[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[A. Introductory; Initiating Consideration and Debate]
[Â§ 1. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9413-9426]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
        A.  INTRODUCTORY;  INITIATING  CONSIDERATION  AND DEBATE
 
Sec. 1. In General


    The principles of consideration and debate are the cornerstone on 
which the orderly proceedings of the House of Representatives are 
based. The rules and the body of precedent governing consideration and 
debate not only protect the right of individual Members to freely 
express themselves but also serve to expedite the business of the House 
and its committees.
    Many of the rules of the House relating to consideration and debate 
are unique to that body; the House has refined and modified its rules 
over the years so as to accommodate the needs and responsibilities of 
435 Members. And many of the same principles laid down on the subject 
by Thomas Jefferson in 1801 still govern consideration and debate in 
the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The provisions of Jefferson's Manual govern the procedures of the 
        House where applicable, pursuant to Rule XLII, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 938 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This chapter takes up the subject of consideration and debate in 
its broadest sense, including the general rules and principles as well 
as those specific procedures governing particular questions and 
motions.
    This chapter excludes precedents on questions and motions which are 
exhaustively treated elsewhere. For example, the secondary motions, 
such as the motion for the previous question and to lay on the table, 
and the special motions, such as to discharge a committee and to 
suspend the rules, occupy other portions of this work. The general and 
most important principles concerning debate on those questions are 
summarized herein, but the complete body of precedents on those 
questions may be found in their relevant chapters and 
sections.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. For discussion of secondary motions (postpone, lay on table, 
        previous question, refer, recommit, reconsider), see Ch. 23, 
        supra. For the motion to suspend the rules, see Ch. 21, supra; 
        for the motion to discharge a committee, see Ch. 18, supra.
            Note: This chapter discusses significant precedents and 
        changes in House procedures in Congresses as recent as the 
        104th Congress, but treatment of the precedents should be 
        considered comprehensive only through the 100th Congress. For 
        more complete coverage of recent Congresses, the reader is 
        advised to consult the current edition of the House Rules and 
        Manual, including the annotations to the rules; and the current 
        edition of Deschler-Brown, Procedure in the U.S. House of 
        Representatives.

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

[[Page 9414]]

                            Cross References
Congressional Record as the official record of debates, see Ch. 5, 
    supra.
Consideration and debate before the adoption of rules, see Ch. 1, 
    supra.
Consideration in conference committees, see Ch. 33, infra.
Consideration in House committees, see Chs. 16, 17, supra.
Debate in party caucus or conference, see Ch. 3, supra.
Immunity of Members for speech and debate, see Ch. 7, supra.
Participation in debate by Delegates and Resident Commissioner, see Ch. 
    7, supra.
Speakers presiding over and participating in debate, see Ch. 6, supra.

                         Collateral References
Consideration and debate through 1936, see the following chapters in 
    Hinds' Precedents and Cannon's Precedents: Ch. 4 (debate before 
    adoption of rules); Ch. 46 (Speaker's power of recognition); Ch. 
    107 (Committee of the Whole); Ch. 110 (consideration in House as in 
    the Committee of the Whole); Ch. 111 (the question of 
    consideration); Ch. 112 (conduct of debate in the House); Ch. 113 
    (references in debate to committees, the President, or the other 
    House); Ch. 114 (disorder in debate); Ch. 115 (debate in Committee 
    of the Whole); Ch. 116 (reading of papers); Ch. 124 (dilatory 
    motions).
Debate in the Senate, see Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure, 716-797, S. 
    Doc. No. 101-28, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. (1992).
Debate in the House of Commons of Great Britain, see Erskine May's 
    Parliamentary Practice, 392-487, 17th ed., Butterworth & Co. Ltd. 
    (London 1964).                          -------------------

Who May or May Not Participate in Debate

Sec. 1.1 The Speaker has on numerous occasions taken the floor and 
    participated in debate.

