chair was only answering the parliamentary 
    inquiry. He does not know what happened in the committee.

Sec. 3.34 The Speaker may decline to immediately answer a parliamentary 
    inquiry

[[Page 464]]

    when the inquiry would better be taken under advisement.

    On July 21, 1956,(20) a parliamentary inquiry was 
directed to Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 102 Cong. Rec. 13832, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, can a regular or select 
    committee of the House authorize its chairman to file, subsequent 
    to adjournment sine die, with the Clerk for printing as House 
    documents reports which are approved by a majority of the members 
    of the committee, if such reports do not purport to represent the 
    views and conclusions of the entire membership?
        The Speaker: That is something the Chair would certainly have 
    to take under advisement and it would take some time.

Sec. 3.35 The Speaker may request that a parliamentary inquiry be 
    withheld under certain circumstances until the Speaker has had 
    sufficient time to determine certain facts.

    On July 8, 1957,(1) a parliamentary inquiry was 
addressed to Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 11012, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I desire to 
    propound a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, the bill, H.R. 6127, known 
    as the civil rights bill, as it passed the House, contained an 
    amendment, one amendment, which should have been printed on page 13 
    where it was adopted. By inadvertence an error was made in the 
    Journal and in the printing of the bill, and the bill was printed 
    so that the amendment appears at the bottom of page 8 of the bill 
    instead of as a new section on page 13. It was so messaged to the 
    other body in the erroneous form. In other words, the House sent to 
    the other body a bill which is not in conformity with the action of 
    the House. The bill was received by the other body and was read the 
    first time and was then read the second time and it is now on the 
    calendar of the other body. My parliamentary inquiry is whether it 
    is not the proper procedure at this time to ask the other body to 
    return the bill to the House for action to conform to what actually 
    took place and to conform with the Record and the Journal of the 
    House.
        The Speaker: The Chair would ask the gentleman from Virginia to 
    withhold his inquiry for the purpose of enabling the Chair to look 
    further into the matter.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I thank the Speaker.

Sec. 3.36 The Speaker, and not the Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole, is considered the proper person to

[[Page 465]]

    answer parliamentary inquiries regarding points of order which 
    might be made against a conference report under consideration in 
    the House.

    On May 18, 1966,(2) a parliamentary inquiry was 
addressed to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Eugene J. 
Keogh, of New York:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 10895, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Jonas: In case the bill agreed on in the conference should 
    delete this amending language, and the bill which came back to the 
    House contained the objectionable language, against which the point 
    of order was lodged, could a point of order be made against the 
    conference report to strike that language?
        The Chairman: The present occupant of the chair would not 
    assume to undertake to suggest what would be done by the Speaker in 
    that event.
        Mr. Jonas: That would be a matter for the Speaker to decide.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 3.37 The Speaker, and not the Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole, is considered the person having authority to answer 
    parliamentary inquiries regarding voting requirements in the House.

    On June 13, 1946,(3) a parliamentary inquiry was 
addressed to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, William M. 
Whittington, of Mississippi:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 92 Cong. Rec. 6877, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case: Would it be possible to get a rule making in order a 
    paragraph which had previously been stricken from the bill on a 
    point of order, unless that rule was adopted by a two-thirds vote?
        The Chairman: The Chair may say to the gentleman that that 
    inquiry is not one that can be answered in the Committee of the 
    Whole. It is a matter that would have to be determined by the 
    Speaker of the House.

Sec. 3.38 It is within the authority of the Speaker, and not the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, to answer parliamentary 
    questions concerning possible procedures whereby the House could 
    authorize the Committee of the Whole to sit in executive session.

    On May 9, 1950,(4) a parliamentary inquiry was addressed 
to the

[[Page 466]]

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 6746, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Errett P.] Scrivner [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman . . . I 
    would submit a parliamentary inquiry as to whether or not an 
    executive session could be held and, if so. what procedure would be 
    necessary to bring that to pass before we are asked to vote upon 
    the $350,000,000 additional.
        The Chairman [Mike Mansfield, of Montana]: The Chair will state 
    to the gentleman from Kansas that the Committee of the Whole would 
    have no control over that. That would be a matter for the House 
    itself to decide.
        Mr. Scrivner: I understand that, of course, and raised the 
    question for information of the Members. Since it is a matter for 
    the House to determine, as a further parliamentary inquiry, what 
    would be the method followed to take that action?
        The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman from Kansas 
    that a parliamentary inquiry of that sort should be addressed to 
    the Speaker rather than the chairman.

Accepting subpena

Sec. 3.39 The Speaker accepts service of a subpena duces tecum in his 
    official capacity as Speaker of the House.

