[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 24. Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials]
[B. General Procedures Associated With Passage of Legislation]
[Â§ 12. Engrossment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4889-4899]
 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
      B. GENERAL PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION
 
Sec. 12. Engrossment

    Engrossment is the process by which a bill or resolution or a House 
amendment to a Senate measure is printed on special paper by direction 
of the enrolling clerk under supervision of the Clerk of the House or 
the Secretary of the Senate. After House action, House bills and 
resolutions are engrossed on a distinctive blue paper, as are House 
amendments to measures received from the Senate. This blue paper 
indicates that it is the official copy of the measure as passed by the 
House.(10) Senate bills and Senate amendments to House bills 
are engrossed on white paper. The engrossed copies of the bill, when 
signed by the Clerk of the House (in the case of a bill originating in 
the House) or by the Secretary of the Senate (on a Senate bill), become 
the nucleus of the official papers which go from one house to the other 
during the various actions on a bill. A Senate bill cannot be acted on 
in the House, e.g., until the House is in possession of the signed copy 
of the engrossed Senate bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives (97th Cong.), Ch. 24 
        Sec. 5.1.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Star Prints

Sec. 12.1 The engrossed copy of a bill may be ``star printed'' (that 
    is, reprinted with a star to indicate the reprinting) to rectify 
    clerical errors; and an

[[Page 4890]]

    engrossed ``star print'' of a House bill, substituted for the 
    original engrossed copy containing a clerical error when messaged 
    to the Senate, is properly before that body.

    On July 9, 1957,(11) Senator William F. Knowland, of 
California, moved that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the 
House bill 6127:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 103 Cong. Rec. 11089, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. President, on yesterday the Senator from Georgia [Mr. 
    Russell] stated that the star-print bill which is now proposed to 
    be taken up upon my motion is not the same bill which was 
    heretofore read twice and ordered to be placed on the calendar. 
    This colloquy appears on pages 10986-10987 of the Record of July 8, 
    1957. It was stated that the star print bill had not been read 
    twice.
        I desire to submit a parliamentary inquiry, as to whether, if 
    my motion prevails, the bill then before the Senate will be the 
    engrossed bill, star print, and as to whether the validity of any 
    proceedings the Senate may now or hereafter take on the star-print 
    bill may be questioned.
        The Vice President: (12) A study of the precedents 
    indicates that the question as to the validity of a star print has 
    not been previously raised in the Senate. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard M. Nixon (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A star print, so called, of an engrossed bill, whether it is 
    either a House or Senate bill, is simply a bill that has been 
    reprinted for the purpose of correcting an error or errors, usually 
    of a clerical or typographical nature, made by some person whose 
    duty it was to see that such bill, when printed, was in conformity 
    in all respects with and truly and accurately reflected the action 
    of the particular House in its passage. It is designed to 
    substitute for a bill in which an error has been discovered a 
    reprinted bill correcting such error or errors and showing the 
    exact form in which such bill was actually passed by the original 
    House. The practice of star printing bills has been followed by 
    both Houses of Congress, in a more or less routine manner, for a 
    long period of time. The Parliamentarian has found instances going 
    back almost 50 years ago. It is somewhat analogous to the method of 
    correcting by a concurrent resolution errors discovered in an 
    enrolled bill after it has passed through the legislative processes 
    beyond the stage of amendment; indeed, in some cases, after an 
    enrolled bill has been signed by the two presiding officers and 
    presented to the President, it is recalled, the errors are 
    corrected, and the bill again signed and presented to the President 
    for his action thereon.
        An engrossed bill is attested, in the Senate by the Secretary, 
    and in the House by the Clerk, and transmitted to the other body by 
    message. If an error in such a bill is not discovered until after 
    its receipt by the other House, the usual procedure is for the 
    enrolling clerk of the first House to have a star print made 
    correcting such error and it is delivered to the enrolling clerk of 
    the second House, who delivers to the first House the original 
    signed bill con