    The Speaker has relinquished the chair and taken the floor for 
debate in the House (3) and has participated in debate in 
the 
Committee of the Whole.(4) The Speaker has taken the floor, 
for example, in opposition to a provi

[[Page 9415]]

sion in a special rule from the Committee on Rules,(5) in 
opposition to a motion to strike out the enacting clause of a 
bill,(6) to offer an amendment in the Committee of the 
Whole,(7) when yielded time by another Member speaking under 
a special order,(8) and to deliver remarks on a 
nonlegislative matter.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See, for example, 104 Cong. Rec. 18942, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 
        21, 1958; 105 Cong. Rec. 15339, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 10, 
        1959; 105 Cong. Rec. 17237, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 27, 
        1959.
 4. See, for example, 104 Cong. Rec. 11765, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        19, 1958; 106 Cong. Rec. 14090, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 23, 
        1960; 106 Cong. Rec. 18734, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 31, 1960.
 5. 90 Cong. Rec. 5465, 5471, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 7, 1944.
 6. 98 Cong. Rec. 1829, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 4, 1952.
 7. 101 Cong. Rec. 3204, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 18, 1955; 102 Cong. 
        Rec. 7212, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 27, 1956.
 8. 104 Cong. Rec. 5854, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 31, 1958.
 9. 108 Cong. Rec. 285, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 16, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.2 Delegates and the Resident Commissioner may 
    debate any matter in the House.

    On Aug. 4, 1954,(10) the oath was administered to 
Delegate-elect Mary Elizabeth Pruett Farrington, of Hawaii. Immediately 
after being sworn, Mrs. Farrington was recognized to address the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 100 Cong. Rec. 13282, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 7, 1969, the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, Jorge 
Luis Cordova, objected to the consideration of a bill on the Private 
Calendar and the bill was recommitted, one other objection having been 
made.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 28801, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. For the rights in debate 
        of the Delegate and Resident Commissioner, see Ch. 7, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.3 A Member-elect, asked to stand aside when the oath was 
    administered to other Members, was, by unanimous consent, permitted 
    to participate in debate on a resolution relating to his right to 
    be sworn.

    On Jan. 10, 1967,(12) at the convening of the 90th 
Congress, the right to be sworn of Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New 
York, was challenged. During debate on House Resolution 1, relating to 
the right of Mr. Powell to be sworn, Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
asked unanimous consent that Mr. Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, be 
permitted to yield time for debate to Mr. Powell, notwithstanding the 
fact that Mr. Powell had not taken the oath of office. There was no 
objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Powell made the following remarks:

        My beloved colleagues with whom I have served for 24 years: I 
    know this

[[Page 9416]]

    is an agonizing moment for all of you. I know if you could vote on 
    a secret ballot, your vote would be different from what you have 
    proclaimed publicly, because you know I have been here 24 years, 
    and he who is without sin should cast the first stone. There is no 
    one here who does not have a skeleton in his closet. I know, and I 
    know them by name.  . .
        Gentlemen, my conscience is clean. My case is in God's hands. 
    All I hope is that you have a good sleep tonight.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 23.
            See Chs. 1 and 2, supra, for detailed discussion of the 
        rights in debate of Members-elect. For further treatment of the 
        Powell case, see Ch. 12, supra.
            See House Rules and Manual (Jefferson's Manual) Sec. 376 
        (1995) for the principle that where the private interests of a 
        Member are concerned in a matter being considered he should 
        withdraw and refrain from debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.4 Certain contestees (sitting Members of the House) in an 
    election contest were present on the floor during the consideration 
    of the resolution dismissing the contest; and while they did not 
    participate in debate, they did insert their remarks in the Record 
    in explanation of their position.

