[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[G. References to House, Committees, or Members]
[Â§ 55. References to Unreported Committee Proceedings; Discussion of Ethics Committee Deliberations]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10805-10812]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
 
Sec. 55. References to Unreported Committee Proceedings; Discussion of 
    Ethics Committee Deliberations

    Under parliamentary law and under the practice of the House, it has 
been held a breach of order in debate to refer to committee proceedings 
which have not been formally reported to the House.(3) Under 
the more modern practice, where committee meetings and hearings are 
open to the public, the rationale for not permitting floor discussion 
of committee proceedings is tenuous. However, it is still true that the 
minutes of executive committee sessions may not be read, quoted from, 
or paraphrased in debate, unless the committee has voted to make the 
minutes public.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 319, 360 
        (1995).
 4. See Sec. Sec. 55.2-55.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order must be made, however, and the Speaker does not on 
his own initiative call a Member to order for violating the 
rule.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 55.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clause 4(e)(2)(F) of Rule X requires a vote of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct to authorize the public disclosure of the 
content of a complaint or the fact of its filing. That rule applies 
only to members of that committee and its staff; however, references in 
floor debate to the content of a complaint or the fact of its filing 
are nevertheless governed by the rules of order in debate. Unlike the 
calling up of a resolution of censure, the filing of a complaint does 
not embark the House on consideration of a proposition to which such 
references would be relevant. That a complaint may be pending in its 
own right rather than only as the assertion of a Member in debate does 
not legitimize reference even to the mere fact of its pendency much 
less to its content.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. Sec. 55.8 and 55.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the House has under consideration a resolution involving the 
conduct of a Member, a wider range of debate is permitted. In the 
context of a specific legislative proposal involving censure, 
reprimand, or expulsion, or a proposal advocating an investigation of 
misconduct, the facts

[[Page 10806]]

surrounding the resolution may be discussed, but even in these 
situations debate personally offensive has not been 
permitted.                          -------------------

References Prohibited

Sec. 55.1 Where improper references are made to committee proceedings 
    not yet reported to the House, the remedy is to lodge a point of 
    order against the reference.

    On Feb. 7, 1935,(7) Mr. Sam D. McReynolds, of Tennessee, 
was discussing the manner in which the Committee on Appropriations, of 
which he was a member, had voted on H.R. 5255, an appropriations bill, 
then before the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New 
York, arose to make the point of order that Mr. McReynolds was speaking 
out of order in stating how a member of his committee voted, where the 
committee proceedings were not formally reported to the House. Chairman 
William N. Rogers, of New Hampshire, sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 79 Cong. Rec. 1690, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. McReynolds then raised a parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Chairman, when a member of a committee appears before this 
    House and undertakes to state how he or she voted and says that the 
    chairman of the committee misrepresented the matter, would the 
    present occupant of the chair hold that the chairman of the 
    committee could not say what the records show?
        The Chairman: As the Chair understands it, the action to be 
    taken is to make a point of order against the statement being made 
    originally. This is the Chair's understanding of the rules.

Sec. 55.2 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,(8) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 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

[[Page 10807]]

    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.
        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.

    Similarly, on Apr. 25, 1930,(9) when Mr. S. Wallace 
Dempsey, of New York, attempted to read from the minutes of his 
committee on a certain bill, Chairman William P. Holaday, of Illinois, 
sustained a point of order that Mr. Dempsey was out of order in 
bringing to 
the House floor the minutes of 
his committee and reading from them.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 72 Cong. Rec. 7773, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
10. See also 104 Cong. Rec. 12120-22, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., June 24, 
        1958; and 72 Cong. Rec. 8931, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., May 14, 
        1930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paraphrase of Minutes

Sec. 55.3 It is not in order in debate to paraphrase the minutes of the 
    executive proceedings of a committee.

    On June 26, 1961,(11) Mr. Bruce R. Alger, of Texas, 
stated that he had an exhibit consisting of the transcript of the 
record of the Committee on Public Works in executive session. He stated 
that since reading the transcript would be a violation of the House 
rules, he intended to paraphrase it. A point of order was made that the 
paraphrasing of a transcript of an executive session as well as the 
reading of it was prohibited by House rules. Speaker Pro Tempore Wilbur 
D. Mills, of Arkansas, sustained the point of order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 107 Cong. Rec. 11233, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 8411, 8412, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 5, 
        1967; and 86 Cong. Rec. 954, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 1, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Necessity of Point of Order

Sec. 55.4 While a Member may by unanimous consent divulge matters which 
    occurred in a committee which have not been reported to the House, 
    the Chair will not interpose restrictions on such remarks absent a 
    point of order.

