[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 14. Impeachment Powers]
[B. Investigation and Impeachment]
[Â§ 8. Consideration and Debate in the House]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2065-2077]
 
                               CHAPTER 14
 
                           Impeachment Powers
 
                    B. INVESTIGATION AND IMPEACHMENT
 
Sec. 8. Consideration and Debate in the House

    Reports on impeachment are privileged for immediate consideration 
in the House.(1) Unless the House otherwise provides by 
special order, propositions of impeachment are considered under

[[Page 2066]]

the general rules of the House applicable to other simple House 
resolutions. Since 1912, the House has considered together the 
resolution and articles of impeachment, although prior practice was to 
adopt a resolution of impeachment and later to consider separate 
articles of impeachment.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 8.2, infra, for the privilege of impeachment reports and 
        Sec. 7.6, supra, for their referral to the House Calendar. 
        Impeachment reports have usually been printed in full in the 
        Congressional Record and have laid over for a period of days 
        before consideration by the House, so that Members could 
        acquaint themselves with the contents of the reports.
 2. See Sec. 8.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House has typically considered the resolution and articles 
under unanimous-consent agreements, providing for a certain number of 
hours of debate, equally divided and controlled by the proponents and 
opposition, at the conclusion of which the previous question was 
considered as ordered. In one case, an amendment was specifically made 
in order under the unanimous-consent agreement governing consideration 
of the resolution.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion for the previous question and the motion to recommit are 
applicable to a resolution and articles of impeachment being considered 
in the House, and a separate vote may be demanded on substantive 
propositions contained in the resolution.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. Sec. 8.8-8.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Amendments generally, see Ch. 27, infra.
Consideration in the House of amendments to articles, see Sec. 10, 
    infra.
Consideration of resolutions electing managers, granting them powers 
    and funds, and notifying the Senate, see Sec. 9, infra.
Consideration and debate in Committee of the Whole generally, see Ch. 
    19, infra.
Consideration and debate in the House generally, see Ch. 29, infra.
Division of the question for voting, see Ch. 30, infra.
Privileged questions and reports interrupting regular order of 
    business, see Ch. 21, infra.
Summary of House consideration of specific impeachment resolutions, see 
    Sec. Sec. 14-18, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Controlling Time for Debate

Sec. 8.1 Under the later practice, resolutions and articles of 
    impeachment have been considered together in the House pursuant to 
    unanimous-consent agreements fixing the time for and control of 
    debate.

    On Mar. 2, 1936, the House considered House Resolution 422, 
impeaching Judge Halsted Ritter, pursuant to a unanimous-consent 
agreement propounded by Chairman Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, who had called up the report: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 80 Cong. Rec. 3066, 3069, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 2067]]

        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman from Texas asks 
    unanimous consent that debate on this resolution be continued for 
    4\1/2\ hours, 2\1/2\ hours to be controlled by himself and 2 hours 
    by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hancock]; and at the expiration 
    of the time the previous question shall be considered as ordered. 
    Is there objection?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    On Feb. 24, 1933, House Resolution 387, recommending against the 
impeachment of Judge Harold Louderback, was considered pursuant to a 
unanimous-consent agreement, propounded by Mr. Thomas D. McKeown, of 
Oklahoma, who called up the resolution, to allow a substitute amendment 
recommending impeachment to be offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 76 Cong. Rec. 4914, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McKeown: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
    for debate be limited to two hours to be controlled by myself, that 
    during that time the gentleman from New York [Mr. La Guardia] be 
    permitted to offer a substitute for the resolution and at the 
    conclusion of the time for debate the previous question be 
    considered as ordered.
        The Speaker: (8) Then the Chair submits this: The 
    gentleman from Oklahoma asks unanimous consent that debate be 
    limited to two hours, to be controlled by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma, that at the end of that time the previous question shall 
    be considered as ordered, with the privilege, however, of a 
    substitute resolution being offered, to be included in the previous 
    question. Is there objection?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object for the purpose of getting the parliamentary 
    situation clarified before we get to the merits, is there any 
    question in the mind of the Speaker, if it is fair to submit such a 
    suggestion, as to whether or not the substitute providing for 
    absolute impeachment would be in order as a substitute for this 
    report?
        The Speaker: That is the understanding of the Chair, that the 
    unanimous-consent agreement is, that the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. LaGuardia] may offer a substitute, the previous question to be 
    considered as ordered on the substitute and the original resolution 
    at the expiration of the two hours. Is there objection?
        There was no objection.