[[Page 4891]]

    taining the error. In such a case, a star print is made by the 
    enrolling clerk of the second House of the bill on white paper 
    showing the bill in its correct form, with the same action 
    indicated thereon as appears on the original bill. All the original 
    copies of the bill are withdrawn from the files and the star-print 
    copies substituted therefor, whether the bill was referred to a 
    committee or placed on the calendar.
        The error in the engrossed bill H.R. 6127, the Civil Rights Act 
    of 1957, was not discovered until after it had been transmitted by 
    message to the Senate, read twice, and placed upon the calendar.
        During the consideration of the bill in the House on June 17, 
    1957, as shown on pages 9378-9384 of the Congressional Record, Mr. 
    Whitener, of North Carolina, offered an amendment embracing the 
    language of the proviso shown in the original engrossed bill 
    beginning on page 8 line 19, and extending down to and including 
    line 9, page 9. A point of order was made and sustained by the 
    Chairman, Mr. Forand, that it was not germane specifically to the 
    section to which it was offered, but it was stated by the Chairman 
    that it would be germane to the bill as a separate section. Mr. 
    Whitener then obtained unanimous consent that he might offer it as 
    an amendment in the form of a separate section, to be known as 
    subsection (e) of section 131, and to be inserted immediately 
    following line 13, on page 12. An amendment to the amendment was 
    offered by Mr. Hoffman, of Michigan, which was ruled out on a point 
    of order as not being germane to Mr. Whitener's amendment. Mr. 
    Whitener, by unanimous consent, then made a slight modification of 
    his amendment, and the amendment as modified was agreed to. By 
    inadvertence, the amendment as adopted was inserted in the bill at 
    the same point where it was originally offered instead of at the 
    place where it was offered the second time.
        When the error was discovered, the enrolling clerk of the House 
    had a star print made of the engrossed bill, in which the language 
    of the amendment was transposed from the erroneous place in the 
    bill to the place specifically indicated by him when he offered the 
    amendment the second time, which now appears on page 12, as lines 
    10 to 23, inclusive, of the Senate Calendar print of the bill.
        It was simply a transposition of the language of the amendment 
    to the correct and proper place, as indicated by the proceedings in 
    the Congressional Record. No word was changed in this 
    transposition. It was placed in the star printed bill in exactly 
    the same language as proposed and adopted by the House.
        The transposition necessitated a change in the pages and lines 
    of the star print after the place in which the amendment was 
    incorrectly inserted, and it was therefore necessary to have a star 
    print made in the Senate of the original calendar print, in view of 
    the fact that any amendment offered after page 8, line 19, would 
    not correspond to the language in the star printed engrossed bill.
        When this star print was delivered to the Secretary's Office of 
    the Senate, following the custom, undeviated from, the original 
    erroneous engrossed bill was returned to the enrolling clerk of the 
    House, and a copy of the Senate

[[Page 4892]]

    Calendar print of the bill was sent to the Government Printing 
    Office for a star print.
        The proceedings in connection with the star printing of the 
    bill in the Senate followed the usual routine procedure customary 
    in the correction of errors in engrossed bills.
        Mr. [Richard B.] Russell: Mr. President, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Vice President: The Senator will state it.
        Mr. Russell: The Chair did not so state specifically, but I 
    understood the distinguished Senator from California to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry as to the validity of this procedure. Did I 
    correctly understand the Chair to rule that this remarkable 
    procedure was valid under rule XIV?
        The Vice President: The Chair did so rule.

House, Not Committee of the Whole, Controls Engrossment

Sec. 12.2 A request that the Clerk, in the engrossment of a bill, make 
    corrections in section numbers and cross references in the bill, is 
    properly made in the House, following passage of the bill and is 
    not in order in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 29, 1969,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole on the bill (H.R. 4153) authorizing procurement 
of vessels and aircraft and construction of shore and offshore 
establishments for the Coast Guard, Mr. Frank T. Bow, of Ohio, offered 
an amendment. Mr. Hastings Keith, of Massachusetts, then raised a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 10753, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, if the amendment is adopted and I hope and trust 
    it will be; would that not require the renumbering of the lines in 
    which the earlier amendments have been incorporated into the 
    existing legislation?
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman may request that 
    the Clerk be authorized to renumber accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jacob H. Gilbert (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keith: I would so request.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may make the request that the Clerk 
    be authorized to renumber the sections accordingly after the 
    Committee rises and we are in the House.

