[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[J. Reading Papers and Displaying Exhibits]
[Â§ 80. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11281-11289]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
               J. READING PAPERS AND DISPLAYING EXHIBITS
 
Sec. 80. In General


    Until it was rewritten in the 103d Congress,(18) Rule 
XXX required the consent of the House or the Committee of the Whole for 
the reading of papers if objection was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See H. Res. 5, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When the reading of a paper other than one upon which the House 
    is called to give a final vote is demanded, and the same is 
    objected to by any Member, it shall be determined without debate by 
    a vote of the House.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 915 (1991). For parliamentary law on 
        reading papers, see Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 432-436 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XXX now states: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 915 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When the use of any exhibit in debate is objected to by any 
    Member, it shall be determined without debate by a vote of the 
    House.

    Under the former rule, the consent of the House was only required 
for the reading of papers on which a Member was not called to vote. The 
reading of messages, and bills and resolutions which had been called up 
for consideration, were governed by other rules and practices which are 
not discussed in this division. Committee reports which were not to be 
voted upon could be read in debate, but the consent of the House was 
required if objection was made.(1) If a report presented 
facts

[[Page 11282]]

and conclusions without accompanying a legislative proposition, it was 
read to the House if acted upon.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5292, 5293. Similarly, the 
        statement accompanying a report may be read only with leave of 
        the House. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5261, 5262; and 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2606.
 2. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1364 and 4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 4663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement of unanimous consent applied to all documents not 
subject to a vote, including a Member's own written 
speech.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 80.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a Member sought to challenge the reading of a paper by 
another, the proper procedure was to object to the reading rather than 
to raise a point of order. The House and not the Chair decided whether 
the reading was proper,(4) if the contents of the document 
were otherwise in order under the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 80.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, a point of order could and may be made against disorderly 
language contained in a document being read.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 83.5, infra. As to relevancy, specific consent of the 
        House to read a paper waived that particular objection; see 
        Sec. 80.2, infra.
            Certain papers cannot be read at all and are subject to a 
        point of order in the first instance, such as reports of Senate 
        proceedings (see Sec. 83.3, infra) and reports of executive 
        sessions of House committees (see Sec. 83.4, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Publications of the House in general, see Ch. 5, supra.
Reading of bills, resolutions, petitions, and memorials generally, see 
    Ch. 24, supra.
Reading communications from the executive branch, see Ch. 35, infra.
Reading conference reports, see Ch. 33, infra.
Reading of evidence in impeachment proceedings, see Ch. 14, supra.
Reading the Journal, see Ch. 5, supra.
Reading messages from the Senate, see Ch. 32, infra.
Reading propositions for amendment, see Ch. 27, supra.
Reading unreported proceedings of House committees is not in order, see 
    Sec. 55, supra.
Senate practice as to reading House proceedings, see Sec. 46, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Procedures Under Former Rule XXX: Objections to Reading

Sec. 80.1 The proper procedure for challenging the reading of a paper 
    under Rule XXX was not by a point of order but by voicing objection 
    thereto, and calling for a vote on the reading by the House.

    On Feb. 27, 1946,(6) Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, 
made a point of order against the read

[[Page 11283]]

ing in debate of a document by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that the proper procedure under 
Rule XXX of the House rules was a vote by the House on permission to 
read, after objection had been made to the reading:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 92 Cong. Rec. 1729, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio: The gentleman from Mississippi is reading from 
    a document and pamphlet. It is out of order and cannot be done 
    except by obtaining the consent of the House. . . .
        I [ask] for a ruling on my point of order.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman from Mississippi is reading from 
    something that the House does not want to hear, it is entirely 
    within the power of the House to decide the question, not the 
    gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Does he not have to have consent to read a 
    document?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi is speaking to his 
    motion, and that gives him a rather wide latitude. If the gentleman 
    is reading something the House does not want to hear, then the 
    House has its remedy.
        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, is it not the duty of the Speaker to 
    pass on the point of order or to pass on whether the gentleman is 
    speaking in order or not? I think it is up to the Speaker. The 
    gentleman here has been reading from Foster or Thomas, or whatever 
    the man's name is, something he has written or said some years ago, 
    today or yesterday, trying to make the House believe that I have 
    had something to do with the articles that Foster has written.
        The Speaker: The Chair did not have the specific rule before 
    him when he answered the inquiry of the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Marcantonio].
        Rule XXX states:

            When the reading of a paper other than one upon which the 
        House is called to give a final vote is demanded, and the same 
        is objected to by any Member, it shall be determined without 
        debate by a vote of the House.