    On Sept. 17, 1965,(14) the House agreed to House 
Resolution 585, with an amendment, dismissing an election contest 
against the delegation of Representatives-elect from Mississippi. 
During debate on the resolution, the contestees, who had been seated by 
the House, were present on the floor but did not actually participate 
in the debate. They did however insert in the Record remarks in 
explanation of their position:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 24290, 24291, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I am 
    sure that it is not necessary to point out here that this is not a 
    very pleasant situation in which your Mississippi delegation finds 
    itself today. While we do not entertain the slightest doubt about 
    the ultimate outcome, we find little comfort in the knowledge that 
    this alleged contest has serious political implications on a 
    national basis. At the same time, we must be realistic enough to 
    recognize the facts of political life. We must take cognizance of 
    the conflict of the political philosophy of ourselves and the 
    handful here in the House leading the fight as well as those behind 
    them. We must also take into consideration the tremendous pressure 
    that has been brought upon the membership of this House by outside 
    influences. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: I wish to say we all 
    are deeply indebted to those of our friends who were helpful in 
    handling of this matter before the committee and in voting to 
    dismiss the pending challenge. In that connection, I would like at 
    this point to show for the permanent record that none of the so-
    called contestants were

[[Page 9417]]

    candidates in the 1964 elections. In fact, three of them were 
    candidates in the Democratic primary which, under section 3129 of 
    the Mississippi Code, would bind them to support the nominee of the 
    primary and would make them ineligible to be candidates in the 
    general election in November.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 24285, 24287. The election contest was unique in that 
        the seats of all the Members-elect from Mississippi were being 
        contested on the ground of denial of voting rights within the 
        state. The contestants had been allowed the privilege of the 
        floor but not of participation in debate during the 
        consideration of the resolution. See clause 1, Rule XXXII for 
        floor privileges of contestants in election cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.5 Members of the Senate have the privilege of the House floor, 
    but they do not have the privilege of being recognized to address 
    the House.

    On Oct. 11, 1943,(16) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
declined to recognize Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, for the 
unanimous-consent consideration of a resolution inviting Senators 
returned from the warfront to address the House while in session. The 
Speaker stated that the resolution introduced by Mr. Rankin (H. Res. 
319) would be referred to the proper committee (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 8197, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Rankin inquired of the Speaker whether the House did not have 
the right to invite Senators to address the House. The Speaker 
responded:

        Members of the Senate have the privilege of the floor, but they 
    do not have the privilege of addressing the House of 
    Representatives.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The statement of a Senator may not be inserted in House proceedings 
        carried in the Congressional Record. See 108 Cong. Rec. 291, 
        87th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 16, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.6 Former Members of the House, while having the privilege of the 
    floor under the rules, may not manifest approbation or disapproval 
    of what is said on the floor.

    On Dec. 20, 1932,(18) Mr. William H. Stafford, of 
Wisconsin, made the point of order that a former Member of the House 
presently on the floor had no right 
to applaud the remarks of the Speaker. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, sustained the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 76 Cong. Rec. 761, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman has properly raised a question of order. The 
    Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian that although the gentleman 
    referred to is entitled to the privilege of the floor it is a 
    violation of the rules for him to indulge in approbation or 
    disapproval of what may be said upon the floor.

Sec. 1.7 Where a Member suggested that the Parliamen

[[Page 9418]]

    tarian state a rule of the Senate, the Speaker Pro Tempore 
    suggested that the Chair was conversant with the views of the 
    Parliamentarian and would answer the inquiry.

    On May 24, 1950,(19) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of privilege of the House, based on remarks 
reflecting upon a Senator and delivered in House debate and printed in 
the Record. During discussion of the rule 
of comity between the Houses, Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 96 Cong. Rec. 7635-37, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.

        Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Reed of New York: Mr. Speaker, it might clarify matters a 
    little if our Parliamentarian would state what the Senate rule is.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is sure the gentleman does 
    not want to put the Parliamentarian in the embarrassing position of 
    making such a statement. The Chair is very conversant with the 
    views of our able 
    and outstanding Parliamentarian. The Chair, recognizing his great 
    knowledge, ability, and logic, has been following the suggestions 
    and advice of our Parliamentarian very carefully.

Debate in Informal Session

Sec. 1.8 The chairman of a select committee and a member thereof asked 
    Members to remain in the Chamber after adjournment so that such 
    committee could present some facts unwise to present publicly.

