[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 6.  Officers, Officials, and Employees]
[A. The Speaker]
[Â§ 4. Limitations on the Speaker's Powers]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 471-495]
 
                               CHAPTER 6
 
                   Officers, Officials, and Employees
 
                             A. THE SPEAKER
 
Sec. 4. Limitations on the Speaker's Powers

    As previously noted, the Speaker is not unlimited in the exercise 
of his various powers. The House rules and precedents serve not only as 
a guide for his actions but also as a constraint on them. In 
Jefferson's Manual, the author noted the importance of such 
constraints:

        And whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or 
    not is really not of so great importance. It is much more material 
    that there should be a rule to go by than what that rule is; that 
    there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business not subject to 
    the caprice of the Speaker. . . .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. 285 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Speaker is constrained to follow formal procedures when 
they exist. For example, the Speaker normally does not refer matters to 
the various House committees without first examining the 
measures(17) and conferring with the House 
Parliamentarian.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 4.2, infra.
18. See Sec. 4.3, infra. See Ch. 16, infra, for treatment of reference 
        of bills to committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker is, of course, guided in his duties by the House rules 
and precedents. Thus, he normally does not comment on the advisability 
of one rule over another in a case where a previous rule is in conflict 
with a current rule,(19) nor does he normally rule on a 
point of order in such a way as to overturn previous rulings, though he 
has the power to do so.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 4.4, infra. See Ch. 5, supra, for treatment of the House 
        rules.
 1. See Sec. 4.5, infra. See Ch. 31, infra, for fuller treatment of the 
        Speaker's rulings on points of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though in certain circumstances it might seem helpful for the 
Speaker to interpret the Senate rules of procedure, he does not 
normally even attempt to do so.
    Similarly, the Speaker does not rule on the effect of a resolution 
being considered by the House which deals with the House 
rules.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 4.8, infra.

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

[[Page 472]]

    Whether a Member may display exhibits during his remarks is a 
matter for the House and not the Speaker to decide.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 4.10, infra. See Ch. 29, infra, for fuller treatment of 
        the Speaker's role in consideration and debate of legislative 
        measures, and as to the use of exhibits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tke Speaker's duty to rule on various points of order is limited in 
certain ways.(4) It is considered improper for the Speaker 
to rule, for example: on the constitutionality of 
measures;(5) on the effect of an amendment;(6) on 
the merits of a measure;(7) on the purpose of an 
amendment;(8) on the sufficiency, insufficiency, or binding 
effect of a committee report;(9) on the substantive effect 
of extraneous material in a committee report;(10) on the 
possible ambiguity of language in a measure;(11) on the 
propriety of instructions that might subsequently accompany a motion to 
recommit a measure;(12~) on the propriety of an announced 
speech topic in advance of its delivery;(13) or on how the 
results of a vote should be construed.(14~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Ch. 31, infra, for fuller treatment of the Speaker's role vis-
        a-vis points of order.
 5. See Sec. 4.18, infra.
 6. See Sec. 4.19, infra.
 7. See Sec. 4.20, infra.
 8. See Sec. 4.21, infra.
 9. See Sec. 4.22, infra.
10. See Sec. 4.23, infra.
11. See Sec. 4.24, infra.
12. See Sec. 4.25, infra. See Ch. 28, infra, for treatment of the 
        germaneness rule generally.
13. See Sec. 4.26, infra.
14. See Sec. Sec. 4.27, 4.28, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In many situations, the Speaker is entitled to perform certain 
actions only after the House has given him its formal authorization. 
Thus, for example, under normal circumstances, the Speaker must be 
authorized by the House prior to declaring a recess.(15) 
This authorization may later be vacated by the House.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 4.34, infra. See also Sec. 3.44, supra, for Speaker's 
        power to declare recesses in an emergency. See Ch. 39, infra, 
        for fuller treatment of the Speaker's role in recessing the 
        House.
16. See Sec. 4.35, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker must also be authorized to sign enrolled bills and 
joint resolutions during House adjournments.(17) The 
Speaker's signature may later be rescinded by House 
action.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. Sec. 4.37, 4.38, infra. See Ch. 24, infra, for fuller 
        treatment of the formal passage of bills.
18. See Sec. Sec. 4.39, 4.40, 
        infra                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congressional Record Policy

Sec. 4.1 Although the Speaker may have set policy regard

[[Page 473]]

    ing matter to be included in the Congressional Record, it is a 
    matter for the House to decide whether such a policy, not being a 
    House rule, shall be followed.

    On Mar. 6, 1945,(19) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
discussed extension of remarks in the Congressional Record in response 
to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 1788, 1789, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, on yesterday several Members made 1 
    minute speeches. Among them was the gentleman from Arkansas . . . 
    the gentle man from Nevada . . . the gentleman from New York . . . 
    and your humble servant.
        Without consulting the gentleman from Nevada . . . or the 
    gentleman from Arkansas . . . or me, somebody down the line 
    inserted our speeches in the Appendix of the Record and left the 
    speech made by the gentleman from New York . . . in the body of the 
    Record where it should be.
        As I understand the rules of the House, nobody in the Printing 
    Office has any right to change this Record. One reason I am raising 
    this question is this: The Speaker is familiar with the fact that a 
    short time ago, I made a short address on the floor and when it was 
    sent down to the Printing Office it had a heading on it, and . . . 
    one of the Official Reporters in the well of the House here called 
    down there at midnight and had that heading changed.
        It seems to me that we have come to the time, if Congress is 
    going to control the Congressional Record, that we might as well 
    find it out. I understand it has been the ruling of the Chair that 
    where a Member makes a 1-minute speech, if he asks to insert 
    extraneous matter that contains more than 300 words, the speech 
    must be inserted in the Appendix of the Record. But where a Member 
    makes his own speech and extends his own remarks, he has the right 
    to have that speech appear in the Record at that point. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair can reiterate what he has said many 
    times.
        When I became majority leader, I made the statement to the 
    House, after consulting with the minority leader, who I think at 
    that time was Mr. Snell, of New York, that if anyone asked to 
    proceed for more than 1 minute before the legislative program of 
    the day was completed we would object. Since then Members have not 
    asked to proceed for more than a minute before the legislative 
    program.
        Then Members began speaking for a minute and putting into the 
    Record a long speech, so that 10 or a dozen pages of the Record was 
    taken up before the people who read the Record would get to the 
    legislative program of the day, in which I would think they would 
    be the most interested. So we adopted the policy--there is no rule 
    about it--of asking that when Members speak for a minute, if their 
    remarks are more than 300 words, which many times can be said in a 
    minute,