        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, that bears out my contention and 
    I definitely object.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman object?
        Mr. Marcantonio: I do, Mr. Speaker. I object to the dragging of 
    an irrelevant red herring into this discussion.
        The Speaker: The question is: Shall the gentleman be permitted 
    to proceed to read the paper from which he is now reading?
        The question was taken; and the House decided that Mr. Rankin 
    be permitted to proceed with the reading.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi will proceed in 
    order.

Relevancy Not Required Where Permission To Read Is Given

Sec. 80.2 Where unanimous consent is granted for the reading of a 
    letter in debate, and no reservation of objection is made as to the 
    contents of

[[Page 11284]]

    the letter, a subsequent objection may not be made that the letter 
    is irrelevant to the pending subject.

    On July 28, 1939,(7) Chairman Virgil M. Chapman, of 
Kentucky, ruled that where unanimous consent was granted for the 
reading of a letter, a subsequent point of order that the letter was 
not pertinent to the pending subject came too late:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 10368, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abe] Murdock of Utah (interrupting the reading of the 
    letter): Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman 
    from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] did not get consent to proceed out of 
    order, and when he asked that the letter be read, I assumed it was 
    pertinent to the debate here on the pending bill. I now make the 
    point of order that it is not.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan obtained unanimous 
    consent that the letter be read, and stated the name of the person 
    who wrote the letter. The point of order is overruled.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, he did not 
    state the purport or intent of the letter.

        The Chairman: All the gentleman from Michigan said was that it 
    was a letter written by a former Member from New York, Mr. 
    O'Conner, and asked unanimous consent that it be read by the Clerk. 
    That unanimous consent was granted.
        Mr. Murdock of Utah: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Murdock of Utah: Does not a Member have the right to assume 
    that when a unanimous-consent request is made to have a letter 
    read, that the letter is pertinent to the debate being carried on 
    at the time on the floor?
        The Chairman: Any member of the Committee had the right, when 
    the request was made, to reserve the right to object and to 
    interrogate the gentleman from Michigan as to the contents of the 
    letter.

Reading Parliamentary Rules

Sec. 80.3 It is in order in debate on a point of order to read a 
    parliamentary rule relevant thereto without obtaining the consent 
    of the House.

    On July 16, 1935,(8) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, in 
debating a point of order read one of the standing rules of the United 
States Senate. Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, objected to the 
reading of the rule on the grounds that Mr. Blanton could not read from 
any document or from any other papers. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, overruled the objection and stated that the reading of the 
rule was for the ``information of the Chair.'' (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 79 Cong. Rec. 11262, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. See also 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2507, 2508.

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

[[Page 11285]]

Reading Letters

Sec. 80.4 There is no rule requiring a Member to give the name of the 
    person who signed the letter he is reading under permission to 
    address the House.

    On Oct. 15, 1942,(10) Speaker Pro Tempore Schuyler Otis 
Bland, of Virginia, ruled in response to a point of order that no House 
rule required a Member who reads a letter during debate to name the 
writer thereof:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 8236, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    make the point of order that these quotations cannot be inserted in 
    the Record over an objection when they do not contain the names of 
    the persons alleged to have written them.
        Mr. [Earl] Wilson [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be 
    heard on the point of order. Every letter from which I am quoting 
    is signed by the Government employee writing the letter.
        Mr. Eberharter: Is it the intention of the gentleman to put the 
    name of the person writing the letter in the Record?
        Mr. Wilson: It is not.
        Mr. Eberharter: Then I object, unless the gentleman is willing 
    to put the names of the authors of the letters in the Record.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair does not understand that 
    there is a unanimous-consent request pending. There was a request 
    made a short time ago for the insertion of certain papers in the 
    Record. The Chair asked if there was objection, or stated ``Without 
    objection, it is so ordered'' and there was no objection. There is 
    no unanimous-consent request now pending.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    gentleman is out of order when he reads a purported letter without 
    naming the person who is supposed to have written the letter.
        Mr. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to be heard on the point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair does not know of any such 
    rule requiring a Member who is reading to state by whom the letter 
    was written.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, if the 
    Chair has not finally ruled, my understanding is that it is a 
    violation of the rules of the House to read anything which is 
    purported to come from another source without indicating the 
    particular source from which it came.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair does not know of any such 
    rule.