    On Mar. 30, 1926, the House by unanimous consent agreed to a 
procedure for the consideration of a resolution impeaching Judge George 
English; the request was propounded by Chairman George S. Graham, of 
Pennsylvania, of the Committee on the Judiciary:

        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Graham] asks unanimous consent that during today the debate be 
    equally divided between the affirmative and the negative, and that 
    he control one-half of the time and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Nicholas Longworth (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2068]]

    that the other half be controlled by the gentleman from Alabama 
    [Mr. Bowling].(10)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 67 Cong. Rec. 6585-90, 69th Cong. 1st Sess. New agreements were 
        obtained on each succeeding day during debate on the 
        resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In earlier practice, resolutions and articles were considered 
separately, the articles being considered in the Committee of the Whole 
on occasion. For example, the articles of impeachment against Justice 
Samuel Chase were considered in the Committee of the Whole and were 
read for amendment, although the resolution to impeach was earlier 
considered in the House.(11) Again, during proceedings 
against President Andrew Johnson, the House adopted a resolution which 
provided for consideration and amendment of the articles in the 
Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule, at the conclusion of 
general debate.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2343, 2344.
12. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2414.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution and the articles of impeachment against Judge 
Charles Swayne (1904, 1905) were considered separately but were both 
considered in the House.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2472, 2474.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the impeachment of Judge Robert Archbald (1912) the House 
instituted the modern practice of considering the resolution and the 
articles of impeachment together in the House, as opposed to the 
Committee of the Whole.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 499, 500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reports Privileged for Immediate Consideration

Sec. 8.2 Resolutions of impeachment, resolutions proposing abatement of 
    proceedings, and resolutions incidental to the question of 
    impeachment are privileged for immediate consideration when 
    reported from the committee to which propositions of impeachment 
    have been referred

    On Mar. 2, 1936, Chairman Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, called up as privileged House Resolution 
422, impeaching Judge Halsted Ritter, and the House proceeded to its 
immediate consideration.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 3066, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Feb. 24, 1933, Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, held that a 
resolution reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, proposing 
discontinuance of impeachment proceedings, was privileged for immediate 
consideration:

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page 2069]]

                              House Resolution 387

        Resolved, That the evidence submitted on the charges against 
    Hon. Harold Louderback, district judge for the northern district of 
    California, does not warrant the interposition of the 
    constitutional powers of impeachment of the House.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, when they 
    report back a resolution of that kind, is it a privileged matter?
        The Speaker: It is not only a privileged matter but a highly 
    privileged matter.
        Mr. [Leonidas C.] Dyer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, this is the 
    first instance to my knowledge, in my service here, where the 
    committee has reported adversely on an impeachment charge.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's memory should be refreshed. The 
    Mellon case was reported back from the committee, recommending that 
    impeachment proceedings be discontinued.
        Mr. Snell: Was that taken up on the floor as a privileged 
    matter?
        The Speaker: It was.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 76 Cong. Rec. 4913, 72d Cong. 2d Sess. (See also 6 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 514.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 24, 1939, Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, called up a report of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, which report was adverse to House 
Resolution 67, on the impeachment of Secretary of Labor Frances 
Perkins. The report was called up as privileged and the House 
immediately agreed to Mr. Hobbs' motion to lay the resolution on the 
table.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 3273, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Feb. 6, 1974, Chairman Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey, of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, called up as privileged House 
Resolution 803, authorizing that committee to investigate the 
sufficiency of grounds for impeachment of President Richard Nixon, 
various resolutions of impeachment having been referred to the 
committee. The House proceeded to its immediate 
consideration.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 2349-63, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. For additional 
        discussion as to high privilege for consideration of 
        impeachment resolutions notwithstanding the normal application 
        of House rules, and of other resolutions incidental to 
        impeachment called up by the investigating committee, see 
        Sec. 7.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Discharge Committee From Consideration of Impeachment 
    Proposal

Sec. 8.3 A Member announced his filing of a motion to discharge the 
    Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration of a 
    resolution proposing impeachment of the President.

