[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[C. Committee Procedure]
[Â§ 22. Use of Information Obtained in Executive Session]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2736-2742]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 22. --Use of Information Obtained in Executive Session

Insertion In Record of Executive Session Minutes

Sec. 22.1 Instance where a Member inserted in the Record a transcript 
    from the minutes of an executive session of the Committee on House 
    Administration, indicating the votes of members of that committee 
    (including proxies) on amendments to a resolution providing funds 
    for the Committee on Internal Security.

    On Apr. 29, 1971,(13) by direction of the Committee on 
House Administration, Mr. Frank Thompson, of New Jersey, called up a 
funding resolution (H. Res. 274), for the Committee on Internal 
Security and asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution 
limited the committee's funding to $670,000 but was reported with a 
committee amendment (14) striking the latter figure and 
inserting the sum of ``$450,000''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 12483, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Id. at p. 12484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This amendment had been agreed to by the Committee on House 
Administration following the rejection of an amendment to the amendment 
which called for a figure of $570,000. The latter amount was rejected 
by a one-vote margin on a record vote in which five proxy votes were 
cast.
    In the course of the House's consideration of House Resolution 274, 
Mr. James C. Cleveland, of New Hampshire, sought to draw attention to 
the use of proxy votes (15) in this instance by inserting in 
the Record an account of the committee proceedings with respect to the 
amendments. The following (16) exchange resulted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Proxy voting is expressly permissible under the rules which provide 
        [see Rule XI clause 27(e), House Rules and Manual Sec. 735(e) 
        (1973)] in pertinent part: ``No vote by any member of any 
        committee with respect to any measure or matter may be cast by 
        proxy unless such committee, by written rule adopted by the 
        committee, permits voting by proxy and requires that the proxy 
        authorization shall be in writing, shall designate the person 
        who is to execute the proxy authorization, and shall be limited 
        to a specific measure or matter and any amendments or motions 
        pertaining thereto.''
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 12488, 12489, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cleveland: . . . Am I correct in saying that this 
    particular result that we have on the floor of the House, and for 
    which the chairman has expressed some regret, would never have 
    occurred if there had not been proxy

[[Page 2737]]

    votes? It is an example of why I oppose proxy voting. Were they not 
    decisive in the vote that resulted in the cut that has been 
    characterized here as too drastic?
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: As the gentleman 
    knows, that was the deciding factor, the proxy vote, because most 
    of us were there and voting.
        Mr. Cleveland: Thank you. For the information of the Members an 
    account of the committee action and the deciding role of the 
    proxies may be of interest, as follows:

                                 Committee Vote

            After considerable discussion Mr. Podell offered a motion 
        to strike out the entire amount requested. Mr. Devine then 
        offered a motion to table Mr. Podell's amendment. Mr. Abbitt 
        seconded the motion. On a voice vote the motion carried.
            Mr. Podell then offered a motion to reduce the amount to 
        $450,000.
            Mr. Dickinson then offered a motion to amend the Podell 
        proposal to read $570,000. Mr. Gray seconded the motion. This 
        motion failed to carry on a record vote, 9 ayes to 10 nays.
            The next vote was on Mr. Podell's motion to cut the amount 
        to $450,000. On a roll call vote there were 11 ayes and 7 nays.
            The Committee then agreed to the amended ($450,000) 
        resolution by voice vote.

            amendment by mr. dickinson to reduce amount to $570,000

            Hays: Aye (Proxy).
            Thompson: Nay.
            Abbitt: Aye.
            Dent: Nay (Proxy).
            Brademas: Nay (Proxy).
            Gray: Aye.
            Hawkins: Nay (Proxy).
            Gettys: Aye.
            Bingham: Nay (Proxy).
            Podell: Nay.
            Annunzio: Nay.
            Mollohan: Nay.
            (4 ayes, 8 nays.)
            Devine: Aye.
            Dickinson: Aye.
            Cleveland: Aye.
            Schwengel: Nay.
            Harvey: Aye.
            Veysey: Aye.
            Frenz 1: Nay.
            (5 ayes, 2 nays.)

              amendment by mr. podell to reduce amount to $450,000

            Thompson: Aye.
            Abbitt: Nay.
            Dent: Aye (Proxy).
            Brademas: Aye (Proxy).
            Gray: Aye.
            Hawkins: Aye (Proxy).
            Gettys: Nay.
            Bingham: Aye (Proxy).
            Podell: Aye.
            Annunzio: Aye.
            Mollohan: Aye.
            (9 ayes, 2 nays.)
            Devine: Nay.
            Dickinson: Nay.
            Cleveland: Nay.
            Schwengel: Aye.
            Harvey: Nay.
            Veysey: Nay.
            Frenzel: Aye.
            (2 ayes, 5 nays.)