Reading Speeches

Sec. 80.5 If objection was made to the reading of a paper, even though 
    it be the Member's own speech, the question was put to the House 
    for determination.

    On May 23, 1935,(11) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee,

[[Page 11286]]

ruled that if an objection were made a Member could not even read his 
own remarks to the House without permission of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 79 Cong. Rec. 8094, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is there objection to the resolution being read in 
    the time of the gentleman from Minnesota?
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the reading of the resolution.
        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Then I shall read it 
    myself.
        Mr. O'Connor: The gentleman cannot do that except by unanimous 
    consent.
        Mr. Knutson: I can certainly read it myself, I submit to the 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman cannot read the resolution without 
    the consent of the House.
        Mr. Knutson: I am going to read it as a part of my remarks. It 
    would be an extraordinary ruling----
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, this is 
    the gentleman's own writing.
        The Speaker: The gentleman cannot even read his own speech if 
    anyone objects, according to the precedents.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Is that going to 
    be the ruling of the Chair?

        The Speaker: The Chair will not seek to enforce the rule unless 
    the demand is made. When demand is made, the Chair must enforce the 
    rules of the House.

    On July 18, 1935,(12) Chairman William M. Whittington, 
of Mississippi, ruled that where a Member objected to another Member's 
reading his own speech, the question must be put to the Committee of 
the Whole for a vote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 11423.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William D.] McFarlane [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    the further point of order. The gentleman is reading his speech, 
    and I want the House to pass on whether we have got to listen to 
    such remarks.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: I make the point of 
    order that that question was raised several days ago, and the House 
    made the decision itself.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas objects to the gentleman 
    from New York reading his speech. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Snell] makes the point that the House passed on this very question. 
    The Chair is of the opinion that the House, on the occasion 
    referred to, passed on a specific case and not generally. The 
    question is, Will the Committee permit the gentleman from New York 
    to continue reading his speech?
        The question was taken; and the Committee decided to allow the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Reed] to proceed.
        Thereupon Mr. Reed completed his speech, and was given 
    permission to revise and extend his remarks.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 434 (1995): ``A 
        Member has not a right even to read his own speech, committed 
        to writing, without leave. This also is to prevent an abuse of 
        time, and therefore is not refused but where that is 
        intended.''

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

[[Page 11287]]

Yielding Time to Member To Read Paper

Sec. 80.6 A Member with the floor who yields time to another to read a 
    paper does not necessarily lose his right to the floor.

    On Apr. 25, 1947, Chairman Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, ruled 
that the Member with the floor could yield to another for the reading 
of a paper, not to be voted upon, without losing his right to the 
floor: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 4086, 4087, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Helen Gahagan] Douglas [of California]: Mr. Chairman, 
    will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: I yield to the gentlewoman 
    from California.
        Mrs. Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from a 
    statement made by the Secretary of the Interior.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: The gentleman from New York has yielded the floor.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York still has the floor. 
    He is standing at attention, with the gentlewoman beside him.
        Mrs. Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I wish to quote a statement made by 
    the Secretary of the Interior which clearly states what has been 
    done in this bill.

--Permission To Read Paper Does Not Extend Time

Sec. 80.7 Where any Member objected to the reading in debate of a paper 
    on which the House was not called to vote (and no point of order 
    lay against the reading of the paper because of its content under 
    other rules or precedents), the Chair put the question pursuant to 
    Rule XXX whether the paper might be read; but the consent of the 
    House for the Member to read the paper, once granted, only 
    permitted the Member seeking such permission to read as much of the 
    paper as possible in the time yielded or allotted to that Member, 
    and did not necessarily grant permission to read or insert the 
    entire document.