[[Page 474]]

    their remarks or any extension of their remarks go in the Appendix 
    of the Record. The Chair has on numerous occasions spoken to those 
    who control the Record and asked them to follow that policy.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I take issue of course with that 
    policy, because these 1-minute speakers do not abuse the Record, as 
    a rule. The only question that has been raised about any abuse of 
    the Record in regard to these 1-minute speeches was with reference 
    to a speech made on the 5th of February, I believe, wherein the 1-
    minute speaker used several pages.
        The Speaker: The Chair might state also that when there is no 
    legislative program in the House for the day, such speeches may go 
    in, and they will go in as 1-minute speeches.
        Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Mr. Speaker, verifying the 
    statement, which, of course, needs no verification, I remember 
    going to the Speaker and asking if it would be proper to put the 
    speech in the body of the Record, and the Speaker said that there 
    was no legislative program for the day and there was no reason why 
    a Member could not do it. I assume that was on the 5th of February.
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Rankin: Let me say to the gentleman from New York that on 
    yesterday one of the Members made a speech that you will find in 
    the Record almost or quite as long as the speech of the gentleman 
    from Nevada . . . or the one of the gentleman from Arkansas . . . 
    or the one that I made. It was placed in the body of the Record, 
    and it was in excess of 300 words. I can go back through the Record 
    here and find numerous occasions.
        If we are going to adopt the policy that everybody who speaks 
    in the well of the House and uses over 300 words must have his 
    speech printed in the Appendix, it should apply to all of us.
        . . . I think this should be a matter to be settled by the 
    membership of the House. . . .
        The Speaker: The House has that within its entire control at 
    any time it desires to act upon the question. . . .
        Mr. Rankin: Let me ask the Speaker now, I want to know, because 
    the Members of the House are all interested, if Members, when they 
    make a 1-minute speech, use more than 300 words, it is to be 
    printed in the Appendix of the Record and not in the body?
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Rankin: So the rule will be applied to all alike?
        The Speaker: The Chair tries to apply that rule.

Announcing Reference of Bill

Sec. 4.2 The Speaker may refuse to say, in advance of examination of a 
    bill, to which committee the bill will be referred.

    On Feb. 1, 1966,(1) parliamentary inquiries were 
addressed to Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 1716, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 475]]

        Mr. Hall: . . . [M]y parliamentary inquiry would involve two 
    questions: First, would reference of the President's message to the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs of this House automatically involve 
    reference of bills referred to therein to the same committee of 
    this House?
        The Speaker: It would depend upon the nature of the bill. The 
    answer as to one does not necessarily follow as to the other. On 
    the other hand, the provisions of the bill and the Rules of the 
    House would govern.
        Mr. Hall: I thank the Speaker.
        The second portion of my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, if 
    I may continue, is this: In view of the fact that the military and 
    economic authorization requests are to be contained, according to 
    the President's message, in two separate bills--again, for the 
    first time in some years--would the military authorization part 
    thereof, when submitted, apparently by the administration, per this 
    message, be referred to the Legislative Committee on Armed Services 
    of this House, or would it go to the Committee on Foreign Affairs?
        The Speaker: The Chair is not prepared to answer that inquiry 
    at the present time, because the answer to the second inquiry would 
    relate back to the first inquiry made by the gentleman from 
    Missouri, and the response of the Chair to that inquiry.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the second question is related to 
    the first question, that question being answered that it does not 
    necessarily follow that specific legislation would be referred to 
    the committee to which the message would be referred.
        Mr. Hall: I thank the Speaker.
        The Speaker: Therefore, the Chair does not feel able to pass 
    upon the second inquiry until the Chair has had an opportunity to 
    observe the provisions of the bill.

Bill Reference After Consultation

Sec. 4.3 The Speaker may withhold referral of a Senate bill on the 
    Speaker's Table until he has studied the question, consulted with 
    the Parliamentarian, and decided on the proper jurisdiction.

    On June 6, 1949,(2) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
indicated the nature of his duty to refer bills to committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 95 Cong. Rec. 7255, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Patman: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the status of the bill S. 
    1008, which, I understand, was messaged over from the Senate on 
    Friday last?

        The Speaker: The Chair understands it is on the Speaker's 
    table.
        Mr. Patman: Will it be referred to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary?
        The Speaker: The Chair does not know about that.
        Mr. Patman: What action will be necessary in order to get it 
    referred to the committee?
        The Speaker: It is the duty and the privilege of the Chair to 
    refer bills to

[[Page 476]]

    whatever committee he desires, after consultation with the 
    Parliamentarian, of course. The Chair will not recognize any motion 
    in that regard at this time.

Speaker Guided by Rules and Precedents

Sec. 4.4 It has been considered not within the province of the Speaker 
    to pass on the advisability of a more recent House rule which 
    appears to conflict with previous ones.

    On July 16, 1935,(3) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, responded to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 79 Cong. Rec. 11264, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Last Friday the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Blanton] kindly 
    indicated that it was his purpose to make the point of order he has 
    raised today when the House began consideration of the so-called 
    ``omnibus private claims bill.'' The gentleman from Texas has 
    served in the House for many years with distinction and is familiar 
    with the rules of the House, and the Chair has given considerable 
    thought to the point of order since the gentleman indicated on last 
    Friday that it was his purpose again to raise it on this occasion.
        The gentleman from Texas, in his argument today, has contended 
    that this rule conflicts with a number of rules to which he has 
    referred. Without passing upon the question of whether or not there 
    is a conflict, the Chair will state that if there is a conflict the 
    rule last adopted would control. The Chair assumes that if this 
    rule should be found to conflict with previous rules, that the 
    House intended, at least by implication, to repeal that portion of 
    the previous rule with which it is in conflict.
        The Chair may state that in passing upon this point of order it 
    is not the province of the Chair, nor has the Chair any such 
    intention, to pass upon the question of whether or not this rule is 
    advisable or whether a better one could have been adopted.