[[Page 2070]]

    On June 17, 1952,(19) a Member made an announcement 
relating to impeachment charges against President Harry S. Truman:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 98 Cong. Rec. 7424, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul W.] Shafer [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, on April 28 of 
    this year I introduced House Resolution 614, to impeach Harry S. 
    Truman, President of the United States, of high crimes and 
    misdemeanors in office. This resolution was referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, which committee has failed to take 
    action thereon.
        Thirty legislative days having now elapsed since introduction 
    of this resolution, I today have placed on the Clerk's desk a 
    petition to discharge the committee from further consideration of 
    the resolution.
        In my judgment, developments since I introduced the Resolution 
    April 28 have immeasurably enlarged and strengthened the case for 
    impeachment and have added new urgency for such action by this 
    House.
        First. Since the introduction of this resolution, the United 
    States Supreme Court, by a 6-to-3 vote, has held that in his 
    seizure of the steel mills Harry S. Truman, President of the United 
    States, exceeded his authority and powers, violated the 
    Constitution of the United States, and flouted the expressed will 
    and intent of the Congress--and, in so finding, the Court gave 
    unprecedented warnings against the threat to freedom and 
    constitutional government implicit in his act.
        Second. Despite the President's technical compliance with the 
    finding of the Court, prior to the Court decision he reasserted his 
    claim to the powers then in question, and subsequent to that 
    decision he has contemptuously called into question ``the intention 
    of the Court's majority'' and contemptuously attributed the limits 
    set on the President's powers not to Congress, or to the Court, or 
    to the Constitution, but to ``the Court's majority.''
        Third. The Court, in its finding in the steel case, emphasized 
    not only the unconstitutionality of the Presidential seizure but 
    also stressed his failure to utilize and exhaust existing and 
    available legal resources for dealing with the situation, including 
    the Taft-Hartley law.
        Fourth. The President's failure and refusal to utilize and 
    exhaust existing and available legal resources for dealing with the 
    emergency has persisted since the Court decision and in spite of 
    clear and unmistakable evidences of the will and intent of Congress 
    given in response to his latest request for special legislation 
    authorizing seizure or other special procedures.

    The discharge petition did not gain the requisite number of 
signatures for its consideration by the House.

Amendment of Resolution and Articles

Sec. 8.4 A resolution with articles of impeachment, being considered in 
    the House under a unanimous-consent agreement fixing control of 
    debate, is not subject to amend

[[Page 2071]]

    ment unless the agreement allows an amendment to be offered, or the 
    Member in control offers an amendment or yields for amendment.

    On Apr. 1, 1926, the House was considering a resolution impeaching 
Judge George English. Pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement, the 
time for debate was being controlled by two Members. Following the 
ordering of the previous question on the resolution, Speaker Nicholas 
Longworth, of Ohio, answered a parliamentary inquiry propounded by Mr. 
Tom T. Connally, of Texas:

        Under the rules of the House would not this resolution be 
    subject to consideration under the five-minute rule for amendment?
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks not.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 67 Cong. Rec. 6733, 69th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Harold Louderback impeachment proceedings in the House, the 
resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary recommended 
against impeachment, but the minority of the committee proposed a 
resolution impeaching Judge Louderback. The substitute impeaching the 
accused was offered and adopted by the House, pursuant to a unanimous-
consent agreement which fixed control and time of debate, but 
specifically allowed the substitute resolution to be offered and voted 
upon.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 76 Cong. Rec. 4913, 4914, 72d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 24, 1933. For a 
        complete analysis of the procedure followed for consideration 
        of the Louderback impeachment, see Sec. Sec. 17.1 et seq., 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Charles Swayne impeachment, Mr. Henry W. Palmer, of 
Pennsylvania, of the Committee on the Judiciary called up the 
resolution of impeachment and controlled the time thereon. Before 
moving the previous question, he offered an amendment to the resolution 
of impeachment, to add clarifying and technical changes. The amendment 
was agreed to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 39 Cong. Rec. 248, 58th Cong. 3d Sess., Dec. 13, 1904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on Impeachment Resolutions and Articles

Sec. 8.5 In debating articles of impeachment, a Member may refer to the 
    political, social, and family background of the accused.