    On Jan. 19 and 20, 1943,(20) members of a select 
committee requested that Members remain in the Chamber after 
adjournment in order to discuss matters related to the war effort which 
should not be publicly discussed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 89 Cong. Rec. 240-49, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to proceed for 30 seconds.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Is there objection?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Hinshaw: Mr. Speaker, I am taking this time at the 
    suggestion of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Nichols) to remind 
    the Members of the House that following the adjournment of the 
    House today the members of the Select Committee to Investigate Air 
    Accidents would like to present to them some facts we feel it is 
    unwise to present publicly. Therefore, if Members will do us the 
    honor of remaining quite a little while after the session, we will 
    be pleased, and I think they will hear some things in which they 
    will be greatly interested themselves.

[[Page 9419]]

        Mr. [Richard M.] Kleberg [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Kleberg: Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of 
    reminding gentlemen that tomorrow, immediately after the business 
    on the Speaker's desk is disposed of, the committee appointed by 
    the Congress under H.R. 125 will meet during an informal recess 
    with the membership of the House, in executive session, to give you 
    some facts which perforce, because of wartime emergencies, could 
    not be put into our final report. There are many vital matters that 
    the committee does not desire to withhold from the membership of 
    the House, and we are taking the House not only into our full 
    confidence, but we assure Members that we have some things to tell 
    them which we feel they must know, and we hope there will be a good 
    attendance.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. But see Sec. 11.14, infra, where the Speaker indicated he would not 
        recognize for a unanimous-consent request that an off-the-
        record meeting of Members, to discuss the war situation, be 
        held in the House Chamber, the meeting having previously been 
        scheduled for the auditorium of the Library of Congress. Under 
        clause 3 of Rule I, the Speaker controls the Hall of the House 
        after adjournment and would in all cases need to give 
        permission for a closed discussion in the Chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The House has rarely utilized the secret 
session rule (Rule XXIX); the House and not the Committee of the Whole 
determines whether to go into executive session.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See generally House Rules and Manual Sec. 914 (1995). For the 
        statement of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole that 
        determinations as to secret sessions were within the province 
        of the House and not the Committee, see 96 Cong. Rec. 6746, 
        81st Cong. 2d Sess., May 9, 1950. For further discussion of 
        secret sessions generally, see Sec. 85, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.9 Portions of the Senate debate on the antiballistic missile 
    program were conducted in closed session, pursuant to Senate Rule 
    XXXV.

    On July 17, 1969,(4) the Senate was conducting debate on 
the antiballistic ``safeguard'' program with Vice President Spiro T. 
Agnew presiding. Portions of the debate were conducted in closed 
session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 19848-74, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stuart] Symington [of Missouri]: Mr. President, under rule 
    XXXV, I move that the Senate doors be closed, and that the 
    Presiding Officer direct that the galleries be cleared.
        The Vice President: Is the motion seconded?
        Mr. [Michael J.] Mansfield [of Montana]: I second the motion.
        The Vice President: The motion having been made and seconded 
    that the Senate go into closed session, the

[[Page 9420]]

    Chair, pursuant to rule XXXV, now directs the Sergeant at Arms to 
    clear the galleries, close the doors of the Chamber, and exclude 
    all officials of the Senate not sworn to secrecy.
        (At 12 o'clock and 3 minutes p.m., the doors of the Chamber 
    were closed.)

    Parliamentarian's Note: On the following day, July 18, the Senate 
provided by unanimous consent for the publication of an expurgated 
transcript of the closed session.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 20115.
            See also 118 Cong. Rec. 15960-72, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., May 
        4, 1972 (Senate went into executive session to discuss National 
        Security Study Memorandum No. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes of Reporters of Debates

Sec. 1.10 Inquiries concerning the parliamentary situation on the floor 
    are properly directed to the Chair, and it is not in order for a 
    Member to request that the notes of the official reporters be read 
    to ascertain what motions have been put by the Chair.