Sec. 4.5 Although it is within the authority of the Speaker to rule on 
    a point of order in such a way as to overturn previous precedents 
    of the House, the Speaker in most instances follows the precedents 
    of the House when they are very clearly applicable to a given 
    situation.

    On June 24, 1958,(4) a point of order was raised against 
the following remarks of a Member:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 104 Cong. Rec. 12121, 12122, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis of Missouri: . . . If this committee 
    [the Subcommittee of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee 
    on Legislative Oversight] does not intend to do its job, but rather 
    intends to continue this campaign on these collateral issues which 
    I have alleged, in my judgment, amount to defamation, I think it 
    should be called sharply to

[[Page 477]]

    task first by the full Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, and if the full committee fails in this responsibility 
    then the House should take action. . . . Not only is this 
    subcommittee, in my judgment, not doing the job that needs to be 
    done, it has brought the institution again, in my judgment, into 
    disrepute by disregarding the rules of the House and permitting a 
    committee of the House to be used as a forum in this fashion.
        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I must object 
    again and ask that those words be deleted.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: I would like to ask the gentleman 
    before he does, just what language is he objecting to?
        Mr. Harris: To the charge that this committee is violating the 
    rules of the House.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Well, I certainly do charge that and I 
    think it is proper to charge such a thing if I have presented the 
    evidence. How else are we going to present the case to the House?
        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: There is a long line of 
    decisions holding that attention cannot be called on the floor of 
    the House to proceedings in committees without action by the 
    committee. The Chair has just been reading a decision by Mr. 
    Speaker Gillett and the decision is very positive on that point.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself to 
    that, may I say I am unaware of such a rule and I would argue, if I 
    may, in all propriety, that that rule, if it does exist, should be 
    changed because how else will the House ever go into the 
    functioning and actions of its committees?
        The Speaker: That is not a question for the Chair to determine. 
    That is a question for the House to change the rule.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, is it a rule or is it a 
    ruling? If it is a ruling of the Chair, then it is appropriate for 
    the Chair to consider it.
        The Speaker: The precedents of the House are what the Chair 
    goes by in most instances. There are many precedents and this Chair 
    finds that the precedents of the House usually make mighty good 
    sense.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: But the Chair can change a precedent. 
    That is why I am trying to present this matter.
        The Speaker: If the Chair did not believe in the precedents of 
    the House, then the Chair might be ready to do that, but this Chair 
    is not disposed to overturn the precedents of the House which the 
    Chair thinks are very clear.

Interpreting Senate Rules

Sec. 4.6 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may decline to 
    interpret the rules or procedures of the Senate.

    On June 6, 1961,(5) a Member raised the following 
question:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 107 Cong. Rec. 9627, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Avery [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, the language 
    of the amendment now pending at the desk is the identical language 
    that came into conference from the other body following action of 
    the House, and my amendment in 1959 became incor

[[Page 478]]

    porated, I believe, in the conference report. Does that in any way 
    change the legislative history of the amendment?

    The Chairman [Paul J. Kilday, of Texas]: The Chair may advise the 
gentleman that nothing is pending before the Chair, but by way of 
observation, the language the gentleman speaks of was apparently added 
by the other body. The present occupant of the Chair would not attempt 
to state or to interpret the rules or procedure of the other body.

Passing on Resolutions and Special Orders

Sec. 4.7 The Speaker may decline to answer hypothetical questions 
    regarding special orders.(6~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Special orders generally, see Ch. 21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.8 The Chair does not pass on the effect of a pending resolution 
    amending the House rules.

    On Apr. 25, 1967,(7) a parliamentary inquiry concerning 
the effect of a resolution [H. Res. 42] amending the rules of the House 
was addressed to Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 10710, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: . . . [W]ill the 
    distinguished gentleman yield at this time for a parliamentary 
    inquiry of the Chair, inasmuch as it is important that we try to 
    envisage, in passing this legislation today, what effect it will 
    have on the future rules of procedure in the House, and their 
    application.
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: I yield to the 
    gentleman from Missouri.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair must advise the 
    distinguished gentleman from Missouri that this is a matter for 
    debate on a resolution pending and not a matter properly within the 
    jurisdiction of the Chair on a parliamentary inquiry. It is up to 
    the sponsor of the resolution to explain the terms of the 
    resolution.

Quorum Request Not Dilatory

Sec. 4.9 Since the Constitution defines a quorum of the House and 
    states that it shall be required for the conduct of business, a 
    point of order that a quorum is not present is in order in the 
    absence of a quorum, and the Chair does not hold such a point to be 
    dilatory.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(8) Speaker pro tempore Wilbur D. Mills, 
of Arkansas, heard a parliamentary inquiry concerning an alleged 
dilatory tactic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 30097, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 479]]

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: I thank the Speaker for 
    permitting me this additional parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        On occasion the Chair has held that certain motions and points 
    of order amounted to dilatory tactics, and that that was their 
    obvious motivation, and on those occasions the Chair has summarily 
    refused to recognize such obviously dilatory points of order and 
    motions.
        Mr. Speaker, my point of parliamentary inquiry is: would the 
    Chair not feel that under the present situation, with repeated 
    points of order being made that a quorum is not present, 
    immediately followed by the absenting of themselves by certain 
    Members who have come in to answer the quorum, to be a rather 
    obvious dilatory tactic, and one which might obviously lend itself 
    to the assumption on the part of the Chair that a quorum having 
    been established and proven so frequently and repeatedly during the 
    day, would be presumed to be present for the completion of 
    business?
        The Speaker: Pro Tempore: (Mr. Mills): The Chair is ready to 
    respond to the parliamentary inquiry posed by the gentleman from 
    Texas.
        It is the understanding of the Chair that no occupant of the 
    Chair has ever in the history of the Congress held that a point of 
    order that a quorum is not present is a dilatory tactic. The 
    reasoning, obviously, is that the Constitution itself requires the 
    presence on the floor of the House of a quorum at all times in the 
    transaction of the business of the House of 
    Representatives.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Parliamentarian's Note: The precedents of the House which indicate 
        that the Chair has held a point of no quorum to be dilatory 
        when it immediately follows a call of the House which discloses 
        the presence of a quorum are not applicable to the situation 
        where there is ``intervening business'' between the 
        establishment of the quorum and the making of the point of no 
        quorum. Generally, see Ch. 20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Permitting Exhibits

Sec. 4.10 It is for the House and not the Speaker to decide whether a 
    Member may be allowed to display an exhibit in debate.

