[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[D. Consideration and Debate]
[Â§ 18. Reading Papers]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3421-3424]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                      D. CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
 
Sec. 18. Reading Papers

    Rule XXX (11) provides that the question of whether a 
paper may be read is to be determined by a vote of the House. 
Nonetheless, when an objection to the reading of a paper is raised in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Committee need not rise; the issue is 
put to (~12) and voted on (13) by the Committee, 
without debate.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 915 (1979); see Jefferson's Manual, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 432-436, for parliamentary law 
        relating to reading papers. See also Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 80-84, 
        infra.
12. Sec. 18.1, infra.
13. Sec. 18.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Putting Question to Committee of the Whole

Sec. 18.1 Where objection is made in the Committee of the Whole to the 
    reading of a paper, the question may be raised by motion and put to 
    the Committee by the Chairman.

    On Mar. 24, 1948,(14) during consideration of S. 2202, 
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948, Chairman Francis H. Case, of South 
Dakota, after objection was made, put to the Committee of the Whole a 
question regarding the reading of a letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 94 Cong. Rec. 3436, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York] (interrupting the reading 
    of the

[[Page 3422]]

    letter): Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: No.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, in connection with my point of 
    order, I just want to propound a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Vorys: I object to his propounding a parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Then I make a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: The point of order is that the gentleman 
    cannot read anybody else's material without the consent of the 
    Committee. I asked the gentleman to yield to me, and he would not 
    yield.
        The Chairman: The Chair will present that question to the 
    Committee. The question is, Shall the gentleman be permitted to 
    proceed with the reading of the letter?
        The question was taken, and the Chair announced that the motion 
    was agreed to.

Sec. 18.2 If objection is made in the Committee of the Whole to the 
    reading of a letter by another Member, the question is determined 
    by vote of the Committee without debate.

    On June 26, 1952,(15) during consideration of H.R. 8120, 
the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1952, the Committee of the 
Whole by vote and without debate permitted a Member to read a letter by 
a Governor after objection to that reading was raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2nd Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clinton D.] McKinnon [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike out the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, yesterday the committee adopted, tentatively at 
    least, the Cole amendment which provided for individual ceilings on 
    price control. This amendment has a lot of things in it that I am 
    sure the Members are not familiar with or I am sure they would not 
    have adopted the amendment. In view of that, the chairman of the 
    committee requested Governor Arnall, for whom I am sure the House 
    has a high regard, to comment on what that would mean in regard to 
    enforcement of price ceilings, and I should like to read what 
    Governor Arnall has to say about it. He said this:

            It is my considered judgment that an amendment of this kind

        Mr. [Jesse P. ] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wolcott: I have not gone into this too thoroughly, but I 
    make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that it is against the rules 
    of the House, which control the rules of the committee, to read 
    letters from other than Members of Congress. We have been 
    propagandized enough on this bill already.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Michigan objects to the 
    reading of

[[Page 3423]]

    the letter, the question will then be put to the members of the 
    Committee of the Whole for a decision. Does the gentleman object to 
    the further reading of the letter?
        Mr. Wolcott: Yes; at this time I do object, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the gentleman from 
    California be permitted to proceed with the reading of the letter?
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Wolcott) there were--ayes 103, noes 102.
        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Wolcott and Mr. Bolling.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there 
    were--ayes 141, noes 113.
        So Mr. McKinnon was permitted to proceed with the reading of 
    the letter

Time to Read

Sec. 18.3 A decision of the Committee of the Whole to permit a Member 
    to read a paper means that the Member may read it within the five 
    minutes allotted to him, and does not necessarily permit him to 
    read the entire paper.

    On June 26, 1952,(17) during consideration of H.R. 8210, 
the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1952, Chairman Wilbur D. 
Mills, of Arkansas, stated that a decision of the Committee of the 
Whole to permit a Member to read a letter enables the Member to use 
only the allotted time to read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman from California is recognized [to 
    read a letter].
        Mr. [Clinton D.] McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
    membership. I am sure there are many Members who are very desirous 
    of getting all the information they can.
        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. McKinnon: I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
        Mr. Spence: I suggest the gentleman read the entire letter.
        Mr. McKinnon: The letter reads as follows:

            It is my considered judgment that an amendment of this 
        kind, if adopted, would throw a costly monkey-wrench into the 
        food pricecontrol machinery. It would come close to making it 
        completely unworkable. Its effects can be simply stated: . . .
            I am confident that if Congress is informed of the 
        consequences of this high-food price, red-tape amendment, it 
        will be overwhelmingly defeated. This is no time to raise the 
        prices of food to housewives or to make the small-business man 
        go through mountains of red tape just to satisfy a few food 
        organizations.
            I hope that you will call these considerations to the 
        attention of the House if the individual mark-up amendment is 
        offered on the floor.

        Sincerely yours,
                                               Ellis Arnall.

        The Chairman: The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. . . .

[[Page 3424]]

        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Chairman, the House decided by a teller 
    vote to permit the reading of this letter. I submit that the letter 
    should be read in its entirety; that is the point of order I make.
        The Chairman: That is not the decision made by the Committee. 
    The Committee made the decision that the gentleman could read the 
    letter within the time allotted to the gentleman of 5 minutes.
        Mr. Eberharter: I did not hear it so stated when the motion was 
    put, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question put to the Committee had nothing 
    whatsoever to do with the time to be consumed by the gentleman from 
    California. The Chair recognized the gentleman from California for 
    5 minutes; the question arose as to whether or not he could within 
    that 5 minutes time read extraneous papers.
        The point of order is overruled.-