    On Mar. 2, 1936,(3) the House was debating articles of 
impeachment against Judge Halsted Ritter. Mr. Louis Ludlow, of Indiana, 
had the floor, and Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, overruled

[[Page 2072]]

a point of order based on the irrelevancy of his remarks. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 80 Cong. Rec. 3069, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ludlow: . . . I feel there is imposed upon me today a duty 
    and a responsibility to raise my voice in this case if for no other 
    purpose than to present myself as a character witness--a duty which 
    I could not conscientiously avoid and which I am very glad to 
    perform. Judge Ritter was born in Indianapolis, Ind. He springs 
    from a long and honored Hoosier ancestry, rooted in the pioneer 
    life of our Commonwealth. There are no better people than those who 
    comprised his ancestral train. People do not come any better 
    anywhere on this globe. Rugged honesty, outspoken truthfulness, and 
    high ideals are characteristics of his family. His father, Col. Eli 
    F. Ritter, was a man of outstanding character and personality, one 
    of the most public-spirited men I ever have known, a lawyer of 
    distinction, ranking high in a bar of great brilliancy that 
    included such stellar lights as Thomas A. Hendricks, Joseph E. 
    McDonald, and Benjamin Harrison, an unofficial advocate of the 
    people's cause in many a fight against vice and privilege, for whom 
    even those who felt his steel had a wholesome respect because of 
    his militant ardor on the side of right and civic virtue.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Tarver: The gentleman is endeavoring to read into the 
    Record a statement with regard to the progenitors of the gentleman 
    against whom these impeachment proceedings are pending. He is 
    referring to something that should not affect the judgment of the 
    House one way or the other, and, in my judgment, it is highly 
    improper, and the gentleman should not be allowed to continue.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The chairman understands the gentleman 
    is proceeding under the order of the House, which provided for two 
    hours and a half on one side and 2 hours on the other. Of course, 
    the Chair cannot dictate to the gentleman just how he shall proceed 
    in his discussion of this resolution.
        Mr. Tarver: It is then the ruling of the Speaker that during 
    the time for general debate Members may address themselves to 
    whatever subject they desire.
        The Speaker: Members must address themselves to the resolution.
        Mr. Ludlow: That is what I am trying to do, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will proceed in order.

Sec. 8.6 During debate on a resolution of impeachment, the Speaker 
    ruled that unparliamentary language, even if a recitation of 
    testimony or evidence, could not be used in debate.

    On Mar. 30, 1926, during debate on the resolution and articles of 
impeachment against Judge George English, Speaker Nicholas Longworth, 
of Ohio, delivered a ruling on the use of unparliamentary language in 
debate, and the House discussed his decision:

[[Page 2073]]