    On June 2, 1937,(10) a point of order was made 
concerning the display of an exhibit during debate in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 81 Cong. Rec. 6104, 6105, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Maury] Maverick [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
    of order that the gentleman has no right to display a liquor bottle 
    in the House of Representatives.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, this is 
    Government rum, presented to me by Secretary Ickes.
        The Speaker: [William B. Bankhead, of Alabama]: The gentleman 
    will suspend. The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order 
    that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has no right to exhibit the 
    bottle without permission of the House. The point of order is well 
    taken.
        Mr. [Charles W.] Tobey [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 480]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Tobey: The Speaker called the attention of the gentleman 
    from Texas to the fact that the gentleman had a bottle of liquor.
        How does the Speaker know it is liquor, sir?
        The Speaker: That is a question of which the House cannot take 
    judicial notice. The point of order is well taken.
        The Chair will submit it to the House, if the gentleman insists 
    on displaying the exhibit.
        Mr. Maverick: I insist on the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: As many as are in favor of granting the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania the right to exhibit the bottle which he now 
    holds in his hand will say ``aye'' and those opposed will say 
    ``no.''
        The vote was taken and the Speaker announced that the ayes have 
    it, and the permission is granted.

Answering Parliamentary Inquiries

Sec. 4.11 The Speaker normally declines to answer parliamentary 
    inquiries that are improperly addressed to him.

    On Apr. 11, 1935,(11) a parliamentary inquiry was 
addressed to Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 79 Cong. Rec. 5457, 5458, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Monaghan [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Montana 
    rise?
        Mr. Monaghan: For the purpose of submitting a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Monaghan: Is not the statement that was made by the 
    gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Mott] correct, that if this rule passes, 
    then only one particular plan, the plan that we now have under 
    discussion, may be passed upon by the Congress,
        The Speaker: The Chair is not in position to answer that 
    parliamentary inquiry. That is a matter which will come up 
    subsequently under the rules of the House. The Chair would not seek 
    to anticipate what the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
    rule or what the Committee itself may do. The Chair feels very 
    certain that the Chairman of the Committee will he governed, as all 
    chairmen of committees are, by the rules and precedents of the 
    House. Certainly the Chair would not anticipate his ruling; and in 
    addition to this, the Chair cannot pass upon any particular 
    amendment until it has been presented in all its phases.

Sec. 4.12 The Chair has declined to answer a parliamentary inquiry in 
    the midst of a demand that certain words be taken down.

    On Oct. 31, 1963,(12) a Member made some remarks which 
became the subject of a request that they may be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 109 Cong. Rec. 20742, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: [John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts]: Under 
    previous

[[Page 481]]

    order of the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Foreman] is 
    recognized for 60 minutes.
        Mr. [Edgar Franklin] Foreman: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bernard Baruch 
    once said:

            Every man has a right to his opinion but no man has a right 
        to be wrong in his facts.

        My purpose today is to set the facts straight to clarify and 
    briefly discuss a seemingly very interesting and disturbing subject 
    for some colleagues at least of a recent news article by a 
    Washington news correspondent employed by the Scripps-Howard 
    newspapers. . . . I was surprised to see the story written by their 
    dedicated Washington correspondent, Mr. Seth Kantor, last week, 
    because I was quoted as calling 20 of my colleagues in this body 
    ``pinkos.'' Apparently in his zeal to write a colorful and 
    controversial front page story, at the time when congressional news 
    was very meager, this enterprising correspondent decided to do some 
    name calling for me.
        ``Pinkos'' seems to be a very popular and controversial name, 
    so he wrote a story, ``Foreman Labels 20 Colleagues Pinkos.'' The 
    fact of the matter is, to set the record straight, I have only 
    referred to one Member of this body as a ``pinko.'' On Friday, 
    October 18, 1963----
        Mr [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    gentleman's words be taken down.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will suspend. The demand has been 
    made that the gentleman's words be taken down.
        Mr. [Bruce R.] Alger [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot entertain that at this time.

Sec. 4.13 The Speaker does not entertain hypothetical questions.

    On Sept. 14, 1944,(13) a parliamentary inquiry was 
addressed to Speaker pro tempore Orville Zimmerman, of Missouri:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 90 Cong. Rec. 7772, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: I gathered from statements which were made on the 
    floor today that a statement going back as far as 1920 and 
    containing information as to the amounts of money requested by the 
    military establishments of the Government, as to the amounts that 
    had been recommended by the executive department, and as to the 
    amounts finally appropriated by Congress, had been sent to the 
    Committee on Appropriations, but for some 2 years it had been in 
    the safe over there, inaccessible to Members of the House. By what 
    authority or what rule of Congress or what rule governing 
    committees was that suppressed?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore (Mr. Zimmerman): The present occupant 
    of the chair has no knowledge of any such facts, and therefore is 
    not in a position to answer the gentleman's inquiry.
        Mr. Hoffman: Does the Chair mean he does not have any knowledge 
    that that is true?

[[Page 482]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has no knowledge of that, 
    except that somebody has said it is true, according to the 
    gentleman's statement.
        Mr. Hoffman: Submitting that then as a hypothetical question.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair does not entertain a 
    hypothetical question. . . .

Sec. 4.14 The Speaker normally avoids answering parliamentary inquiries 
    based upon hypothetical facts or future events which are not 
    certain of happening.