    On May 22, 1968,(6) the House had agreed to a conference 
report on S. 5, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, without debate. 
Disagreement arose as to whether the question on the report had been 
put, and Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded to an 
inquiry as to whether a Member could demand that the notes of the 
reporters be read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 114 Cong. Rec. 14402-04, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to vacate the proceedings by which the House adopted the 
    conference report on the bill (S. 5) to assist in the promotion of 
    economic stabilization by 
    requiring the disclosure of finance charges in connection with 
    extension of credit.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        Mr. [William L.] Hungate [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, all Members were notified this measure would 
    be before the House today as the first order of business. This 
    legislation has been before this body for 8 years. Objection should 
    have been made before the vote was taken.
        Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, so that the 
    record is crystal clear, I request that the notes of the reporter 
    be reread to the Members.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that has never been done 
    before so far as the knowledge of the Chair is concerned.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that a 
    circumstance like this has ever happened before, either. Inasmuch 
    as it is important to know whether the gentleman from Texas moved--
    or just what transpired--I

[[Page 9421]]

    think it would be very helpful to all of us if we could have the 
    reporter's notes reread at this time. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will suggest that the Members can carry 
    on their colloquy but the position of the Chair is clear--the 
    gentleman from Texas called up the conference report and had asked 
    that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be read 
    and after the Clerk had proceeded to read the statement, the 
    gentleman from Texas asked unanimous consent that the further 
    reading of the statement of the managers on the part of the House 
    be dispensed with and that it be placed in the Record.
        The gentleman from Texas was standing and the Chair rose and 
    said--``The question is on agreeing to the conference report.'' The 
    Chair did it deliberately--and the report was agreed to. The Chair 
    acted most deliberately.

Sec. 1.11 Demonstrations and applause are not a part of the proceedings 
    of the House, and the Speaker has directed the reporters of debates 
    to refrain from inserting in the Record indications of applause 
    during normal House proceedings.

    On Mar. 6, 1945,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
discussed his rulings that applause and other manifestations of 
audience approval are not a part of the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 1789, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Now, Mr. Speaker, if the 
    rule is going to be applied to one, it should be applied to all. 
    When we make these 1-minute speeches, I submit we ought to have 1 
    minute apiece, no more and no less.
        Now, there is another question I have been thinking I would 
    raise. I propound another parliamentary inquiry at this time. Some 
    time ago the Official Reporters of Debates ceased to take down the 
    demonstrations that are made in the course of debate, the only 
    parliamentary body in the world that prints a Record in which that 
    has been done, that I have been able to find. I occasionally get 
    the Record of the British House of Parliament. I read it and in 
    these trying times there is applause, cheers, their cries of 
    ``hear, hear,'' laughter, and other demonstrations that are made. 
    You get the Record of the United States Senate and, as a rule, they 
    do not have probably so many there to applaud, but when there is 
    applause or a demonstration, it is placed in the Record. Our 
    demonstrations have been cut out of our Record and I think it is a 
    serious mistake because now a man can make a speech and extend his 
    remarks and you have no indication as to where his speech left off 
    and where his extension of remarks begins. I know it has been 
    contended by a few Members in the House that the extension of those 
    demonstrations in the Record have been abused. But that was done 
    very seldom, and where the Member did abuse that privilege by 
    inserting laughter or applause he has been subjected to the most 
    drastic criticism and ridicule and, as a rule, has never attempted 
    it again.
        I submit that from this time on I, for one, am going to insist 
    that whatever