    After the Committee of the Whole had arisen and reported back to 
the House and the Speaker (15) had announced the question as 
being the engrossment and third reading of the bill, Mr. Keith raised a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, while we were in Committee of the Whole I raised a 
    question, the answer to which indicated that I should ask 
    permission that certain sections be renumbered.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state in response to the 
    parliamentary inquiry that the gentleman's request will be in order 
    and the gentleman will be

[[Page 4893]]

    recognized to make such a request after the bill is 
    passed.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives (97th 
        Cong.), Ch. 24 Sec. Sec. 5.4, 5.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk May be Directed by Resolution to Correct Engrossment

Sec. 12.3 The House agreed to a resolution, in the form shown below, 
    authorizing and directing the Clerk of the House to make certain 
    changes in the engrossment of a joint resolution.

    On May 10, 1945,(17) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following resolution (H. Res. 254):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 91 Cong. Rec. 4434, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Clerk of the House in the engrossment of the 
    joint resolution (H.J. Res. 60) proposing an amendment to the 
    Constitution of the United States relative to the making of 
    treaties, is authorized and directed, in the last sentence of 
    section 1 of the proposed article of amendment to the Constitution, 
    to insert after the word ``against'' the following: ``advising and 
    consenting to the'', so that such sentence shall read as follows: 
    ``In all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by 
    yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against 
    advising and consenting to the ratification of the treaty shall be 
    entered on the Journal of each House respectively.''

Senate Request for Return of Bill From House, Privileged in House

Sec. 12.4 The Speaker laid before the House a resolution of the Senate, 
    in the form shown below, requesting the House to return to that 
    body an engrossed bill together with accompanying papers.

     On June 16 (legislative day June 14), 1938,(18) the 
following proceedings took place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 83 Cong. Rec. 9681, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (19) The Chair desires to make an 
    announcement with reference to a request sent to the House this 
    morning by the Senate of the United States. The Clerk will report 
    the order of the Senate of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to request the 
        House of Representatives to return to the Senate the engrossed 
        bill (H.R. 7084) to provide that all cabs for hire in the 
        District of Columbia be compelled to carry insurance for the 
        protection of passengers, and for other purposes, together with 
        all accompanying papers.

        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it is proper to state that as a 
    matter of comity between the two branches, when a request of this 
    character comes over from the other body to this body,

[[Page 4894]]

    it is the duty of the House to comply with such order and it is 
    under the precedents a matter of privilege.
        Mr. [Thomas D.] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Malley: What will be the status of the measure when it 
    returns to the Senate?
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot answer that question. We are 
    simply returning the bill to the Senate.
        Mr. O'Malley: It does not go to conference by reason of this 
    order?
        The Speaker: It does not. Without objection, the request of the 
    Senate will be complied with.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.5 The House, by unanimous consent, considered a resolution 
    requesting the Senate to return a House bill and authorizing the 
    Clerk to reengross the bill with a correction.

    On Apr. 16, 1951,(20) the following House resolution (H. 
Res. 195) was before the House by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 97 Cong. Rec. 3918, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. H.R. 3587 had not yet been 
        reported in the Senate. This situation differs from that in 
        Sec. 12.6, infra, in which the Senate had acted on the bill and 
        requested a conference which had been agreed to by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Senate be requested to return to the House 
    the bill (H.R. 3587) making supplemental appropriations for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes, and that 
    the Clerk be authorized to reengross the said bill with the 
    following correction:
         Page 11, line 11, strike out ``$18,350,000'' and insert in 
    lieu thereof ``$19,100,000.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, this is because the enrolling clerk made a mistake 
    in indicating that the Heselton amendment was carried instead of 
    being defeated on roll call; is that correct?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: That is correct. The 
    engrossed copy showed the earlier action but failed to change back 
    on final roll call.