    On Mar. 1, 1967,(14) a parliamentary inquiry was 
addressed to Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, in 
    view of the fact that I am limited to one inquiry, that one inquiry 
    will of necessity be rather long.
        Am I correct in assuming that under the rules in debating House 
    Resolution 278 that now, since the time has been extended an 
    additional hour by unanimous consent over and beyond what the rules 
    of the House provide for, that the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Celler] will control the time for the 2 hours less that yielded to 
    the gentleman from West Virginia and that this time will be used 
    for no purpose except debate of House Resolution 278; that he will 
    have the option of determining whether or not amendments or 
    substitutes can be offered; that at the conclusion of this two 
    hours of debate on House Resolution 278 he will move the previous 
    question, which, if voted down, will make amendments or substitutes 
    to House Resolution 278 in order; at that time will the Speaker 
    give preference, if the previous question is voted down, to the 
    minority who oppose the resolution to control the ensuing hour, or 
    will the Chair give preference to committee members who oppose the 
    resolution regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on to 
    offer amendments or substitutes to House Resolution 278; and if 
    amendments or substitutes are offered then will there occur another 
    vote on the previous question, if the preceding previous question 
    is voted down, and what will be the order of priority in 
    recognizing some Member of the House on either side of the aisle, 
    either alternatively Democratic and Republican or alternatively 
    Republican and Democratic in determining who will control each 
    ensuing hour; and will we have the opportunity to vote on all 
    previous questions no matter how many amendments are offered as 
    long as preceding previous questions are voted down?
        The Speaker: In answering the several questions involved in the 
    statement made or in the parliamentary inquiry made by the 
    gentleman from Louisiana, the Chair will state that the Chair will 
    follow the rules of the House of Representatives as it is the duty 
    of the Chair to do, and the precedents. The question of the 
    allocation of time is a matter for the chairman of the committee, 
    one-half of the time being yielded to the gentleman from West 
    Virginia [Mr. Moore]. Both the chairman and the ranking minority 
    member

[[Page 483]]

    of the select committee control the allocation of time. The 
    question of recognition is one that the Chair will pass upon if 
    that time should arise.
        On the other questions of the gentleman from Louisiana the 
    Chair will determine them as they arise in accordance with the 
    rules of the House and the precedents.

Sec. 4.15 Although it is generally within the discretion of the Speaker 
    to construe the applicability of a House rule to a given situation, 
    where a rule explicitly calls for a decision by a House committee 
    the Speaker does not normally answer a general parliamentary 
    inquiry regarding a committee's actions or future actions 
    respecting such a decision.

    On Apr. 5, 1967,(15) a parliamentary inquiry was 
addressed to Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 8420, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry:
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, rule XI, 26(m) of the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives states as follows:

            If the committee determines that evidence or testimony at 
        an investigative hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or 
        incriminate any person, it shall--
            (1) receive such evidence or testimony in executive 
        session;

        Mr. Speaker, my question is this: If the committee determines 
    that the evidence it is about to receive may tend to defame, 
    degrade or incriminate a witness, is it not compulsory under the 
    Rules of the House for the committee to hold such hearings in 
    executive session?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that that is a matter which 
    would be in the control of the committee for committee action.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: I must say that I do not understand the ruling. Is 
    the Chair ruling that a committee can waive this rule? That it can 
    refuse to recognize this rule?
        The Speaker: The Chair would not want to pass upon a general 
    parliamentary inquiry, as distinguished from a particular one with 
    facts, but the Chair is of the opinion that if the committee voted 
    to make public the testimony taken in executive session, it is not 
    in violation of the rule, and certainly that would be a committee 
    matter.

Sec. 4.16 Although it is considered within the discretion of the Chair 
    to respond to a parliamentary inquiry concerning an amendment, it 
    is not considered proper for him to do so before the amendment is 
    offered.

[[Page 484]]

    On June 28, 1967,(16~) a parliamentary inquiry was 
addressed to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, John J. Flynt, 
Jr., of Georgia:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 17754, 17755 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph E.] Karth [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, if that 
    figure cannot be further amended, and the gentleman chooses to 
    pursue his amendment, and change the figure on page 2, would it 
    then be a proper amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not pass on that until an 
    amendment described by the gentleman from Minnesota is offered.
        The gentleman's parliamentary inquiry is premature. It cannot 
    be made until such an amendment is offered.

Sec. 4.17 Whether a proposition will be subject to a roll call vote at 
    a future time is a matter for the House, and not the Speaker, to 
    decide.

    On June 29, 1961,(17) a Member introduced a resolution 
which became the subject of two parliamentary inquiries when he 
withdrew it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 107 Cong. Rec. 11799, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel W.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw 
    the resolution.
        Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The gentleman will state 
    it.
        Mr. Gross: Is is not necessary to ask unanimous consent to 
    withdraw the resolution?
        The Speaker: It is, but the Chair did not think anyone would 
    object to that unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Will this resolution be subject to a rollcall vote 
    when it is called up again?
        The Speaker: That would be up to the House to decide.

When Rulings Would Be Improper

Sec. 4.18 The Chair does not rule on the constitutionality of measures.

    On Oct. 7, 1966,(18) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole ruled on a point of order as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 25677, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman (Mr. [Charles Melvin] Price [of Illinois]): The 
    Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] raises a point of order 
    against the amendment as to the constitutionality and the 
    germaneness of the amendment. The Chair holds that the amendment is 
    germane because it provides a different condition in the matter of 
    agreement to the compact.
        As to the question of constitutionality, the Chair holds that 
    the

[[Page 485]]

    Chair does not pass upon a constitutional question and this is in 
    keeping with the ruling made by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
    Smith] on March 11, 1958.
        Therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Sec. 4.19 The Chair does not pass on the effect of an amendment. . . .

    On June 23, 1960,(19) Mr. Herman C. Anderson, of 
Minnesota, sought a determination from the Chair as to whether an 
amendment, if adopted, would ``undo'' the work of the previous day. 
Chairman Frank N. Ikard, of Texas, in the exchange below, declined to 
rule on the effect of the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 14062, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Anderson of Minnesota: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Anderson of Minnesota: Is the gentleman's amendment in 
    order at this point after the substitute for the Quie amendment has 
    been adopted?
        The Chairman: It is.
        Mr. Annderson of Minnesota: And its effect would be to undo 
    everything that we did yesterday?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not pass on the effect of 
    amendments. . . .

Sec. 4.20 Although the Chair may rule on the germaneness of an 
    amendment to a bill, he does not rule on the merits of the 
    amendment or bill.