[[Page 9422]]

    demonstrations are made on the floor of the House during debate be 
    reported by the Official Reporters of Debates as it was for more 
    than 140 years. Then if a Member desires to strike it out, and has 
    permission to revise and extend his remarks, he may do so.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not intend to be facetious, but the 
    Chair would like to give the House his reaction to the expressions 
    ``Hear! Hear!'' and ``Applause'' in the Record. When I came here 32 
    years ago on Sunday last, a gentleman had been elected by a split 
    in the Republican Party in a particular State, and he had come here 
    with Democratic and Progressive votes. He made a speech in the 
    House. Whether it went into the permanent Record I do not know, but 
    I know it went into the temporary Record. It closed in this 
    fashion: ``Loud and prolonged applause among Democrats and 
    Progressives, followed by much handshaking.''
        In times past there appeared in the Record the word 
    ``Applause'' where a Member spoke. In another place there was 
    ``Loud applause.'' In another place there was ``Loud and prolonged 
    applause.'' In another place there was ``Loud and prolonged 
    applause, the Members rising.'' If I had made a speech and had 
    received ``applause,'' and some Member had followed me immediately 
    and had received ``loud and prolonged applause, the Members 
    rising,'' my opponent in the next primary might have called 
    attention to how insignificant I was because I only received 
    ``applause'' and the other Member had received ``loud and prolonged 
    applause, the Members rising.''
        The Chair has held that demonstrations in the House are not a 
    part of the Record, and shall continue to hold that until the rules 
    of the House are changed.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. For prior practice, see 78 Cong. Rec. 8043, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., May 
        3, 1934 (reporters of debates permitted to insert words 
        ``laughter and applause'' and ``applause'' when such 
        manifestation actually occurred on the floor of the House).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duty of Chair in the Senate

Sec. 1.12 The Vice President made a statement in the Senate relating to 
    the duties of the Chair in enforcing the rules of debate.

    On Feb. 28, 1949,(9) Vice President Alben W. Barkley 
delivered a statement on the rules of debate in the Senate as they 
relate to holding the floor and as to the restriction against yielding. 
He concluded his remarks with a statement on the duties of the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 1584-86, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question as to the function of the Chair in enforcing the 
    rules of the Senate without a point of order being made by another 
    Senator is one to which the present occupant of the Chair has given 
    considerable consideration. The present occupant of the Chair feels 
    it is his duty and his function in part to facilitate the prompt 
    transaction of the Senate's business. The Chair recognizes that 
    frequently one Senator may dislike to make a point of order against 
    another Senator

[[Page 9423]]

    who has the floor, even though he may be violating the rule or may 
    be yielding for a general running debate, or for other purposes, 
    because of personal relationships or other reasons. The Chair feels 
    he is obligated to the Senate insofar as he can in observance of 
    the rules and in protection of the Members of the Senate in the 
    enjoyment of their rights, to observe and enforce the rules 
    wherever he feels they are being violated.
        The Chair feels certain the Members of the Senate will 
    cooperate in the matter of keeping order in the Senate and in 
    observing the rules. The Chair wishes in no instance to have it 
    understood that any ruling he makes is directed to any particular 
    Senator who at the moment may be occupying the floor or any Senator 
    who may be seeking to interrupt another Senator who occupies the 
    floor. For that reason the Chair has felt it his duty to make this 
    preliminary statement in order that it may apply to all Senators, 
    and not to any particular Senator.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Whether the Speaker or the Chairman in the 
Committee of the Whole enforces on his own initiative a rule of debate 
depends on the nature of the rule or practice in question.

Initiating Consideration of Senate Bill

Sec. 1.13 A Senate bill cannot be taken from the Speaker's table for 
    consideration in the House by motion, unless similar to a House 
    bill previously reported and on the House Calendar under Rule XXIV 
    clause 2.

    The situation described above developed on July 31, 
1975,(10) in the House when Speaker Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, responded to several parliamentary inquiries:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 26252, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the other 
    body has passed this legislation and that it will soon be messaged 
    over to the House. My inquiry is whether or not there is any way 
    under the parliamentary procedures of the House that the bill can 
    be brought up for immediate consideration upon its receipt in the 
    House.
        The Speaker: It can be brought up only by a unanimous-consent 
    request.
        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, in that event, I ask unanimous consent 
    that when the bill is brought to the House that it be immediately 
    considered by the House.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Arizona?
        Mr. [Toby] Moffett [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, is a motion in order for the immediate 
    consideration of the bill by the House?
        The Speaker: It is not.

