[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 24. Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials]
[B. General Procedures Associated With Passage of Legislation]
[Â§ 11. Readings]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4885-4889]
 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
      B. GENERAL PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION
 
Sec. 11. Readings


    The reading of a bill or joint resolution is an essential step 
leading to passage. It is read the first time by title (which 
requirement is now complied with upon introduction of the bill or joint 
resolution by printing the title in the Journal and Record), the second 
time in full, and the third time by title. The applicable rule, Rule 
XXI clause 1, was amended in 1965 (11) to eliminate the 
right of any Member to demand the reading in full of the engrossed 
copy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 8, 111 Cong. Rec. 21-25, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 
        1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second reading, which is a reading in full, may be dispensed 
with only by unanimous consent.(12) It may not be dispensed 
with by motion.(13) And when a bill is read in full for the 
first time the text of the bill as originally introduced is read. 
Proposed committee amendments are not reported at that 
time.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 11.1, infra.
13. Compare 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4738 where Chairman Albert Hopkins 
        (Ill.), ruled that a bill that had been read in full in the 
        House may be again read in full on the demand of a Member in 
        the Committee of the Whole ``. . . unless its reading is 
        dispensed with by the action of the Committee.''
14. See 75 Cong. Rec. 8139, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 1932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The three readings referred to in Rule XXI clause 1 do not include 
the actual procedure for reading for amendment. Reading for amendment 
is actually yet another reading that, although not specifically 
provided for in that rule, is conducted pursuant to a practice of the 
House derived from an earlier version of the present Rule XXIII clause 
5,(15) or pursuant to the terms of a special order or rule 
which may be adopted to govern the consideration of a particular bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 872 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross Reference
Reading bills for Amendment and reading of amendments, Ch. 27, infra.

[[Page 4886]]

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

Reading in Full

Sec. 11.1 A motion to dispense with the full reading of a bill in the 
    Committee of the Whole is not in order.

    On June 4, 1951,(16) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the District of 
Columbia Law Enforcement Act of 1951 (H.R. 4141). The Chairman 
(17) stated that without objection the first (full) reading 
of the bill would be dispensed with. Objection was heard from Mr. 
Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, and the Chairman ordered the 
Clerk to read the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 6099-101, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the reading of the bill a parliamentary inquiry was raised:

        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole of New York (interrupting the reading of 
    the bill): Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cole of New York: Mr. Chairman, is it possible under the 
    rules of the Committee of the Whole to by motion dispense with the 
    further reading of a bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair will say that it requires unanimous 
    consent to suspend the further reading of the bill.
        Mr. Cole of New York: It is not possible to do that by motion?
        The Chairman: That motion is not privileged.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance the Committee of the Whole 
        directed the reading in full of the bill on its first reading. 
        The bill was read by title only on the next day when the 
        Committee of the Whole reconvened to resume consideration of 
        it. Although the procedure followed was somewhat unorthodox, it 
        illustrates the point that any Member may demand a full reading 
        of a bill before general debate thereon begins, provided the 
        bill has not previously been read in full.
            The House can dispense with the first reading in Committee 
        of the Whole by motion if the motion is made privileged, as 
        when reported from the Committee on Rules. A special order 
        reported by the Committee on Rules can also waive the first 
        reading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interruption by Point of No Quorum

Sec. 11.2 A point of no quorum may interrupt the reading of a 
    resolution.

    For example, on Mar. 1, 1967,(1) Mr. Porter Hardy, Jr., 
of Virginia, interrupted the reading of a House resolution (H. Res. 
278) relating to the seating of Representative-elect Adam C. Powell, of 
New York, to make the point of order that a quorum was not present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Noting that evidently a quorum was not present, the Speaker 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4887]]

recognized a Member to move a call of the House.

Reading as Related to Motion to Recommit

Sec. 11.3 A motion to recommit is properly made in the House after the 
    third reading of a bill.

