[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§ 83. Certain Readings Prohibited]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11298-11303]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
               J. READING PAPERS AND DISPLAYING EXHIBITS
 
Sec. 83. Certain Readings Prohibited

    Rulings under the former version of Rule XXX,(7) which 
required a vote by the House on the reading of papers where objection 
was made, indicated that the rule did not apply to papers containing 
language subject to a point of order in the House. For example, a 
Member could not refer to Senators or to Senate proceedings and 
therefore could not read letters from Senators or reports of Senate 
proceedings.(8) Some rulings based on former Rule XXX are 
still valid under other lines of precedents. Thus a Member may not read 
documents impugning the integrity of other Members,(9) or 
reports of House committee executive proceedings not formally reported 
to the House.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XXX, which formerly required unanimous consent for the reading 
        of papers if objection was made, has been rewritten to apply to 
        the display of exhibits rather than the reading of papers. See 
        the discussion in Sec. 80, supra.
 8. See Sec. Sec. 83.2, 83.3, infra.
 9. See Sec. 83.5, infra.
10. See Sec. 83.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Papers containing prohibited references or disorderly language are 
not challenged by an objection but by a point of order or demand that 
they be taken down. The Speaker then rules whether the words in 
question are in order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 48-52, 
        supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discharge Petition Signatures

Sec. 83.1 Under the version of the Discharge Rule which was applicable 
    before the 103d Congress, while a Member had the right to look at a 
    discharge petition, he did not have the right to read to the House 
    the names signed on such petition.

    On Mar. 15, 1946,(12) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
ruled that while a Member had a right to examine a discharge petition 
on the floor of the House, he did not have the right to read the names 
contained thereon in debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 2329, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cochran: As I understand the rules of the House, it is not 
    permissible to give out anything contained in a petition on the 
    Clerk's desk until the petition has the required number of signers. 
    Then it automatically is printed in the Record with the signatures 
    thereon.

[[Page 11299]]

        The Speaker: It is certainly a violation of the rules to do 
    that.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: I have not given out 
    anything. Do not get excited. I merely asked for the petition. I 
    have a right to look at it, as a Member of the House.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has the right to look at it but he 
    does not have the right to read any of the names on the petition.

Communications from Senators

Sec. 83.2 It is not in order in debate for a Member to read a letter 
    from a member of the Senate.

    On May 25, 1937,(13) while the Committee of the Whole 
was considering House Joint Resolution 361, for relief appropriations, 
Mr. Alfred F. Beiter, of New York, stated his intention to read from 
letters he had from members of the Senate, stating their sympathy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 5013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman John J. O'Connor, of New York, made a point of order, on 
his own responsibility, against ``the reading of a letter from a member 
of another body.''

Reference to Senate Proceedings

Sec. 83.3 It has been held not in order to read the proceedings of the 
    Senate or the remarks of a Senator, whether printed in the 
    Congressional Record or reported elsewhere.

    On May 11, 1932,(14) Mr. Fred A. Britten, of Illinois, 
called the attention of the House to an extract from the Congressional 
Record of Senate proceedings. Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the 
point of order that it was a violation of the rules of the House to 
refer to any proceedings of the Senate or any speeches made in the 
Senate in House debate. Mr. Charles L. Underhill, of Massachusetts, 
objected that ``there is no rule that prevents a Member from reading 
from the Record any matter published therein.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 10019, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman Gordon Browning, of Tennessee, ruled that a Member of the 
House could not in any way in debate on the floor of the House comment 
on the actions, speeches, or proceedings of a Senator or of the Senate 
itself. In response to a question by Mr. Underhill, the Chairman stated 
that the rules also prohibited a Member from reading from the Record 
matter published therein by the Senate.
    Mr. Britten then attempted to quote from newspaper reports of

