[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§ 82. Motions; Unanimous-consent Procedures]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11293-11298]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
               J. READING PAPERS AND DISPLAYING EXHIBITS
 
Sec. 82. Motions; Unanimous-consent Procedures

    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.(15) 
Procedures under the former rule were as follows: where objection was 
made to a reading, the Speaker on his own initiative ordinarily put the 
vote on the question of whether the reading should be permitted (see 
Sec. 81, supra). Alter

[[Page 11294]]

natively, a Member could make the privileged motion that the Member 
with the floor be permitted to read or to continue 
reading.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See the discussion in Sec. 80, supra.
16. See Sec. 82.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unanimous consent could be granted for the reading of papers 
(17) and if granted precluded a further point of order that 
the paper was irrelevant.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. Sec. 82.3-82.5, infra.
18. See Sec. 82.5, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedures Under Former Rule XXX: Motions

Sec. 82.1 Where objection was made to the reading of a paper it was in 
    order to move that the Member be permitted to read it, either in 
    the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Feb. 10, 1931,(19) while the Committee of the Whole 
was considering H.R. 16969, the Navy appropriation bill, Mr. Thomas L. 
Blanton, of Texas, asked unanimous consent to read in debate various 
resolutions submitted by the American Legion. Mr. Elliott W. Sproul, of 
Illinois, objected to such reading and Chairman Frederick R. Lehlbach, 
of New Jersey, stated that such objection could be made in the 
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 74 Cong. Rec. 4544, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To read a paper in the House or in the Committee when the House 
    is in the Committee of the Whole . . . he must obtain the consent 
    of either the House or the Committee.

    Mr. William P. Connery, Jr., of Massachusetts, then moved that Mr. 
Blanton be permitted to read the paper: ``Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Blanton] be allowed to read the resolutions 
to which he referred.'' Mr. Connery made the motion to ``see what the 
sentiment of the House is on not reading American Legion resolutions.''
    The Chairman put the question on the motion and it was rejected.
    On July 15, 1932,(20) Mr. Allen T. Treadway, of 
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent to read in debate from a 
statement made to the Senate conferees on the pending conference report 
on H.R. 9642, a relief bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 15490, 15491, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Edgar Howard, of Nebraska, objected to the reading of the 
statement on the grounds that ``under the rules of the House the 
gentleman may not read an outside statement if there is objection to 
it.'' Mr. Treadway then stated that he would therefore read the

[[Page 11295]]

statement as his own statement. Mr. Howard also objected to that 
procedure, and Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, ruled that Mr. Howard 
was not entitled to read the document over objection.
    Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, then made the following 
motion:

        Mr. Speaker, I move that the gentleman from Massachusetts be 
    permitted to read the paper.

    The Speaker put the question, and the House agreed to the motion to 
permit Mr. Treadway to read the statement in debate.

Reading of Documents by Clerk

Sec. 82.2 A Member may by unanimous consent during time yielded him in 
    the Committee of the Whole have a letter read by the Clerk.

    On July 28, 1939,(1) Mr. Ulysses S. Guyer, of Kansas, 
who had the floor in the Committee of the Whole, yielded five minutes' 
debate to Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan. Mr. Hoffman immediately 
made a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 84 Cong. Rec. 10368, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, before I proceed, that 
    the Clerk may read a letter written by the former chairman of the 
    Rules Committee, Mr. John J. O'Connor, to the Vice President of the 
    United States.

    The request was granted.

Sec. 82.3 The House granted unanimous consent that the Clerk read the 
    remarks of a Member suffering from poor eyesight.

    On Apr. 16, 1942,(2) the House granted the following 
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 88 Cong. Rec. 3510, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph B.] Shannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Clerk be permitted to read my address, 
    as I cannot see very well. First, I just want to say that this is 
    an address on the subject of war by a real peace man. I have never 
    been for war in my life and I am not for war now if it could be 
    avoided. I refer in this speech to two men who served in this 
    House, a Benton and a Benton. Both Bentons to whom I refer served 
    in the House, and one of them served for 30 years in the Senate.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the Clerk will read 
    the address of the gentleman from Missouri.

Sec. 82.4 The Speaker took the floor during debate in Committee of the 
    Whole to obtain unanimous consent for the reading by the Clerk of a 
    personal letter from the President expressing views

[[Page 11296]]

    as to a bill then under consideration.

    On Nov. 20, 1969,(3) while the Committee of the Whole 
was considering H.R. 14580, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969, Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, moved to strike the last word and 
then submitted a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 35192, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I have just received a letter from President 
    Nixon. I understand the minority leader also received a letter. I 
    received it a few minutes ago. It relates to the bill pending 
    before the House. I would like to have the contents of the letter 
    read to the House so that the Members will have in mind the views 
    expressed by the President in his letter to me.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be 
    authorized to read the letter of the President of the United 
    States.

    There was no objection to the request, and the letter was read.

Sec. 82.5 Where unanimous consent is granted for the reading of a 
    letter in debate, and no reservation of objection is made with 
    respect to the contents of the letter, a point of order may not 
    subsequently be made that the letter is irrelevant to the pending 
    subject.

    On July 28, 1939,(4) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 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'Connor, 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

[[Page 11297]]

    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.

Effect of Permission To Revise and Extend

Sec. 82.6 Permission to a Member to extend his remarks and include 
    therein extraneous matter did not authorize him to read the 
    extraneous matter in debate without the consent of the House.

    On Mar. 25, 1937,(5) Mr. Ralph E. Church, of Illinois, 
was granted unanimous consent to revise and extend his remarks and ``to 
include therein excerpts from a certain letter of six paragraphs, 
extracts from court proceedings and press comments thereon.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 2784-88, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When Mr. Church began to read a newspaper editorial in debate, Mr. 
Scott W. Lucas, of Illinois, made a point of order against the reading 
and Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that the unanimous-
consent permission to revise and extend did not include permission to 
read extraneous matter in debate:

        The Chair is of the opinion the gentleman would probably have a 
    right to extend his own remarks, but he would not have a right to 
    read them now without the special permission of the House. [The 
    Speaker also cited Rule XXX of the House rules, requiring a vote of 
    the House where objection is raised to the reading of a paper.]

Unanimous Consent To Read in Committee

Sec. 82.7 Under the former practice, a Member yielded time for debate 
    in the Committee of the Whole could read certain letters and 
    telegrams with the consent of the Committee.

    On Apr. 18, 1944,(6) Chairman Warren G. Magnuson, of 
Washington, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the 
Committee of the Whole could grant permission to read certain papers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 3558, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    revise and extend my own remarks at this point in the Record. I 
    suppose permission to include letters, telegrams, and so forth, 
    including a couple of letters from Drew Pearson, I would have to 
    obtain in the House. . . .
        If I did not extend my remarks, I suppose I could read those 
    letters, could I not?
        The Chairman: If time were yielded to the gentleman from 
    Michigan, he

[[Page 11298]]

    could read them with the consent of the Committee.