    On Aug. 13, 1959,(3) during consideration in the House 
of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (H.R. 
8342) the previous question was ordered on an amendment agreed to in 
the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frank Thompson, Jr., of New Jersey, 
raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 105 Cong. Rec. 15859, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is it my understanding that the vote about to be taken is on 
    whether or not the substitute will be accepted, and that it is not 
    a vote on final passage?
        The Speaker: (4) It will be a vote on the amendment 
    adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Neill: Will a vote to recommit then be in order?
        The Speaker: After the third reading.
        Mr. O'Neill: And then a vote would be in order on the final 
    passage?
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Roosevelt: If the amendment is defeated, what is then the 
    parliamentary situation?
        The Speaker: Then the question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the so-called committee bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The ``so-called committee bill'' would be 
the original text as introduced.

Sec. 11.4 A motion to recommit was held not to be in order before the 
    engrossment and third reading of the bill.

    On June 11, 1959,(5) after debate on the bill (H.R. 
7246) to amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 the Speaker announced:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 10561, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the 
    bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to vote on the 
    motion to recommit at this time?
        The Speaker: It would not be in order until after the reading 
    of the engrossed copy. . . .

[[Page 4888]]

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cooley: As I understand the situation, the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma [Mr. Belcher] had submitted a motion to recommit. Why 
    should we not vote on that this afternoon?
        The Speaker: It is not time to vote on it. We have got to have 
    the engrossed copy of the bill here before the motion to recommit 
    can be offered.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent reflects the earlier 
practice regarding the engrossed copy of a bill, which had to be 
available and was subject to a demand for full reading. Under the new 
rule, bills on their passage are read the first time by title and the 
second time in full, when, if the previous question is ordered, the 
Speaker states the question to be: Shall the bill be engrossed and read 
a third time? If the question is decided in the affirmative, the bill 
is read the third time by title and the question then put upon its 
passage. Rule XXI clause 1, House Rules and Manual (1981). (The 
provision permitting a Member to demand a third reading in full was 
eliminated from the rule in 1965.)

Reading in the Senate

Sec. 11.5 In the Senate a bill messaged from the House may not be read 
    twice in the same legislative day without unanimous consent, but 
    the Senate may adjourn for a brief period (thus creating a new 
    legislative day) and then proceed to the second reading of the 
    bill.

    On Mar. 24, 1960,(7) there was received in the Senate 
the civil rights bill of 1960 (H.R. 8601) messaged from the House of 
Representatives. When the bill had been read the first time, Senator 
Lyndon B. Johnson, of Texas, asked unanimous consent that the bill be 
read the second time. Senator Richard B. Russell, of Georgia, objected. 
Senator Johnson then moved that the Senate adjourn for three minutes, 
and the motion was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 106 Cong. Rec. 6451, 6452, 6454, 6455, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
            Under Senate Rule XIV clause 2, every bill and joint 
        resolution receives three readings prior to its passage, which 
        readings must be on three different days, unless the Senate 
        unanimously directs otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Senate adjourned for three minutes from 1:32 p.m. to 1:35 
p.m. of the same day, and upon reconvening the civil rights bill was 
read a second time and referred to committee.

Sec. 11.6 In the Senate, by unanimous consent, a bill may be

[[Page 4889]]

    read the second time on the same day it is received by message from 
    the House.

    On Mar. 14, 1962,(8) the proceedings below were recorded 
in the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 4097, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Everett McKinley] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. President, I 
    ask unanimous consent that H.R. 10079, which came over from the 
    House and is now on the table----
        Mr. [John C.] Stennis [of Mississippi]: A point of order, Mr. 
    President. Is the Senate in the morning hour?
        Mr. Dirksen: Yes, it is.
        I ask that the bill be advanced to a second reading and be 
    permitted to lie on the desk.
        The Vice President: (9) Is there objection to the 
    request of the Senator from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Lyndon B. Johnson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There being no objection, the bill was ordered to a second 
    reading, and was read the second time.
        The Vice President: Without objection the bill will be printed, 
    and will lie on the table.