[[Page 11300]]

the Senate speech to which he had referred, and the Chairman ruled that 
Mr. Britten could not refer to newspaper reports of Senate proceedings.
    Additional debate on the subject occurred, and the Chairman 
reiterated his ruling that under the rules a Member of the House could 
not read extracts from the Congressional Record of Senate proceedings. 
Mr. Britten entered an appeal from the decision of the Chair, but then 
withdrew his appeal after the then Speaker of the House, Mr. William B. 
Bankhead, of Alabama, took the floor to support the correctness of the 
ruling of the Chair.
    On Feb. 20, 1933,(15) Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, 
indicated his intention to quote from a speech made by a Senator in the 
Senate and printed in the Congressional Record. Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, made the point of order that Mr. Rainey could not so refer 
to a member of the Senate. Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, sustained 
the point of or-der and ruled that ``A Member of the House could not 
refer to a Senator and quote what he said.'' (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 76 Cong. Rec. 4508, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
16. For more detailed discussion of the prohibition against referring 
        in debate to the Senate or to individual Senators, see Sec. 44, 
        supra.
            For Senate references to House proceedings, see Sec. 46, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Session Committee Proceedings

Sec. 83.4 If a committee has not voted to make the proceedings of an 
    executive session public, it is not in order in debate to read or 
    quote from the minutes thereof.

    On Apr. 5, 1967,(17) during debate on a resolution 
funding the Committee on Science and Astronautics, Mr. Joe D. 
Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, a member of the committee, began 
referring to proceedings of the committee and quoting dialogue from a 
session thereof. Mr. John W. Wydler, of New York, whose words were 
being quoted, stated a point of order that quotation in debate of 
minutes of an executive committee session was improper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 8411, 8412, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as follows:

        The Chair would like to inquire of either the gentleman from 
    Louisiana or the gentleman from Texas whether the gentleman from 
    Louisiana is reading from the executive session record? . . .
        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague of Texas: Mr. Speaker, it is my 
    remembrance that what he is quoting was what took place at an 
    executive session.

[[Page 11301]]

        The Speaker: The Chair would like to make the further inquiry 
    as to whether or not the members in the executive session voted to 
    make public what took place in the executive session?
        Mr. Teague of Texas: It is my memory that we did not vote on 
    that and it was not discussed.
        The Speaker: The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from 
    Louisiana that he refrain from referring to what took place in the 
    executive session.

Papers Impugning Members

Sec. 83.5 It is not in order in debate to read papers impugning the 
    motives or attacking the personality of other Members.

    On June 16, 1947,(18) Mr. Chet Holifield, of California, 
read in the House a telegram from the Southern Conference on Human 
Welfare. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a point of order 
against certain words in the telegram and demanded that they be taken 
down: ``We completely repudiate the lies and half-truths of the report 
that was issued and consider it un-American.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 93 Cong. Rec. 7065, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the 
words objected to, referring to the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, were unparliamentary, since they ``reflect upon the 
character and integrity of the membership of a committee.'' The words 
were stricken by motion from the Congressional Record.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. For detailed discussion of improper references to other Members in 
        debate, see Sec. Sec. 53 et seq., supra.
            Where a Member reads a paper by consent of the House, he is 
        not thereby entitled to read language which is in itself 
        disorderly. Such a reference is subject to the demand that 
        words in debate be taken down and is subject to a ruling by the 
        Speaker (see Sec. Sec. 61-66, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 83.6 Clause 1 of Rule XIV, requiring Members to ``avoid 
    personality'' during debate, prohibits references in debate to 
    newspaper accounts used in support of a Member's personal criticism 
    of a sitting Member in a way which would be unparliamentary if 
    uttered on the floor as the Member's own words; and the prohibition 
    against reading in debate of press accounts which are personally 
    critical of a sitting Member does not constitute ``censorship'' of 
    the press by the House, but rather is consistent with House rules 
    which preclude debate or insertions in the Record which engage in 
    ``personality.''