    On July 28, 1939,(13) Mr. Matthew A. Dunn, of 
Pennsylvania,

[[Page 10808]]

was granted unanimous consent to proceed for an additional minute. He 
proceeded to divulge matters which occurred on the previous day in the 
Committee on Labor, of which he was a member. Mr. Joseph W. Martin, 
Jr., of Massachusetts, made a point of order that Mr. Dunn could not 
divulge such matters. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
sustained the point of order, although Mr. Dunn objected that the 
Member speaking before him had similarly divulged matters occurring in 
a committee whose proceedings were not formerly reported to the House. 
The Speaker ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 10352, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gross] did divulge matters 
    which occurred before the committee, but no point of order was 
    made, and, therefore, the Chair could not act on his own 
    motion.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See also the statement of Chairman William N. Rogers (N.H.) cited 
        at Sec. 55.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reliance on Statement of Speaking Member

Sec. 55.5 The Chair may rely on the statement of a Member that he is 
    not quoting the proceedings of an executive session of a House 
    committee.

    On Feb. 1, 1940,(15) a point of order was made against 
the remarks of Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, on the grounds that he 
was quoting testimony taken before an executive meeting of a House 
committee. The following exchange then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 954, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) If the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin purports to discuss the executive proceedings of a 
    committee it will not be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keefe: I am not discussing the executive proceedings.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: But if he is just quoting on his own 
    responsibility----
        Mr. [Frank E.] Hook [of Michigan]: He has referred to the 
    testimony.
        Mr. Keefe: I am quoting on my own responsibility.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman purport to quote 
    the proceedings of a committee in executive session?
        Mr. Keefe: No.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If that is what the gentleman 
    undertakes to do, the point of order will be sustained.
        Mr. Hook: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I will have to ask, 
    then, that the remarks, if any, referring to the testimony taken in 
    the executive meeting be stricken.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: All the Chair knows is that the 
    gentleman says he is not purporting to quote the proceedings of an 
    executive session of a committee of this House. If that be true, 
    the point of order is overruled.

Reference to Committee Action Permitted

Sec. 55.6 Where a Member introduced a resolution providing

[[Page 10809]]

    for an inquiry into the actions of a House subcommittee, another 
    Member was permitted to refer to subcommittee proceedings to 
    justify his point of order that the resolution was not privileged.

    On June 30, 1958,(17) House Resolution 610, establishing 
a special committee to inquire into proceedings of the Subcommittee on 
Legislative Oversight of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce, was introduced in the House; the resolution alleged that the 
subcommittee had allowed the dissemination of defamatory testimony in 
violation of House rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 104 Cong. Rec. 12690, 12691, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, made a point of order against the 
resolution, on the ground that it was not privileged. He referred to 
the proceedings of the subcommittee, in executive session, to justify 
his point of order.
    Mr. Timothy P. Sheehan, of Illinois, arose to object to Mr. Harris' 
reference under the principle that a Member could not in debate refer 
to executive proceedings of committees and subcommittees. Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:

        . . . [H]ere is a question of privilege of the House being 
    raised by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Curtis], and in order 
    for the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Harris] to justify his point 
    of order, he has got to discuss these matters. And, they are in the 
    printed record.

Sec. 55.7 Where a question of House privilege involving the procedure 
    of a conference committee is stated in debate, it is in order to 
    state what occurred in the committee session but not in order to 
    refer in a critical way to a named Senate conferee.

    On July 29, 1935,(18) where a point of order was made 
against a Member who was discussing a question of privilege of the 
House involving the procedure of a conference committee, Speaker Joseph 
W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled that the Member could state what occurred 
in the conference committee but could not refer to or criticize a 
member of the Senate by name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 79 Cong. Rec. 12011, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

References to Matters Pending Before Committee on Standards of Official 
    Conduct

Sec. 55.8 The Chair cautioned all Members to refrain from references in 
    debate to the offi

[[Page 10810]]

    cial conduct of other Members where the Committee on Standards of 
    Official Conduct had not filed a report on the conduct of a 
    particular Member or where that Member's conduct was not the 
    subject of a question of the privilege of the House then pending 
    before the House, and similarly not to refer to the motivations of 
    Members who may have filed complaints before that committee.

    On June 14, 1988,(19) several one-minute speeches 
contained references to charges made by a Member against the Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 134 Cong. Rec. 14317, 14318, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, every Member of 
    the House should be offended by a June 10 letter sent to Members by 
    the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. That letter says, 
    ``You were apparently duped by Newt.'' It goes on to suggest, ``It 
    has become obvious his actions are generated by self-serving 
    partisan political motives.''
        That letter from the Democratic Congressional Campaign 
    Committee insults the Committee on Ethics which voted unanimously 
    to investigate the Speaker. It insults Common Cause, the Wall 
    Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and 35 
    other newspapers which have called for an investigation.
        Frankly, this House is rapidly dividing up between those who 
    favor openness, honesty and ethics and those who delay, obscure and 
    defend unethical behavior.
        The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has apparently 
    chosen to cover up rather than clean up. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Thomas of California: Mr. Speaker, I really do 
    not understand what all the controversy is over the book, if we 
    were talking about the book itself, the book, of course, being 
    ``Reflections of a Public Man.'' It only costs $6. I mean, what can 
    one buy for $6 today? Not much. That is what it is--not much. . . .
        The question is not over the book. It is over the procedures 
    involved with the book. On that point, I totally agree with the 
    Washington Post editorial this morning that said that if the 
    procedures surrounding the book are not against the rules of the 
    House of Representatives, then we ought to change the rules. . . .
        Mr. [Mervyn M.] Dymally [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I believe 
    it was last Friday that the New York Times carried a story on the 
    so-called Gingrich charges against the Speaker. In that article the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) openly admits that some of 
    the charges were not founded, but he ``just threw them in there for 
    curiosity,'' recognizing very well that it would make partisan 
    news. . . .
        The politics involved in these charges, in my judgment, are 
    shameful.