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to make a statement. The Chair 
    has been in doubt on one or two occasions this afternoon whether he 
    should permit the use of certain language even by way of quotation. 
    The Chair at the time realized, of course, that the members of the 
    majority of the committee might think the use of this language 
    would be material in describing an individual. The Chair hopes that 
    it will not be used further during this debate and suggests also 
    that those words be stricken from the Record. [Applause.]
        Mr. [John N.] Tillman [of Arkansas]: I think the Speaker will 
    remember I stated when I put the speech in the Record that I 
    intended to strike out those words.
        The Speaker: There were other occasions besides that to which 
    the gentleman refers.
        Mr. [Edward J.] King [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. King: Will the language also be stricken out of the 
    evidence in the case and in the report of the committee?
        The Speaker: The Chair does not think that has anything to do 
    with the use of language on the floor of the House.
        Mr. [Tom T.] Connally of Texas: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Connally of Texas: Without taking any exception to the 
    Chair's views as to striking from the printed Record what has 
    already happened, it seems to me the Chair ought to make clear his 
    ruling so that we may know as to how far it shall be regarded as a 
    precedent in the future. The House, as I understand it, at the 
    present moment is proceeding as an inquisitorial body, somewhat as 
    a grand jury, as in a semijudicial proceeding; and if we have 
    unpleasant matters in court, the court can not avoid its duty 
    because they are unpleasant, and if it becomes necessary in this 
    Chamber for Members to properly present this case or to quote the 
    testimony in the record to use unpleasant and offensive language to 
    establish the truth, I think the House ought to hear it. It is 
    neither wise nor safe to censor the evidence. We must hear it, good 
    or bad, because it is the evidence. If it is suppressed or colored, 
    it is no longer the true evidence in the case. I sympathize with 
    the Chair's position, and I know he is prompted by the best 
    motives, by a sense of delicacy and consideration for the 
    galleries. I think it is well for the House and Chair now to 
    understand that the ruling of the Chair ought not to be regarded as 
    a precedent in the future which might operate to exclude competent 
    evidence, because when we are dealing with a matter of this kind, 
    serious and important as it is, we want to know the truth, whatever 
    it may be, and those who come here to hear these proceedings of 
    course do so at their own risk. [Laughter.]
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks his ruling ought to be regarded 
    as a precedent as far as these proceedings in the House are 
    concerned. If the Chair should be officially advised that the use 
    of this language is actually necessary, he might order the 
    galleries cleared.
        Mr. [Fiorello H.] LaGuardia [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 2074]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. LaGuardia: The Chair's ruling, as I understand it, is that 
    under the rules of the House language that is not parliamentary 
    should not be used; but that does not prevent the consideration of 
    whether or not a particular judge whose case we are trying used the 
    language or not?
        The Speaker: Not at all. It is simply the use of certain 
    language on the floor of the House.
        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I want to 
    enter my approval of the course the Speaker has taken. Members of 
    this House, if they desire to know what the language is, can read 
    the record, and I thoroughly endorse the course the Speaker 
    pursued.

Sec. 8.7 During debate in the House objection was made to extensions of 
    remarks in the Congressional Record in order that an accurate 
    record of impeachment proceedings be preserved.

    In April 1926,(4) the House was considering a resolution 
impeaching Judge George English. When a Member asked unanimous consent 
to revise and extend his remarks in the Record, Mr. C. William 
Ramseyer, of Iowa, objected stating that his object was to ``have the 
Record, preceding the vote, show exactly what transpired and what was 
said.'' He indicated that no objection would be made to the extension 
of remarks after the vote had occurred on the resolution of 
impeachment.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 67 Cong. Rec. 6602, 69th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. Id. at p. 6717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion for Previous Question

Sec. 8.8 The motion for the previous question is applicable to a 
    resolution of impeachment.

    On Dec. 13, 1904, the House was considering a resolution impeaching 
Judge Charles Swayne of high crimes and misdemeanors. The manager of 
the resolution, Mr. Henry W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania, moved the 
previous question on the resolution at the conclusion of debate 
thereon. Mr. Richard Wayne Parker, of New Jersey, made a point of order 
against the offering of the motion, on the ground that the previous 
question should not be directly ordered upon a question of high 
privilege such as impeachment. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, 
ruled that under the precedents the previous question was in 
order.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 39 Cong. Rec. 248, 58th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Recommit

Sec. 8.9 After the previous question has been ordered on a

[[Page 2075]]

    resolution of impeachment, a motion to recommit, with or without 
    instructions, is in order, but is not debatable.

