[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§ 81. Voting on Permission To Read Papers]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11289-11293]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
               J. READING PAPERS AND DISPLAYING EXHIBITS
 
Sec. 81. Voting on Permission To Read Papers

    Rule XXX, which formerly required unanimous consent for the reading 
of papers if objection was made, has been rewritten to apply to the use 
of exhibits rather than the reading of papers.(18) 
Procedures under the former rule were as follows: where objection was 
made to the reading of a paper in debate, the question was put on the 
reading by the Speaker or Chairman.(19) The question was

[[Page 11290]]

put without debate,(20) and could be determined in the same 
manner as any other proposition before the House or Committee of the 
Whole.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See the discussion in Sec. 80, supra.
19. See Sec. 81.1, infra.
20. See Sec. 81.3, infra.
 1. See Sec. 81.4, infra (voice vote and division).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Time consumed on the objection and on the vote to permit reading 
was not taken out of the time of the Member attempting to 
read,(2) but permission to read did not entitle the Member 
to more time than originally allotted.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 81.5, infra.
 3. See Sec. 81.6, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedures Under Former Rule XXX

--Putting the Question

Sec. 81.1 Where objection was made to the reading of a paper other than 
    one on which the House or the Committee of the Whole was to vote, 
    the Chair put the question to the House or Committee for 
    determination.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See, for example, 94 Cong. Rec. 3436, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 24, 
        1948; 91 Cong. Rec. 10031, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 24, 1945; 
        83 Cong. Rec. 4874, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 6, 1938; 80 Cong. 
        Rec. 3143, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 3, 1936; 79 Cong. Rec. 
        10418, 10419, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1935; and 75 Cong. 
        Rec. 3281, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 2, 1932.
            Objections to the reading of papers not to be voted upon 
        were determined by the House pursuant to Rule XXX, House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 915 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Voting; Debate

Sec. 81.2 Where objection was made to the reading of a paper, the House 
    decided the question by majority vote and not by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 24, 1945,(5) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
made a point of order against the reading of papers in debate by Mr. 
Hugh De Lacy, of Washington, and asserted that ``A Member who has the 
floor has to get unanimous consent to read.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 10031, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled that a vote of the House was 
required on an objection to such reading, and put the question to the 
House for a majority vote.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See also 94 Cong. Rec. 2479, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 10, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 81.3 Under the former practice, when objection was made to the 
    reading of a paper, it would be deter

[[Page 11291]]

    mined without debate by a vote of the House.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See, for example, 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 26, 1952 (in Committee of the Whole); 92 Cong. Rec. 1729, 
        79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 27, 1946; and 88 Cong. Rec. 8237, 
        77th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 15, 1942.
            Rule XXX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 915 (1991) provided 
        that the vote on permission to read would be taken without 
        debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 81.4 The House could by voice or division vote permit a Member to 
    continue reading a paper after objection had been made.

    On Feb. 27, 1946, objection was made to the reading by Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, of a document expressing the political doctrine 
of William Z. Foster.(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
ruled that whether the paper could be read was for the House to decide, 
and put the question to the House, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 1729, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

    On Jan. 25, 1939,(9) Speaker Pro Tempore Stephen Pace, 
of Georgia, ruled that where objection was made to a Member's reading 
his own address from a manuscript, the question must be put to the 
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 84 Cong. Rec. 796, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Regular order, Mr. Speaker. 
    The gentleman is out of order. Under the rules of the House, the 
    gentleman is not supposed to read from a manuscript. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the gentleman is 
    out of order under the rules of the House and is not supposed to 
    read his remarks in the well of the House. I ask for a ruling.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has been provided with a 
    copy of the rules of the House and refers to rule XXX, which reads:

            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. . . .

        The Chair is of the opinion that under this rule the question 
    of whether or not the gentleman from Washington shall be permitted 
    to proceed to read his own remarks must be submitted to the House.
        The question is on permitting the gentleman from Washington to 
    proceed to read his own remarks.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Schafer of Wisconsin) there were--ayes 15, noes 3.

--Charging of Time on Vote

Sec. 81.5 Where objection was made to the reading of a

[[Page 11292]]

    paper, the time consumed in voting on the question was not taken 
    out of the time of the Member attempting to read.

    On Jan. 25, 1939,(10) objection was made by Mr. John C. 
Schafer, of Wisconsin, to the reading in debate of a manuscript by Mr. 
Knute Hill, of Washington. Speaker Pro Tempore Stephen Pace, of 
Georgia, ruled that the question must be put to the House. Mr. Hill 
inquired whether time consumed on the objection and on the vote was to 
be taken out of his time and the Speaker Pro Tempore responded that it 
would not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 796, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 25, 1937,(11) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, ruled that unanimous consent granted to Mr. Ralph E. Church, 
of Illinois, to revise and extend his remarks did not include 
permission to read such extraneous matter in debate. During debate on 
the point of order, Mr. Church stated, ``Mr. Speaker, I do not want 
this taken out of my time.'' The Speaker responded, ``This will not be 
taken out of the gentleman's time.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 82 Cong. Rec. 2784-88, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Permission To Read Did Not Affect Allotted Time

Sec. 81.6 Where a Member was permitted by vote of the Committee of the 
    Whole to read a letter, he could read it only within the five 
    minutes allotted him and did not necessarily have the right to read 
    the entire letter.

    On June 26, 1952,(12) while the Committee of the Whole 
was considering amendments, under the five-minute rule, to the pending 
bill, Mr. Clinton D. McKinnon, of California, moved to strike out the 
last word. He then began reading a statement by Governor Arnall, of 
Georgia, on the subject of price control ceilings, a subject covered by 
the pending bill, H.R. 8210, the Defense Production Act Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, objected to the reading of the 
statement, and the House by teller vote permitted Mr. McKinnon to 
proceed with the reading of the letter in question. Mr. McKinnon 
commenced reading the letter, and Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, ruled that he could read only for five minutes.

        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.

[[Page 11293]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Chairman, the House decided by a teller 
    vote to permit the reading of this letter. I submit that the letter 
    should be read in its entirety; that is the point of order I make.
        The Chairman: That is not the decision made by the Committee. 
    The Committee made the decision that the gentleman could read the 
    letter within the time allotted to the gentleman of 5 minutes.
        Mr. Eberharter: I did not hear it so stated when the motion was 
    put, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question put to the Committee had nothing 
    whatsoever to do with the time to be consumed by the gentleman from 
    California. The Chair recognized the gentleman from California for 
    5 minutes; the question arose as to whether or not he could within 
    that 5 minutes time read extraneous papers.
        The point of order is overruled.

Sec. 81.7 Formerly under Rule XXX, a Member could read a paper upon 
    which the House would not vote only by permission of the House, if 
    any Member objected to that reading; and where a Member objected to 
    another Member's reading of her own written speech, the Chair put 
    the question to the House for a determination without debate.

    On Dec. 19, 1974,(13) the principle stated above was 
demonstrated in the House, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 41425, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David T.] Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. I object to the gentlewoman in the well reading her remarks 
    because she did not ask unanimous consent before she started to 
    read her remarks, and that is according to Jefferson's Manual.
        The Speaker: (14) The question is: May the 
    gentlewoman from New York read her remarks?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        The Speaker: The gentlewoman from New York may proceed.