    On June 15, 1988,(20) Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas S. 
Foley, of

[[Page 10811]]

Washington, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 134 Cong. Rec. 14623, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Before the Chair recognizes the 
    distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, the Chair has an 
    announcement.
        The Chair wishes to announce that clause 1 of rule XIV prevents 
    Members in debate from engaging in ``personalities.'' Clause 4 of 
    that rule provides that if any Member transgress the rules of the 
    House, the Speaker shall, or any Member may, call him to order.
        Members may recall that on December 18, 1987, the Chair 
    enunciated the standard that debate would not be proper if it 
    attempted to focus on the conduct of a Member about whom a report 
    had not been filed by the Committee on Standards of Official 
    Conduct or whose conduct was not the subject of a privileged matter 
    then pending before the House. Similarly, the Chair would suggest 
    that debate is not proper which speculates as to the motivations of 
    a Member who may have filed a complaint before the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct against another Member.
        Thus, the Chair would caution all Members not to use the 1-
    minute period or special orders, as has already happened, to 
    discuss the conduct of Members of the House in a way that 
    inevitably engages in personalities.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A complaint against the conduct of the 
Speaker should be presented directly for the action of the House and 
not by way of debate on other matters. On one occasion, Speaker Thomas 
B. Reed, of Maine, in sustaining a call to order, stated that criticism 
of past conduct of the Chair is out of order, not because the Chair is 
above criticism but because such piecemeal criticism is not conducive 
to the good order of the House.(1) Indeed, an insult to the 
Speaker has been held to raise a question of privilege not governed by 
the ordinary rule that disorderly words, to be actionable, need be 
taken down as soon as uttered.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5188.
 2. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 55.9 Reference should not be made in debate to pending 
    investigations undertaken by the Committee on Standards of Official 
    Conduct, including suggestions of courses of action, nor should 
    critical characterizations be made 
    of members of that committee who have investigated a Member's 
    conduct.

    On Mar. 3, 1995,(3) the Chair responded to inquiries 
made about the propriety of remarks made by a Member with reference to 
certain investigations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 141 Cong. Rec. p.  ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. See also the 
        proceedings of Apr. 1, 1992 (138 Cong. Rec. p.  ____, 102d 
        Cong. 2d Sess.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, last year 
    Members

[[Page 10812]]

    of the present majority complained about the investigation by 
    Special Counsel Robert Fiske. They claimed that Fiske was a friend 
    of the White House and that his investigation of Whitewater was not 
    going far enough.
        I ask the Members of the House to consider these facts. The 
    current chairman of the House Ethics Committee cast the deciding 
    vote for the Speaker in the 1989 whip's race. The chairman of the 
    Ethics Committee seconded the nomination for Speaker this year. The 
    chairman of our Ethics Committee last year tried to help our 
    current Speaker by closing the pending Ethics Committee complaint 
    against him.
        Two other majority members of the House Ethics Committee have 
    had personal dealings with the personal PAC of the Speaker, GOPAC, 
    one of them as a contributor, and another as a recipient for his 
    reelection.
        Given these facts, I am sure those who call for a replacement 
    of Special Counsel Fiske will now join me in calling for a special 
    counsel to investigate the allegations against Speaker Gingrich, 
    and it should not take 100 days.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John T. Doolittle (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, was not the entire speech of the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], just a moment ago, out of 
    order, because it was a direct reference to Members of this body? . 
    . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not refer to pending 
    Standards Committee investigations.
        Mr. Walker: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Beyond the pending ethics investigation, he also 
    may have had personal references to the chairman of the Ethics 
    Committee. Is that also not out of order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not so refer to the 
    Standards Committee or any Members thereof.
        Mr. Walker: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. My 
    understanding is that what the gentleman has just done in the House 
    was a speech which was entirely out of order before the body; is 
    that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is responding in a general 
    way to the proper debate in the House with respect to ethics 
    investigations.
        Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Volkmer: Is the Chair ruling that it is improper for any 
    Member to request a special counsel in an investigation being 
    conducted by the Ethics Committee, which action has not been taken 
    by the Ethics Committee?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not refer to pending 
    Standards Committee investigations, or suggest courses of action 
    within that committee.
        Mr. Volkmer: I thank the Chair.

[[Page 10813]]