    On Apr. 1, 1926, the House was considering House Resolution 195, 
impeaching Judge George English, United States District Judge for the 
Eastern District of Illinois. After the previous question was ordered, 
a motion was offered to recommit the resolution with instructions. The 
instructions directed the Committee on the Judiciary to take the 
testimony of certain persons and authorized the committee to send for 
persons and papers, administer oaths, and report at any time.
    The motion was rejected on a yea and nay vote.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 67 Cong. Rec. 6734, 69th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions, on a resolution of impeachment, is not debatable. Rule 
XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1973), amended in the 
92d Congress to allow debate on certain motions to recommit with 
instructions, does not apply to simple resolutions but only to bills or 
joint resolutions.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Ch. 23, infra, for the motion to recommit and debate thereon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Division of the Question

Sec. 8.10 A separate vote may be demanded on any substantive 
    proposition contained in a resolution of impeachment, when the 
    question recurs on the resolution.

    On Mar. 30, 1926, the House was considering a resolution and 
articles of impeachment against Judge George English. Mr. Charles R. 
Crisp, of Georgia, inquired whether, under Rule XVI clause 6, a 
separate vote could be demanded on any substantive proposition 
contained in the resolution of impeachment. Speaker Nicholas Longworth, 
of Ohio, responded in the affirmative.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 67 Cong. Rec. 6589, 6590, 69th Cong. 1st Sess. See House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 791 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the vote recurred on the resolution of impeachment, on Apr. 1, 
1926, a separate vote was demanded on Article I. The House rejected the 
motion to strike the article.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 67 Cong. Rec. 6734, 69th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: A division of the question may be demanded 
at any time before the question is put on the resolution. During the 
Judge English proceedings, the Speaker put the question on the 
resolution and announced that it was adopted. A Member objected that he 
had meant to ask for a separate vote and the Speaker allowed such a

[[Page 2076]]

demand (thereby vacating the proceedings by unanimous consent) because 
of confusion in the Chamber, although he stated that the demand was 
untimely.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 6734, 6735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Broadcasting House Proceedings

Sec. 8.11 The House adopted a resolution in the 93d Congress 
    authorizing television, radio, and photographic coverage of 
    projected House consideration of a resolution impeaching President 
    Richard Nixon, thereby waiving rulings of the Speaker prohibiting 
    such coverage of House proceedings.

    On Aug. 7, 1974,(12) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 802, 
with committee amendments, for the broadcasting of House proceedings on 
the impeachment of President Nixon, the Committee on the Judiciary 
having decided on July 27, 29, and 30 to report to the House 
recommending the President's impeachment. The House agreed to the 
resolution as amended by the committee amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 120 Cong. Rec. 27266-69, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That, notwithstanding any rule, ruling, or custom to the 
    contrary, the proceedings in the Chamber of the House of 
    Representatives relating to the resolution reported from the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, recommending the impeachment of Richard 
    M. Nixon, President of the United States, may be broadcast by radio 
    and television and may be open to photographic coverage, subject to 
    the provisions of section 2 of this resolution.
        Sec. 2. A special committee of four members, composed of the 
    majority and minority leaders of the House, and the majority and 
    minority whips of the House, is hereby authorized to arrange for 
    the coverage made in order by this resolution and to establish such 
    regulations as they may deem necessary and appropriate with respect 
    to such broadcast or photographic coverage: Provided, however, That 
    any such arrangements or regulations shall be subject to the final 
    approval of the Speaker; and if the special committee or the 
    Speaker shall determine that the actual coverage is not in 
    conformity with such arrangements and regulations, the Speaker is 
    authorized and directed to terminate or limit such coverage in such 
    manner as may protect the interests of the House of 
    Representatives.

    The House briefly debated the resolution before adopting it, and 
discussed suitable restrictions on broadcast coverage as well as the 
broadcasting of the Committee on the Judiciary meetings on the 
resolution and articles of impeachment pursuant to House Resolution 
1107, adopted on July 18, 1974.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 7.3, Supra, for the adoption of H. Res. 1107, amending the 
        rules of the House.

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

[[Page 2077]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker of the House has consistently 
ruled that coverage of House proceedings, either by radio, television 
or still photography, was prohibited under the rules and precedents of 
the House. See for example, the statements of Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, on Feb. 25, 1952, and on Jan. 24, 1955.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 98 Cong. Rec. 1334, 1335, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.; 101 Cong. Rec. 628, 
        629, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------