    On May 19, 1948,(1) a point of order was raised against 
an amendment being considered by the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 94 Cong. Rec. 6140, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the 
    pending bill. . . .
        The Chairman [James W. Wadsworth, Jr., of New York]: . . . The 
    Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair would remind the gentleman . . . that [the Chair's] 
    function is not to pass upon the merits of an amendment nor to pass 
    upon the merits of the bill which the gentleman says has already 
    passed the House. The Chair may personally find himself in complete 
    agreement with the objective sought by the legislation. . . . but 
    the legislation to which he refers, as the Chair understands, has 
    to do with the immigration and naturalization laws of the United 
    States. This bill pending before the Committee of the Whole does 
    not approach that subject. . . . It comes from the Committee on 
    UnAmerican Activities. That committee has no jurisdiction over 
    legislation having to do with immigration and naturalization laws. 
    Therefore, the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane.

Sec. 4.21 The Speaker does not rule on the purpose of a

[[Page 486]]

     recommended committee amendment to a bill.

    On Apr. 1, 1935,(2) a point of order was raised against 
an amendment being considered by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 79 CONG. REC. 4781, 4782 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia] (interrupting the reading 
    of the committee amendment): Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point 
    of order against the first committee amendment, which is to strike 
    out all of section 1 after the enacting clause and insert certain 
    language. The language which is proposed be inserted is identical 
    with the language of section 1 now in the bill. The proposal of the 
    committee amendment is simply to strike out existing language and 
    then reinsert identical language.
        The Speaker: [Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee]: The Chair cannot 
    pass on that. The Chair will say to the gentleman from Georgia that 
    is a matter for the House to determine. The Chair cannot enter into 
    the purpose of the committee in proposing the amendment, since that 
    is not within the province of the Chair. The Chair will suggest to 
    the gentleman from Georgia that the remedy that occurs to the Chair 
    is for the House to vote down the committee amendment and pass the 
    bill as originally introduced.

Sec. 4.22 The Chair does not rule on the sufficiency, insufficiency, 
    legal effect, or binding nature of a committee report.

    On Apr. 14, 1955,(3) a question regarding a committee 
report was raised during debate in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 101 Cong. Rec. 4463, 4464, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert C.] Wilson of California: I have a question 
    relative to the United States Information Agency as it affects the 
    report of the committee. . . .

        I am wondering if the fact that these limitations appear in the 
    report make them actual limitations in law. [ notice they are not 
    mentioned in the bill itself, and I wonder if the committee regards 
    them as binding on the agency, because there are many serious 
    limitations, particularly in regard to exhibits, for example. I 
    would just like to hear the opinion of the chairman.
        Mr. [John J.] Rodney [of New York]: I may say to the gentleman 
    from California that it is expected that they will be the law; and 
    that they are binding. The fact that they have not been inserted in 
    the bill is not important. They represent the considered judgment 
    of the committee and we expect the language of the report to be 
    followed.
        Mr. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman [Jere Cooper, of Tennessee]: The gentleman will 
    state it.
        Mr. Wilson of California: Are limitations written in a 
    committee report such as this, but not written into the wording of 
    the legislation, binding?
        The Chairman: That is not a parliamentary inquiry. That is a 
    matter to be settled by the members of the Committee of the Whole.

[[Page 487]]

        Mr. Wilson of California: I merely wanted it for my own 
    understanding and information, for I am fairly new here. It seems 
    to me rather unusual to consider matter written into a report of 
    the same binding effect on an administrator as though written into 
    the law itself.
        The Chairman: It is not the prerogative of the Chair to pass 
    upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of a committee report.

Sec. 4.23 The Speaker does not rule on the substantive effect of 
    extraneous material in a committee report on a bill.

    On Dec. 3, 1963,(4) a parliamentary inquiry was 
addressed to Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, during the 
colloquy set out below after his ruling on a committee report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 23038, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        It is the opinion of the Chair that the report of the committee 
    complies with the Ramseyer rule, the purpose of which is to give 
    Members information in relation to any change in existing law.
        If a report includes some other references to other laws which 
    in a sense would be surplusage or unnecessary, it is the Chair's 
    opinion that the committee was attempting to give to the Members of 
    the House as full information as was possible. . . .
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Illinois 
    rise?
        Mr. Findley: To propound a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Findley: I am not clear about the substantive effect of the 
    ruling of the Chair at this time. Does it mean that section 105 of 
    the 1949 act and section 330 of the 1938 act are repealed by this 
    bill?
        The Speaker: The Chair did not pass on that. The Chair simply 
    said that they were included in the report.

Sec. 4.24 The Chair does not rule on whether language contained in a 
    measure is ambiguous.

    On July 5, 1956,(5) certain points of order were raised 
concerning a pending amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 102 Cong. Rec. 11875, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross] Bass of Tennessee: I make the point of order that 
    the amendment is not germane to the bill.
        The Chairman [Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania]: It is 
    certainly germane to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York to substitute the word ``decisions'' for the word 
    ``provisions.'' The Chair so rules.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, a further point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I make the point of order that the word 
    ``provisions'' is ambiguous and has no mean

[[Page 488]]

    ing whatever and would make the amendment not germane.
        The Chairman: The Chair does not rule on the question of 
    ambiguity. It is a question of germaneness solely, and the Chair 
    has ruled that the amendment is germane.

Sec. 4.25 The Speaker does not rule in advance as to whether a 
    particular motion to recommit a measure with instructions might be 
    in order.

    On Dec. 19, 1963,(6) a parliamentary inquiry was 
addressed to Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, relative to a 
motion to recommit with instructions a conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 25249, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, in the event that the conference 
    report is acted on first in the House, as we now understand it will 
    be, would a motion to recommit with instructions be in order?
        The Speaker: A proper motion would be.
        Mr. Halleck: Of course, it would have to be germane. If so, a 
    motion to recommit to insist on the wheat amendment, I take it, 
    would be in order.
        The Speaker: The Chair, of course, would pass upon any question 
    at the appropriate time.
        Mr. Halleck: I thank the Chair.

Sec. 4.26 The Chair does not rule in advance whether an announced topic 
    of speech is in order.