    On Feb. 11, 1965,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made an announcement concerning a subpena duces tecum 
from a U.S. District Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 2645, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to make a statement.
        The Chair, in his official capacity as Speaker of the House, 
    has been served with a subpena duces tecum, issued by the U.S. 
    District Court for the District of Columbia, commanding him to 
    appear in the said court to testify in the case of the United 
    States of America against Russell Nixon, Dagmar Wilson, and Donna 
    Allen on the 18th day of March 1965.
        Under the precedents of the House, the Chair is unable to 
    comply with this subpena without the consent of the House, the 
    privileges of the House being involved. The Chair therefore submits 
    the matter for the consideration of this body. The Clerk will read 
    a copy of the subpena. . . .(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Parliamentarian's Note: In order to avoid the problems which might 
        be associated with his being served in the Capitol Building, 
        the Speaker agreed in advance to receive the deputy marshal in 
        his hotel suite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certifying for Contempt

Sec. 3.40 The Speaker may be authorized by a formal House resolution to 
    certify to a U.S. attorney the names of persons found to be in 
    contempt of a House committee.

    On Mar. 28, 1946,(7) the following resolution was 
introduced in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 2745. 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John S.] Wood [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 573) and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.

[[Page 467]]

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
        certify the report of the House Committee on Un-American 
        Activities as to the willful and deliberate refusal of the 
        following persons to produce before the said committee for its 
        inspection the books, papers, and records of an unincorporated 
        organization known as the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, 
        with offices at 192 Lexington Avenue, New York, N.Y., together 
        with all the facts relating thereto, under seal of the House of 
        Representatives, to the United States attorney for the District 
        of Columbia to the end that the said persons named below may be 
        proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law: . . .
            [Names]

    On Aug. 2, 1946,(8) the following resolution was 
introduced in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 10748, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Clerk will read the 
    resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
        certify the foregoing report of the House Committee on Un-
        American Activities as to the willful and deliberate refusal of 
        the following person to produce before the said committee for 
        its inspection certain books, papers, and records which had 
        been duly subpenaed, and to testify under oath concerning all 
        pertinent facts relating thereto; under seal of the House of 
        Representatives to the United States attorney for the District 
        of Columbia to the end that the said person named below may be 
        proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law; 
        Richard Morford, 114 East Thirty-second Street, New York, N.Y.

Sec. 3.41 When the Speaker certifies to a U.S. District Attorney for 
    prosecution (2 USC Sec. 194) the name of a person a House committee 
    has found to be in contempt, it has been held that no further 
    action of the House is required for the courts to begin 
    proceedings.

    On Nov. 14, 1944,(~9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
made an announcement concerning his certification to the U.S. Attorney 
of the District of Columbia of statements of fact concerning the 
willful refusal of certain individuals to testify for a special 
committee of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 90 Cong. Rec. 8163, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to announce that during the past 
    recess of the Congress the Special Committee to Investigate 
    Campaign Expenditures authorized by House Resolution 551, Seventy-
    eighth Congress, reported to and filed with the Speaker statements 
    of facts concerning the willful and deliberate refusal of Edward A. 
    Rumely of the Committee for Constitutional Government and Joseph P. 
    Kamp of the Constitutional Educational League, Inc., to testify and 
    to produce the books, papers, records, and documents

[[Page 468]]

    of their respective organizations before the said Special Committee 
    of the House, and the Speaker, pursuant to the mandatory provisions 
    of Public Resolution No. 123, Seventy-fifth Congress, certified to 
    the United States attorney, District of Columbia, the statement of 
    facts concerning the said [persons]. . . .
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, what is necessary to dispose of the 
    document which the Speaker has just read? Will it require a 
    resolution by the House or will it be referred to some committee?
        The Speaker: That is not necessary under the statute. It is 
    before the court now.
        Mr. Rankin: I understand, but in order to call for court action 
    it will be necessary, as I understand it, to have a resolution from 
    the House.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks not, under the law.

Sec. 3.42 Once authorized by the House, the Speaker certifies to U.S. 
    District Attorneys for prosecution the names of persons that House 
    committees have found to be in contempt.

    On Aug. 24, 1960,(10) Speaker San Rayburn, of Texas, 
made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 17479, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to announce that, pursuant to 
    sundry resolutions of the House, he has, today, made certifications 
    to the U.S. attorney, District of Columbia, and to the U.S. 
    attorney, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as follows:
        To the U.S. attorney, District of Columbia:

            House Resolution 606, the refusal of Austin J. Tobin to 
        furnish certain documents to the Committee on the Judiciary. . 
        . .

Ending Contempt Proceedings

Sec. 3.43 The Speaker must be formally authorized by the House to 
    certify to a U.S. District Attorney the name of a person who has 
    purged himself of contempt of a House committee for purposes of 
    ending prosecution of the person.