Disclosure of Evidence Taken in Executive Session

Sec. 22.2 Evidence taken in an executive session of a committee may 
    later be made public by vote of the committee.

[[Page 2738]]

    On Apr. 26, 1972,(~17) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, Chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services, who called up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 918), 
and asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution directed the 
President and the Secretary of Defense to furnish the House of 
Representatives, within 10 days after the adoption of the resolution 
``full and complete information'' concerning the specifics of various 
military operations in Southeast Asia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 118 Cong. Rec. 14348, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Mr. Hebert explained,(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 14349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Armed Services spent an entire 
    day in acting on the subject matter of the resolution sponsored by 
    the gentlewoman from New York.
        The committee began its hearings in open session at 10 a.m. on 
    April 18 and finally, after a number of interruptions, including a 
    break for lunch concluded its hearings in executive session at 5:17 
    p.m.

    Mr. Hebert proceeded to discuss the committee's vote on the 
measure, among other matters, after which he yielded 10 minutes' time 
to Ms. Bella Abzug, of New York, sponsor of the resolution of inquiry. 
At the conclusion of her remarks and pursuant to the requisite 
committee approval,(19) Ms. Abzug inserted (1) 
the text of the hearings, including that of an executive 
session,(2) in the Record. As she explained in so 
doing,(3~) however, certain deletions (4) were 
required to be made in the text of the executive session.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Since the text of the hearings on this resolution included an 
        executive session, Ms. Abzug was obliged to obtain prior 
        approval from the committee before inserting the text in the 
        Record in accordance with the rules [see Rule XI clause 27(o), 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 735(o) (1973)] which provide that: 
        ``No evidence or testimony taken in executive session may be 
        released or used in public sessions without the consent of the 
        committee.''
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 14352, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. Id. at pp. 14372-77.
 3. Id. at p. 14352.
 4. All deletions were of classified material as the text of that 
        session [id. at p. 14376] reveals. The record of the executive 
        session had been routinely released by the committee after 
        classified portions of the testimony had been deleted.
5. See also Sec. 22.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.3 Evidence or testimony taken in executive session, because of 
    a committee determination that it may tend to degrade, defame, or 
    incriminate, does not, in every

[[Page 2739]]

    case, remain forever under the restrictions imposed by the 
    ``executive session'' label; a committee has the right to make such 
    information public at a later time and may, by vote of the 
    committee, do so.

    On Apr. 5, 1967,(6) the House entertained consideration 
of privileged resolution (H. Res. 221), authorizing the expenditure of 
certain funds for the expenses of the Committee on Un-American 
Activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 8420, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the ensuing debate, Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of 
Illinois, addressed a series of parliamentary inquiries to Speaker John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts. One of those inquiries prompted the 
following exchange

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, Rule XI, 26 (m) of the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives (7~) states as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Rule XI clause 27(m), House Rules and Manual Sec. 735 (m) 
        (1973) .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            If the committee determines that evidence or testimony at 
        an investigative hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or 
        incriminate any person, it shall--
            (1) receive such evidence or testimony in executive 
        session;

        Mr. Speaker, my question is this: If the committee determines 
    that the evidence it is about to receive may tend to defame, 
    degrade or incriminate a witness, is it not compulsory under the 
    Rules of the House for the Committee to hold such hearings in 
    executive session?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that that is a matter which 
    would be in the control of the committee for committee action.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: I must say that I do not understand the ruling. Is 
    the Chair ruling that a committee can waive this rule? That it can 
    refuse to recognize this rule?
        The Speaker: The Chair would not want to pass upon a general 
    parliamentary inquiry, as distinguished from a particular one with 
    facts, but the Chair is of the opinion that if the committee voted 
    to make public the testimony taken in executive session, it is not 
    in violation of the rule, and certainly that would be a committee 
    matter.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. For an instance in which a committee [the Committee on Armed 
        Services] elected to make public certain information which it 
        had obtained in the course of an executive session, see 
        Sec. 22.2. supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference to Executive Session Testimony Without Quotation

Sec. 22.4 While it is not in order in debate for a Member to make 
    unauthorized reference to the proceedings of an executive session 
    of a com

[[Page 2740]]

    mittee, the Chair has permitted a Member to discuss certain matters 
    ``on his own responsibility'' where the Member has informed the 
    Chair that he did not purport to quote from committee proceedings 
    in executive session but was only referring to events or statements 
    which occurred outside of or independently of such session.