A Concurrent Resolution is Used to Effect Change in Engrossment When 
    Both Houses Have Acted

Sec. 12.6 The House, by unanimous consent, considered a concurrent 
    resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Senate to re-engross 
    the amendments of the Senate to a House bill and make a correction 
    in such reengrossment.

    On June 27, 1951,(1) the concurrent resolution shown 
below was before the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 97 Cong. Rec. 7254, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. As noted above (see 
        Sec. 12.5, supra), the Senate had requested and the House had 
        agreed to a conference on the bill H.R. 3880.

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

[[Page 4895]]

                Independent Offices Appropriation Bill, 1952

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent for the immediate consideration of the concurrent 
    resolution (S. Con. Res. 35) ordering the reengrossment of the 
    Senate amendment to H.R. 3880, the independent offices 
    appropriation bill for 1952.
        The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is 
        hereby, authorized and directed to reengross the amendments of 
        the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3880) making appropriations for 
        the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, 
        boards, commissions, corporations, agencies, and offices for 
        the fiscal year ending June 30, 1952, and for other purposes; 
        and to reengross Senate amendment numbered 79 so as to read as 
        follows:
            On page 35, line 23, strike out ``$875,163,335'' and insert 
        ``$873,105,770.''

        The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, will the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thomas] please 
    explain the reason for the request on the part of the other body?
        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, this resolution authorizes 
    reengrossment of amendment No. 79 of the independent offices 
    appropriation bill. It all adds up to this: Apparently the other 
    body has made a mistake in printing or engrossing this amendment. 
    Amendment No. 79 deals with salaries and expenses for the Veterans' 
    Administration. What happened was that they show a reduction in 
    that appropriation of about $1,200,000 more than the figure 
    actually agreed upon by the Senate.

Correction in Engrossed Bill Prior to Disagreement to Senate Amendment

Sec. 12.7 A concurrent resolution authorizing the Clerk of the House to 
    make certain corrections in the engrossed copy of a House bill was 
    considered and agreed to before the House disagreed to a Senate 
    amendment to the bill.

    On July 16, 1968,(3) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
asked unanimous consent for the consideration of a concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 798) authorizing the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives to make certain changes in the engrossed copy of the 
bill (H.R. 9098) to revise the boundaries of the Bad Lands National 
Monument in the State of South Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 21538, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The resolution read in part as follows:

[[Page 4896]]

        In lieu of the language appearing on page 4, lines 9 through 21 
    of the House engrossed bill and the Senate amendment thereto, 
    insert the following:
        ``(b) Any former Indian or non-Indian owner of a tract of land, 
    whether title was held in trust or fee, may purchase such tract 
    from the Secretary of the Interior. . . .''

    The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
    Mr. Aspinall then asked unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the same bill messaged back to the House from the 
Senate with a Senate amendment. Mr. Aspinall asked unanimous consent to 
consider such bill and disagree to the Senate amendment.
    There was no objection.

Effecting Changes by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 12.8 By unanimous consent, the Clerk was authorized to include an 
    amendment striking out a preamble in the engrossment of amendments 
    to a Senate joint resolution passed in the House.

    On Nov. 16, 1943,(4) Mr. Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, 
made the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 89 Cong. Rec. 9587, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of 
    the amendments to Senate Joint Resolution 47, providing for the 
    appointment of a National Agricultural Jefferson Bicentenary 
    Committee to carry out under the general direction of the United 
    States Commission for the Celebration of the Two Hundredth 
    Anniversary of the Birth of Thomas Jefferson appropriate exercises 
    and activities in recognition of the services and contributions of 
    Thomas Jefferson to the farmers and the agriculture of the Nation, 
    the Clerk of the House be authorized to include therein an 
    amendment striking out the preamble.
        The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Georgia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.9 Where the House amended the text of a Senate bill but 
    neglected to make a conforming change in the title thereof, the 
    Clerk was authorized and directed, by unanimous consent, to correct 
    the oversight by inserting the correct title in the engrossment of 
    the House amendments to the Senate bill.