[[Page 11302]]

    On Feb. 25, 1985,(20) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 3344-46, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Un-der a previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is 
    recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam B. Hall, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I am going to 
    insert in the Record today and read into the Record several 
    editorials, one from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution 
    yesterday, Sunday, February 24, and one this morning from the Wall 
    Street Journal, both of them talking about the tragic situation in 
    which the Democratic leadership has blocked Mr. McIntyre of Indiana 
    from being seated. . . .

            Yet twice the House has voted to deny McIntyre the seat 
        while it investigates. . . .
            The technicalities aside, the case is interesting for what 
        it says about the Congress. . . . In the second vote only five 
        Democrats dared abandon O'Neill and the leadership.
            Georgia's Democrats went right along with the herd, in 
        defiance of basic decency. . . . A few Republicans near each 
        election try to remind voters that the Democrats' first vote 
        will be for O'Neill and that vote signals bondage. This year it 
        meant the abandonment of fairness. . . .

        Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman has not asked me to 
    yield, and I was in fact making an inquiry myself to the Chair. I 
    was asking the Chair to rule in this sort of setting if one is 
    reporting to the House on the written opinion of a columnist in 
    which the columnist has said very strong things, is it appropriate 
    for the House to be informed of this and, if so, what is the 
    correct procedure?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The ruling of the Chair is that the 
    gentleman should not read into the Record things which would 
    clearly be outside the rules of this House. . . .
        Mr. Gingrich: Let me continue to ask the Chair, because I am a 
    little confused, in other words, if a columnist writing in the 
    largest newspaper in the State of Georgia says very strong things 
    about his concern about the House's behavior, would the House in 
    effect censor a report of that concern?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: No; the House does not censor any 
    report of that kind. The gentleman does take the responsibility, 
    however, for words uttered on the floor, and he is certainly 
    capable of leaving out those items which he knows would be outside 
    the rules of this House. . . .
        Mr. Gingrich: If I may continue a moment to ask the gentleman, 
    if we are in a situation where in the view of some people, such as 
    Mr. Williams of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, very strong 
    things are legitimately being said, and this is obviously his 
    viewpoint, what is the appropriate manner in which to report his 
    language to the House?
        That is not me saying these things; he is saying these things.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman knows the rules of the 
    House, I am certain, and he can take

[[Page 11303]]

    out or delete any thing that he knows would violate the rules of 
    this House if spoken from the floor.
        Mr. Gingrich: Under the Rules of the House . . . if one were to 
    only utter the words on the floor that were appropriate, but were 
    to then insert the item in the Record, is the Record then edited by 
    the House? That is, if it was put in as an extension of remarks or 
    put in under general leave?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: As the gentleman knows, there are 
    precedents where a question of privilege can be raised about 
    certain things inserted in the Record, and those could be raised if 
    the gentleman attempts to insert them into the Record, or not. . . 
    .
        As the gentleman knows, words spoken on the floor of the House 
    can be objected to.

    The following exchange took place on Feb. 27, 1985: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 131 Cong. Rec. 3902, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: . . . I came to the 
    floor [to] suggest that it is important that we have a balanced 
    opportunity to discuss these issues. . . . I simply think it is 
    important that we observe the rules of the House in the course of 
    debate, and I think the two gentlemen, Mr. Walker and Mr. Gingrich, 
    know that it is not permissible under long-standing rules of the 
    House and interpretations of the Parliamentarians . . . to read 
    into the Record statements that would be inappropriate if made by a 
    Member directly. . . .
        I just wanted to make the point that these gentlemen in the 
    well and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) know the 
    rules very well. They are very skilled at them and they know that 
    it is inappropriate to use a newspaper article, however widely 
    published, to violate the rules of the House.

Sec. 83.7 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that a question of the privileges of the House could be raised 
    against the insertion in the Record of a press account using 
    language personally offensive against a sitting Member, whether 
    uttered by a former Member or anyone else.

    The proceedings of Feb. 25, 1985, relating to newspaper articles 
sought to be inserted in the Record by Mr. Newton L. Gingrich, of 
Georgia, are discussed in Sec. 83.6, supra.