    On Mar. 1, 1979,(15) during consideration of House 
Resolution 142 (to expel Charles C. Diggs, Jr.) in the House, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 3746-48, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged 
    resolution (H. Res. 142) and ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page 11288]]

        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 142

            Resolved, That Charles C. Diggs, Jr., a Representative from 
        the Thirteenth District of Michigan, is hereby expelled from 
        the House of Representatives. . . .

        Mr. [M. Caldwell] Butler [of Virginia]: . . . I will tell you . 
    . . that I have read the testimony of Charles Diggs under oath 
    before the court and in my opinion he affirmatively stated and 
    admitted sufficient acts to constitute grounds for his expulsion 
    to-day. . . .
        Bear in mind, I have not read the entire record. I make no 
    representation about that. I only deal with what the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Diggs) had to say on the charges against him. There 
    are 29. My time is limited. I will only deal with samples, but I 
    represent that these are fair samples. . . .
        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, the Member 
    in the well is going to attempt to read from 
    a transcript in a trial. Ordinarily, I would have no objection to 
    that if this body had constituted itself as a body to try Mr. 
    Diggs. It has not done so. I have strenuous objections to reading 
    any portion of that transcript when this body is not so constituted 
    to receive that information. . . .
        The Speaker: (16) The gentleman objects to the 
    reading?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker; any portion 
    of the transcript, whether it is printed in the Record or not, I do 
    not care. I object to its being read before this body as presently 
    constituted.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Virginia can continue to 
    debate, but he cannot continue to read without the permission of 
    the House.
        Mr. Butler: Mr. Speaker, may I have the permission of the House 
    to read from the transcript?
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I object to granting 
    permission for the reading of the transcript.
        The Speaker: The question is: Shall the gentleman from Virginia 
    be permitted to read the document? The question is on that matter.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland demands the yeas and 
    nays.
        Those in favor of taking this by the yeas and nays will arise.
        In the opinion of the Chair, a sufficient number have arisen. 
    The yeas and nays will be ordered. . . .
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I am confused 
    as to what an ``aye'' vote and a ``no'' vote would mean. Would the 
    Chair explain it to the Members?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that an ``aye'' vote would 
    permit the document to be read, and a ``no'' vote would not permit 
    the document to be read. . . .
        The question comes now--and a sufficient number of Members have 
    risen for the ordering of the yeas and nays--as to whether or not 
    the gentleman from Virginia shall be allowed to read that document 
    from the Court at this time in this proceeding. Under normal

[[Page 11289]]

    circumstances, the Chair rules that the objection was in order, so 
    the question comes to a vote without debate. . . .
        Mr. [Lester L.] Wolff [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, does the 
    motion mean that the entire proceedings must be read, or is it 
    confined to selected portions the gentleman wants to read?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Virginia (Mr. Butler) has a prepared document, and he has been 
    allotted 8 minutes by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright). He 
    could read as much of the document as he has within those 8 
    minutes.

Use of Video in Floor Debate

Sec. 80.8 A Member having been denied permission to utilize a Betamax 
    video telecasting machine on the floor of the House during a 
    special order to communicate statements made by non-Members of the 
    House, informed the House of the Speaker's denial of his request 
    (which was based upon precedents prohibiting non-Members from 
    participating in debate).

    On Feb. 11, 1980,(17) Guy Vander Jagt, of Michigan, was 
recognized in the House and made a statement as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 2596, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House, 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Vander Jagt) is recognized for 60 
    minutes.
        (Mr. Vander Jagt asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks.)
        Mr. Vander Jagt: . . . The National Republican Congressional 
    Committee, of which I am chairman, and the National Republican 
    Committee have prepared a nationwide television advertising 
    campaign which addresses these three issues and presents Republican 
    solutions to these problems which the people feel so acutely.
        Madam Speaker, I have taken this special order and requested of 
    the Speaker permission to bring a Betamax onto the floor so that 
    our colleagues would be able to see exactly what these commercials 
    are saying. The Speaker did not see fit to grant that request but 
    scripts of the commercials are at the desk. . . .