    On July 23, 1954,(11) the following resolution was 
introduced in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 100 Cong. Rec. 11650, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold H.] Velde [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    resolution (H. Res. 681) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
        certify the report of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
        of the House of Representatives concerning the action of 
        Francis X. T. Crowley in purging himself of contempt of the 
        House of Representatives of the

[[Page 469]]

        United States, together with all the facts in connection 
        therewith, under seal of the House of Representatives, to the 
        United States Attorney for the District of Columbia to the end 
        that legal proceedings based upon the matter certified by the 
        Speaker pursuant to H. Res. 541, 83d Congress, second session, 
        against the said Francis X. T. Crowley may be withdrawn and 
        dropped in the manner and form provided by law.

Emergency Recesses

Sec. 3.44 In cases of emergency, the Speaker has the inherent power to 
    declare recesses of the House subject to the call of the Chair.

    On Mar. 2, 1943,(12) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
declared a recess of the House pursuant to his inherent powers in the 
case of an emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 1487, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has 
    expired.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Nichols: On page 1, line 4, after 
        ``on'' and before ``aviation'', insert ``civil and 
        commercial.''

        Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized 
    for 1 hour.
        Mr Bulwinkle: Mr. Speaker----

                                     Recess

        The Speaker: Pursuant to the inherent power lodged in the 
    Presiding Officer in case of emergency, the Chair declares this 
    House in recess subject to the call of the Chair for the purpose of 
    participating in a practice air-raid drill. The alarm has sounded. 
    Members will leave the Chamber as rapidly as possible, and the 
    galleries will be cleared.
        Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 18 minutes p.m.) the House stood 
    in recess, subject to the call of the Speaker.

    On Mar. 1, 1954,(13) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, without authorization, declared the House in recess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 100 Cong. Rec. 2434, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
            For a more detailed treatment of this precedent, see Ch. 4, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        At approximately 2 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m. a demonstration 
    and the discharge of firearms, from the southwest House Gallery, 
    interrupted the counting of the vote; the Speaker, pursuant to the 
    inherent power lodged in the Presiding Officer in the case of grave 
    emergency, after ascertaining that certain Members had been wounded 
    and to facilitate their care, at 2 o'clock and 32 minutes p.m. 
    declared the House in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.

Enforcing Rules of Comity

Sec. 3.45 The Speaker, on the part of the House, has within his

[[Page 470]]

    authority the enforcement of the customary rules of comity between 
    the House and the Senate.

    On Jan. 17, 1955,(14) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
announced his policy with the regard to the rule of comity between the 
two Houses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 101 Cong. Rec. 386, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to make this statement at the 
    beginning of this session with reference to something that has been 
    maintained by every Speaker of the House since the present occupant 
    of the Chair has been a Member of this body, and that is that the 
    House of Representatives, regardless of what any other body or any 
    other individual does, has maintained strictly those rules and 
    regulations which protect and perpetuate the comity between the two 
    Houses. And when any Member of this House rises to make remarks 
    about what has happened in another body or about any individual in 
    that body, the present occupant of the Chair will certainly see 
    that the rules of the House and the rules of comity between the two 
    Houses are enforced.

    On Mar. 26, 1964,(15) a Member made reference to a 
Senator in the course of debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 6361, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Wyman [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I want to 
    express myself as being in whole-hearted disagreement with the 
    amazing, incredible, and dismaying remarks regarding American 
    foreign policy of the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 
    Committee made on the Senate floor yesterday. . . .
        May the Lord help us should this sort of policy be in effect--
    --
        Mr. [Kenneth] Hechler [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: [John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts]: The 
    gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hechler: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's remarks are directed 
    to a Member of the other body, which is a violation of the rules of 
    the House.
        The Speaker: The Chair will say that under the rules no Member 
    may refer to a Member of the other body, or to a speech another 
    Member has made in that body.
        The gentleman from New Hampshire will proceed in order.
        Mr. Wyman: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker:: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wyman: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention to violate the rules 
    of the House. The speech is a matter of record. It was made by the 
    chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, and I do 
    not know how I could refer to it otherwise. The speech is in the 
    Record, and it is before us at our seats.
        May I inquire as to how I may now properly refer to the speech 
    and disassociate myself from its views without referring to its 
    author?
        The Speaker: The Chair has stated what the rules of the House 
    are. The

[[Page 471]]

    Chair did not use the word ``violate.'' The Chair did not go that 
    far. The Chair simply says reference to a Member of the other body 
    is not proper, and is not consistent with the rules of the House. 
    The gentleman was recognized to proceed in order.
        Mr. Wyman: Mr. Speaker, I will, of course, accord with the rule 
    and I will therefore refer only to prominently publicized remarks 
    appearing on the front pages of the Nation's newspapers of last 
    night and this morning