    On May 15, 1968,(6) Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, made 
the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 114 Cong. Rec. 13400, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of 
    the

[[Page 4897]]

    amendment to the Senate bill (S. 2986) to extend Public Law 480, 
    83d Congress, to which the House agreed yesterday, that the Clerk 
    of the House be authorized and directed to make a conforming 
    amendment to the title of the bill. The title of the Senate bill 
    provided for a 3-year extension of the law, but the House only 
    extended the law until December 31, 1969.
        The title should be amended to read as follows:

            To extend the Agricultural Trade and Assistance Act of 
        1954, as amended, and for other purposes.

        The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, that means then specifically that it is limited to 1 
    year?
        Mr. Poage: That is right; it just gets it in the title.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.10 The Clerk may be authorized by unanimous consent to make 
    certain changes in section numbers, cross references, and other 
    technical changes during the engrossment of a House-passed bill.

    On Oct. 11, 1967,(8) Mr. Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New 
York, made the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 113 Cong. Rec. 28672, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be 
    authorized to make the appropriate conforming changes in, and 
    omissions of, section numbers and references in the bill (H.R. 
    7977).
        The Speaker: (9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

     Similarly, on July 24, 1968,(10) after the House passed 
H.R. 17735, Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, made the following 
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 114 Cong. Rec. 23096, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, because of the number of amendments adopted to the 
    bill just passed, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk, in the 
    engrossment of the bill, be authorized and directed to make such 
    changes in section numbers, cross-references, and other technical 
    and conforming corrections as may be required to reflect the 
    actions of the House. . . .
        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.11 The Clerk was authorized, by unanimous consent, to make 
    clerical corrections in the engrossment of a House amendment to a 
    Senate bill.

     On Sept. 12, 1967,(11) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, 
made
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 25230, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4898]]

the following unanimous-consent request:

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk may make 
    any necessary corrections in punctuation, section numbers, and 
    cross references in the amendment of the House to the bill, S. 
    1862.
        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.12 A unanimous-consent request was made authorizing the Clerk 
    in the engrossing of a revenue bill to make changes in the table of 
    contents, to make clerical changes, and to amend or strike out 
    cross references.

     On Apr. 28, 1936,(13) Mr. Robert L. Doughton, of North 
Carolina, submitted the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 80 Cong. Rec. 6299, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossing of the pending 
    bill (H.R. 12395), the Clerk of the House be authorized:
        (1) To make such changes in the table of contents as may be 
    necessary to make such table conform to the action of the House in 
    respect of the bill;
        (2) To make such clerical changes as may be necessary to the 
    proper numbering and lettering of the various portions of the bill, 
    and to secure uniformity in the bill in respect of typography and 
    indentation; and
        (3) To amend or strike out cross-references that have become 
    erroneous or superfluous, and to insert cross-references made 
    necessary by reason of changes made by the House.

Sec. 12.13 The Clerk of the House was directed, in the engrossment of 
    House Resolution 7 (re the adoption of rules for the 90th 
    Congress), to make certain corrections in the text of the 
    resolution and the amendment thereto to reflect the intention of 
    the House.

    On Jan. 12, 1967,(14) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
asked unanimous consent that in the engrossment of House Resolution 7 
the Clerk of the House be authorized and directed to make certain 
corrections:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 430, 431, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, as I understand it, the request of the 
    distinguished majority leader is solely for the purpose of 
    perfecting what the House intended to do on Tuesday last; is that 
    correct?
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished minority leader 
    yield?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan is 
    correct. Most of them are obvious. Obviously, we

[[Page 4899]]

    were working last year under the rules of the 89th Congress, but 
    there were two or three clerical errors and the only purpose is to 
    correct clerical errors.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.