    On Sept. 26 (legislative day, Sept. 25), 1961,(7) a 
Member requested unanimous consent to address the House on a particular 
topic:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 107 Cong. Rec. 21466, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the regularly scheduled 
    business of the House and all other special orders for today that I 
    may be permitted to proceed for 5 minutes on the topic: ``Is the 
    Congress Mentally Ill?''
        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: [John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts]: 
    The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bow: Is that a proper subject for debate on the floor of 
    the House?
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I submit neither the 
    Chair nor the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow], can tell until they 
    hear it.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Hoffman] asked unanimous consent that after all other special 
    orders he be permitted to address the House for 5 minutes. That is 
    the gentleman's unanimous consent request?
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[[Page 489]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: What the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Hoffman] talks about is a matter for him to determine, and then a 
    matter for the Members.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Michigan?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 4.27 The Chair does not construe the consequences of a ``no'' vote 
    by the House on a proposed motion.

    On Sept. 7, 1965,(8) various parliamentary inquiries 
concerning certain motions were addressed to Speaker pro tempore Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 22958, 22959, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: Is a highly privileged motion according to the 
    Constitution subject to a motion to table?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is.
        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers of South Carolina: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rivers of South Carolina: Those desiring to table the 
    motion of the gentleman from Missouri will vote ``aye'' when their 
    names are called.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is about to state the 
    question. So many as are in favor of the motion by the gentleman 
    from South Carolina to table the motion of the gentleman from 
    Missouri will when their names are called vote ``aye'' and those 
    who are opposed will vote ``no.''
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, would a ``no'' vote as just stated by 
    the Chair be tantamount to overriding the Presidential veto of the 
    military construction bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot make such 
    construction on a motion.

Sec. 4.28 The Chair does not construe the result of a vote.

    On Sept. 13, 1961,(9~) questions regarding a future vote 
were addressed to Speaker pro tempore John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 107 Cong. Rec. 19206, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Is it true, Mr. Speaker, 
    that if this motion is voted upon favorably, there will be no 
    opportunity on the part of the House whatsoever to consider the 
    vote fraud amendment approved in a bill----
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I submit that 
    is not a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Cramer: Which is now pending before the Committee on Rules?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has stated before that he 
    has his own personal opinion. The Chair cannot construe the result 
    of the vote.

[[Page 490]]

Challenge of Conference Report

Sec. 4.29 The Speaker may not impeach the names of conferees who have 
    signed a conference report on a bill when the report has been 
    challenged as being invalid for an alleged failure of the conferees 
    to meet.

    On June 19, 1948,(10) a point of order was raised 
regarding a conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 9268, 9269, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order, and I ask the indulgence of the Speaker so that I 
    may argue the point.
        The Speaker: [Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts]: The 
    Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that 
    the document which has just been presented is not the report of any 
    conference. It is not the product of a full and free conference as 
    required in Jefferson's Manual. I make my point of order based on 
    the proposition that there has never been a valid conference--
    specifically, that there has never been a valid meeting on the part 
    of the managers on the part of the House. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        On page 770, volume 5, of Hinds' Precedents, section 6497 
    states:

            A conference report is received if signed by a majority of 
        the managers of each House.

        The Chair has examined the report and the papers and finds that 
    it is signed by five of the managers on the part of the Senate and 
    six of the seven managers on the part of the House.
        The Chair has no knowledge, of course, how this report was 
    reached, but the Chair cannot impeach the names of the managers on 
    the part of the two Houses. Furthermore, the Senate having already 
    received the report, and according to a message heretofore received 
    by the House has officially adopted it, the Chair feels that under 
    the circumstances the report is properly before the House for such 
    action as the House may see fit to take. The Chair overrules the 
    point of order.

When Recognition Required

Sec. 4.30 The Speaker is constrained to recognize on Calendar 
    Wednesdays any Member properly proposing a motion to dispense with 
    Calendar Wednesday business.

    On June 5, 1946,(~11) a motion was made to dispense with 
Calendar Wednesday business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 6357, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, that motion 
    is not in order. To dispense with Calendar Wednesday requires the 
    unanimous consent of the House. . . .
        The Speaker: [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Chair will state that 
    the following was held by Speaker Gillette, who has been quoted 
    today, as follows:

[[Page 491]]

            The Speaker is constrained to recognize on Wednesdays any 
        Member proposing a motion to dispense with further proceedings 
        in order on that day.

        The motion is in order, but it takes a two-thirds vote to pass 
    it.

Sec. 4.31 Although the Speaker has the discretion to choose between 
    Members seeking recognition,(12) he is obliged to 
    recognize for a privileged motion when the proponent has the floor 
    and no other motion of higher privilege is pending or 
    offered.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Recognizing for debate, see Ch. 29, infra.
13. Motions generally, see Ch. 23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.32 Although the Speaker has discretion to recognize, or not, a 
    Member under most circumstances, he may not refuse to recognize a 
    Member having the floor for a motion to adjourn.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(14) a motion to recommit a bill was 
made. Votes were taken and a quorum found not to be present. This led 
to a call for adjournment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 2379, 2380, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The gentleman will state 
    it.
        Mr. Hoffman: What is the regular order now?
        The Speaker: The regular order is to see if a quorum develops.
        Mr. Hoffman: Is it in order to adjourn?
        The Speaker: That motion is always in order in the House.
        Mr. Hoffman: If there is not a quorum, Mr. Speaker, I move we 
    adjourn.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman withhold that for a moment?
        The Hoffman: If the Chair is refusing recognition, I will.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot do that.

    The House then agreed to a motion, offered by Mr. John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, to adjourn.

Sec. 4.33. Inasmuch as Members of the Senate may not address the House 
    unless the House rules are changed by proper procedure, the Speaker 
    has declined to recognize a Member for the purpose of asking 
    unanimous consent for the consideration of a resolution to allow 
    Senators to address the House.