[[Page 9424]]

        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    Committee on Rules may have until 10 o'clock tomorrow to file a 
    resolution and report.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Arizona?
        Mr. [John] Brademas [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

Consideration by Unanimous Consent of Joint Resolution Concerning 
    Precedents

Sec. 1.14 By unanimous consent, the House considered and passed a joint 
    resolution reported from the Committee on House Administration, 
    providing for the printing and distribution of the Precedents of 
    the House, compiled by Lewis Deschler, former Parliamentarian of 
    the House.

    On Sept. 30, 1976,(11) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request to consider House Joint Resolution 1107 (providing for 
printing and distribution of Deschler's Precedents of the House of 
Representatives), as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 34220, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Brademas [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent [for the] consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 
    1107) to provide for the printing and distribution of the 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives compiled and prepared by 
    Lewis Deschler, as amended, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Indiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 1107

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) there 
        shall be printed and bound as a public document two thousand 
        sets of the Precedents 
        of the House of Representatives 
        compiled and prepared by Lewis Deschler (hereinafter in this 
        joint resolution referred to as the ``Precedents''). . . .

        With the following committee amendment:

            Page 2, line 6, strike ``Ninety-fourth'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``Ninety-fifth''.

        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
    third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.

Resolution Impeaching Government Official

Sec. 1.15 A resolution directly impeaching an officer of the

[[Page 9425]]

    United States Government may be immediately considered in the House 
    as a question of the highest privilege, but may be laid on the 
    table before debate thereon.

    On July 13, 1978,(13) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House during consideration of House Resolution 1267 (impeaching 
Andrew Young, United States ambassador to the United Nations):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 124 Cong. Rec. 20606, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lawrence P.] McDonald [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to 
    a question of the privileges of the House, and I send to the desk a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 1267), and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

            Resolved, That Andrew Young, United States Ambassador to 
        the United Nations, be impeached.

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    lay the resolution on the table.
        The Speaker: (14) The question is on the motion to 
    table offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright). The motion 
    to table is a privileged motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    293, nays 82, not voting 57, as follows: . . .

Private Calendar Bill--Unanimous-consent Request Not in Order After 
    Consideration Permitted

Sec. 1.16 During the consideration of a bill on the Private Calendar, 
    it is too late to ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed 
    over without prejudice after consideration has been permitted and 
    committee amendments to the bill adopted.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Dec. 18, 
1979:(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 36758, 36759, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 2148) for the relief of Col. 
    (Dr.) Paul A. Kelly.
        There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                                   H.R. 2148

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed

[[Page 9426]]

        to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
        appropri-ated, to Colonel (doctor) Paul A. Kelly. . . .

        With the following committee amendment:

            Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:
        That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed 
        to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
        appropriated, to Sheila M. Jackson, SSN XXX-XX-XXXX, of Lehi, 
        Utah, the sum of $30,000. . . .

    An amendment was offered:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner to the committee 
        amendment: On page 3 after line 4 add the following new 
        section:
            Sec. 2. No amount in excess of 15 per centum of the sum 
        appropriated by the first section of this Act shall be paid to 
        or received by any agent or attorney in consideration for 
        services rendered in connection with the claims described in 
        the first section. . . .

        The Speaker:(16) The Chair will ask the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin, Is this amendment to the committee amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Yes, and it 
    has been approved by the committee, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) to the committee 
    amendment.
        The amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the committee amendment, as 
    amended.
        The committee amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) desire 
    to address the amendment?
        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Not the amendment, Mr. Speaker, but 
    the bill itself.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman object to the bill?
        Mr. Harkin: I will ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
    passed over without prejudice, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's request comes too late.
        Mr. Harkin: Then, Mr. Speaker, I would oppose the amendment.
        The Speaker: The amendment has been agreed to. The committee 
    amendment as amended, has also been agreed to.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was 
    read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was 
    laid on the table.