    On Feb. 1, 1940,(9) Speaker pro tempore R. Ewing 
Thomason, of Texas, recognized Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, who 
requested unanimous consent to withdraw certain remarks he had made on 
Jan. 23, 1940, with respect to a group of letters, known as the ``Pelly 
letters.'' Under reservation of objection, the matter was briefly 
discussed and ultimately objected to by Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of 
Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 86 Cong. Rec. 952, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A short while later, Mr. Keefe, having obtained unanimous consent 
to speak for 10 minutes, proceeded to discuss the authenticity of the 
letters, which he stated were written by another individual, named 
Mayne. In the course of these remarks (10) he stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Dies committee, despite the innuendoes to the contrary, 
    have been pretty careful about this thing, so they have brought 
    before the committee the typewriter of Mr. Mayne and had these 
    letters examined by comparison with the typewriter of Mr. Mayne, 
    which they subpenaed. This afternoon, before the Dies committee, 
    Mr. Charles Appel, special agent in charge of laboratories of the 
    Department of Justice----

    At this juncture, the following exchange took place:

        Mr. Hook: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Keefe: I do not.
        Mr. Hook: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hook: The gentleman is quoting testimony taken before an 
    executive meeting. The point of order is that this is out of order 
    and the gentleman has no right to quote testimony taken in an 
    executive meeting of a committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    purports to discuss the executive proceedings of a committee it 
    will not be in order.
        Mr. Keefe: I am not discussing the executive proceedings. . . .
        Mr. Hook: 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?

[[Page 2741]]

        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 in Debate to Minutes of Executive Session

Sec. 22.5 It has been held not in order in debate in the House to refer 
    to or quote from the minutes of an executive session of a 
    committee, unless the committee has voted to make such proceedings 
    public.

    On Apr. 5, 1967,(11) debate ensued over a resolution (H. 
Res. 364), providing for payment from the contingent fund of certain 
expenses incurred by the Committee on Science and Astronautics pursuant 
to a previous resolution (H. Res. 312). In the course of that debate, 
differences of opinion were voiced as to the committee's need for two 
minority staff positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 8410, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Referring to an earlier debate about staffing which had taken place 
among the members of that committee during one of its meetings, Mr. Joe 
D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, noted that: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 8411, 8412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        We entered into a discussion regarding the question of minority 
    staff, and during the course of the discussion the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Teague] was recognized by Chairman Miller. Mr. Teague 
    posed this question:
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask whether anyone on the 
    committee on either side, has asked the staff for something they 
    did not get and get it in the form they wanted it.
        Mr. Wydler, minority member, replied--and I think this is the 
    point he wanted to clarify in asking me to yield earlier--in this 
    manner:
        Mr. Wydler: I would answer by saying they get it. That is not 
    the purpose of a minority staff. The purpose of a minority staff is 
    really that they are present, operating within the confines of the 
    committee on a daily basis, to keep the minority membership 
    informed what is coming up, what is happening, and what is going to 
    happen in the future, to do advanced thinking on some of these 
    problems, and give us on the minority some idea of those things the 
    minority should be rightfully looking into.

    At this point, Mr. John W. Wydler, of New York, immediately raised 
a point of order with Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts. The 
following exchange ensued:

        Mr. Wydler: Mr. Speaker, is it proper to read from the minutes 
    of an

[[Page 2742]]

    executive committee meeting of a committee of the House of 
    Representatives on the floor of the House?
        The Speaker: The Chair would like to inquire of either the 
    gentleman from Louisiana or the gentleman from Texas whether the 
    gentleman from Louisiana is reading from the executive session 
    record?
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, are you addressing the inquiry to 
    me or to the gentleman from Texas?
        The Speaker: Either one may answer. . . .
        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.