    On Oct. 11, 1943,(15) Members discussed the desirability 
of inviting certain Senators to address the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 89 Cong. Rec. 8197, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Edith Nourse] Rogers of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, on 
    Thurs

[[Page 492]]

    day last I, with several others, called attention to the importance 
    of having the five Senators who have just returned from the far-
    flung battle fronts give the Members of the House their findings 
    regarding conditions on the battle fronts. I understand there is 
    some objection to having them appear in the House Chamber. I hope 
    the gentleman from Mississippi and some of the other Members will 
    join in asking them to appear in the Caucus Room. Then we can all 
    have the benefit of their valuable information. It does not matter 
    where we hear their testimony so long as we hear it.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: If the gentlewoman will 
    yield, let me say that these are Members of the United States 
    Senate. They have the privilege of the floor. We have a perfect 
    right to invite them here to address the Members of the House in 
    secret session. We want them to come here and give us the benefit 
    of the information they have garnered in their trip to the various 
    battle fronts of the world.
        Mrs. Rogers of Massachusetts: Has the gentleman consulted the 
    Speaker and leaders about it?
        Mr. Rankin: I have, and I think that when the resolution is 
    offered they will agree that this is the place to have them.
        The Speaker: [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Chair thinks it is 
    time for the Chair to make a statement, because this matter was 
    discussed with the Chair by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts 
    [Mrs. Rogers], last week, and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
    Rankin], over the phone.
        The Chair does not intend to recognize a Member to ask 
    unanimous consent for the present consideration of a resolution 
    inviting Senators to address the House in open or executive 
    session, because the Chair thinks that is tantamount to an 
    amendment to the rules of the House and, therefore, is a matter for 
    the House to determine. If resolutions like that are introduced, 
    they will be sent to the proper committee.

Authority to Declare Recess

Sec. 4.34 The Speaker, under normal circumstances, must be authorized 
    by the House to declare recesses.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Compare Sec. 3.44, supra, as to the Speaker's inherent power to 
        declare a recess in an emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 3, 1964,(17) for example, unanimous consent was 
requested and received to authorize Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, to declare recesses, subject to the call of the Chair, 
during the remainder of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 23955, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.35 Authority conferred upon the Speaker to declare recesses of 
    the House may be vacated by unanimous consent.

    On Sept. 8, 1969,(l8) unanimous consent was requested to 
vacate previous authorization for Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massa

[[Page 493]]

chusetts, to declare  recess on a certain day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 24653, 91st Cong 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the authority for the Speaker to declare a recess on 
    September 10 be vacated.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that it 
    may be in order for the Speaker to declare a recess at any time on 
    September 16 for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting the 
    Apollo 11 astronauts.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Parliamentarian's Note: The authorization to declare the recess was 
        vacated due to the death of Senator Everett Dirksen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority to Sign Bills and Resolutions

Sec. 4.36 The Speaker must be formally authorized to sign a duplicate 
    copy of an enrolled bill.

    On May 27, 1938,(20) a unanimous-consent request was 
made as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 83 Cong. Rec. 7637, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent for the present consideration of Senate Concurrent 
    Resolution No. 37. 
        The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

                      Senate Concurrent Resolution 37

            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
        and the President of the Senate be, and they are hereby, 
        authorized to sign a duplicate copy of the enrolled bill (S. 
        3532) entitled ``An act to extend the times for commencing and 
        completing the construction of a bridge across the Missouri 
        River at or near Randolph, Mo.,'' and that the Secretary of the 
        Senate be, and he is hereby, directed to transmit the same to 
        the President of the United States.

        The Speaker [William B. Bankhead, of Alabama]: Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, will the gentleman from Texas explain the purpose 
    of this resolution?
        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, the situation is that before this 
    bill got to the President for his signature it was misplaced or 
    lost. This is a resolution to allow the President to sign a 
    duplicate.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 4.37 The Speaker must be formally authorized by the House to sign 
    enrolled bills and joint resolutions during a sine die adjournment 
    of the Congress.

[[Page 494]]

    On Oct. 14, 1968,(11) a resolution was offered by Mr. 
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 31313, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I call up Senate Concurrent Resolution 
    82 and ask for its present consideration.
        The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:

                              S. Con. Res. 82

            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That, notwithstanding the sine die adjournment of 
        the two Houses, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 
        the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, or the 
        Acting President pro tempore be, and they are hereby, 
        authorized to sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions duly 
        passed by the two Houses and found truly enrolled.

    The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.

Sec. 4.38 The Speaker is normally authorized by unanimous consent to 
    sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions during any adjournment of 
    the House.

    On Aug. 10, 1961,(2) a unanimous consent request was 
made as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 107 Cong. Rec. 15320, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House 
    during the present session of the 87th Congress, the Clerk be 
    authorized to receive messages from the Senate and that the Speaker 
    be authorized to sign any enrolled bills and joint resolutions duly 
    passed by the two Houses and found truly enrolled.
        Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, are we going to enter into some recesses or 
    adjournments of the House?
        Mr. McCormack: For example, such as adjourning from Friday to 
    Monday.
        Mr. Gross: That is all the gentleman has in mind?
        Mr. McCormack: That is all. . . .
        The Speaker: [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: Is there objection to the 
    request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 4.39 Although it is within the authority of the Speaker to sign 
    enrolled bills, by concurrent resolution the Congress may rescind 
    the Speaker's signature.

    On July 1, 1947,(3) a resolution was introduced as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 8012, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table Senate 
    Concurrent Resolution 22. . . .
        The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That

[[Page 495]]

        the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, 
        requested to return to the House of Representatives the 
        enrolled bill (H.R. 493) to amend section 4 of the act entitled 
        ``An act to control the possession, sale, transfer, and use of 
        pistols and other dangerous weapons in the District of 
        Columbia,'' approved July 8, 1932 (sec. 22, 3204 D.C. Code, 
        1940 ed.): that if and when the said bill is returned by the 
        President, the action of the Presiding Officer of the two 
        Houses in signing the said bill be deemed to be rescinded; and 
        that the House engrossed bill be returned to the Senate.

        The Speaker [Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts]: Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
        There was no objection.
        The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec. 4.40 Although it is within the authority of the Speaker to sign 
    enrolled bills of the House, the House may agree to a Senate 
    resolution requesting that the Speaker's signature be rescinded.

    On July 30, 1942,(4) Speaker pro tempore Alfred L. 
Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, laid before the House a Senate 
resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 88 Cong. Rec. 6713, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to request the 
        House of Representatives to rescind the action of the Speaker 
        in signing the enrolled bill (H.R. 7297) entitled ``An act 
        authorizing the assignment of personnel from departments or 
        agencies in the executive branch of the Government to certain 
        investigating committees of the Senate and House of 
        Representatives, and for other purposes,'' and that the House 
        of Representatives be further requested to return the above-
        numbered engrossed bill to the Senate.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        There was no objection.